For those of you who actually think Obama could ever beat McCain, please explain one thing to me

[mtnsnake]

Explain to me how Barack Obama is going to portray himself in a General Election as being hawkish enough to protect the fence-sitting voters from those horrible terrorists who are about to come storming into their living rooms. In a General Election during a wartime situation, if you don't think that Obama is going to have to show that he can be hawkish when necessary, then you are simply living in a state of denial in La La Land. The Primaries are one thing. The General Election will be a totally different ballgame.

There's a reason that the Mainstream Media is setting up this entire Obama/McCain catastrophe.

It's to ensure 8 more years of Republican rule.

All that the Corporate Media has to do to assure themselves the good life for another 8 years is to make sure that Barack Obama, the dove of the Democrats, goes up against the hawk of the Republicans, John McCain. They know that in a time of war the Dove will get trounced by the Hawk. That much is a given. The corporate media also knows that Hillary Clinton is just hawkish enough that she'd have the only chance of beating the Republican hawk during a time of war.

So if and when you can explain to me how Barack Obama is going to be a better protector of the sheeple than John McCain is, please don't change the subject by telling me how McCain is too old, a lousy speaker, or he has a wife with creatures living in her hair...because those who do so are sorely underestimating this guy. Instead, deal in reality, and tell me how Obama is going to present himself as hawkish enough, when necessary, to win the General Election during a time of war.

[newmajority]

1. Why don't we debunk the "War on Terra" fairytale then?

The only terrorists who have ever attacked this country are the ones who were born here. Well, at least since the 1800's anyway.

[WCGreen]

10. I don't believe the 9/11 terrorists went to Ohio State and were

raised in the Heartland...

Sure we have our own home grown terorists, but please think just a minute before you post...

[leftynyc]

33. I don't understand what you're saying

15 were from Saudi Arabia and I believe 2 from Egypt, 1 from UAE and 1 from a country in north Africa (Sudan maybe). Or are you a conspiracy theorist?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

54. yea, not sure I know what you mean there. - nt

[Greenwood]

115. If you truly believe that you are a scary person...

And live in a fantasy world.

Wow.

[jakem]

2. isnt the idea to undermine the concept of needing to be 'hawkish'?

i would prefer that we stop playing the pissing game.

[debatepro]

120. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

Obama is challenging the mindset that got us into the war in the first place...

[jakem]

131. do i win fabulous prizes?!

oh, nevermind. ill settle for fabulous government!

[backscatter712]

3. Maybe because only the 23-percenters actually fall for the TERRAR line anymore.

The rest of the country, the ones who are sick of war and death and torture and wiretaps, are going to vote for Obama or Clinton.

[Schema Thing]

6. There ya go, mtnsnake.

[mtnsnake]

9. Sorry, that didn't explain how he'll do it one iota. n/t

[leftynyc]

35. That's using the assumption that

there wont be another terrorist attack before November. With Bush in office, how much are willing to pin on that hope?

[mzmolly]

92. I am not convinced. As we know, the Osama tapes rear their heads just before the GE

and the media hypes the notion that a wrong war was somehow what has "protected merika."

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. all he has to say is

"See this guy right here (pointing to McCain) he wants your great grandkids to be fighting in Iraq. I want to bring the troops home."

The End.

[avrdream]

70. All McCain has to say is:

"See this guy here, he isn't interested in your safety." You know it will stick.

[WCGreen]

5. Don't you know...

He will reach across the aisle and talk to the terrorists...

We are sick of inter-cultural bickering...

Why can't we all get along...

:evilgrin:


I'm not all that sure that other than voting for the war to begin with, Hillary has enough hawkish cred either...

[mtnsnake]

7. Several replies and no one can explain how he'll do it yet. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

8. Remember when everyone was bashing him here for stating his

willingness to fight terror over the Pakistan border on actionable intelligence (which Benazir Bhutto actually agreed with)? Funny, now, that anyone would present him as weak on terra.

[TwilightGardener]

19. By the way, my answer is this: Acknowledge that terrorism is a serious threat

(he's done that, didn't say it was a "bumper sticker" like Edwards did, thank God), present a plan to fight terrorism (he's done that, and he'll re-present that policy in the General), tell people he's not trying to scare them but instead give them a realistic picture of the threat against us (he's done that, and will continue to do so), and highlight his reliance on counter-terror and military experts' opinions to inform his views. A national-security/foreign policy VP wouldn't hurt either.

