An Obama Flub at the YouTube Debate?

I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?"

If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot.

And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense.

At the newfangled YouTube/CNN debate on Monday night--during which YouTubers posed questions to the Democratic candidates via video--a fellow named Stephen Sorta of Diamond Bar, California, asked,

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama took the question first. He replied,

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

The crowd responded with applause. His answer seemed fine. It was only moments later that the problem became obvious. Sorta, who was also in the audience, put the same question to Senator Hillary Clinton. She said:

Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

Then CNN's Anderson Cooper, the moderator, turned to former Senator John Edwards and asked, "Would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?" Edwards echoed Clinton:

Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community. But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to meet with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

Obama had suggested he would sit down with these leaders willy-nilly, no preconditions. Clinton and Edwards explained that that they would use diplomacy to try to improve relations with these nations and that such an effort could lead to a one-on-one with these heads of state.

Obama had responded from the gut, working off a correct critique of the Bush administration's skeptical approach toward diplomacy. But his answer lacked the sophistication of Clinton's and Edwards' replies. And this moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters.

Clinton, with her years as First Lady and her stint as a member of the Senate armed services committee, and Edwards, with his tenure on the Senate intelligence committee, are steeped in the nuances, language, and minefields of foreign policy. (Among the second-tier candidates, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson can boast extensive national security experience.) Though Obama was against the Iraq war before he was a senator, he has not developed his foreign policy chops. That's understandable; he's only been on the national scene for two years. (Prior to that, he was doing admirable work as a state legislator, a civil rights attorney, and a community organizer.) So he is more prone to commit mistakes in this area--perhaps stupid mistakes--that can be easily exploited by his opponents. And in the post-9/11 era, there's not much room in national politics for such errors.

During the 2004 Democratic presidential contest, Howard Dean had the foreign policy positions that resonated most with Democratic voters. He was opposed to the Iraq war; Senator John Kerry had voted to let George W. Bush invade Iraq. But Dean, like Obama, had not spent years talking and doing foreign policy. He made some dumb gaffes. On Meet the Press Tim Russert asked Dean this question:

Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

Dean flubbed his response:

I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is.

Later in the race, Dean repeatedly referred to Russia as the "Soviet Union," a country that had not existed for 13 years.

Such remarks were not the downfall of Dean. But they did allow others to suggest he was not ready for prime time regarding national security matters. (Of course, neither was George W. Bush, but he had the good fortune of running in the last pre-9/11 election.) About Dean, Kerry said, "All the advisers in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills...necessary to lead this country through dangerous times." Obama is obviously susceptible to a similar attack--from a Democrat or a Republican.

For Obama to have a chance of toppling front-running Clinton, he will have a near-perfect performance from now until the actual voting. During the YouTube debate, Obama generally did fine. But he did not differentiate himself from Clinton in a significant manner. After all, there is not much difference between their current positions. He did take a strong shot at her during a series of questions about the Iraq war:

One thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's comments a couple of moments ago. I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in. And that is something that too many of us failed to do. We failed to do it. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

The crowd cheered, but one swing at Clinton does not a campaign make. Yes, there are months to go in the preprimary maneuvering, but at some point--probably sooner than later--Obama is going to have to make a move. Meanwhile, he also has to avoid such mistakes as promising to open the doors of the White House without conditions to Kim Jong Il and others of that ilk. He cannot let Stephen Sorta of Diamond Bar, California, trip him up again.

******

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (129)

1. Clinton won. Period.

   That said, what the hell was Edwards thinking?

   Edwards undermined his best-yet debate performance by choosing to make a nasty comment about Clinton's jacket.

   Unfortunately, far from helping him shake off his Breck-girl image, the Edwards campaign introduces the electorate to the new-and-improved "Catty Breck-girl".

   While Edwards may indeed be struggling with his comfort-level with gays and gay-marriage, he seems completely at-ease with personally embracing his own inner bitchy-queen.

   Posted by JoeCHI at 07/24/2007 @ 12:28pm

2. Obama had suggested he would sit down with these leaders willy-nilly, no preconditions.

   I would suggest that this is a very uncharitable characterization of Obama's answer.

   The phrase in the question, without precondition, is ambiguous: it could mean "without requiring that the other country do something that we want them to do first," such as Bush's demand that Iran stop its nuclear weapons programs before talks would begin (aside: which makes one think, Why bother having the talks if the reason for the talks is already taken care of?). "Without precondition" could also mean what Clinton and Edwards took it to mean--"without any preparation concerning the parameters of the talks."

   Obama seemed to be answering based on the first understanding (or at least this is a reasonable supposition, given that Sadat's trip to Israel was not "without precondition" in the sense assumed in the Clinton/Edwards answers).

   Posted by BlueSpark at 07/24/2007 @ 12:35pm

3. The question was "would you talk to them?", not "how you would go about engaging them?"

   Hillary and Edwards answered the second question that was NOT asked to try to make Obama look inexperienced. But If Obama had gone second or third, he could have improved on the response of whoever went firs, just like Hillary and Edwards!

   This is a non-story.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 12:43pm

4. "If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot. And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense."

   Simple equation...if Obama can survive Hillary's forces, he can survive the Republicans in the Fall of '08....if he can't, he couldn't.

   My bet is ...he can't and FRANKGRITS' main squeeze will stomp him and Edwards and have the "inevitability" thing working for her after South Carolina, unless it's super-tight between her and one of the Guys.

   Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 12:47pm

5. In other words, Edwards and Clinton had a different take on the meaning of the question (a take inspired, I suspect, by a desire to get it a shot a Obama). We should not make the mistake of interpreting Obama's answer on the basis of someone else's interpretation of the question.

   In a way, Clinton's answer is very sneaky. First, she says that she "will not promise" to meet with these leaders, thus encouraging the conclusion that Obama just did make such a promise, something he in fact did not do. Then she proceeds to craft an answer that in substance was not any different from Obama's. Clever.

   Posted by BlueSpark at 07/24/2007 @ 12:48pm

6. You're kidding me, right? This is what The Nation has come to? That anyone the hard right in America demonizes is out of bounds for diplomatic dialogue? So the proper position as posited by The Nation and Mr. Corn is that the US should be in a de facto state of war with any nation whose leader is demonized by Rush Limbaugh? That the preeminent periodical of the American left is on board with right-wing hate radio defining who can and who can't be spoken to by the POTUS? Wow. Just wow. Is there an empty pod anywhere near The Nation offices?

   Posted by Lauritz at 07/24/2007 @ 12:56pm

7. damn...wish i could fuse obama and edwards...edbama...

   its coming down to a coin flippin...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:00pm

8. ...edbama...

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/24/2007 @ 1:00pm

   Much better than...

   obwards

   Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 1:04pm

9. Posted by LAURITZ 07/24/2007 @ 12:56pm

   LAUR, just curious...if a foreign leader announced that his/her country was going to EXPEL any foreigner who criticized their government....should an American President meet with such a leader?

   Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 1:07pm

10. barry o did answer the question as asked. any pres will be surrounded by experts, will consult them. he has to think hard about how he will respond...

    he should take a little time to focus on this, make the first move. ih 50 foot queenie hits on this flank, barry o should consider hitting her on her weak flank, spin the front 90 degrees.

    "of course i would not jump into negotiations without preperations. that would be absurd and foolish, and to imply such is absurd and a cheap shot. but eventually i definately want to meet with leaders of nations with which we have had issues, and meet with them in person. i want to look them in the eyes and speak with them personally."

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:11pm

11. LAUR, just curious...if a foreign leader announced that his/her country was going to EXPEL any foreigner who criticized their government....should an American President meet with such a leader?

    What a stupid question!

    Engagement is about 'national and global interests' not what policies a country is pursuing. If you only engaged countries that were pursuing the same policies as you, you wouldn't engage anyone, which really is the point about Bush's lack of diplomacy!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 1:12pm

12. Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 1:04pm

    hey - i found a great website for RIO...

    demoncrats [geocities.com]

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:14pm

13. Visiting these leaders in their own country would give you some idea of their character and unfiltered facts on the ground. Signing treaties are not required on fact finding tours. Listen, talk, and learn!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/24/2007 @ 1:21pm

14. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/24/2007 @ 1:14pm

    I found this earlier in the week [youtube.com]. The RIO BRAVO recruitment film!

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 1:35pm

15. We have an embecile in the WH now. If a foolish, war dodging, frat rat, daddy's boy, party punk like Jr can get elected to the executive office, why not Obama? I mean if foreign policy experience is the criteria?

    A president is only as good as the men and women he/she surronds him/herself with (and, once again, I cannot help pointing out the blatant weakness of the brain trust Jr has chosen to advise him on foreign policy). What is crucial is the ability to "think"! Without flexibility, the ability to approach each and every situation with an open mind, then your policies are doomed to the dismal failures characteristic of this fool that now inhabits the WH.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/24/2007 @ 1:36pm

16. yeah...let 50 foot queenie try to sleeze a shot in on barry o on this...while she's prepping, barry o preps a major policy paradigm, working out the specifics...

    "i'm glad this issue came up. we have a long time until the nomination is decided, but its never to early to consider and carefully prepare well thought out, yet flexible options. step one for any president is to surround him or herself with the best of the best,in terms of advisors and cabinet. notice i said 'flexible'. we dont know what the world will look like in 2009...to assume whoever sits in the oval office then will face the exact same geopolitical circumstances as now is a bit presumptive, especially considering the intransigent nature and gross incompetance of the current administration. by 2009 we may have a lot more to worry about... whoever is our enemy, i want to talk to them, one way or another, and to doso carefully, prudently, and with all due preparations, taking into account all cicumstances and the best of advise from the best of advisors."

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:40pm

17. Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 1:35pm

    the part where he eats the cigar is hilarious...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:45pm

18. Nice post by David "The Washington Insider" Corn.

    Reminds me of the buffoons at a baseball game that decide to start "the wave" -- an obnoxious distraction to a fan of the game.

    Nice job "Capital Games" Corn. How about a more suitable rubric-- "The Scream", in loving tribute to the Howard Dean campaign's silly demise via absurd pundit prevarication.

    Now please get the real beef, Corn. Thank you!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 1:46pm

19. Now please get the real beef, Corn. Thank you!

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/24/2007 @ 1:46pm |

    corn beef?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 1:47pm

20. One of Corn's worst. one of the nation's worst. Obama was correct in indicating that he would talk to our "adversaries". preconditions? to talk?

    this is part of the big lie that negotiations are a sign of weakness.

    even if it were a gaffe, which I don't believe it is, there will be plenty of water under the bridge before voters get to decide anything.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 2:20pm

21. IT WAS A STUPID QUESTION TO START WITH...

    And Sorta sounds like somebody right-wing elements could well have planted just in order to ask liberal Democrats a tricky, leading question like this. U.S. Presidents, like Popes, meet with whom they choose to meet with. Sometimes you have to negotiate directly with people you don't like or who may even actually be evil. (Reagan, as I recall, was a big fan of Marcos.) Deal with it.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 07/24/2007 @ 2:21pm

22. NO, WAIT...

    Maybe a Hillary plant (sorta).

    Posted by w_m_bear at 07/24/2007 @ 2:26pm

23. Corn's observation of Obama's mistaken instinct is instructive but it's hardly the kind of mistake that ought to sink a candidate.

    Obama is a brilliant man with superb analytical and decision making skills. To suggest that if elected President he would blunder into a meeting with the President of Iran is an example of gotcha punditry.

    Ok you're right Corn but seriosly so what? You think he won't surround himself with good advisors and take their advice?

    Why are all the Dems bad mouthing Obama?

    Posted by NeilSagan at 07/24/2007 @ 2:30pm

24. the part where he eats the cigar is hilarious...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/24/2007 @ 1:45pm

    Watch out, IBB, with that "eating the cigar" stuff.....Empty SPENCE's homophobia radar will go off!

    Seriously, wondered why nobody has resurrected "1941"? Seems like a perfect parody for today's Right (maybe even Left a bit!).

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 2:33pm

25. Edwards brought depth to the question as he usually does. I've heard him speak before about working with our enemies. My guess is that he would be speaking first to our allies who are't very pleased with us right now. Once he is on better footing with them, then he would go to the others.

    I also do not think Obama did that bad. But in everythig I see about him I long for him to put a foundation under his "vision" culling some hard experience to make him better prepared. Give him a few years and he will be dynamite.

    Posted by JoAnnCr at 07/24/2007 @ 2:35pm

26. It was very important for the presidential candidates to address the questions from YouTube and the general public. However, thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House. There are critical topics of great importance that I would like to see our candidate address in the future, especially with global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

    Posted by Mstessyrue at 07/24/2007 @ 2:48pm

27. Although too broadly nuanced a question and answer from which to conclude anything other than, like MTSpence says, ANYONE of the Dems would be preferable to Shrub, I too hear an insidious implication about egg-shell or tightrope walking which the punditry, here unpleasantly seeming to include Mr. Corn, would have us obsess over with every candidate conversation.

    That said, we all here no doubt acknowledge the power of territoriality and image to shape opinion. Recall, Don Corleone's question, "who called the meeting?" to identify the traitor. And, after all, gesturing and non-verbal behavior constitutes at minimum 75% of what's being communicated; even before the camera's unblinking eye, I'd aver. My point? Literalist gotcha-seekers don't inform my choices and I don't think Dean's saying he didn't know the number of troops was a fumble either.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 2:51pm

28. I didn't bother watching the debate. Considering how CNN has been moderating these pageant shows, the idea that questions presented by people via the 'net was not something I cared to endure. The questions were never going to be anything more than softball. Here are some questions of my own, that I would like to hear asked and answered:

    1.) Senator Obama, during the second Democratic debate you claimed that "there is no dispute" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, even though a CIA draft report last November stated very clearly that there is no conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in that country. You also said Iran had "admitted" to a weapons program, even though it has consistently denied such and insisted its nuclear program is for energy purposes. Given that you are running for the top executive office in the nation, and given that America has already been lied into one war over WMD that turned out to be non-existent, don't you think it's important that you get your facts straight? And when someone tries to correct you, as Representative Kucinich did that night, don't you think you ought to listen instead of brushing him off?

    2.) Senators Clinton and Obama, you have both, with one notable exception, voted to fund the continuing occupation of Iraq in spite of your rhetoric of opposition. When the supplemental war funding bill came up, you both had to be shamed into voting against it by Senator Dodd, and even then you waited until the supplemental was assured of passing and you did so without any fanfare or pressure upon your Senate colleagues to vote 'no'. Why won't either of you show leadership on ending the occupation of Iraq, and why have you both voted to continue funding it?

    3.) For all the candidates: What -- specifically -- do you intend to do to combat Global Warming? What do you intend to ask the American people to do as far as recycling, energy-efficiency, carpooling, public transportation, replanting forests, and other matters related to slowing the progressive warming of the climate are concerned?

    4.) Again, for all the candidates: Except for Representative Kucinich and Mr. Edwards, no candidate has gone into detail about health care. What specifically do you intend to do as president to ensure affordable or universal health care for all Americans? Do NOT say we need it, that is simply a restatement of the obvious. I'm asking you what -- specifically -- you intend to do, if you are elected president, to see that all Americans have health care?

    5.) For all candidates: On the subject of impeachment, polls show that nearly half of Americans want George W. Bush impeached while more than half want Dick Cheney impeached. Representative Kucinich's articles of impeachment have gained, as I type this, fourteen co-sponsors with more likely to sign on. Given the high support for impeachment, and given the high crimes, obstruction of justice and refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations by the Bush regime, why is Kucinich the only presidential candidate willing to do his Constitutional duty to hold law-breaking executives accountable for their actions? Isn't justice for the American people and the Constitution -- not to mention a large and growing demand for it by the public -- more important than whatever risks you may perceive to your presidential ambitions by supporting impeachment?

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 07/24/2007 @ 2:55pm

29. I firmly agree with those who observed Obama answered the question "would he be willing to talk...without preconditions." Not what process would he go through to get to those talks. He also address the idiocy of the current policy not to talk to the "bad guys" ~ His answer gave me a look at his philosophy on the role of diplomacy in our international relationships...I didn't want a cookbook as to his preparation for such a talk....anyone would assume a man of his intelligence and experience would appropriately prepare for such meetings. The good news is that he wouldn't bar meetings with preconditional barriers.

    I believe he gets an A+ and H Clinton/Edwards get B's at best for failing to offer much more than a "smackdown" and a process description..

    Posted by union79 at 07/24/2007 @ 2:57pm

30. I agree MsTessyRud. We have the means, but where's the will to act decisively when there's even a bit of sacrifice suggested or delay possible in our getting our piggy hands on the next crumpet. Just generalizing about tendencies here, fellow nutritionists and "whole foods" imbibers.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

31. Good questions Archy!

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 3:01pm

32. Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 2:33pm

    never know...

    a while back i said i should write a screenplay about two straight guys who get married for benefits and the very next day say a trailer for that sandler/james flick...

    man, i'm so connected to the zeitgeist!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 3:28pm

33. "Capital Games An Obama Flub at the YouTube Debate? David Corn | By vowing to meet Kim Jong Il and other anti-American leaders without preconditions, did Obama give his foes an opening and highlight his lack of foreign policy experience?"

    Did he give his foes an opening? He gave our enemies an opening...the equivelant of landing an airplane on his face...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 3:39pm

34. OK so Obama isn't a chickenshit like most repub new cons in the hsuB/cHeney admin, what's new. I would worry if a dumbass like hsuB were to meet with our enemies, he's bad enough for the US citizenry to deal with; hsuB includiing more corporate vampires sucking out our life's blood would sure not help his corporate servicers of dic'tator buds.

    Fear and greed, and certainly in the case of hsuB-- dumbness, the current bar set by repub new cons, certainly should always lead our president's foriegn policy standards.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 3:43pm

35. Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 07/24/2007 @ 2:55pm

    Very well said.

    These are precisely the kind of questions that are begging to be asked, will unfortunately not be asked, and if they were asked would be assiduously evaded.

    Just another glaring symptom indicating the grave seriousness of the patient's condition.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 3:47pm

36. I liked those questions by Arch_M so much that I'm saving them. Those were sharply focused and concisely stated questions regarding what many of us consider to be priority issues.

    I'd throw in a question about addressing the general state of corruption in Washington as another priority topic.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 3:56pm

37. What an atrocious piece, Mr. Corn. The premise -- that Hugo Chavez and Castro are beyond the pale -- is basically criminal, as are all the leading DP candidates. Chavez is a democratically elected head of state who is doing good things for his people. The embargo of Cuba is illegal, and we owe massive reparations to the Cuban people. What Mike Gravel says about the Dem puppets applies to David Corn, as well, in spades. It's past time for somebody to stand up in this system. Alas, it's obviously not going to happen in 2008.

    Posted by mdawson65 at 07/24/2007 @ 4:13pm

38. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/24/2007 @ 3:28pm

    Same thing happened to me in college. Wrote a short story about Religious Right dictatorship taking over (very "1984"ish in 1984)...a year later Margaret Atwood beats me to the punch with "Handmaiden's Tale"....dang!

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 4:20pm

39. Chavez is a democratically elected head of state who is doing good things for his people. ----Posted by MDAWSON65 07/24/2007 @ 4:13pm

    Curious....is threatening to expel all foreigners who criticize his government part of Chavez' "good things for his people"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 4:21pm

40. Basically a good analysis of Obama vs. Clinton. But the results are exaggerated. Too many things will take place to say now that anyone has to do "perfectly" from here on in. One might also point out that there is very little that Clinton can do to make us forget her carefully calculating shifts, her complete failure on health, her long support of the war etc. Even "perfection" from here on can't erase that. It was very pleasing to see the high level of all the candidates,specially that governor from New Mexico. Moysh

    Posted by Moysh at 07/24/2007 @ 4:28pm

41. I looked at Angels questions...they are easy to answer honestly.

    1. I would assume Iran is using research for weapons as they have threatened their neighbors constantly, to error on the other side is foolish and I won't risk the US by assuming they are not making weapons...to claim the 3rd largest oil reserve site needs energy is silly at best..I therefore will act as if they are making weapons. It is up to them to convince me and the world they are not making weapons by opening up their doors...

    2. I will not cut off funds when American boots are on the ground..it will cost us lives and the WH.

    3. I intend to do nothing about global warming, it requires the entire world acting at one time..and even the it is doubtful we can have any major impact..

    ... but I will reward conservation efforts with huge tax returns for all those who go green and will encourage "green" business with no taxes for 10 years on any profits earned.

    4. I will not encourage the govt to get into the health care business, but I will let the private side run it with govt support in the form of taxes to fund it, with heavy oversight and jail power..I will shut down a number of redundant and failed programs and turn that money over to the health care system...I will not allow money to be earned by not performing tests and I will punish those(not the patients) who come in for a head cold and walk out with a bill for $ 20,000 what a crooked doctor or hospital say was needed... I will reward all who take preventative measures in the care giving and the care receiving with huge tax breaks.

    5. Impeachment is a something only the left loons demand and I won't waste the countrys or my time pursuing it, especially with no criminal charges even levied in any direction, desoite impeachment being a political gotta, its my turn...I will move on and spen our time and money on the future... The polls can be made to look like anything if the questions are worded in a special way, so I would ignore those emotional polls.

    See..it was easy...just a little common sense....but then, we are dealing with govt wanna be hires...so I guess common sense goes out the window.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 4:30pm

42. ". The embargo of Cuba is illegal, and we owe massive reparations to the Cuban people."

    Silliness on parade...

    .however, when Castro assumes Carribean temperature and all the Cubans who left for the US in rubber rafts and inner tubes return to Cuba with their billions of earned American dollars, probably more dollars earn by being in the US than Castro ever stole.....then that will be more than enough money pumped into Cuba to revive what Castro killed off...illegaly..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 4:37pm

43. Is a rehash of the 'conventional wisdom' a la CNN the way thenation.com wants to use its website? Is David Corn opposed to diplomacy? Does he really believe that the only way to beat the Republicans is to have Hilary go head to head with Giuliani et al in a contest of 'who can adopt a dumber attitude towards international affairs than Bush?' Apparently, yes to all of the above.

