On Tuesday, the 88th anniversary of women being granted the right to vote, Hillary Clinton was the living embodiment of the dream of electing a woman to the White House deferred as she pledged to support rival Barack Obama’s bid for the White House. On Thursday, the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream†speech, Obama was the living embodiment of King’s dream being realized as he accepted his party’s nomination for the presidency.
Obama’s 45-minute speech was an amalgam of lofty rhetoric (“[w]e meet at one of those defining moments — a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.â€) and red meat (“we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eightâ€); of a call for change (“[t]onight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land – enough!â€) and reiteration of the usual liberal laundry list every other convention speaker recited by rote (“you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reachâ€); of a plea to rise above politics as usual (“[t]he times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbookâ€) and the usual attacks on the “Bush-McCain Administration (“what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?â€).
[By the way, Obama cannot possibly keep his promise to “go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less†because the Supreme Court has ruled that giving the executive branch the line item veto is an unconstitutional encroachment on the powers of the legislative branch. The clueless crowd cheered and waved their blue-and-white “CHANGE†signs. Could it be that Obama – who hasn’t completed his first term in the Senate – really doesn’t understand how Washington works? No, because he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time for 10 years – which means he’s just another cynically manipulative pol.]
As The Stiletto was wondering how to sum up the speech, Obama summed it up for her: “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.â€
Indeed, because Obama has no legislative record to run on much of his speech was devoted to attacking his opponent (“I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn’t know†and “Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them.â€).
But since national security is The Stiletto’s Number One issue this election cycle, let’s cut to the chase: Did Obama make the case that he has the judgment and experience to be commander-in-chief? Obama outlined the geopolitical legacy of the Bush Doctrine – and both at the beginning and end of this rhetorical riff, challenged McCain to a debate on how to resolve them:
If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.
John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell — but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.
And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war. …
You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need. …
As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.
I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.
These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.
Obama did not explain how he could invade Pakistan to go after bin Laden when that country’s leadership has already put him on notice that it would be considered an act of war; or how he plans to “finish†the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban, and what criteria he would use to determine they no longer pose a threat of global jihad; or how he will curb Russian aggression and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
So it looks like it’s going to be a one-sided debate, with McCain doing all the talking.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).
2 users commented in " Barack Obama Accepts Dem Party Nomination "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackStilleto you statement was incorrect”
“Indeed, because Obama has no legislative record to run…”
In fact, according to the Library of Congress’ THOMAS legislative database, Obama was the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions introduced in the last Congress, including a bill (S.2125) that passed Congress on December 8, 2006, “to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” which he introduced on December 16, 2005. The bill is awaiting action by the president. In addition, three nonbinding resolutions sponsored by Obama have passed the Senate, and 14 bills that he has co-sponsored have become law.
Obama has also introduced numerous other pieces of legislation in the U.S. Senate. For example:
Introduced a bill (S.1194) directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines for tracking spent fuel rods.
Introduced a bill (S.1426) extending provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act that relate to preventing and detecting contamination.
Introduced a bill (S.1920) amending the Clean Air Act to establish a renewable diesel standard.
Introduced a bill (S.3988) improving benefits and services for members of the armed forces and veterans.
You also stated:
“Obama did not explain how he could invade Pakistan to go after bin Laden when that country’s leadership has already put him on notice that it would be considered an act of war; or how he plans to “finish” the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban, and what criteria he would use to determine they no longer pose a threat of global jihad; or how he will curb Russian aggression and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
Yes the devil is in the details but giving details to a complex problem on national security is not a good idea. Infact this is the same umbrella of so-called national securtiy classified information that Bush has used. Sometimes having faith in this context of a speech is what matters, not going on and on as to details of achieving an objective. And we all know that politics is about compromise, not unilateral ambitions superceding objectivity (something I believe Bush has lacked for 7 years).
You also stated:
“So it looks like it’s going to be a one-sided debate, with McCain doing all the talking.”
I also repspectfully disagree. I think your conclusion is premature, especially if the two opposing candidates have not debated going into the primary season.
Rich:
Many bills are introduced. It’s the ones that pass and are enacted that matter.
Here’s The Stiletto’s thinking:
Speaker after speaker at the convention ran down the Dem domestic agenda – everyone could recite it by heart at that point. Obama did not have to prove his bona fides on that score. He had to close the sale on being CIC material.
His speech should have been devoted to attacking the Bush record – especially where McCain’s positions are identical – and then giving point-by-point solutions to the geopolitical problems Bush has created.
If Obama had paid his dues before having the audacity to run for president, he could have given the sort of conventional speech he gave. But he needed to show us his foreign policy chops, and on that score The Stiletto thinks his speech was wanting.
Finally, Obama is known to be dependent on the Teleprompter – and is a master at being able to read the scroll while sounding like he’s conversing with you. But he cannot speak forcefully when he is off the Teleprompter. He proved that during the Rick Warren interview. His answers were hesitant and halting. McCain was clear and to the point. This is why Obama did not want to have Townhall meetings with McCain – and why The Stiletto is predicting that he won’t be able to hold his own in a debate when the topic turns to foreign policy and national security.
But if The Stiletto is am wrong about Obama’s debating skills (Hillary creamed him more than once, most notably in Philly) she will say so. For instance, The Stiletto was really, really wrong in guessing McCain’s veep pick! She was sure (!) he would go with someone safe, like Pawlenty.
Leave A Reply