[mtnsnake]

65. Thank you for your suggestions that are geared towards this problem

If Obama is nominated, and I think there's a very good chance he will be, we're going to have to do tons more of the same kind of strategy that you're mentioning in your post, but we're going to have to find ways to even go much further than that during occasions during the general election that will call for it so the sheeple will be as comfortable with our nominee as they will be with McCain in terms of them feeling protected. It's going to be tough be we need to be prepared for it or we'll lose.

[Bonobo]

11. Your first sentence spoke volumes about you and the reason you vote for your candidate.

"Explain to me how Barack Obama is going to portray himself in a General Election as being hawkish enough to protect the fence-sitting voters from those horrible terrorists who are about to come storming into their living rooms."

That said a lot that you would ask that.

[mtnsnake]

13. I'm plenty secure enough not to give a rats ass about what you think of me or my reasons. n/t

[Bonobo]

15. I don't care if you don't care. Your loose lips let it all go.

[mtnsnake]

21. I care, just not about you or your history of posting bullshit.on this forum.

[Bonobo]

30. Whatever. You admitted your candidate poses as a warmonger for political impact.

You were right.

[mtnsnake]

37. I admitted no such thing. I said she is JUST hawkish enough to give her a chance to beat McCain

in a general election.

[pampango]

81. And now the political wisdom of her IWR becomes apparent for all to see.

She can say to us (the left) that she regrets that vote (or whatever verbiage she is using currently), but, as I understand the current spin, that vote proves that she is hawkish enough to win over the vast multitudes of scared Americans who want protection.

If Hillary would approve of this justification of why she voter for the IWR. It was all about politics and proving you are tough enough to be president.

[Cant trust em]

46. that's mtnsnake's thing

He sets up ridiculous premises in his questions. He loves the straw man tactic.

[mtnsnake]

47. You might think my premise is "ridiculous". I would call it realistic.

After we're into the general election, let me know if I was wrong about our candidate having to take on a more hawkish attitude during said election.

[Cant trust em]

55. My response is #51

I've noticed you setting up straw men in other posts too. I think it's against DU rules to specifically call these out, so I'll let it lie.

Our candidate will have to be hawkish enough. The heat of the post-9/11 landscape has cooled off a bit so we don't need to push it as hard as we used to. Polls have indicated that people's primary concern now is the economy. Moreover, we can paint John McCain as being out of touch with reality when he calls for us being there for 50-100 more years. There's also the bomb-bomb-bomb Iran comments. He's insane and we'll be pointing that out, turning his strength into a weakness.

[FogerRox]

67. LOL.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Reject the premise as they said on West Wing

The whole idea of rampant, scary, wide-spread Islamic Jihad coming to get us is a symptom of a twisted world-view. For the most part, we've actually ignored the real problem spots in favor of a war that has increased the terror and strength of these particular terrorists.

There is no reason that a sane person cannot do a much better job handling our national security than a crazy person running scared from a bogeyman of his own party's invention. We absolutely need the opportunity to take a fresh look at the entire world situation, a fresh look at our national defense and armed forces, and a fresh look at our priorities.

What exactly is it that people will assume McCain provides them? War in Iraq for another 100 years? War with Iran? This is going to keep us safer somehow?

[mtnsnake]

17. Yes, it will take explaining like that to set the record straight, but

it's also going to take a balancing act of setting the record straight on this pathetic war as well as being able to convince the sheeple that we can protect them as well as McCain can. The former will be easy for Obama, but the latter will be next to impossible.

Good post, btw.

[JerseygirlCT]

40. Thanks

Well, maybe we underestimate the electorate. Perhaps they need to be presented with a cogent and calm view of our situation instead of the terra, terra, terra that's been the norm.

I agree with you - to some extent, maybe deep down, people want to hear "I'll keep you safe". Even when they're smart enough to know that no one can promise them that, ever.

[Skinner]

14. I think the political landscape has changed significantly since 2004.

In 2004, I pretty much agreed with the premise of your question. Our candidate needed to appear tough.

But I think the landscape has changed in 2008. Enough voters have come to realize that Bush exploited their fear of terrorism entirely for political expediency. And they understand that the ultimate result of that fearmongering is the Iraq War, which has been a disaster.

This year, the election will not be decided based on who is the toughest. There are many more important issues. For this reason, we do not have to have the "toughest" candidate. Our candidate just has to be tough enough, and both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have shown that they are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. One Need Only Look At The Monumental Failure That Was The Rudy Campaign.

9/11! 9/11! 9/11! Terra! Terra! Terra! is sooooooo 2004. That's why he failed so miserably. He committed to that being his only item in his bag of tricks, and the public as a whole completely and almost to embarrassing levels rejected it.