    Posted by threehegemons at 07/24/2007 @ 4:47pm

44. Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 4:21pm

    Curious....is threatening to expel all foreigners who criticize his government part of Chavez' "good things for his people"...

    Curious...can you explain why you seem to have these comments for Chavez and not for China, Russia, Great Britian...shoot we can even talk about the United States expelling Cuban diplomats in 2003?

    Oh, yeah, I forgot...presenting all the relevant facts would make your comments a lot less persuasive now wouldn't they? Nor is it useful to mention that these comments were directed at a specific person, Manuel Espino or the fact that this kind of comment by a politicians from another country travelling in the United States would get essentially the same response - but from the news media.

    Let's forget all that and get our righteous indignation up. We're Americans by golly - hypocrisy is our birthright.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 4:53pm

45. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/24/2007 @ 4:37pm

    Rather creative interpretation of the history of Cuba. Ever consider writing fiction?

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 4:55pm

46. Mask--Should Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro meet with a leader who has openly endorsed torture, tried to overthrow them and or assassinate them, refused to extradite a terrorist, and invaded countries for no reason? Diplomacy means holding your nose and meeting with heads of state. The US has a lot more to apologize for than either Cuba, Iran, let alone Venezuela (what exactly have they done to get in the crosshairs of Corn, Hilary, etc?), but these countries, if they believe in diplomacy, should just meet whoever is in the White House.

    Posted by threehegemons at 07/24/2007 @ 4:56pm

47. I think the problem is that everyone is taking this in their own way. What Obama replied was correct and many saw nothing wrong. You do have to use bully language and Obama is for diplomacy. The people who see the problem is the beltwayers. i don't understand why everyone is always complaining about the way Bush and the gop acts like bullies and then praise Clinton when she uses the same language and acts stupid. We need to get rid of the cowboy thinking and Obama, an out of the box thinker, was right.

    Posted by vwcat at 07/24/2007 @ 4:58pm

48. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/24/2007 @ 4:28pm

    Gravitas? I think you are inhaling Frank. If Clinton gets the nod, he'll probably get to work on his so-called gravitas as Vice President.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 4:58pm

49. Interesting comments, but I think Corn will be proven correct over time. When you're in the big leagues you can't slip up and say something that can, and will, be used against you. Yes, the alternative is awfully boring. But I want to play a part in electing a president this time around. Being able to say I didn't compromise my principles is getting a little old.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/24/2007 @ 5:16pm

50. Honestly, The Nation must have a vested interest in seeing Clinton win the general election. I'm not sure who's worse though, Nichols or Corn. This site has a nice run down on how most people really feel about the debate: http://idonthateamerica.com/.

    Post Debate…..voters choose Obama July 24th, 2007 9:43 am by Ian G.

    CNN: Randi Kaye on Focus Group Votes for Debate Winner: "When the debate ended the same group moving meters actually rated each candidates' overall performance. And here is how they staked up take a look, Obama, Biden, Edwards, and on the bottom Clinton, Anderson back to you." [Image: Who do you think performed the best during the debate you just viewed?: Obama 33%,Biden 21%, Edwards 17%, Clinton 8%] [Video]

    Fox News South Carolina Focus Groups (Frank Luntz): "He is off the charts. I mean, this is as high as it can go. He's explicit. He has drawn the contrast. He has hit a home run. What I would like to do is I want to play for you the sound of what they had to say about Barack Obama so you can really understand it's not that he is a good politician and not his experience. It's as much his presentation and more importantly it's that he seems to represent people rather than politics. If you guys back there can roll the sound, this is why Obama will be shown as the winner of tonight's debate." [Video]

    CNN New Hampshire Focus Groups (Mary Snow): "We're here with 24 Democrats, independents, who thought that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the best performer here tonight, but the results that we just got in, this is a focus group, show that Barack Obama got the most favorable in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight." "Senator Barack Obama was showing some favorable responses to his answers. Some of the things that he got favorable responses were when he talked about fighting lobbyists, particularly on health care." [Video]

    …And the Pundits Agree Blue State: Editorial: Obama Wins Democratic Debate : The CNN-Youtube Democratic presidential debate came and went. Our editors have voted, and we agree that it was Barack's night. In what was definitely an improvement from his past performances, Obama was always prepared when confronted by his Democratic opponents, whereas in the past he tended to lose his temper. Tonight he also appeared very presidential, pragmatic and charismatic. Here was how we thought each of the candidates did -- from best to worst. Remember, we are grading on effectiveness: 1. Barack Obama - Independent, thoughtful, charismatic and trumped Hillary on looking "presidential." [LINK]

    The American Prospect: Tapped Blog on Overall Performance: Barack Obama owned this debate. He started off with a series of clear, crisp answers that deftly turned questions to his advantage, and he was doing that Obama thing that he does where he manages to look luminous and transcendent, as if he just stepped out of a Wordsworth poem, trailing clouds of glory. (He doesn't do this all the time, but when he does, watch out -- this is when he binds people to him.) [LINK]

    Time: Mark Halperin on Overall Performance: Grade: A- : When he was good, he was very, very good. .. Still, his best performance to date, positioning him to return in later forums to the change-change-change contrast he wants (and needs) to define his candidacy. [LINK]

    Newsday: The anything-goes format coincided with a more aggressive and sure-footed performance from Obama, accused of being flat and long-winded in previous debates. Obama, who opposed the war from its start, said he was unimpressed by Clinton's recent push to get the Pentagon to release details of their strategy for withdrawing eventually from Iraq. [LINK]

    CNN: Amy Holmes Reaction to Sen. Obama's response to Race Question: "Oh I think it's very important. I think both candidates knocked it out of park. I mean as someone who can speak on both of those issues I thought that those were high moments especially when Barack Obama, he referenced the fact that he believes in the core decency of the American people. I think that holds him in good stead in the democratic primary but even more importantly in the general election where if he were to be the democratic nominee where he would be campaigning for all of America, not just Black America." [Video]

    New York Post: "Obama Chills Hill": Sen. Barack Obama ripped into front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton last night on the Iraq war in a sometimes-absurd debate that had voters on video - and even a talking snowman - tossing questions at the presidential contenders. Obama, eager to bloody the poll-leading Clinton, jabbed the former first lady for her recent spat with the Pentagon over whipping up pullout plans from Iraq. "I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in," poked Obama as Clinton stood expressionless next to him on the debate stage at the Citadel military college. [LINK]

    ABC News: If the Obama video is an indication of the ad war to come, wow, this Obama guy could be for real. I jest, but that was a nice piece his campaign put together. Obama with a good summation of sorts. He definitely came in with a message he wanted to deliver this evening -- which has made this perhaps his best debate performance to date. [LINK]

    Washington Post: Time and time again Obama sought to take specific questions and broaden them into a conversation over who represented real change in the field. He castigated lobbyists and special interests in Washington, offering a sweeping condemnation of business as usual (by both parties) in the nation's capital. "We don't need just a change in political parties," said Obama. "We need a change in attitudes of the people representing Americans." [LINK]

    Posted by nodeceit at 07/24/2007 @ 5:18pm

51. a contraction of he will = he'll. Not common, but not completely outide the pale either.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 5:42pm

52. Obama did nothing wrong here. He actually answered in the best possible way. The bottom line is that diplomacy works. What happened when we stopped talking to the North Koreans? They restarted their nuclear reactor and increased their nuclear arsenol. The "propoganda" excuse not to talk to leaders of countries is pretty far-fetched. Honestly, can someone show me a situation where we as a country were significantly worse off for having sit down to discuss things?

    It was diplomacy that ended the Cold War. It wasn't us ignoring the USSR. The soviets didn't decide to forgo a missle defense system and start reducing the number of nuclear warheads unilaterally because we ignored them. We got the ABMT through diplomacy with people that we wouldn't be talking to today.

    If you want to talk about real threats to the US, nuclear terrorism is #1. The ABMT ended the need for mass production of weapons grade uranium/plutonium... and theoretically could be the reason why nuclear terrorism has not happened yet. Think about it.

    Also think hard before you write a column that advocates throwing diplomacy out the window. Don't kid yourself, that's exactly what this article does. It's not nuance about when to engage diplomatically, it's an excuse not to. Barack is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those other countries in an effort to get a lasting benefit for all. It is a fairly big difference, but this article came down on the wrong side.

    Posted by bbrown8370 at 07/24/2007 @ 5:47pm

53. Well, looks like CORN has broadened his reach beyond Bush-bashing, Cheney-hunting, Rove-raving, Plame-gating, Hubris-promoting.......

    Good insight, David!!

    So far, IMHO, I don't think any comments have hit on your main intent! My take is that, like your well-known position on impeachment(s)--laid out quite some time ago when the Dems took the Nov. `06 election--you are alerting Magic's camp to better prepare him on the intricacies of foreign policy in this post-9/11 world!

    Most folks focused on the first half of the answer run downs and lost sight of the tail end where your `advise' subtly kicked in.

    An astute abservation and advise Magic ought to take into heart!

    PS: Do I win any Brownie points?

    Posted by Happy at 07/24/2007 @ 5:55pm

54. This article is written under the assumption that what Obama said was wrong, and what Clinton said is right. Last time I checked a debate wasn't a forum to quiz candidates on how well they can 'correctly' answer the question. That is politics as usual--pandering to the status quo, which Clinton is quite good at. Thank goodness Obama and Edwards have the confidence to give answers that may not be 'right.'

    Posted by cjonesy108 at 07/24/2007 @ 6:45pm

55. This article is written under the assumption that what Obama said was wrong, and what Clinton said is right. Last time I checked a debate wasn't a forum to quiz candidates on how well they can 'correctly' answer the question. That is politics as usual--pandering to the status quo, which Clinton is quite good at. Thank goodness Obama and Edwards have the confidence to give answers that may not be 'right.'

    Posted by cjonesy108 at 07/24/2007 @ 6:47pm

56. O'bama is slick but not so smart on his feet.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/24/2007 @ 7:03pm

57. Bill Kristol's, his co-worker's and supporter's attitude toward service is simply a reflection of their core neocon values: No sacifice is too great for someone else to make, no sacifce too small for them to avoid in the service of goals only they believe in. They never tire of wrapping themselves in the Flag stained with the blood of others.

    Posted by Lambion at 07/24/2007 @ 7:40pm

58. First, I respect Mr Corn and especially his reporting on the Iraq war and the Valerie Palme affair.

    I must say that Obama has the correct answer. In my teens, we suffered thru a Vietnam war where our government at first refused to meet with the North Vietnamese in Warsaw. Lyndon Johnson had said that "We will go anywhere at any time to talk peace". Later, the North Vietnamese proposed Warsaw (a nicer climate than Helsinki) but Dean Rusk turned down Warsaw as the venue, and Clark Clifford ended up saying "When the President said we would go anywhere at any time, he of course meant any reasonable place at any reasonable time". Turning down the beautiful city of Warsaw. Later, we let our South Vietnamese allies delay the talks by debating the shape of the table, four sides versus two, versus one big table with smaller tables. I'm surprised no one proposed a folding card table like for American big family Thanksgiving gatherings.

