2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (11/02/08)

In this podcast, we discuss projections for election day and reflect on the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in order to glean insight into how they would serve as president.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Sphere: Related Content

The Final Countdown: 8 Days Until Election Day

With 8 days left until election day, here’s a quick roundup of what’s going on…

• Obama will campaign in Canton, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania today.  Biden will campaign in Greeneville, North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina and New Port Richey, Florida today.

• McCain will campaign in Dayton, Ohio and Pottsville, Pennsylvania today.  Palin will campaign in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, Virginia today.

• Desperation continues to spread in conservative circles.  Rove recognizes the bleak situation McCain is in, but doesn’t really have any good ideas on how he could bounce back.  Hewitt’s blog has a sad post that tries to flip all the election coverage for real: “If MSM Isn’t Trustworthy, Why Are Conservatives Trusting The MSM 8 Days Out?” Because failing to recognize reality is the best way to win this election, right?  Kristol offers some advice for McCain, but not before invoking Foch.  Foch!

• Josh Lyman says that it is your “duty to get Obama elected”.  Oh celebrity endorsements.

• As the election draws near, there is a deafening silence in the liberal blogosphere on Obama’s plans for Afghanistan.  Has that ship already sailed?  Does everyone just blindly accept the need to substantially increase troops there?

• Palin and The View co-host Elizabeth Hasselback sit down with Sean Hannity for an interview scheduled to air tonight.  Hasselback? Really?  Why does the campaign insist on Palin doing this awkward joint interviews?

• Bloomberg’s Al Hunt scolds both candidates for sugar coating reality a bit.

• If Obama wins, is there a role for Axelrod in the administration?  Ben Smith explores this.

• Morning Show summary here.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/07/08)

This podcast provides analysis of the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain, which was held at Belmont University in Tennessee.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/02/08)

This podcast offers post vice presidential debate commentary and analysis of the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/30/08)

This podcast offers a preview of the upcoming vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/26/08)

This podcast offers commentary and analysis about the first presidential debate about the economy and foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain at the University of Mississippi.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

First Presidential Election Debate Liveblog: From The University of Mississippi in Oxford

5:15: All times are Central. Deal with it, you coastal elites!

More on the University of Mississippi here. Fun fact: It was used as a hospital during the Civil War for both Union and Confederate soldiers. So there’s some bipartisanship. There’s no truth to the rumor that John McCain was there at that time, however. A must read about the civil rights history of the college is here. There’s no truth to the rumor that Barack Obama was the … uhm, named person in the headline there. Seriously, John McCain’s grandfather is one of the famous alumni of the college.

The moderator tonight is PBS’ Jim Lehrer. This is Lehrer’s record 11th time moderating a presidential debate, and his wiki page describes him as a bus enthusiast. So he’s got that going for him.

The format: two podiums. Sections of the debate will include introductory statements of two minutes, followed by five minutes of debate between the candidates. It’s a really nice format.

5:36: Mississippi is the state where Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a captured bear, enraging Stephen Colbert but capturing the heart of a nation. Nowadays, killing a moose is a qualification for national office. How times change!

5:53: Mississippi soda/pop fact: Mississippi is the birthplace of the Barq’s Root Beer. And also apparently the home of some very, very crazy ad wizards.

6:04: Ole Miss is in Oxford, in Lafayette County. In the county, Obama beat Clinton 2,849 to 2,171. John McCain won a virtually uncontested primary in the county with 1,953 votes (Huckabee received about 300 votes and Ron Paul less than 100 votes).

6:48: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is so concerned about the financial crisis that she’s talking on the House floor about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his denunciations of Israel. I understand that Presidents have to have multiple things in their crossfire, but you would think that wouldn’t apply to the House. Especially in the middle of a crisis.

7:04: In the audience: a lot of students and the Washington elite.

7:11: Nate Silver has a good debate preview up.

7:14: Matt Yglesias asks if the debate itself will be in HD. It’s a good question. Angelo believes it will be. Confirmation: here.

7:17: A C-Span history of debates.

