Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Barack Obama Must Be Defeated

I have made no secret in posting to this blog that I have a favorite candidate for President--one who I think is overwhelmingly likely to be nominated by the Democratic party and probably elected President. But, as a good Democrat, I would likely support almost anyone that the Democrats nominated for President. I, as of today, have serious doubts about whether I could, in good conscience, pull a lever for Barack Obama.

We live in dangerous times, and people of seriousness are required to lead us. Experience is not a bad word and it should be valued in potential commanders-in-chief. Good judgement is key. Obama demonstrates none of the above.

In the last three weeks, he has promised to meet with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il in the first year of an Obama Presidency, he has taken the use of nuclear weapons (ever) off the table, he has advocated invading Pakistan in certain circumstances. All of these claims and promises are not only inconsistent with each other in some ways, but they are also extremely bad policy.

Yesterday, with this statement about the war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama went too far:

We've got to get the job done there,and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

In uttering this statement, Obama has lost the Presidential election. If he were to be the nominee of the Democratic party, the Republican filth machine would use this quote in advertising with a frequency so great that we would all be able to recite it. And they would not be wrong. Because, as bad as the Bush execution of the war in Afghanistan has been, as bad as their policy has been there- this is not the policy. I don't like George Bush. He is as bad a President as we have seen in modern times. But his policy is not the indescriminate creation of collateral damage. I am sure that that has happened, but it is not the intent. Futher, and most importantly, this comment comes very close to being a slander of our troops. That has never won an election, not even in 1968. A candidate who is willing to do this should never win an election.

In fact, the utterly justified piling on has begun. Governor Romney, no great font of seriousness himself, had plenty to say about this today. Others will follow.

I thought for a while that Obama was suffering from a naivete that was to be expected of a first-term Senator who had bitten off more ego than he could chew by running for President. But the truth is, I don't know of many other Senators, of any length of service, who would say things that are quite this bizarre with such alarming frequency. It does not speak well of Barack Obama, and it would be a death knell for the party in next year's elections. And, as I pointed out, we would deserve it.

We have other good options. I have a favorite, but I could vote for Dodd or Biden. I could cast my lot with Richardson if circumstances required. The same is true of almost every other Democratic candidate. I think that we would be making a severe mistake in nominating Obama. He had demonstrated that he has only a cursory understanding of extremely important foreign policy issues, and starlingly bad judgement in what he says about them.

The last time we elected a President with such a dearth of experience, with such wreckless disregard for good policy, and who lacks basic good judgement, we got George W. Bush. We don't need to repeat that mistake, regardless of party.

Video of Obama's statement on Afghanistan.

No comments: