The New Republic

Barack Obama gave this answer to a question about whether he'd ever experienced crisis.  We, the American people, deserve to know how a future president may deal with crises.  Marty, despite your rhetorical flourishes, Barack's being born to a single mother doesn't qualify him to lead the free world in a crisis.

Despite all of this, I find it exceedingly ironic that your hatred of the Clintons has blinded you both to the fact that they are willing and able defenders of Israel and that Obama could be precisely the anti-Zionist wacko that you most fear.  He smacks of that university liberalism with the knee-jerk tendency to minimize the very real consequences of anti-American and anti-Zionist fervor sweeping Europe and the Middle East.  If you think Obama's going to be able to wave his magic wand and erase it, you're sorely mistaken.

Marty, I don't expect that you'll ever publicly denounce your idiotic support of Obama; your self-righteous pride wouldn't allow it.  But I feel quite sure he will be a nightmare -- both to you and to the rest of us in this country.  He isn't the Messiah -- not in the Jewish or Christian sense.  If and when this becomes painfully obvious, I hope you remember this post.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?

- nturner

February 22, 2008 at 8:23pm

Yes Marty.  Everything you said I agree with.  Seems the rest of the Dems agree too, as does Hillary, or why else would she have conceded last night?

- rishy

February 22, 2008 at 8:24pm

rishy,

"Seems the rest of the Dems agree too"

It's not true. 10,876,624 agree but  10,246,199 disagree.

Marty,

"embracing child of a poor teen-age mother"

Is this a self  parody?

- jacobt1

February 22, 2008 at 9:45pm

nturne, you're certainly entitled to your 'No, We Can't' attitude, but as far as Obama and Israel, why aren't you able to give any credence to Peretz's take on it? In his article 'Trust Obama on Israel,' he wrote:

[S]peaking in Des Moines on December 18, Obama cut to the essence of the Middle East problem at a level of sophistication that ought to be a relief, if not a rebuke, to those who fret about his lack of foreign policy "experience." Obama raised three questions and answered them in a way that no other Democratic aspirant for the nomination has done.

First: Is Israel truly ready to make the concessions necessary to guarantee that a Palestinian state will be more than a "Potemkin village" - a facade without depth or substance?

"I'm confident," Obama said, "that Israel is ready and willing to make some of these concessions if they have the confidence that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement."

This is exactly right. And it is a sign that President Obama would not pressure only one side (Israel) because the other side (the Palestinians) are immune to American pressure.

On his way out the door in 2000, President Clinton actually had a map color-coding the Old City of Jerusalem: Israeli sovereignty on this street, Palestinian sovereignty on that, like the delirious maps drawn in London and Paris back in the early 20th century that burden the Middle East and Africa to this day. Clinton coerced Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, to accept his map and make other concessions. He got nothing out of the Palestinians.

Yet even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won't work.

THE SECOND question is whether any agreement negotiated with Palestinian leaders can be enforced on the Palestinian people. Most Israelis are ready to make a deal and abide by it. There is no such disposition among Palestinians. Hamas, the party that won the most recent Palestinian elections and that already rules in Gaza, explicitly rejects any deal with Israel.

So what do you do?

Obama's answer, and the right one: You deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure it to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We "have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic, and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with."

Third, is this an opportunity to watch democracy flower in the Middle East, as George W. Bush has dreamed? Well maybe, in 1,000 years or so. Meanwhile, Obama grasps that any accord will require strong leadership and even some "dictating" to the moderates. This is not callous. It is realistic. But only if the Palestinian leadership realizes that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long."

The Israelis have stepped out of their own blind alley of small settlements and lonely outposts planted in densely populated Palestinian areas. Everyone knows how very much actual land Israel will give up so that Palestine can be Palestine. No one yet knows whether the Palestinians are ready to let Israel be Israel.

OBAMA'S POINTS, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by emails saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it were true?), that he took the oath of office as a senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?).

All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that Obama has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.

Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley advises Obama on the Middle East. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the Web, like the ads for Viagra.

Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in the New York Review of Books, is anti-Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro.

Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.

- neo43

February 22, 2008 at 10:32pm

neo43,

corner.nationalreview.com/post

"Power seemed upset that The New York Times had chosen to correct the narrative about Jenin, instead of holding Israel’s feet to the fire over allegations of its human rights violation. Said Power:

I have a question for David [Rohde] about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.” The second paragraph said, “Oh, but lots of war crimes did.” Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?”"

- jacobt1

February 22, 2008 at 11:40pm

Obama has conned everyone (including The Nation)

Obama began cynically to build his legend early.  Obama was not of humble origins or born to a teen-age mother.  He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya, of Luo ethnicity) and Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas).  Obama's parents met while both were attending the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student.

His father went to Harvard University to pursue Ph.D. studies, then returned to Kenya, where he died in an auto accident in 1982.