7:18: C-Span’s debate hub is awesome.

7:19: The largest airport in Mississippi, in Jackson, was renamed the Jackson-Evers International Airport to honor assassinated NAACP leader Medgar Evers.

7:23: Marc Ambinder’s preview is also worth reading.

7:27:This week in 1963: JFK becomes the first president to sleep overnight in Duluth. Thanks, PBS.

7:29: Listening to C-Span calls before a debate is excruciating. Supporters of either side are just grating.

7:31: Janet Brown, Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, starts off the speeches that are very unimportant, and meant only to stoke the egos of those who give them.

7:37: Frank Fahrenkopf chastises the crowd to not applaud or make any noise.

7:42: Should I be concerned that there’s been multiple listings of corporate sponsors? Or is that too 3rd party-sh of me?

7:43: THe University lost power because of an accident with an immigration line earlier today.

7:50: Michelle Obama is in the house.

7:51: Jim Lehrer is on the stage. He talks down to people who “volunteered or participated” in the primary debates. Let’s hope Hillary isn’t watching. He talks about needing “absolute concentration” and asks Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama to take names of whoever makes sound.

8:00: And away we go! Tom Brokaw says the “Reagan Democrat” is the voter both are courting. Jim Lehrer says he has not cleared his questions with anyone. Both candidates arive to the only applause of the night.

8:03: First question: Eisenhower talks about economic strength being the basis for military strength. Where do you stand on the economic recovery plan? Obama goes first. Talks about Main Street, and how his proposals protect the taxpayer. His four point plan: oversight, the possibility of getting the money back (equity), executive pay, and help to homeowners. Segues into a criticism of Republican financial policy, including deregulation, and including the phrase “trickle down.” McCain references Kennedy (who has since been released from the hospital, per Politico). McCain is talking to Lehrer, while Obama was addressing the American people. Odd distinction. He talks at length about the bipartisanship in Congress, and mentions accountability, options for loans, and “a number of other essential elements.” He then seems to try to side with House Republicans, who want something wholly different. He ends up with a reference to foreign oil. Obama mentions that “we haven’t seen the language yet” which is head scratching. Of course, Lehrer is referring to a plan that is being negotiated as we speak. I think he’s pressing a bit in the wrong direction. The key is what they think should be done, not really what they think about some abstract plan that no longer exists. Obama addressed that answer to Lehrer. McCain tells a story about Eisenhower and Normandy, and his willingness to resign if D-Day failed. He implies that Chris Cox should resign because he failed - but doesn’t say why. Obama says there must responsibility not just when there is a crisis, and talks about the problems before the crisis erupted last week. Funny moment: Obama refers to McCain saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and Lehrer makes him say it directly to McCain, who jokes that he could hear Obama the first time. McCain’s response: “We have fundamental problems in the system.” It’s pretty ridiculous, given his comments about the fundamentals of the economy. He finishes with an ode to the American worker that Lenin could have written. Time spent talking on this: directly even. To the second.

8:14: Second question: what differences to you have on the economy: McCain wants spending under control. Talks about earmarking as a gateway drug. The joke about bear DNA doesn’t get any laugh. He holds up a pen to veto and says “this one is kinda old.” He’s making the old person jokes himself. Yeesh. McCain criticizes Obama for making earmarks. Obama agrees that earmarks are abused, and often by lobbyists. Obama says earmarks cost 18 billion, but McCain is proposing 300 billion dollars worth of tax cuts to the rich. Obama is working overload to relate to the common man. McCain goes on again about the earmarks and the 18 billion dollars, and criticizes them for corrupting people. He mentions Obama’s 800 billion of new spending. Obama talks about his plans: closing corporate “loopholes,” health care spending, etc. Obama again says earmarks alone will not get the middle class “back on track.” McCain talks about the business tax being the second highest in the world, to get more businesses in America. He goes back to earmarks AGAIN, and he’s getting a little silly on the point. He talks about the tax cuts he wants to give everyone. Fact check: earmarks are only 0.63% of the federal budget. Obama talks about his tax cuts, and criticizes McCain for making health care benefits taxable. McCain jumps in, and criticizes Obama for … his vote on the Energy Bill. McCain only wants to talk about earmarks. I’m at a bit of a loss. Obama mentions the tax breaks, and criticizes mcCain for opposing the Energy Bill right now for the position on eliminating tax breaks for oil company.