[Skinner]

28. I completely agree.

In fact, Rudy's campaign might well have helped voters realize that they were being manipulated.

[snappyturtle]

44. I agree with both of your replies. And, let's not forget that because

of our strong armed tactics we are really less safe than we were prior to 9/11. "Strength" on terror is not necessarily a virtue.

[mtnsnake]

39. I don't think that's why Rudy failed at all. I think he failed because of his moral issues

like anti-guns, anti-abortion and the conservative base would have none of that. If Gullini could have made it past the Primaries, I think he would've fared much better in the general election with his rah rah 911 crap. Thank God he didn't win the nod. He would have been dangerous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. If Rallying The Conservative Base Is What It Took To Do Better Than 2% In The Polls, Than McCain

would be fucked, no? McCain isn't exactly a conservative darling or anything.

I agree that what you say is part of it, but from my perspective I think the reasons why Rudy's campaign never got any teeth behind it is because he almost turned himself into his own walking saturday night live skit. He was so transparent, and so bad at repeating that 'terra' message, that I don't think many were able to ever take his campaign seriously. He walked around with this swagger trying to emulate the same type of '9/11' mystique that bush has been able to pull off, but he did it FAR worse. It was so fake, so transparent, such a mockery, that I don't think voters ever were able to really support him. I mean, it was bad. It was REALLLLLLLY bad.

There may well have been many reasons, which would make sense, but I think he turned himself into such a parrot-like caricature that it didn't take long for most in his party to just completely tune him out as a joke.

[FogerRox]

74. Was it Dodd that said the Noun and a verb comment ?

[immoderate]

99. Biden.

--IMM

[FogerRox]

104. Ahhh Biden, right.. I saw Rudy in NH before the Primary

He was a cartoon of himself. Disjointed sentences, shifting thru many themes, completing none.



Rudy cant hide the fact he is a freak, McCain hides it much better. In my mind this is why Rudy dropped out.

[immoderate]

112. Yeah, Rudy is out of control. The picture makes me LOL.

McCain seems like more of a human being. No I wouldn't vote for him.

--IMM

[mtnsnake]

34. I agree it won't be decided on who is the toughest, but I think it will take a balancing act

Both of our candidates are tough, yes, but one of them is a almost a pure dove when it comes situations of war and hawkishness. When the general election rolls around, I think the message will have to change somewhat for him, just as it always does during all other general elections. Being a dove is fine for the primaries but not so easy for the GE to be a pure dove.

If Obama can't balance himself between getting us out of Iraq and creating the perception that he'll protect us as well as McCain will, then I think he'll be at a huge disadvantage, considering we'll still be at war during the election and that there are really people out there who still want to hurt us.

[Skinner]

42. Obama has already shown himself to be an extremely effective messenger.

Perhaps the best I have ever seen in my relatively short life.

I have little doubt that if he is the nominee, he will be able to modify his message however he needs to. He certainly isn't going to be positioning himself as a dove, as much as some DUers might want him to.

[mtnsnake]

57. Oh for sure. That's why I was so turned onto him when he first appeared on the scene

My biggest pet peeve with our people is that they have never been able to get the message across to the voters, such as never being able to explain clearly that we Democrats will not take more money out of the pockets of the voters than Republicans will. We have never been able to get it across, or dumb it down enough, that we are not the tax-raising nazis that the Republicans always make us out to be.

Obama should improve our chances dramatically of getting the right message across on issues such as taxes, etc, however I can't see how he'll convince of the sheeple that he can be hawkish enough if the situation demands it.

[FogerRox]

86. What part of Super tuesday having 73% DEM turnout do you not insert into your formula ?

Obama or Clinton or WHO EVER, will not have to give your concerns much note, your issue simply wont have a top tier role in the general.

If you are right, Obama already has it covered. WE have far more serious issues in the general election, than yours to worry about.

[Bonobo]

50. Nice backpedalling, but...

You've been spanked by the Skin-man.

[mtnsnake]

58. Yeah whatever floats your boat.

Nice try...

[mzmolly]

102. I think this is true today, but it could change quickly IMHO?

I suggest he choose a "strong" VP? :hi:

[Armstead]

16. Accept that the GOP will paint EITHER candidate as a "Surrender Dove"

Hillary won't be insulated from that attack either. If she says she wants to get out of Iraq over the next year, they'll paint her as soft on terror too.

The people who are swayed by that crap towards Obama will be voting GOP anyway.

Better for Democrats to acknowledge that and offer a clear alternative to the 100 Year War Endless War agenda. Tough but smarter and less inclined to idiot militaristic ventures.