    Now, in the modern era, we confront a President who insists that talking to someone is somehow granting them legitimacy. Funny, Nixon went to China -- Henry the K's earlier trip was a secret, so that does not count.

    Obama is correct. We should be talking to all countries. Let 100 flowers bloom.

    Mr Corn is undoubtably correct in his analysis that Clinton is better tuned to the right-wing backlash, to the political winds, to getting moderate support and even conservatives who are sick of this incompetent administration.

    The question becomes whether someone who is so timid in the campaign will magicly find her voice once she is President, and stop listening to the prevailing political wind. It is going to take alot of courage for the new Democratic President to get out of Iraq, and to talk to N Korea, Syria, Iran, and I almost forgot Venezueala (how they became labelled our enemy is beyond comprehension--is it just because they nationalized the oil companies and say rude things). Ms Clinton is demonstrating that she will lack that courage once in office. It will take another Nixon to talk to Iran, not a spineless Democrat like Clinton. Obama is the one.

    Posted by AndyPanda at 07/24/2007 @ 8:43pm

59. Posted by SRJENKINS 07/24/2007 @ 4:53pm

    SRJ, I didn't say Bush couldn't talk to Chavez...I was responding to MDAWSON65's claim of the "Thomas Jefferson"-like stature of Hermano Hugo.

    What are the "relevant facts" that allows you to condone, even seem to ENDORSE "democratically elected leaders" of nations to say "Say bad things about our country and we'll kick you out" and claim that such a person is still a "small d" democrat?

    What IS it about Hugo Chavez that gives him such a pass from almost ALL criticism (from his devotees)...the socialism? Is that old stereotype of the American (and European) Left accurate?....that you guys will tolerate even love dictators, as long as they talk about "helping the people", "breaking up corporations", endless social programs, and other candy-coated Marxism?

    And the hole you dig is one of your own making...and when you've dug it 7-8 feet deep...and Chavez starts to cancel elections, arrest protestors, and becomes a full fledged oppressive dictator....will you apologize...or become apologists like those who think Fidel is a great man who has "been forced by America to impose a few restrictions"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 9:00pm

60. David: What is that "Grinning" comment about?

    Posted by lealey at 07/24/2007 @ 9:02pm

61. Posted by THREEHEGEMONS 07/24/2007 @ 4:56pm

    THREE, I guarentee when Chavez has done all the Bush has done...and more.....you and many others here will be "explaining" to us how he was "forced to do so, due to CIA terrorists"....sounding EXACTLY like the Right defending Bush on the Patriot Act, NSA spying, no habeus corpus, and Guantanamo.

    And you'll never even see your own hypocrisy. Oppression is oppression...whether a Texan free marketeer or a Venezuelan Marxist.....I oppose all.

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 9:03pm

62. Obama is right. Refusing to talk to the leaders of other countries in order to punish them is childish, regardless of whether it's done in the honestly bratty way that Bush does it or in the faux-mature way that Madeline Albright wants us to.

    Posted by green2006 at 07/24/2007 @ 9:09pm

63. Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 9:00pm

    I'm not condoning it. I'm simply saying it isn't much different than any place else. You're singling it out because you have an agenda - Chavez, Sherrod, a few others. Everyone has an agenda, but I think you tend to ignore other perspectives on a few issues such as these.

    I don't particularly like Chavez. I don't particularly like Bush either. But I think Chavez gets more of a pass because of the very fact that free market fundamentalists and centralists will make every type of claim under the sun when someone tries a different form of economic organization.

    I'm not saying it is good or bad - but I am saying let's hold off on the hysteria and let people try new models and see what works. Scientific method and all that. I don't buy that free markets are the "best way" and we have plenty of historical evidence to prove it. What we need to do is find better ways and experiments like what Chavez is doing are important - even if they end up as failures and run the risk of turning into dictatorships.

    You could make the same arguments about our own government - but I've yet to see you make any arguments about increasing centralization of media in a few large corporations in the U.S. - why is that? Because you have a bone to pick with Chavez and you aren't being fair about it. All I'm asking is that you shine that light around a bit - particularly at your own country - if you are going to shine it at all.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/24/2007 @ 10:09pm

64. Why must Corn give the Dittoheads ammunition? Now, the headline to this piece is the Most Viewed opinion piece on Yahoo News.

    Are there not enough targets on THEIR side, that you have to denigrate one of our own?

    Please don't tell me Corn is a DLCer... I may puke.

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/25/2007 @ 01:06am

65. Since the comment function doesn't work where you discuss your rebuttal to Kristol, with apologies I comment here:

    "Terrorism: Yes -- thankfully -- there have been no attacks here since 9/11."

    Say what? You don't call those anthrax letters [en.wikipedia.org] (which killed five people and infected another 17) "attacks"?

    Let alone the Nov. 12, 2001, mid-air break-up of American Airlines 587 over Queens NY, death toll 265 -- CNN [archives.cnn.com]. Rudder problems, says the NTSB [ntsb.gov], are what made the plane explode. (?!)

    Posted by SJ at 07/25/2007 @ 02:51am

66. A point or two on Obama's lack of inexperience:

    1) Foreign policy experience is easily learned, that is the main lesson "Anyone who has studied foreign affairs and diplomacy knows that meetings of heads of state," donfriphd. We have a few good examples: Ronald Reagan had no diplomatic experience, luckily he had George Shultz, a seasoned diplomat and James Baker to keep him in check. Yes, he talked tough and was a governor, neither of which gave him FP experience. Kennedy as well had no FP experience except that his dad was an ambassador, Kennedy as well appointed some amazing FP specialists: McGeorge Bundy, Lyndon Johnston, George Ball. Take it back even farther, Truman had little experience as well. In contrast, someone who had incredible experience (LBJ), was a foreign policy disaster.

    Yes, Hillary was very astute in pointing out the faults of Obama's argument. But, here is the point: Obama has a view of how America should approach the world. His two "gaffes," the terrorist attack slip-up and this more recent event, displayed Obama's commitment to problem solving and constructing relationships, before we rely on military might. I think, given America's declining status and the war in Iraq, that is something that should be commended.

    2) Obama isn't coming in on a clean state. Hillary's statement was a bit of a truism. Obama will inherit the "groundwork" of GWB, particularly with N. Korea and Iran, both of which we have had very serious (and relatively high level) talks with. For Iran particularly any meeting with the US might have the affect of taking the wind out of Ahmadinejad's sails, giving him less anti-western rhetoric to gain legitimacy at home with (no "rally around the flag" effect). Our Cuban policy better change with the next president. It is only a few voters in FL holding that policy hostage. Libya and Syria there are less good reasons to meet, particularly Syria as we might be able to pressure them to help in Iraq, nevertheless...

    Posted by DQuartner at 07/25/2007 @ 04:22am

67. more on my second point, and very briefly: this is why we have a bureaucracy, as dirty as the word is. The paper-pushers are very adept at ensuring that any American president doesn't go into a meeting with his/her pants around his/her ankles. That's why the CIA got it right about Iraq and WMD, only post-9/11 politics messed that up.

    Lastly, more on Iran, maybe it would be a good thing to meet with the Iranian president considering we have half of our navy stationed in the gulf.

    Alas, that was the problem with these debates anyway. If Obama had been given time to respond, as debates typically allow, we would have heard a more nuanced analysis. These debates are only good for headliners and giving the pundits something to hack over, as they haven't helped either candidate.

    Posted by DQuartner at 07/25/2007 @ 04:31am

68. JOECHI wrote: Clinton won. Period.

    That said, what the hell was Edwards thinking?

    Edwards undermined his best-yet debate performance by choosing to make a nasty comment about Clinton's jacket.

    Agree completely...David also makes it clear that Obama must be stellar in debates from here on out or he is done. He won't...Hillary is on point every debate, and that won't change. She knows her shit!

    Posted by MCE337 at 07/25/2007 @ 04:37am

69. Posted by SRJENKINS 07/24/2007 @ 10:09pm

    I don't have a problem with Chavez...I have a problem with Chavez supporters here, who claim to be "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever and will discuss opppressive regimes (even BUSH's) and the horrors of them...rightly so...and give Hugo a pass.

    If George Bush had shut down Huffington Post or Air America, almost everybody would have said it was dead wrong.

    Chavez shuts down RCTV and it's "okay" because "they were trying to overthrow him!!!!" Like a TV network is taking up arms, planting roadside bombs, or cutting telephone and power lines....instead of ....speaking over the airwaves.

    Venezuela can run itself anyway it wants...who gives a rat's? But I don't want to hear from our local "defenders of truth and freedom" that SOME oppression is acceptable, if the oppressor is "trying to help his people" and "throw out the evil corporations" and "standing up to Dumbya and Cheney and the Big Oil buddies".

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 09:18am

70. And shit it is. Obama has guts, smarts and is principled-- 'believes' in the American way, our constitution. VS. adopting new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, 1. fear -- flight or fight policy, 2. it's aboutthe profits, bottomline policy, 3. incompetence, crony that's all we know how to do policy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 10:59am

71. Would have been nice if one of the candidates had noted that Sadat traveled to Israel in 1977, not 1982. In fact, Sadat was assassinated in 1981 in part because he traveled to Israel. Sadat also made the trip not because he believed that he should meet with any head of state, but because he saw the opportunity for a historic breakthough.

    Posted by drugcrazed at 07/25/2007 @ 11:02am

72. David JUST posted this at his blog.....

    July 25, 2007

    Obama Blunder or Not?

    My boss didn't like what I wrote about Barack Obama's YouTube debate performance--that is, his promise to meet with the thuggish leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela in his first year as president (should he be elected). But what's fortunate is that at The Nation website I get to have my say, and then editor Katrina vanden Heuvel can have hers.....

    Well, my point was that this was indeed a blunder because it could be used against Obama.......Does anyone believe that promising to meet with Ahmadinejad right away will win Obama more votes than it will cost him? I doubt we will hear Obama reiterate this promise. Why? Because he knows the answer to that simple question.

    By the way, after the debate, Obama's campaign disseminated a memo saying, "On issues of national security, Obama made clear that making America safer would require using tough diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea that have seen dramatic expansions of their nuclear programs during the seven years of the Bush presidency." During the debate, though, that's not how Obama put it. He did not call for "tough" diplomacy and did not raise the issue of Iranian and North Korea nukes. Certainly, "tough" diplomacy does not entail offering presidential meetings before the negotiating begins.

    I write the above and the original piece as someone who is not rooting for Obama to fail. But it's clear to me he's going to have to be both bolder in his overall campaign strategy and more careful in his responses to questions about foreign policy, an area in which he has good instincts but not a lot of working experience....

    Posted by David Corn at 11:04 AM

    Posted by Happy at 07/25/2007 @ 11:12am

73. ...I don't buy that free markets are the "best way" and we have plenty of historical evidence to prove it. What we need to do is find better ways and experiments like what Chavez is doing are important - even if they end up as failures and run the risk of turning into dictatorships.