8:26: Third question: what would you give up to pay for this recovery plan: Obama says it’s hard to say, but some things will have to be delayed. Talks about needing to get energy indepdence in ten years. That’s very, very optimistic. Also mentions health care, and deductibles going up 30%. Also mentions competing globally, specifically in education. Also mentions infrastructure, including roads and the energy grid. A certain viewer near Albany, NY likes the road shout out. McCain talks about needing to cut spending, criticizing Obama for having the most liberal record. McCain wants to end ethanol spending, and better bids for contracts for the military. McCain talks about knowing how to get defense spending under control. Lehrer wants to know what will delayed specifically. Obama talks about postponing parts of his energy plan, and 15 billion lost through Medicare. Mentions working with Tom Coburn setting up “Google for Government.” McCain wants a spending freeze on everything but Defense, Veterans, and “other important” areas. Obama says you need a scalpel, not a hatchet, mentioning the 79 billion dollar surplus of the Iraqi government. McCain wants 45 nuclear power plants, and gives an awkward climate change shout out to Sen. Clinton. Lehrer doesn’t like these answers, and tries again. Obama segues into a discussion about values, and talks about corporate tax cuts versus health care. McCain does not want health care handed to the federal government, and gives a variation on the Harry and Louise schtick. McCain goes back to spending, and talks about owing China $500 billion. That’s true, but not really the root of the problem as he implies. Obama refers to the “orgy of spending” under Bush and criticizes McCain for voting for Bush’s budgets.

8:38: What are the lessons of Iraq? McCain: You caannot have a failed strategy that causes you to lose. A little broad to me. Bad strategy is as old as warfare itself. McCain hugs the surge as much as he possibly could. Talks about “winning” in Iraq and “coming home with victory and honor.” This is about 100 degrees difference away from what Petraeus describes. HD update: Apparently they both look weird in HD. Obama talks about opposing the war from the start, and tells the same story about taking an unpopular position as McCain. Obama talks about being distracted from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda being resurgent. McCain talks about Obama saying that the surge failed, not going to Iraq, and not holding hearings on his subcommittee. Obama looks amused, and restates Biden saying that those things are held at full committee. Obama gives his own McCain quotes, including greeted as liberators and history between Shia and Sunni, leading it into a question of judgment. McCain says Obama does not understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. McCain says Obama refuses to believe we are winning. He describes a strategy that sounds a whole lot like a tactic. It’s a strange distinction. McCain talks about Obama not funding the troops. Obama knocks it down quite easily, actually, saying that McCain and him both voted against bills for other reasons, and talks about at length about Afghanistan. McCain talks more about the surge and Petraeus, and says he knew the surge would succeed this much.

8:50: Should more troops be sent to Afghanistan? Obama: Send more troops ASAP, as per the commanders in the ground. Obama goes back to Afghanistan and says it cannot be separated. No mention of Pakistan thus far, except implicitly mentioning Al Qaeda “crossing the border.” Finally mentions Pakistan. Three points: More troops, deal with the poppy trade, and dealing with Pakistan. McCain talks about the Russians leaving and the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. McCain says he is not prepared to cut off aid to Pakistan, and criticizes Obama for launching strikes, or rather, for saying it out loud - effectively admitting he would do the same thing but not say it out loud. He talks about Waziristan. McCain wants the Iraq strategy. But Iraq is urban warfare; Waziristan is remotte tribes. Building walls is pointless when there’s already mountains in between people. a WSJ article a long while ago made this point. (A GOP one I linked to before). Obama says it’s about having intelligence regarding Al Qaeda, and taking them out, and that McCain has made comments regarding extinghuishing AL Qaeda and singing songs about bombing Iran. Obama says that Musharraf was coddled and the policy was anti-democratic. McCain says there was a failed state when Musharraf came to power. McCain tries to defend his temperament, and defends himself by voting against troops going to Lebanon; supporting the Gulf War and going into Bosnia and Kosovo; he wanted the troops in Somalia to apparently do more “peace making force.” But the criticism was regarding his words, both originally from McCain and rebuttal from Obama. This is just a tangent regarding his record. He says if Iraq does not succeed, then lives are wasted; the logical implication is that the deaths in Vietnam and Somalia were in vain. Obama says no soldiers die in vain, and all service should be honored, but the question is regarding how to keep America safe. He criticizes McCain for saying America could “muddle through” Afghanistan. McCain criticizes Obama for not going to Afghanistan and not holding hearings again.