Obama is equally -- if not more -- qualified to do that as Clinton.

[Blue-Jay]

18. So.....Obama isn't hawkish enough to win?

That's what you're saying?

[DefenseLawyer]

20. Hey Bob Shrum

You may not realize this, but it isn't 2002. Your "conventional wisdom" about needing to be a "hawk" to win the general election is just plain wrong. You people have been feeding this line to Democrats, that they need to be Republican Lite for years, and it has always been wrong. Take Ross Perot out of the equation and conventional wisdom would be 0 for the last 6.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Not only that, but we can't "out-hawk" the ultimate hawk. Hillary might try it, but I hope not.

[mtnsnake]

61. Not saying we need to out-hawk, just be hawkish enough when the situation demands it

such as during the general election, during a time of war. The repukes are going to make it their theme again, the national security thing no doubt, and we'll need for our candidate to be flexible enough to come off sounding just hawkish enough to satisfy the doubters.

[TwilightGardener]

72. Obama has already done that to some extent--I've heard nothing

in his foreign policy/terror threat speeches and positions that suggest he wouldn't hit hard against a threat or an attack. I'm very pro-strong defense, myself--my husband is a career military officer. I don't like Obama because he's a dove, I like him because he's a common-sense guy and just hawk enough, as you say.

[mtnsnake]

45. I didn't say you need to be a hawk. I said you need to be JUST hawkish enough at times

when the situation calls for it, such as during a general election when there will definitely be times when Obama will have to sound a little on the hawkish side in order to comfort the sheeple.

[snooper2]

24. Why don't I let Barack tell you...

Barack Obama's Plan
Ending the War in Iraq
Judgment You Can Trust: As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq:
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.


Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.


Humanitarian Initiative: Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.


Iran
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.


Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack
Iran.


Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


Renewing American Diplomacy
The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.


Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.


Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.


Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.


Fight Global Poverty: Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. He will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.


Strengthen NATO: Obama will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.


Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.


Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.


Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.


Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.


Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.


Building a 21st Century Military
The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.


Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.


New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.


Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Bipartisanship and Openness
The Problem: Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.
A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.


Consultative Group: Obama will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.


Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.
Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. He will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.


On Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

[DemGa]

25. The Republicans will magically nod in accord with Obama

You see in this new paradigm shift, Republicans will accept progressive proposals with a new found spirit of camaraderie.

Why is this so? Sorry, I have absolutely no idea.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Ha!

:spray:

[soundguy]

26. Dude you are so correct.

McCain can and will honestly be able to say. While I was being tortured in a prison camp Obama was going to school in Hawaii smoking weed and snorting coke. He was more committed to doing drugs than serving his country. Devastating, and if that were to happen in a debate he would start stuttering and disintegrate right before our very eyes.

It is sad because the Obamatrons think because they can keep our own party out of this debate they will be able to in the general...It will be a massacre.

And P.S. I followed the Obamatron instructions and got this information from his books.

[mtnsnake]

85. thanks, and what you said is exactly what the repukes will do

If we're not prepared for it this time, we never will be. That's why we need be talking about it now. The rightwing machine always seems to be 3 steps ahead of us in strategy.

[immoderate]

103. A weed-smoking, coke-snorting six year old sounds pretty tough to me.

Your time line's a little off.

--IMM

[dionysus]

27. he'll counter that perception with his joint chiefs of staff appointments...

Brewer and Shipley!

this time in Dutch!

één toke over lijn zoete mtnsnake, één toke over de lijn.

de stad in zich bevindt bij de DLC post, één toke over de lijn...

[Alamom]

83. He has to get past McCain & elected first. That's the point of the OP. nm

[dionysus]

101. just a running joke i have with snake :-0

[Orangepeel]

29. No Democratic candidate can beat McCain on the war on terror

If he and Clinton end up having a hawk-off about who is best able to kill the terrorists, we've already lost. She can portray herself as as hawkish as she wants, she isn't going to out-hawk McCain.

If our candidate is going to win, he/she will have to count on those voters who place more importance on domestic issues and convince the others that terrorism is best combated by going after the right people. That won't be easy for either of our nominees. I personally believe that our best chance is by broadening the electorate and bringing in new voters who weren't motivated by fear and terror in past elections. Obama will be best at that.

[FogerRox]

71. Stop it with your damned logic and rational thinking, OY

[mtnsnake]

94. I'm not saying anyone has to out-hawk him, just be able to compete when necessary.

but you do make valid points. Thanks

[FogerRox]

106. Heres another fundamental point

Terrorism is not a military organization, it should not be fought against by the US Army, Marines and Air Force. This is what Bush did, and large numbers of the electorate are coming to the conclusion that throwing the military into the breach as Bush did, is not going to work.