    You could make the same arguments about our own government - but I've yet to see you make any arguments about increasing centralization of media in a few large corporations in the U.S. ....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 07/24/2007 @ 10:09pm

    SRJ,

    Despite my own belief, I can't fault you for NOT accepting the free market as the "best way". There is (always) the possibility of some amalgam of "ways" evolving that can be "better"!

    However, I take serious issue with your describing what Chavez is doing as "experiments". There is absolutely nothing new or trend-setting in what he is doing......and we have far more "historical" evidence of where his "experiments" will lead to, than evidence showing the free market is not the "best way".

    At this very moment, as Hugo has driven out some Western capital, he is finding that his so-called friends (China, Iran, Brazil, etc.) aren't quite so eager to rush in w/their equally precious capital! Just watch Venezuela's oil production's fall accelerate...and that of Iran.....and that of Mexico....all countries that nationalized or are rapidly nationalizng their energy sectors!

    MASK pointed out some truisms regarding the strangulation of the press...all standard OP....No, Hugo is NO experimenter....he is following in Fidel's footsteps precisely.....he even mimicks Cuba's sending medical folks out by sending out cheap heating oil, to us!!!

    Centralization of media? The American media is so large and diverse, with new and powerful players emerging damn near monthly, I am not worried; particularly with the Fed's antitrust regulators examining large-scale buy/sells! The analogy would be if today, ConocoPhillips gets bought up by Chevron....so what? A few stations or distributors would need to be divested, but otherwise, NO PROBLEM!

    Posted by Happy at 07/25/2007 @ 11:37am

74. Posted by DRUGCRAZED 07/25/2007 @ 11:02am | ignore this person

    wrong, Sadat travelled to Israel to get a good Pastrami on Rye.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 12:02pm

75. Clinton's response resonated with seven election cycles worth of dreary, technocratic Democratic responses, and 5 election cycles worth of Democratic losses.

    Why is it that Republicans such as Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan feel themselves free to meet with the leaders of the "evil empire" while Democrats are caught in a web of "face" and "prudence?"

    Why is it that Mainline Democrats such as, it seems, David Corn think that their president's prestige is more important than the lives of the nation's soldiers.

    Sadly, "jaw-jaw is always better than war-war" was the wisdom of a Conservative.. go figure.

    Posted by Crward at 07/25/2007 @ 2:07pm

76. Posted this on Katrina's earlier:

    We all could be smoking cuban cigars... A great, but very long article about negotiating with 'enemies' and 'nuance':

    Home > Magazine Archives > Sep/Oct '99 > JFK and Castro

    Published September/October 1999

    JFK & Castro: The Secret Quest For Accommodation

    Recently Declassified U.S. government Documents Reveal That, at the Height of the Cold War, John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro Were Exploring Ways To Normalize U.S.-Cuba Relations

    by Peter Kornbluh

    In February 1996, Robert Kennedy Jr. and his brother, Michael, traveled to Havana to meet with Fidel Castro. As a gesture of goodwill, they brought a file of formerly top secret U.S. documents on the Kennedy administration's covert exploration of an accommodation with Cuba--a record of what might have been had not Lee Harvey Oswald, seemingly believing the president to be an implacable foe of Castro's Cuba, fired his fateful shots in Dallas. Castro thanked them for the file and shared his "impression that it was [President Kennedy's] intention after the missile crisis to change the framework" of relations between the United States and Cuba. "It's unfortunate," said Castro, that "things happened as they did, and he could not do what he wanted to do."

    Would John F. Kennedy, had he lived, have been able to establish a modus vivendi with Fidel Castro? The question haunts almost 40 years of acrimonious U.S.-Cuba relations. In a Top Secret--Eyes Only memorandum written three days after the president's death, one of his White House aides, Gordon Chase, noted that "President Kennedy could have accommodated with Castro and gotten away with it with a minimum of domestic heat"--because of his track record "of being successfully nasty to Castro and the Communists" during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Castro and his advisers believed the same. A CIA intelligence report, based on

    a high-level Cuban source and written for National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy in 1964, noted that "Fidel Castro felt that it was possible that President Kennedy would have gone on ultimately to negotiate with Cuba...[as an] acceptance of a fait accompli for practical reasons."

    The file on the Kennedy administration's "Cuban contacts" that Robert Jr. and Michael took to Cuba (declassified at the request of the author) sheds significant light on a story that has never been fully told--John Kennedy's secret pursuit of a rapprochement with Fidel Castro. Along with papers recently released pursuant to the Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992, the documents reveal the escalating efforts toward negotiations in 1963 that, if successful, might have changed the ensuing decades of perpetual hostility between Washington and Havana. Given the continuing state of tension with Castro's regime, this history carries an immediate relevance for present policy makers. Indeed, with the Clinton administration buffeted between increasingly vocal critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba and powerful proponents of the status quo, reconstructing the hitherto secret record of Kennedy's efforts in the fall of 1963 to advance "the rapprochement track" with Castro is more relevant than ever.

    John F. Kennedy would seem the most unlikely of presidents to seek an accommodation with Fidel Castro. His tragically abbreviated administration bore responsibility for some of the most infamous U.S. efforts to roll back the Cuban revolution: the Bay of Pigs invasion, the trade embargo, Operation Mongoose (a U.S. plan to destabilize the Castro government) and a series of CIA-Mafia assassination attempts against the Cuban leader. Castro's demise, Seymour M. Hersh argues in his book, The Dark Side of Camelot, "became a presidential obsession" until the end. "The top priority in the United States government--all else is secondary--no time, money, effort, or manpower is to be spared" is to find a "solution" to the Cuba problem, Attorney General Robert Kennedy told a high-level group of CIA and Pentagon officials in early 1962. The president's opinion, according to CIA minutes of the meeting, was that "the final chapter [on Cuba] has not been written."

    Unbeknownst to all but his brother and a handful of advisers, however, in 1963 John Kennedy began pursuing an alternative script on Cuba: a secret dialogue toward an actual rapprochement with Castro. To a policy built upon "overt and covert nastiness," as Top Secret White House memoranda characterized U.S. operations against Cuba, was added "the sweet approach," meaning the possibility of "quietly enticing Castro over to us." National Security Council officials referred to this multitrack policy as "simil-opting"--the use of disparate methods toward the goal of moving Cuba out of the Soviet orbit.

    VVVVVVvvvvvvVVVVVvvvvvvVVVVVvvvvvVVVvvvVVvv

    President Clinton, however, has ignored the policy opportunities and political openings. In January, he rejected the Republican proposal for a bipartisan national dialogue on Cuba policy, as well as any notion of an international dialogue with the Cuban government. Several small modifications were made in the U.S. posture--expanded remittances and flights, restricted licenses for the sale of agricultural products to Cuba--in order, as Clinton put it, "to provide the people of Cuba with hope in their struggle." But the antagonistic framework of the policy remains entrenched and, for the most part, unchanged. The most symbolic "people-to-people" gesture that the White House can muster: allowing the Baltimore Orioles to play two exhibition games with Cuba.

    With the Cold War long over and tensions with Cuba at a minimum, serious diplomacy and dialogue on mutual interests would seem not only possible, but highly preferable to continuing a long-standing policy of unmitigated hostility. Clearly, high-ranking members of the Kennedy White House, and even Kennedy himself, thought a dialogue toward coexistence was possible--in a far more dangerous world than today. "All we have to do is simply to decide to treat Cuba like any other 'socialist' country and then sit down and resolve a few unresolved issues," Ambassador Attwood observed years after the Kennedy initiative. "I think it's about time we did, in our own interest as well as Cuba's."

    Peter Kornbluh writes frequently on U.S.-Cuba relations. He is a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental institute and library located at George Washington University, Washington, D.C. He is the editor of Bay of Pigs Declassified: The Secret CIA Report on the Invasion of Cuba (The New Press, 1998). The documents cited in this report can be accessed at the archive's Web site: www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive.

    http://tinyurl.com/2jhzyy

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:20pm

77. I write the above and the original piece as someone who is not rooting for Obama to fail. But it's clear to me he's going to have to be both bolder in his overall campaign strategy and more careful in his responses to questions about foreign policy, an area in which he has good instincts but not a lot of working experience....

    To add to my post above, I agree that Obama's answer was a risk... and it may make him seem inexperienced, particularly if he were to back away from it. That said, it was also a courageous answer for precisely that reason -- it is a decisive break with Democrats' caution in foreign affairs (one that, arguably, dates back to Acheson's shadow cabinet in the 1950s.)

    The bottom line is that his answer is in line with basic principles of diplomacy that predate the Cold War -- always, always talk with neighbors and rivals in order to pursue the national interest. And it signals in part that he is willing to take political risks in order to forward the interests of the nation as a whole.

    Hillary's response, on the other hand, reveals that her Latin American and Caribbean policy would likely be a weak cover for a South Florida policy -- perhaps good domestic politics, but in no way following the national interest.

    Posted by Crward at 07/25/2007 @ 2:22pm

78. Ironicaliness--D Corn, P Kornbluh...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:22pm

79. "During the debate, though, that's not how Obama put it. He did not call for "tough" diplomacy and did not raise the issue of Iranian and North Korea nukes. Certainly, "tough" diplomacy does not entail offering presidential meetings before the negotiating begins. "

    And just why the hell not? Why not start with the big gun? It would seem more tough to me for a president to conduct these meetings in person, looking into the eyes of the 'enemy' than to send our diplomats to talk to their diplomats. I don't want a president who isn't willing to take bold diplomatic action in person.

    Posted by bbrown8370 at 07/25/2007 @ 3:06pm

80. tough diplomacy is an oxymoron. tough diplomacy is coercion.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 3:22pm

81. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 3:22pm

    JOHANN of course being a summa cum laude graduate of the "Nevile Chamberlain School of Foreign Policy"!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 4:27pm

82. "Venezuela can run itself anyway it wants...who gives a rat's? But I don't want to hear from our local "defenders of truth and freedom" that SOME oppression is acceptable, if the oppressor is "trying to help his people" and "throw out the evil corporations" and "standing up to Dumbya and Cheney and the Big Oil buddies".

    Mask,

    Then you have come to the wrong place..the only threat to democracy that is seen here..by those freedom loving leftys...is George Bush....he is the biggest threat to our land as a dictator right up to the day he leaves office to the next elected president....something the freedom loving Chavez will never do...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2007 @ 5:04pm

83. Stick to your guns Corn. Obama's answer was a HUGE mistake ;)

    I still can figure out why you spend so much time reporting on the blow-by-blow gossip of presidential campaigns 16 months before the election rather than contempt citations for Miers and Bolten or the fact Gonzalez authorized OVP access to ongoing investigations at the DOJ.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 07/25/2007 @ 6:04pm

84. Posted by HAPPY 07/25/2007 @ 11:37am

    The American media is so large and diverse, with new and powerful players emerging damn near monthly, I am not worried; particularly with the Fed's antitrust regulators examining large-scale buy/sells!