Discipline: McCain has oddly times smiles, as usual, but is otherwise OK. Obama seems pretty OK. No sighs so far. Lehrer says time is even.

8:50: What is the threat from Iran? McCain says there they propose an existential threat to Israel, and that there can never again be a Holocaust. McCain says a League of Democracies could take effective sanctions, mentioning the Germans, French, and British. He also mentions Iran infiltrating Iraq. Obama says the Republican Guard is a terrorist organization (and says he always said that) and said that the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran’s hand. Agrees that a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, both for Israel and to prevent an arms race in the Middle East. Obama says cooperation from states like Russia and China will be needed for sanctions to be effective. He talks about diplomacy. He says that efforts at isolation only accelerate efforts to get nuclear weapons. McCain talks about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel out, and not wanting to give him a propaganda platform. McCain talks about needing preconditions being necessary, citing Reagan and Nixon. Obama says even Kissinger wants America to meet with Iran. He cites Bush sending Bill Burns to talks with Iran, and admitting it may not work. Obama says that after cutting off talks with North Korea, nuclear work was quadrupled, and nuclear secrets were sent to Syria, and through talks progress was made, even if it is on shaky ground. He even mentions McCain not wanting to meet with the President of Spain. McCain says he will not set a visitor’s schedule. McCain says that without precondition, meeting with Ahmadinejad legitimizes comments about Israel. Obama pushes back on Israel, but McCain interrupts, and makes a joke about Obama not denying the words of Ahmadinejad.

9:16: Russia! What do you do, what -DO- you do? Obama says the relationship needs to be reevaluated, but that the actions in Georgia were unwarrented, and that the six point peace plan needs to be implemented. Talks abot needing to be supportive of fledging democracies, and expanding NATO to countries like Georgia. Also talks about expanding cooperation, specifically with loose nukes. McCain tries to hammer home that Obama doesn’t understand foreign relations, saying Obama’s first statement only called for restraint on both sides. McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw KGB. Not sure about that one. Talks about concern over resurgence of the Russian Empire. Says that Russia is in violation of the cease fire agreement. Obama tries to give a better framing of his position on Georgia, but widely agrees with McCain. Mentions the Georgian economy. He talks about how he warned about Russian peacekeepers in Georgia in April, but nothing was done. Obama says that an energy strategy is necessary to deal with not only Russia but also Venezuela and Iran. Mentions energy, including nuclear, wind, and clean coal. Talks about McCain voting against renewable energy. McCain also talks about Nunn-Lugar. Obama says that he’s just for storing nuclear waste carefully. He wants to make another point, but McCain talks over him and I can’t tell what either said.

9:25: What is the likelihood of another 9/11? McCain says it is much less than it was on 9/12. He mentions that he and Lieberman wanted to start the 9/11 Commission. He seems to be making the Richardson approach: that he personally knows a lot of things and can get things done because he knows how to do it. It’s not what he did in the primary. Obama says America is safer in some ways. He talks about chemical sites, ports, and transit. He circle back to nuclear proliferation and says it is the biggest threat to the United States. Says missile defense is necessary, but it is not more important than nuclear waste. Says Al Qaeda is operating in 60 countries, and the root cause is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Says America’s standing in the world has been damaged, and work is needed to restore the standing as a city on a hill. McCain cites Reagan and missile defense, for some reason. He goes back to Obama “not understanding” and says if there is failure in Iraq, Al Qaeda will have a base there. Obama goes back to McCain and Bush focusing on Iraq, while Bin Laden is still out there, while seguing to Chin being involved around the world everywhere where America is not, and the ability to project power of America is hurt. Segues into a discussion of veterans, and that a broader strategic vision is necessary. McCain says that Obama does not have the experience of knowledge necessary to be president. He compares Obama’s stubbornness to that of Bush, and says Obama not admitting the surge succeeded is really bad. Obama mentions his father coming from Kenya, and wanting to come to America because of the standing of America in the world, and that this idea is important, and investing ni how ordinary people live out their dreams is important. McCain one ups that by talking about coming home from prison and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