I think that if the voting public hears a candidate who even suggests throwing the US Military into the breach again, as part of their Foreign Policy, that candidate will suffer in the polls on election day in November. The candidate most likely to make this mistake is John McCain.

McCain has a rep as a hawk, so he cant reinvent himself as a non-hawk, but yet his consultants must be aware of the need to distance McCain from Bush as far as the throwing the military into the breach frame is concerned.

SO if you think that Obama has a potential problem, you have not considered the overall paradigm, and how McCains problems are far larger and more numerous.

I first volunteered in a campaign in '72, for McGovern. More recently I have got back into it, as the Field Operations Director for Tom Wyka for Congress (NJ11). Politics have changed greatly since 2004. Hillary is running a 1990's style campaign, much as Kerry did, and Gore, and Bill Clinton. Whats changed since '04 is the grass roots, we are now actually running for office, running campaigns. We win by knocking on doors, talking to people face to face, not by buying ad time on TV.

In 2006 60% voted DEM, in these primaries.... the number on tuesday was 73%. If this turnout pattern holds even remotely the same.... we're looking at nearly 60 DEMs in the senate, and not a 32 seat majority in the house but a 38 to 52 seat majority in the house.

[mtnsnake]

127. Not just another, but several

fundamental points.

In your first point you make, I've been wondering for so long why our Democrats don't do a better job of getting that message across. Trouble is, nobody is willing to buy into this logic. Instead, they, the candidates themselves, even, continue to do it the old fashioned way: they vote to fund the war instead.

I also agree how knocking on doors is the way to go. I've been a firm believer in that for ages. It's harder work, but it pay off in big dividends.

[FogerRox]

132. Um, opps sorry, that first issue is a prime one.

I've been wondering for so long why our Democrats don't do a better job of getting that message across. Trouble is, nobody is willing to buy into this logic.

If you mean Iraq is not the war on terror, we've been building that frame for nearly 4+ years. And I think using the US Military against terrorists, becomes one of those self realizing epiphanies, a finesse issue. Some things are left better unsaid, I think this is one issue
(using the US Military against terrorists) that fits the bill.

Plus, as I said in my earlier comment, McCain will likely be the first to make that mistake. If he does..... All Obama has to say is.... Al Qaeda is not a military organization, so using the US Military against Al Qaeda wont work, we've had 7 years of Bush trying and haven't gotten very far, for good reason. Apparently my esteemed opponent hasn't learned that lesson. If this moment does occur, McCains campaign will die on the vine.

Instead, they, the candidates themselves, even, continue to do it the old fashioned way: they vote to fund the war instead.

That was a strategic decision, one that I have not exactly accepted myself, though it appears that it will pay off in Nov.

I also agree how knocking on doors is the way to go. I've been a firm believer in that for ages. It's harder work, but it pay off in big dividends.

Yeah well, its back in vogue after a multi decade hiatus. And because of that, I think Obama will be the leader in delegates going into the convention, because of the boots on the ground. A ground game can mean 5 pts on election day.

[desi]

31. With Romney bailing out there is no doubt whatsoever

that the Lunatic McCainiac will be the Repuke candidate/victor if the wimp Obama is our candidate. The Rove machine will tear him up by just repeating the NY Post endorsement of Obama, the Empty Suit.

Rupert Murdoch's NY Post January 30, 2008
We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

[Cleita]

32. Hopefully neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will fall

into that trap. They need to change the conversation to future progress, bringing back jobs and the American Dream. They shouldn't let the campaign deteriorate into war talk. They need only to briefly state that they will do what needs to be done to insure national security and to bring the troops back from war ASAP.

Also, Hillary was on the right track stating that it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush. Obama can borrow this by saying it takes a Democrat to clean up after a Republican and they have to point out relentlessly what the mess is, a specific list of all the wrongdoings of Bush and his rubber stamp Congress.

[cooolandrew]

36. He need not compromise just behispositive self. People just like him.

[reality based]

38. You have a legitimate question.

Americans want a person who has the perception and nerve to defend us. The Republicans successfully swiftboated a bonafide war hero last election because he didn't have the wisdom to recognize the seriousness of their attack. They are undoubtedly thinking up ways to go after our candidates again on this tried and true tactic (remember Dukakis who tried to blunt it with a ride in the tank?). The Obama propensity to walk on tough votes as well as his light national defense credentials will give them an opening.