    Do yourself a favor and learn more about this topic - because this statement is simply false. Media Matters by Robert McChesney is one useful book among many. The following link is also instructive.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/and_then_there_were_eigh t.pdf

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 6:58pm

85. Posted by NEILSAGAN 07/25/2007 @ 6:04pm | ignore this person

    slow news week. a tempest in a teapot.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 7:00pm

86. Quick correction. The book is The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century. His radio show is Media Matters.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/25/2007 @ 9:21pm

87. Corn: "And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense."

    Obama can quote JFK: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

    Posted by Albanius at 07/25/2007 @ 11:06pm

88. Scandal and arguments between candidates often consumes the media and campaign spotlights. There are critical topics of greater importance that I would like to see our candidate address each other and to the public, especially with the issue of global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

    Posted by Mstessyrue at 07/26/2007 @ 01:53am

89. only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. ----Posted by MSTESSYRUE 07/26/2007 @ 01:53am

    Isn't that eerily familiar? Like a claim in the mid-60s that Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" could be fought with "ONLY a half a billion dollars a year"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 09:21am

90. Do yourself a favor and learn more about this topic - because this statement is simply false. Media Matters by Robert McChesney is one useful book among many. The following link is also instructive.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/and_then_there_were_eigh t.pdf

    Posted by SRJENKINS 07/25/2007 @ 6:58pm

    Ok, did myself the favor as you suggested.....and frankly, I found the graph not in support of your argument!

    With minor exceptions (ie: GE/NBC, MSNBC, Disney/ABC and a few other `news' names), the overwhelming proportion of consolidations highlighted were in the realm of entertainment and/or advertising!

    Not knowing how well you follow the rather large media industry (yes, I own media stocks), your MotherJones piece left out a LARGE universe of actual news gatherers or Op-Ed sources.....just off the top of my head, with Parent co. w/most well-known subsidiary:

    Dow Jones (Wall St. Journal)

    New York Times Co. (NYT)

    Tribune Co. (LA Times & Chicago Tribune)

    Gannette USA (USA Today)

    Hearst Corp. (Houston Chronicle & ?San Diego Daily?)

    Washington Post Co. (WaPo)

    Reuters

    Associated Press

    Now, THAT's what I call the actual news originators or gatherers and opinion-influencing MEDIA!

    While we are at it, let's not overlook GLOBAL sources of news, in any major language....all available just a click or search away! Even on small scales, you've got The Nation and MotherJones!

    Sorry, your fear-mongering of media consolidation is overblown....even if Murdock buys Dow Jones and Sam Zell have a career change and takes down Tribune Co.

    Newsweek

    Posted by Happy at 07/26/2007 @ 3:57pm

91. Senator Obama's response was straightforward and clear. He did not equivocate..a very refreshing candidate. All the 'talking heads' seem to support Senator Clinton, however, we commoners grasp what Obama is saying and obviously support him with both the numbers of contributers and the lack of the wall street spin. I have supported democrats for 57 years..but I am not supporting Senator Clinton. I note her switching hitting on issues like healthcare, Israeli-Palistinian conflict and a fan of both the Yankees and Mets..More double talk from the wife of the best double talker in the business..Of course 'it depends on what you mean by what is..is..' Rolland Hammerness

    Posted by Rolland Ham at 07/26/2007 @ 6:29pm

92. Posted by HAPPY 07/26/2007 @ 3:57pm

    Let's see. I worked for one of the largest media companies doing industry and media analysis for six years, but apparently, I am fear mongering and failed to attain the understanding of the media landscape that a day trader has that owns a few media stocks. Interesting.

    Perhaps you heard of News Corp and the proposed Dow Jones merger? The Thompson/Reuters merger? Do you know the history of mergers with any of these companies?

    Perhaps you can explain the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the subsequent media consolidation and how the media landscape is diverse - particularly from the perspective of a particular media market? Perhaps you give me a sense of how independent publications (hint, those are the one's that don't trade on the stock market) have fared over the past four or five decades?

    These are questions I came up with off the top of my head and know just how problematic they are to answer. Let's face it Happy, this is not a topic that you know much about and you need to get more informed about it. I've suggested where you might start - someone that does this kind of analysis for a living - but if you aren't able to admit that your ignorant on this topic (and you are), then further discussion with you about it is a waste of my time.

    Also, this is not an insult. Most people know little about how media works - who owns who, distribution, revenue streams, etc. - and it is a confusing space. But don't fool yourself into thinking you actually know anything about it just because you happen to own a few stocks and track a few major media companies.

    Most of the analyst reports are by type of media and those that actually try to give you a comprehensive overview of media in general do not provide any picture of diversity and can barely manage to give a rough sketch of the media landscape. But, they are concerned about projecting stock prices - so we really can't fault them for not knowing about these issues. I'd say that you have many of the same limitations.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/26/2007 @ 7:08pm

93. Now we know Mr. Obama is another black-and-white man. We have had enough with Dubya on this pseudo moral. One is too many.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 07/26/2007 @ 11:38pm

94. Happy is a dim witted pedestrian, SRJENKINS. Don't waste your time.

    Are John Nichols and Katrina Vanden Heuvel the only two writers at The Nation who recognize our constitutional democracy is in jeopardy becuase of the lawless policies and expansive unchallenged extra-constitutional powers assumed by Bush Cheney? Insted Nation write pose the important questions: Who got a $300 haircut? Did Barrack really say he'd meet with Saddam? Nice cleavage Mrs. Clinton! Didn't Gravel look crazy? Who would vote for that radical Kucinich, he's so wierd looking. F*ck. The progressives are as bad as the conservatives... except for Nichols and Vanden Heuvel.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 07/27/2007 @ 02:46am

95. Now we know Mr. Obama is another black-and-white man. ----Posted by HELEN DAO 07/26/2007 @ 11:38pm

    What do you mean by that?

    Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 09:06am

96. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/25/2007 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person

    dumbest comment yet.

    No surprise there.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/27/2007 @ 10:34am

97. A Corn article without Pontificus around making claims based on fantasy land theories and made up "facts".

    A good day.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/27/2007 @ 10:36am

98. What a shame. David Corn has been stuck inside the Beltway too long. Turns out that Pat Buchanan and Andrew Sullivan got it right and Corn got it wrong. Most debate watchers liked Obama's refreshing candor and change of course. Hillary (and David Corn) is stuck in the same old Clinton-Bush axis. "I can run the American empire better than you." But the vast majority of Americans aren't buying that line anymore.

    As Andrew Sullivan put it: "Beltway boundaries can enforce a rote reflexiveness, a cramped conventionality on certain subjects. So few in the Beltway support total evacuation from Iraq. But many, many Americans do. And it is a predictable Beltway meme that Clinton did better than Obama this week because she showed "experience" and he showed "naivete". But I wonder if that's the case. I wonder if the country hasn't shifted sufficiently to make total disengagement from Iraq thinkable and Clinton seem a captive of past presumptions about American power and how it should be wielded. Iraq has made the case for a "humble nation" more eloquently than Bush in 2000 ever could.

    Something is stirring out there - as the Obama and Paul candidacies show. The polls show record levels of discontent. The logic for permanent engagement in the Middle East is far less cogent than it was only a year ago. And the capacity of Americans to throw their own elites overboard will be tested in the next two years."

    I certainly hope so. I'm rather peeved that David Corn and The Nation are so stuck inside the beltway "meme." I expect better analysis, insight and coverage. Where's the long-overdue article on Ron Paul?

    Posted by johnmshaw at 07/27/2007 @ 3:24pm

99. Please check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

    was Hillary just trying to score political points, or to get revenge for this, an exchange a few minutes earlier

    COOPER: Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in Iraq in vain?

    OBAMA: Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them. They deposed Saddam Hussein.

    They have carried out extraordinarily difficult missions with great courage and great bravery.

    But, you know, one thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's comments a couple of moments ago. I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

    (APPLAUSE)

    And that is something that too many of us failed to do. We failed to do it. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

    When I am president of the United States, when I send our troops into battle, I am going to be absolutely sure that it is based on sound intelligence, and I'm going to tell the truth to the American people, as well as the families who are being asked to sacrifice.

    Posted by Crward at 07/27/2007 @ 4:29pm

100. Posted by JOHNMSHAW 07/27/2007 @ 3:24pm

     I have to say....when David Corn and "The Nation" are defined as "Inside the Beltway Establishment types"...

     there's an example of where the political spectrum has moved...especially in the Blogosphere!

     LOL!

     Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 4:32pm

101. Let's see. I worked for one of the largest media companies doing industry and media analysis for six years......

     Perhaps you heard of News Corp and the proposed Dow Jones merger?...

     Posted by SRJENKINS 07/26/2007 @ 7:08pm

     SRJ,

     I know you've been busy......so have I....but your `slips' are showing more than you realized! Let's review....I posted:

     HAPPY Self: ....even if Murdock buys Dow Jones....

     Posted by HAPPY 07/26/2007 @ 3:57pm

     I'm shocked I tell you, just SHOCKED, that w/your six years of actual industry background, did NOT recognize that Murdock (that's Rupert Murdock, the Australian media mogul) IS the one and same News Corp you questioned MY KNOWLEDGE on!!!!!!

     I'll grant you intimate knowledge of how your subsector of media works via your six years' worth of paychecks.....but, if that experience is dated, your qualitative edge over me is questionable!

     Despite your retort, there is little mysteries to consolidations to just about any industries. Some is driven by the stock markets, some in respsonse to global competition, some as reaction to regulation, and some out of capitalist `impulses' (ok, greed!)....fact is, most are driven by a combination of all the factors (& more) that I listed.

     Some very typical non-media consolidations:

     1) The previously busted up AT&T reconstituting itself by gobblingup SBC (just one of its consolidation plays)

     2) Exxon - Mobil......Chevron - Gulf Oil.....BP - Amoco

     3) Daimler - Chrysler.....Ford - Volvo/Jaguar......Nissan - Renault

     4) Google - Double Click.......eBay - PayPal

     5) Oracle - PeopleSoft

     6) Novartis - Tanox (you may not recognize Tanox, deal pending and I owned Tanox but sold after deal announced)

     The thing is, consolidation is exactly what a capitalist economy leads to as an inherent strategy to seek greater efficiency and reduce duplications! Yes, overlapping support departments like billing, human resources, accounting, advertsing and such...are often `casualties'! BTW, even the gov't sectors sometime try this but in no shape or form, can approach the efficiency gains of the private sector consolidations driven heavily by dollars and cents!

     Other than addressing the consolidation you fear, you did NOT address my point of new medias forming constantly! The barriers to entry today, is laughably low....literally anyone, especially Libs like JR, can claim to be a `journalist', and start moonlighting--paid or not! Hell, anyone with a cellphone with camera/video (that's everybody I know), can upload news and throw in their `take' and create `news'! IF old media is so powerful, after consolidations, why are they scared shitless about losing reader/viewer-ship & advertisers???????

     From our debates on this trend of media consolidation, it's pretty clear we are far apart on our degrees of fundamental belief in the free market!

     Posted by Happy at 07/27/2007 @ 5:32pm

102. Posted by HAPPY 07/27/2007 @ 5:32pm

     Perhaps what should be shocking to you is your ability to jump to conclusions. People that hardly know anything about media know Murdoch's connection to News Corp, so why is it that you would suppose that I wouldn't?

     The point of bringing in these recent mergers was to talk about the history of consolidation of these companies, which means I have to talk about them in terms of the companies themselves not the people running them.