That ends the debate. I’m going to ponder grades, but Lehrer gets an easy A. Well done.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Presidential Debate Between Barack Obama and John McCain at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)

Tonight’s debate between John McCain and Barack Obama will begin at 9pm ET. The moderator will be PBS’ Jim Leher. The topic will be foreign policy (although, they will likely spend some time discussing the economy as well). Be sure to check out our blog on the debate or listen to our podcast as well…

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (09/24/08)

This podcast discusses the proposed legislation to bailout Wall Street, McCain suspending his campaign to return to Washington and his call to postpone this Friday’s debate, a debate preview and a discussion of foreign policy issues (both obvious and not so obvious), and more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Potpourri: Obama/Bill, and Palin’s Interview

First up, a little old school Bill Clinton.

John F. Harris of Politico writes:

It is not at all clear that Barack Obama particularly wants Clinton’s advice about how to win the presidency—after all, he kept the former president at a cool distance, with just occasional phone calls, for months—but many Democrats believe it is increasingly clear that he could use it.

Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny write in the NYT (my emphasis):

One adjustment for the Obama campaign comes as Mr. McCain is seeking to claim the Democrats’ theme of change by pointing to Ms. Palin. For months, advisers to Mr. Obama had assumed that Mr. McCain would play up his experience; Mr. Plouffe said he welcomed what he argued would be a campaign fought out on the issue of change.

“This is a very major development,” Mr. Plouffe said. “John McCain jettisoned his message and his strategy. It is now about change. We’re going to lean into that very, very hard.”

In the midst of all this, Mr. Obama had a private lunch on Thursday with someone he battled with for much of the year but who knows how to put the Republicans on the defensive: former President Bill Clinton. Discussion topics, aides said, included how Mr. Obama might handle Ms. Palin in the days ahead.

I think the conclusion is not only does Obama want to confer with President Clinton regarding at least some campaign strategy, but he also wants people to know he’s doing it. (That may be because Bill Clinton’s staff is notorious for leaking, of course.) Knowing Bill, he’ll give some good advice to Obama. I think you’ll see a stronger Obama in the next week, in part due to Bill. He statement yesterday that Obama would win big was a great start, tactically.

Second thing is the interesting Sarah Palin interview. I choose interesting, because the only other word I can think of is shockingly lacking. Howard Wolfson gives his thoughts:

Her answers to a fairly basic set of foreign policy questions were formulaic and unimpressive. She didn’t say anything disqualifying, but it is unlikely that anyone watching would have come away sanguine about her ability to step in as President on Day One if necessary.

This would not have surprised the McCain campaign. They were no doubt aware before yesterday of Gov. Palin’s abilities as a candidate. She gives a strong speech, has a compelling bio, and tells a good story about her record — but if last night is any indication, lengthy interviews about policy are not her strong suit.

Don’t expect to see her do many more. The risk/reward calculus here is not complicated. The McCain campaign knows they will pay a price for keeping Gov. Palin from the national press — but they also know that price is worth paying if it buys them insurance against her giving a disqualifying answer to a legitmate question.

There’s two answers I want to highlight in particular. One is her apparent botching of the Bush Doctrine. She clearly did not know what “Bush Doctrine” meant, but unlike almost everyone on the left, I don’t see that as a big problem: she clearly knew about the general direction of the doctrine. I was more surprised in the manner she 1) misinterpreted the first priority of the President and 2) flippantly used the word imminent. Again, my emphasis:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

First, as Andres Sullivan rightly notes, the President and Vice-President take oaths first and foremost to defend the Constitution, not to protect people. I don’t consider that s trivial difference either.