[mtnsnake]

100. I think so, and I think we need to start preparing for any of our weaknesses asap.

....and I couldn't agree more with your post.

[Kokonoe]

41. HUUUHHHHH "he can be hawkish when necessary"

WTF are you delusional. Obama is against the war. America is against the war. Hillary was against it too when it's necessary to acknowledge republican paid polls.

[nolabels]

69. The idea of having peace through strength has been a US military doctrine....

since before WWII started. The idea of losing your identity because of fear is seldom contemplated. With that in mind a 2 to 1 winning vote margin is a scary thing that a McCain will have to keep in mind also. A worse shellacking than took place in 2006 would be a big problem for the GOP The cry of wolf could backfire and it kind of already has lately.

[FogerRox]

107. Easy there. The Iraqi war is not the war on terror.

And theres a lot more to Foreign policy than "IRAQ".

[RiverStone]

43. The fear card is not going to work in 08....

And your assuming it will.

The Dems will win because enough folks finally get the smoke and mirror routine that the pukes have tossed out our way the last 7 years.

We can see how they manipulated the tragedy of 911 to distract John Q. Public from a looming national debt greater than any in our country's history, a misguided and immoral war, the housing sub-prime disaster, and a loss of jobs to oversea markets.

The fear card will not work this time!

Both Obama and Clinton can trump that - though IMO, Obama has the greater opportunity to reach the indies and disaffected pukes.

In the end, either Barrack or Hillary will be speaking to a Senate and Congress with bigger majorities!

I'm confident in that. :)

[elixir]

48. I know you're looking for answers on whether BO can beat JC but you reminded me

of a strong suit of HRCs - the economy and foreclosures. I could be wrong but I think the market in general, housing in specific is looking pretty bad for the next 12 months. By summer home sales should be in the toilet - HRC is addressing this head on, is McCain? I don't know but I haven't heard anything. Also, HRC has a specific plan to stimulate the economy, I'm not sure if McCain has these type of plans to articulate... I'm going to check his website and come back....

[flpoljunkie]

49. Well, for starters, how about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if Musharraf fails to act.

Obama was roundly criticized by Hillary's camp for this "hawkish" statement--envious because Hillary hadn't said it, I guess.

I think the time has past for Republicans to see the occupation of Iraq as "war on terror" to the American people. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us!

[mtnsnake]

78. Yes, for sure he'll have to have more rhetoric like that

Just the same, I think Obama will be at a severe advantage going up against McCain, because Barack is generally considered such a dove by comparison, and during a time of warfare that might create a big problem during a general election when the repukes get their flags out waving and their rah-rah war songs in full chorus. Don't get me wrong, I'd take the smart dove anytime and twice on Sunday over a warmonger like McCain, but I think it's going to be tough for Obama to compete in terms of national security for purposes of getting elected. I have full confidence in him that he could be just as good on that issue as McCain, but will the sheeple feel that way?

But thanks, your reply is the kind of thing I was hoping for.

[Tellurian]

130. somewhat off topic.. ;)

So to recap how we've gotten where we are today:

Aw right!.. Obama has won all the Red Caucus States and I think CT is a (Primary Vote state)

OTOH- ....Hillary has Won all the Big Dem based States who cast votes in a Primary...

So, ..... When the GE happens all the Red States will go to McCain and any states that tipped in the Primary for Hillary v Obama and any Republicans that "changed" Party for the Primary and Voted for Obama will go to McCain too!.

So how do we Win against McCain, when Obama's candidacy is actually a false positive based on a high percentage of Republican Support.

Come the General Election, when they all the Red States turn against Obama and VOTE McCain, McCain wins in a landslide.

Isn't another Republican presidency something we are fighting against?

Just a thought.. let the gnashing of teeth begin..

[Cant trust em]

51. He's got a great line for Pakistan

When I (Obama) have actionable intelligence, I will act on it. I've always felt satisfied with his talking points in debates. Particularly when he hammers home the idea that we need to pull troops out of Iraq and put them into Afghanistan where they are needed. I welcome the questions on his commander in chief ideas. It will help round out his candidacy.

[Greyskye]

56. My Answer:

This thread that I just posted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4460819

I wouldn't have believed it.

[Enrique]

59. Pakistan!

[tinrobot]

60. Ummmm... 70% of the people are against the war.

How does being a pro-war hawk persuade that majority to vote for you?

[mtnsnake]

64. Oh geez, I never said anything about pushing for a pro-war hawk. "Just hawkish enough"

is what I said, and I mean it for when the situation during the general election calls for our candidate to sound like that (just hawkish enough). Okay? lol

[DURHAM D]

62. He has said a couple of times that he will do a preemptive strike if...

I don't think he has a problem in this area.