     I notice how you avoid the points I raised: the history of consolidation of these particular companies, the impact on the diversity of the media landscape (which before you argued for and now are arguing against), etc.

     Apparently you also don't have a good sense for what news actually is - investigative reporting isn't something someone can do with a camera phone and taking 10 minutes out of their day.

     While I find your arguments that so-called capitalist markets tend toward oligarchy interesting, I find them confusing in light of your attempts to cast yourself sympathetic to right-leaning politics. This is a critique of modern capitalism (which isn't capitalism as defined as a market with many buyers and sellers, low barriers to entry and so forth) - not an argument for it.

     You are also trying to have it both ways - lots of new media, consolidation is good. Both very weak arguments - especially in respect to media.

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/27/2007 @ 7:46pm

103. Posted by SRJENKINS: so why is it that you would suppose that I wouldn't?

     Ahem! HAPPY said "if Murdock buys Dow Jones" BEFORE you asked him if he has "heard of News Corp and the proposed Dow Jones merger"! How classic for a liberal to turn around and pretend his clothe is still on!

     "lots of new media, consolidation is good" don't conflict with a vibrant capitalist economy filled with opportunities for new blood and ideas building with ingenuity, limited risk capital but loads of sweat equity; while consolidation lets mature players weed out inevitable inefficiencies and better face newer, more nimble upstarts. Not all survive and the cycle repeats. Rational and complementary!

     Posted by is is IS at 07/28/2007 @ 12:28am

104. Posted by IS IS IS 07/28/2007 @ 12:28am

     And which seems more likely: I don't know who makes the decisions at News Corp or that I didn't read every word of Happy's post?

     Classic example of considering possible conclusions and selecting the less likely - but more convenient - one for your purposes.

     As for your happy little world about how we have a vibrant capitalist economy, this doesn't match the facts - of the economy in general and particularly the media space.

     It is a fact that massive media consolidation has occurred and it has very real, very negative effects. But, you continue on with your free market fundamentalist fantasy and instead of actually trying to learn anything, just make up stuff.

     Oh, one other question, how is it possible - particularly for you Happy - to make this argument about vibrant capitalist landscapes and then complain about MSM? You see the logical inconsistencies here? You want it both ways - and I'm sorry, you can't have it that way.

     Oh, anyone want to offer up any facts here? You have any studies or anything at all that supports this supposed vibrant capitalist scenario other than your wishful thinking? Didn't think so.

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/28/2007 @ 11:05am

105. Posted by SRJENKINS 07/28/2007 @ 11:05am

     SRJ, simple question for you. Do we have more sources of news and opinions today or say, 10 years ago?

     I'm certain I can source out venture stats on media-related startups, some of which have already been acquired, but I don't think it necessary. Hint: Just for mass media, are there more cable news sources today than when CNN was the whole enchilada, globally?

     FYI: On any given day, I read half-a-dozen or more Op-Eds on issues I deem important or interesting...heck, I even read overseas `stuff'....but, if the internet doesn't exist as it does today, no way I would take that effort. Truth be told, all of us blogging here probably does that as well. The big difference between the Right & Left here, is that the Right probably read more broadly in order to venture into `enemy' territory....behind enemy line, if you will.....heheheh!

     Now, the one kind of consolidation that would worry me, is the type MASK harps about....the Venezuela `model'! Here in the good old USA, as long as media stays in private hands, the market will determine between those that truly pumps out ideological BS or mostly-objective news! I'm NOT inclined to blame the MSM since they are reaping what they sowed......they became too ideological and most folks have lost trust in them.....a good thing that may lead to reform and weed out the hiring of mostly liberal journalists! I am HAPPILY watching them suffering, even as they `consolidate' without addressing the fundamental problem of biased reporting, outright fabrication of `news' and presenting opinions as `facts'! Much of this is evident here as well since many here can't differentiate between facts and opinions!

     Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 11:52am

106. Mr. Corn, with all due respect you are a bit delusional. More Americans agree with Obama's stance on the issue, yet you and some others continue to repeat this mistaken notion that was out of line. Do you actually believe that North Korea, Venezuela and other nations need a sitdown with the president for propaganda value? We're giving the world decades worth of propaganda material with our little misadventure in Iraq! The only way we're going to put down all of these little fires is by meeting with the decision makers face to face. It's only been in the last 6-7 years that we've turned away from this idea - and look where it has gotten us!

     Posted by highgrade at 07/28/2007 @ 12:50pm

107. It's only been in the last 6-7 years that we've turned away from this idea - and look where it has gotten us!

     Posted by HIGHGRADE 07/28/2007 @ 12:50pm

     Bill Clinton sent American missiles into Libya to meet face-to-face with some phama factory.........American planes & bombs to Kosovo to meet face-to-face with the Serbs.........American naivette into North Korea to meet face-to-face (& help) its nuclear proliferation program.........American planes to meet face-to-face w/Iraqi airspace......

     Brilliant HIGHGRADE meetings, huh? So brilliant in fact, Osama sent several planes loaded w/Americans to meet face-to-face with American buildings and field!

     Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 1:02pm

108. Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 11:52am

     Define source. If Fox News creates 10 channels, is that the metric for diversity? You also need to read your Chomsky - or just give some thought as to why people like Imus got kicked off radio - to understand the role of advertising, corporate media control and so forth in shaping the media landscape.

     But your post for me reveals one main issue - you don't think it is necessary to learn anything about the topic or apply any critical thinking because you think you already have the answers. It's called complacency.

     If you had any facts to back up your position, I'd love to see them. But stop coming up me from the gut, it's where you should put your food not do your thinking.

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/28/2007 @ 5:14pm

109. But stop coming up me from the gut, it's where you should put your food not do your thinking.

     Posted by SRJENKINS 07/28/2007 @ 5:14pm

     I once saw an evangelic pastard on TV urging his hamsters to think with their gut's (as he rubbed his hand on his tum tum) and not with their heads.

     happy is just doing as he's told

     Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 5:45pm

110. SRJ: Quickly found this article that sums well my views....several names of start-ups.......Also, don't overlook all the recognizable bloggers who do independent research (David Corn sound familiar?) or are repositories for information submitted by readership that refute `official' news (like the Reuter-faked and staged photos coming out of Lebanon).....

     I really don't see why you fight so hard to deny the existence of more sources even as consolidation takes hold???? Denying technological advances is not a sustainable position! Believe what you will, I know I have far more sources today than ever before...even YOU are a (good) source!

     Media Start-Ups Aim to Build Content Capital

     By Shannon Henry

     Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page E01

     The future of technology in Washington may well be within the digital operations of some big, old players in our back yard: Discovery , National Geographic , The Washington Post , AOL and Gannett.

     Together, they create a sweet spot of new-fashioned media opportunity and a pocket of technology expertise akin to software or telecom. It's a natural evolution: Washington is not only a government town, but a city of information junkies. The presence of these dominant players is giving some techies hope for a new wave of start-ups and another niche -- a content capital -- to call their own.

     "We have existing assets and massive employers," says Mark A. Frantz , a principal with venture capital firm Carlyle Group in Washington, who says as an investor this is the most important local trend he's seeing. "We're not just a telecom, government, biotech town."

     Big media aims to stake its claim in two ways: acquisition and innovation.....

     Yet just because the big guys have brand names and cash doesn't mean they will beat the start-ups who can move faster on smaller budgets. The competition is not only about growth, but survival. Traditional media operations are seeing their audiences dwindle, just as younger customers are demanding real-time news and information.

     Washington-based bloggers are building an audience for political gossip, while local start-ups such as Digital Media Wire....Other local players not yet in the big leagues but worth watching include XM Satellite Radio and iBiquity, both in the radio industry.

     Other start-ups are emerging....

     Posted by Happy at 07/28/2007 @ 5:47pm

111. Posted by HAPPY 07/28/2007 @ 5:47pm

     The article is describing big media diversifying into other channels for their content. Interesting that you cite satellite radio - an industry that has two players and they are in talks to merge into a monopoly. If you looked at who owns radio stations and how that was impacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, you'd see how much you really don't want to talk about radio because it is the absolute worst example for your argument.

     Here if you are really interested in alternative viewpoints and don't care to read whole books, check out Fair's site:

     http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/28/2007 @ 7:17pm

112. Posted by SRJENKINS 07/28/2007 @ 7:17pm "The article is describing big media diversifying into other channels for their content."

     Amazing but consistent! For 2 nites in a row, you blow past your opponent's key points in your debate with HAPPY man!

     He posts an article "Media Start-Ups Aim to Build Content Capital" and the first thing you write IS "The article IS describing big media". OK, to be FAIR (and balanced), I checked out the Start-Up article and its thrust is exactly what the article title implies: start-ups and that big media actually spawns many such little guys wanting to do their own new things.

     The stark reality is big media is sucking wind. Go check circulation figures for the liberal NYT or viewship for the big three, CBS/NBC/ABC News. Even if ABC, NBC, and CBS combines today, their single-entity viewership will be no greater than sum of their current separate viewerships. Their viewpoints won't change much either since they all lean the same way now. Combined, they can for sure eliminate a bunch of news crews and equipments, sell surplus airwaves and dump overpriced Curic!

     Posted by is is IS at 07/28/2007 @ 11:52pm

113. little media is suck up and transformed by big media. Take rupert murdock for example. he buys perfectly good news outlets and turns them into something that plays right into the hamster psychosis.

     and you hamsters eat it up

     Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 12:01am

114. Posted by IS IS IS 07/28/2007 @ 11:52pm

     What exactly is Happy's key point I'm blowing past? Or better yet, what is your point? Your posts require so much guesswork as to almost be unreadable. But let's give it the ol' college try shall we?

     You admit that many start-ups are spawned by big media. Apparently, you think big media is a company like the New York Times a company that owns the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe and about 15 other newspapers. Their nine television stations? Sold them. Their two radio stations? Also sold them. Who did they sell them to? And what relationship do they have to an actual big media company such as...Disney?

     Perhaps you have heard of the actual big media companies such as AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, News Corp., Viacom, or Vivendi Universal? It would be a good exercise for you to find out, of the broadcast TV stations you speak of - who owns them? I'll even help you, try this website:

     http://www.cjr.org/resources/

     Why exactly do you think these companies promote a liberal agenda? If you use the old saw about how reporters are liberal, how to you account for the fact that this perspective somehow trumps the perspective of ownership, of the business interests that advertise in that media, etc.?

     What does it mean for News Corp to have a X% share of voice in a particular market? Can you tell me why that is important?

     I'll also point out that the New York Times is not a liberal newspaper. I'll use Fair again.

     http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=1

     Combined, they can for sure eliminate a bunch of news crews and equipments, sell surplus airwaves and dump overpriced Curic!

     And once this is done, supposedly other people are going to move in and provide news? Different viewpoints? What then? You see the problem even in your badly thought out scenario. My whole point here is that consolidation eliminates capacity and range of expression - and while "debating" this point, you provide a perfect example of it.

     Would you like to stop before you dig yourself an even deeper hole?

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/29/2007 @ 10:33am

115. JAMES BAKER, for the love of God, says diplomacy requires talking to people who oppose you. If he can figure this out, why can't we?