Second, her use of the word imminent is misleading to the point of being deceitful. The entire debate regarding the Bush Doctrine was how imminent an attack had to be in order to justify an attack. Take Barack Obama’s 2002 speech against the war. The key line of the entire speech:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

There are perhaps elements of the fringe left or isolationist right who would be against repelling even an imminent threat, but that’s not the controversy surrounding the Bush Doctrine whatsoever. Obama himself tacitly admitted the Iraq war would be justified if Iraq was an imminent threat. That also makes the screeching from conservative quarters over this issue ring hollow. They all miss this portion of the question and focus more on the first part. That part looks bad, but substantively seems like something of a wash to me. Her flippant use of the word imminent implies something much, much worse: it suggests either that she still thinks Saddam had WMDs and was ready to use or distribute them; she thinks that Iraq was behind 9/11; that that Iraq would have somehow other threatened the United States in some imminent way had the US not invaded; or that she simply doesn’t know. Of course, the other option is that she’s qualifying her phrase with the term imminent despite the fact that she knows a threat was in no way imminent, or to make McCain’s policies seem more reasonable than they are. But I’ll take her at her word.

The last answer of hers I want to look at is her answer on Pakistan:

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

This is another troubling answer. Not, again, for the surface answers. Saying everything is on the table is a safe and nice way to avoid controversy, even if your running mate called the policy “naive” last year when your opponent suggested it. (Welcome to America: agreeing with your opponent on an issue your running mate called “naive” is the safe answer. Mostly because McCain’s initial answer was terrible, and no one bats an eye if you say you want all options on the table.)

The problem with Palin’s answer on Pakistan and Afghanistan is that is shows that she does not understand the difference at all between the wars, thinking that importing the surge strategy to Afghanistan will solve the problems. (Both McCain and Obama are already for more troops in Afghanistan).

I think I can make my point best by citing a post criticizing Obama’s plan for Afghanistan on Powerline (since Palin wants to apparently embrace it it means she embraces the criticisms too):

For the reasons you cite the answer is not more US troops. The circumstance are different and, to use Obama’s word, nuance is important. (as an aside, isn’t Obama’s prescription for Afghanistan — a surge — at least an implicit admission that he believes the surge in Iraq is effective? If not, where did he get the idea?)

Unlike Iraq, control of the cities is not the problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is HUGE. Bigger than Iraq. We just don’t have the troops to do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq, even if we weren’t in Iraq. Rather it’s the lawlessness in the hinterlands that is the problem. Regular Army doesn’t get you much there. We need to bolster Afghan security forces and dismantle enemy networks, not control territory (i.e., it’s a special forces mission).

The root causes of the trouble in Afghanistan are twofold: (1) the slow (and frightening!) disintegration of Pakistan and (2) Iran’s alliance with the Taliban. Pakistan can’t control its border or northwest territories. This gives the Taliban and AQ a free area to operate and a porous border that they can cross to attack US troops. Just as troubling, Iran is training and equipping the Taliban with even more deadly tactics and weapons. Of note is that the Taliban has begun employing the same deadly EFPs that Sadr’s goons use against US troops in Iraq.

On the other hand, it appears that Robert Gates is preparing to transfer more troops to Afghanistan.

But the point is not just more troops or less troops: the point is that, as evidenced above and as Charlie Gibson himself said, the root the problems in Afghanistan go far beyond merely being able to be solved by more troops. The logical conclusion of this is that Sarah Palin knows little to nothing about Pakistan and Afghanistan. Say what you will about Obama, Biden, and McCain, but they all discussed the various pros and cons of the situation in various debates and interviews at some point. Even the Bush Administration is now authorizing more actions across the border. If the commander in chief does not understand what is going on on the ground, they will either get overriden badly by the generals, they will overrule the generals based on their own baseless impulses, or more likely, they will decide fights among the generals arbitrarily and politically, with no good long term sense or appreciation for the bigger picture.