[incapsulated]

63. I agree with you and all it will take is something blowing up in the ME

Or Pakistan or god forbid, something here at home.

Then it is OVER.

There are a lot of other reasons why McCain is stronger than Obama, which I won't go into, like, oh, having a lifetime's worth more experience in hardball politics and being a sonofabitch who will ridicule and savage a rookie running on hope, rainbows, unicorns like Obama.

And here is one other thing: PEOPLE LIKE MCCAIN.

I don't give a rats ass what DU or the left think of him. Indies love him and his favorable ratings have remained consistently good even through his whole sellout to Bush.

He is going to be tough to beat.

[Benhurst]

73. Shh! Don't talk like that, incapsulated.

You're going to have the True Believers choking on their Kool-Aid.

[incapsulated]

84. heh

/stomps on some balloons for good measure

[smoogatz]

66. Show the footage, over and over, of McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb

bomb bomb Iran." Portray McCain as the giggling, out of control warmonger that he is. The slogan could be: "You Want Another Stupid War? McCain's Your Guy." In other words, turn McCain's perceived strength into a weakness.

[mtnsnake]

80. Yup, that is exactly the kind of strategical methods we're going to have to employ

but I think Obama will still have to find a way to convince the sheeple that he'll protect them as well as McCain.

Hows it goin, smoogatz :hi:

[smoogatz]

91. I'm good, man.

Working too damn hard, but good. You?

[mtnsnake]

95. Same here

Recovering the last few months from a serious injury to my right arm and have a month or two before I'm back to 80 or 90%, hopefully, then it's back to catching up and working too damn hard again, just like you, my friend. Take care

[smoogatz]

98. Sorry about the arm.

Glad to hear it's getting better.

[wiggs]

82. It would be nice to see dems take advantage of stuff like that. It's really not hard. And they

should also show the picture of McCains face buried in Bush's armpit over and over....

....this and every other issue is a winner for dems. All it takes is the will to say what needs to be said. Not dishonest or smearing, just the truth not triangulated or cautious.

[mtnsnake]

87. It really woudl, wouldn't it. Our people have been way WAY too nice to the repukes

[kristopher]

68. This is a legitimate question

Even though the country is rejecting the rabid right, the issue of defense is not only legitimate, it is Obama's greatest weakness.

However, I believe he can overcome the problem with this strategy:

1. Convince people that we are safer with competent, vigorous action on the diplomatic front. This goes along with placing the terrorist threat in its proper, noninflated perspective.
2. Selecting as a running mate someone with strong national defense credentials, like Jim Webb.

He will still get slammed by the rants of talk radio, but they really are becoming less relevant every day. (John McCain beat the crap out of them and put a (one single) nail in their coffin. (A few more nails are still needed, however.)

[Avalux]

75. Obama has convinced a lot of Democrats here that he's not a liberal.

Why can't he convince conservatives to vote for him?

[Radical Activist]

76. No Democrat is going to look more hawkish than McCain. Not Hillary or Obama.

You have to give people some other reason to vote FOR you. Covering your bases by looking tough and then not being as bad as the Republicans won't work this time.

Obama inspires people to vote for him for other reasons. What does Hillary offer?

[MadBadger]

77. Because he believes in putting some troops in Afghanistan?

[denem]

79. The Economy will be THE issue by November

[Benhurst]

88. If it is, Bush and the neo-cons will drag us into another war.

[incapsulated]

90. And who has the better record on that?

The rookie with no record or the person, yes I will say it, associated with the last period of time this country had a balanced budget and even a damned surplus?

[Obamaniac]

89. Do you honestly think...

...that what the American people want is more "hawkishness?"

Drink much kool-aid?

That's my serious problem with Hillary Clinton. I believe that she thinks this herself.

I think Obama needs to go out there and repudiate the war in Iraq, including McCain's surge; and denounce and fight against another stupid, ill conceived war against Iran.

Not get into a pissing contest as to who is the strongest candidate.

[mtnsnake]

97. Nope, not more hawkishness, just to have the capacity to come off

as being hawkish sounding ONLY when the occasions call for doing so, during a general election. I'm not at all saying we need to get into a pissing contest over who's the most hawkish, but I am going to take you up on your idea of drinking some kool-aid. I've worked up a thirst! :evilgrin:

PS: Welcome to the forum

[FogerRox]

109. I think that if the voting public hears a candidate who even suggests

throwing the US Military into the breach again, as part of their Foreign Policy, that candidate will suffer in the polls on election day in November. The candidate most likely to make this mistake is John McCain.