     As if ignoring Castro, or Qadafi, or Kim Jong Il, has worked.

     Get a grip!

     Posted by chuck c at 07/29/2007 @ 10:54am

116. SRJ: What exactly is Happy's key point....

     Media consolidations, like in any major industry, is a normal and inevitable part of business!!!!

     Media consolidation has NOT led to fewer sources of news or opinions. In truth, technology has led to an explosion of sources that are globally available and has led to an effective system of checks and balances on Old Media's traditional propensity to spin hard news into propaganda.

     SRJ: You admit that many start-ups are spawned by big media....

     Media start-ups by industry veterans or brand new comers, like in any major industry, is a normal and inevitable part of business!!!!

     SRJ: Perhaps you have heard of the actual big media companies such as...

     Vertical integration and cross-investing in related sectors is a normal and inevitable part of major industries!

     I hope you are getting a feel for the "key points" I habe been making!

     SRJ: I'll also point out that the New York Times is not a liberal newspaper....

     This is a laughable claim! I suppose I can spend the rest of the week to track down the last 100 candidates-for-office the NYT endorsed or major social issues it took a stand on, and document to you that the NYT is definitively Non-Conservative nor even Centrist....what does that leave? IMO, the libs one big problem w/the NYT stems almostly entirely from its endorsement of the Iraq War at the onset and the blogosphere's rapid rise these past few years have blinded you to the NYT's core `competency'!

     SRJ: My whole point here is that consolidation eliminates capacity and range of expression....

     I agree with the first part, "eliminates capacity", since it is the essence of `consolidation'....to eliminate surplus production capacity by shuttering the least efficient `factories'! While we agree on this aspect, the effect of actually eliminating capacity, is very different in Old Industries as compared to New Industries. MASK had used the example of the old makers of buggy whips on me before and I think you get what I mean without getting into it in detail here.

     And finally, I did take a look at the FAIR site you cited. I've heard of it a number of times but our `debate' led me to check it out for the first time. Reading its 9 `Issues', I can see some partial agreements on individual Issues while recognizing its undertones of anti-capitalism. Taking the 9 Issues together, I am much more alarmed! It is basically advocating the Venezuela model of publicly funded media to battle the greedy corporations who pervade and provide the money our traditional medias rely upon. Now, knowing more about FAIR, I consider it a dangerous organization!

     Posted by Happy at 07/29/2007 @ 12:06pm

117. Happy, your basic premise is laughable. Consolidation of existing media occurs independently of any techological inovations and spinoffs. Start-ups media outlets using new technologies might give you a happy tummy since it allows your to make a point opposite from SR. But that advantage is temporary. It's only a matter of time before those who are in the business of consolidating our media are in the market for these startups.

     then your point is lost

     Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 12:37pm

118. Happy,

     1. Al Qaeda is not a nation. The idea behind meeting the leader of the country is that there are ways you can pressure/threaten this person to change policy. Obviously that's not an option here.

     2. I'm not going to get into why Bill decided to bomb the Sudan (not Libya) b/c quite honestly I don't know if we even know that answer today. I'm not here to defend Clinton - he was quite possibly one of the worst presidents as far as US foreign policy, in my opinion.

     Posted by highgrade at 07/29/2007 @ 2:12pm

119. Posted by HAPPY 07/29/2007 @ 12:06pm

     I'll respond briefly. I understand your points. The other poster made a false claim that I wasn't addressing them, so I was asking him to be specific rather than hiding behind vagueness.

     Media is a different industry. You only have to look at the history of postal rates for periodicals and newspapers to see an example.

     http://action.freepress.net/freepress/postal_explanation.html

     You make claims that somehow this is normal - yet you don't address any of the problems I have raised. For example, can you tell me which major paper presents a point of view based on communism, socialism, libertarian, anarchist, environmentalist, end-times Christianity, peace or pick your ideology of choice? You can't because major media outlets only support a narrow range of interests - the fact that you share these interest makes it invisible to you.

     I can say for certain that The New York Times, from my perspective, is little different than most other U.S. papers. If you define the political world by the narrow range that passes as political discourse in this country, you might be able to argue that the paper leans more to the left within the context of that range - but that doesn't make it a leftist paper, simply leftist relative to the right wing media universe to which it is part (but still right-wing). A universe that has to respond to business interests in the same way you find reprehensible if it is the government that is involved. So tell me, why does business get a free pass on something you find intolerable if it were the government doing it?

     Here's a simple example that illustrates the narrow range of expression. Can you tell me which paper came out for peace in 2002 when Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq? Can you tell me which one is pushing peace now? Why do you think that is? Doesn't that suggest to you that business as usual is perhaps a problem in this space and actually undermines democracy itself?

     Not that I am a fan of Chavez, but your characterization is incorrect. Try this article:

     http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=12986

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/29/2007 @ 7:07pm

120. Ah Newt making noise. Well, Newt is shrewd. An woman and an black man is a prescription for disaster. America isn't ready. Even if this Climton - Obama ticket wins, there shall be not a lot of good things. No more getting two for price of one. Read this.

     ----------- Gingrich Predicts Clinton-Obama Ticket WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats will nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2008 and Barack Obama will be her running mate, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicts.

     The GOP will have three "formidable" choices in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, said Gingrich, who is considering whether to get into the race. Gingrich is ruling out John McCain's chances among the Republican contenders

     Posted by Helen DAO at 07/29/2007 @ 9:29pm

121. The theory is that IF the President of the USA meets with Kim Jong-il, Ahmadinejad, etc.....with no pre-set agenda, no preliminary meetings, no PRE-negotiated terms for any accord or treaty....that "some good" will come from it.

     But what if it doesn't? What if "President Obama" takes off for Geneva to meet with Ahmadinejad...or Manilla with Kim Jong-il...and they demand this or that, and Obama says no (hopefully no "Chamberlain-Munich moments")....what has happened?

     Well, the bad guys are now elevated to equal status and then have now shown that they, not the President, are in charge and more important.

     Now, I realize that to the "America is no better than anybody else, even under Obama's Administration" types....no problem.

     But to our allies, friends, even to the enemies...that means that any tin-pot dictator of a country with a population less than the Greater Los Angeles area, can run rough-shod over us...and even them.

     And THAT is naive and dangerous....and David Corn's point!

     Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 11:00pm

122. Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 11:00pm

     sweety, what if they just had lunch

     Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2007 @ 11:10pm

123. And THAT is naive and dangerous....and David Corn's point!

     Posted by MASK 07/29/2007 @ 11:00pm

     Glad you agree w/me! Damn, how would David, a sane uber Liberal, fare without us!

     Posted by Happy at 07/30/2007 @ 10:40am

124. Let this be the end of this debate series.....I trust we both heard some valid points without fundamentally changing our views.

     SRJ: can you tell me which major paper presents a point of view based on communism, socialism, libertarian, anarchist, environmentalist, end-times Christianity, peace or pick your ideology of choice? You can't because major media outlets only support a narrow range of interests - the fact that you share these interest makes it invisible to you.

     You covered you question well by including "major"...It is a valid point that a capitalist economy will not produce "major" media catering to MINOR viewpoints. However, it is fully capable of supporting subscription-based MINOR media, like The Nation!

     SRJ: ...The New York Times, from my perspective, is little different than most other U.S. papers.....A universe that has to respond to business interests in the same way you find reprehensible if it is the government that is involved. So tell me, why does business get a free pass on something you find intolerable if it were the government doing it?

     The NYT, along with WaPo, WSJ and LA Times...would hardly consider themselves little different than most other U.S. papers....and their consolidation under one ownership is something I, along with the Feds, would oppose! They are the Leaders of the MSM, print & online!

     I believe Business vs. Gov't controls are very different, and I also don't buy your view that "business get a free pass". Businesses compete with each other directly or indirectly. Even in the same telecast, say an NFL game, multiple car/beer ads are aired. And, networks don't seem to shy away from a healthy dose of investigative shows exposing, or often, maligning, businesses. I have been ticked off on countless occasions by unwarranted, slanderous hit pieces!

     Posted by Happy at 07/30/2007 @ 11:02am

125. Obviously related to the SRJ vs. HAPPY debate on Media.......

     Citizen journalism website gets multi-million-dollar boost

     Jul 30 03:39 AM US/Eastern

     NowPublic announced Monday that the fast-growing citizen journalism website has scored 10.6 million dollars (US) in financing to fuel its drive to become the world's largest news agency.

     The Vancouver-based start-up says it is growing at a rate of 35 percent monthly and has nearly 120,000 contributing "reporters" in more than 140 countries.

     In part of a trend referred to as "citizen journalism," NowPublic lets anyone with digital cameras or a camera-enable mobile telephones upload images or news snippets for dissemination via the Internet.

     Time Magazine lists NowPublic among its top 50 websites of 2007.

     "I promise you, in 18 months NowPublic will be, by reach, the largest news agency in the world," start-up co-founder Len Brody told AFP.

     "The most exciting thing for us is this started as an experiment in a garage behind a house and we are breaking stories and changing the news business."

     The financing is led by Rho Ventures in the United States and Canada.....

     Posted by Happy at 07/30/2007 @ 2:45pm

126. Posted by HAPPY 07/30/2007 @ 2:45pm

     Why does this give me a moment of deja vu?

     http://newstandardnews.net/

     Never argued that newspapers should consolidate - the opposite in fact. Do a content analysis of these papers and make the case that they are different. You can't.

     Again, you don't understand how media works - as is demonstrated by your comments regarding competing brands buying media time in the same media - and why treating it as just another business is dangerous to democratic institutions.

     I'll make an analogy and leave it at that. There is a reason why we don't run our institutions of justice around a profit model (courts, prisons, etc.). There is a reason why the U.S. has a standing army and doesn't rely on mercenaries. Being informed is just as important to a democratic society as justice and self-defense. The error you are making is assuming information is a commodity - like oil - and it isn't.

     If I can control the information, I can control the premises. If I can control the premises, I can control the conclusions. It's really just that simple.

     Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 3:44pm

127. In my opinion, Hilary Clinton won the debate hands down. She demanded the attention of the audience, having the strongest stage presence and the most thought-out and well articulated responses. Yet, I would have liked to see all the candidates address the United States' commitment to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion annually would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.

     Posted by Jessica09 at 07/30/2007 @ 6:54pm

128. Scandal and heated debates between candidates often consumes the media and campaign spotlights. Thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House. There are critical topics of greater importance that I would like to see our candidate address each other and to the public, especially with the issue of global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

     Posted by Mstessyrue at 07/30/2007 @ 8:26pm

129. Posted by HAPPY 07/30/2007 @ 10:40am

     Sure, HAPP. But don't let it go to your head. I'm sure neither I nor David Corn would agree with your views on Iraq or "The Surge".

     One of the most damaging thing to the Left on foreign policy is the image (fair or unfair) that they are naive when dealing with various bad guys. Chamberlain waiving the Munich Agreement easily thrown in their faces.

     Many here who chastise Mr Corn come off that way. Fortunately, I don't think they will ever be in positions of power in the Democratic Party.

     Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 10:12pm