I think there’s serious limits on how much someone not receiving intelligence reports should be expected to know about foreign policy, even amongst presidential candidates. But that bar is still exceptionally high, and Palin did not come close to passing it. She’s lucky the gaffes are not - so far - more obvious to the common man.

One more thing.

Palin yesterday:

We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

Petraeus yesterday:

“This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”

That’s just bad luck, really.

One Extra Last Thing That I Really Mean This Time:

You know someone is stretching for an argument when they compare the complexity of the Bush Doctrine to the complexity of …. the Constitution. Come on. Let’s get back to the real world.

Sphere: Related Content

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what they’re thinking.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the messages and the minds effecting local voters.

John Traver, of the Albuquerque Journal in New Mexico has one take on Obama and his perceived ego:

John Darkow, of the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri has quite a different take of McCain, Obama and an Iraqi withdrawal:

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune in Rome, Georgia has an interesting take on Obama and the Media:

\

Nate Beeler, of The Washington Examiner, in D.C. also looks at the media and Obama:

Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News in Alabama takes a critical look at Obama’s move to the center: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED: A Note On Obama’s Management Of Press During Trip To Middle East

For the past few weeks, especially in our podcasts, I have been criticizing the Obama Campaign for isolating Obama from press.  I realize the political reasons for doing so.  I understand that it is smart politics.  I understand that this is a campaign, and therefore political considerations are often paramount.  I am also not suggesting that Obama’s handling of the press is or should be a reason not to vote for him.  I am simply pointing out an issue that I believe is worthy of criticism.  That said, on Hardball yesterday, Andrea Mitchell offered an example of and criticized the Obama campaign for its intense management of the press during his trip abroad.  Video here.  Transcript:

MITCHELL: But let me just say something about the message management.

He didn‘t have reporters with him. He didn‘t have a press pool. He didn‘t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you‘re seeing is not reporters brought in. You‘re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they‘re not interviews from a journalist.

So, there‘s a real press issue here. Politically, it‘s smart as can be. But we have not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea.

A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of service people who are African-American, or did all they choose to join somebody they like, apparently? What‘s the story?

MITCHELL: I can‘t really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations…

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: … I just can‘t report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines.

That‘s my—that‘s my issue.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: We don‘t know what we are seeing.

I have great respect for the military, of what they do best, which is to fight war, keep the peace, do all sorts of economic and civil reconstruction here in Iraq. I don‘t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, do you think that the military‘s been too positive towards the Barack trip, Andrea?

MITCHELL: They have so—they have tried so hard to be balanced.

In fact, they keep emphasizing this is not his congressional delegation, not his co-del, to use the slang. It is Jack Reed‘s. Jack Reed is the senior senator on this trip.

Putting politics aside for a moment, for someone that is running for president, as voters we should demand more interaction between Obama and the press.

On a somewhat related note, Michael Grunwald concludes his most recent Time article by observing:

That doesn’t mean that anything’s probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you’ll keep seeing “Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns” headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama’s way, it shouldn’t be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it’s usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

I don’t want to overstate my case here, because there is certainly no question that Obama’s policy positions present significantly broader change from Bush’s than McCain’s do; however, one thing that is certainly business as usual is strong line that Obama is drawing between himself and the press.  As president, I can understand limiting access quite a bit.  But as a candidate?  I’m just not sure a candidate has earned that right or has a legitimate reason to isolate himself the way that Obama has.

Is this a major voting issue? No.  But is it a point worthy of criticism?  You bet.  Demand more.  And once you get that, demand more.  Voters can make our leaders better by doing just that.

*UPDATE* The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman has a piece up, which criticizes the campaign for retribution (or what seems like retribution) against reporters they become furious with and the potential consequences of this.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/17/08)

In this podcast, we discuss the New Yorker cover cartoon about Barck Obama, June fundraising figures, Obama’s trip to the Europe and the Middle East, the 08 Bloggers Network and more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content