[mzmolly]

93. There is only one way. He has to choose a Clark or a Webb or ? for a VP.

Someone with the credentials to "protect" America.

[mtnsnake]

96. Oh for absolute absolute absolute sure. n/t

[hill08]

105. Expect the shift in TV coverage of Obama

I believe that now that there is a clear Republican nominee, the media will have to give Obama less advertising time since they will need to start building the positive image of McCain. Expect the shift in reporting in the coming weeks. It will suddenly dawn upon the TV pundits that Obama IS an empty suit after all.

[Occam Bandage]

108. Yeah, gee, we'll accept the right-wing frame and try to run with it. That worked really well for

John Kerry.

Oh, no, wait, he got his ass kicked. And so will Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

116. Didn't propose that at all, no where in this thread.

I never said we need to out-hawk anyone or to even match their side in terms of hawkishness (is there such a word, btw?). All I'm saying is that when it comes General Election time, Obama will be at a huge disadvantage when the occasions arise where he has to sound JUST hawkish enough to put the sheeple's worst fears to rest, those fears being that the terrorists are about to attack at any moment. Whether or not you like it, we'll still be at war during the general election, and the candidates won't just be kissing up to the base of the party; they'll be doing everything in their power to show that they can compete with McCain on all avenues, and that includes national security and everything the repukes will be throwing at us again. IMO, Obama is going to have to find ways to come off as a being a good protector against evil, if you will, and it won't be easy for him. Some people upthread came up with some ways which might help, and those would be a good start.

[nonconformist]

110. They think Obama can make them all see the light!

BAM!

I'm converted, I have been saved!

[maximusveritas]

111. He's already done it

He's been more hawkish than Hillary on going after the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What he'll be able to do is differentiate going after terrorists from the war in Iraq.

[BigDDem]

113. I'm pretty sure he could beat Alan Keyes (again)

otherwise, not so much

[marlakay]

114. 100 yrs of war....nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

117. The same way any of our candidates will if the Dems are smart for once.

John McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb Iran".

Mushroom cloud.

TV ads.

[ShadowLiberal]

118. If he talks like he did in his 2004 speech at the DNC he can do it

Like a month ago I watched his speech for the first time that was worded to defend Kerry's vote for the war. The way he talked on that sounds tough on terrorists to me, saying stuff like we need to go to war not because we want to but because we have to. If he talks more like in that video, plus picks a VP viewed as strong on defense he can neutralize (at least somewhat) that advantage McCain has I think.

[mmonk]

119. Actually, he will be able to speak about the Iraq war

as someone who did not vote for it. Therefore, he won't have to explain his way out of a debate on it or use double speak.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

121. I thought the war is almost over?

:evilgrin:

[BlueStater]

122. It's been over six years since 9/11. The impact has worn off.

I'm no Obama supporter but I don't think he should have any trouble beating McCain, a man who represents everything that is currently wrong with this country today.

[damonm]

123. If you believe McCain could beat Obama, explain THIS...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[RockyTorres]

125. If we have learned anything in the past years let's not

forget that we can never believe polls!

[damonm]

129. Though your tune would change if they showed Hillary ahead....

[RockyTorres]

124. OBAMA WILL GET ROCKED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

AGAINST MCCAIN. Prime example alot of people I know will not vote for Obama if he is against McCain...And these are Democrtas..We also have to look at the Independents that will go to McCain in a general election

[Political Heretic]

126. That isn't the issue defining this election year.

Terra Terra Terra! was Guiliani - he really pulled a lot of independents didn't he?

This election year is being defined by:

-- the economy
-- republican backlash
-- YOUTH (which I don't care who they like, I think that's fricken awesome!)
-- ending a deeply unpopular war

The tactics of Fear just aren't taking hold this time. Which means in a McCAin x Democratic nominee matchup, it comes down to other factors.

Obama easily defeats McCain because he can sell that he is better for the economy, capitalize on republican backlash, appeal to the youth surge with a forward looking message of change, and having a clear stance on ending the war contrasted to mccains 100 year war.

Clinton struggles because conservatives unite around their absolute hatred of all things clinton, and the election becomes a question of who conservatives hate less - do they split themselves on McCain and stay home, or united around an anyone but Clinton voting pattern?

[Danger Mouse]

128. Just keep playing McCain's 'in Iraq for 100 years' quote over. and over. and over.

not even the most hawkish of americans will want any part of that.

[Jed Dilligan]

133. The end of the cease-fire will make the war even less popular

than it is now by November.