His mother married another foreign student, Lolo Soetoro, and the family moved to Soetoro's home country of Indonesia in 1967.Obama attended local schools in Jakarta from ages 6 to 10, where classes were taught in Indonesian. He then returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents while attending Punahou School, which he described in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, as a 'prestigious prep school', from the fifth grade until his graduation in 1979. He was already developing his legend -: the school was not elitist, as he later wrote of his time in Hawaii: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered—to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect—became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear." (That and privilege).

In Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his experiences growing up in his mother's American middle class family. His knowledge about his African father, who returned once for a brief visit in 1971, came mainly through family stories and photographs.

After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. Obama received his B.A. degree in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer. As Director of the Developing Communities Project, he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development. He entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history" (he was the Editor of the Review – highly political appointment) He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive  As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.

NOTE: He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues

- smayhew

February 23, 2008 at 2:38am

"After all, everybody knows that fact, and the fact is symptomatic of our whole society.  Teen-aged motherhood is not just an attribute of black girls. "

WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? OBAMA'S MOTHER WAS A MIDDLE CLASS COLLEGE STUDENT WHEN SHE MET HIS FATHER.... He went to an elite school in Indonesia from the age of 6-10 - are you Obamaniacs high?

This guy is Oprah's next Dr Phil - an empty suit with Kennedy speech writers - the country is doomed - the air heads are taking over.

- smayhew

February 23, 2008 at 2:44am

jacobt1:

Marty isn't capable of self-parody. He's a righteous dolt, currently enraptured.

- sleepyavl

February 23, 2008 at 4:03am

No, he went to public school in Indonesia. And as for the elite school in Hawaii, he was a scholarship kid. Why am I even here? I need to keep this in mind:

obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../best-cartoon-ev.html

- psantillana

February 23, 2008 at 5:51am

I'd actually have enjoyed this post if it hadn't taken a swipe at Hillary's career (omitting her public service, and implying that Obama would be the only single-mom/poor boy becomes president story of our generation, conveniently omitting Bill Clinton in his little history lesson).   And did that big firm that Obama worked for (the one that had Rezko for a client) do more noble work than the Rose Law Firm?   Anyway, the most intelligent president in my lifetime was either Clinton or Carter (takes a lot of brains to be a nuclear engineer too) -- I applaud the brains, but it doesn't tell us how good a president they'll be.  

- Lymon1

February 23, 2008 at 6:32am

Barack Obama's critics routinely engage in "bait-and-switch" tactics where Obama's substantive, detailed positions and solutions are brushed away and replaced by the passionate fuzzy-headed fervor of Obamania. In other words, the wild and unrestrained excitement that Obama and his message generates amongst his supporters gives critics a license misrepresent and ignore the sober and well thought out specifics.

My point is that Obama's wonkish intelligence and his uplifting motivational messages are not mutually exclusive. They are just unique. Quite frankly, I am amazed that after eight years of conservative mismanagemnt and dishonesty I can be so hopeful about our nation's future with a President Obama leading a national Renaissance that marries both heart and mind.

- daveis

February 23, 2008 at 11:05am

One of my great-aunts gave me a subscription to The New Republic for my Bar Mitzvah forty-seven years ago. I have been an on-and-off again subscriber, particularly in years preceding important elections. I often skip over Marty's blog, but sometimes I peek. Today's piece is worthy of wider circulation, maybe on RCP. Less for his raising of the teenage mother angle, than his insight into the mind and character of Obama, as evidenced by his academic accomplishments and profession and by his work on the streets. As I watch Obama in the debates, one of the things that strikes me is how his mind wraps around complex issues and also understands the most acute political implications. (For what its worth, I am also impressed by Hillary, just tired of the Clinton baggage.) Obama is not only a "new" man, but there are inklinings of a great, deep, prudent, and wise person there. I think this would be good for the country and the world, and I include, "Good for the Jews."

Also for what its worth: I am from Mass and supported Deval Patrick, who, we now all know, used similar rhetoric to get elected. He has been less impressive in office. Having watched both up close now, I find Obama's vision and character in a league beyond Deval's. Like Marty, I think that just electing Obama, his policies notwithstanding, will be a great plus for this nation.

- sabatia

February 23, 2008 at 11:22am

sabatia,

"there are inklinings of a great, deep, prudent, and wise person there."

OK, therefore, let’s give him a chance to prove himself, as a senator  or as a governor.

"I think that just electing Obama, his policies notwithstanding, will be a great plus for this nation."

Was just electing Deval Patrick turned out to be a great plus for MA?

- jacobt1

February 23, 2008 at 12:53pm

Uh, you refer to Obama's "origins in poverty."  I lived in Honolulu for a time.  Punahoe, where Obama graduated, is an elite prep school.

I haven't read Obama's autobiography, so I don't know how he came to attend?  Was he on scholarship?  Did a wealthy family friend lend the Obama's the money?

Were they really poor, or was his mother essentially a white middle class bohemian, or hippie, really, given the time period?  

We boomers all knew plenty of people like that then. (And may have been them.)  They may not have been personally in possession of a lot of cash, but their background, sensibility, and class was middle class, often upper middle class.  

Which means, ultimately they weren't really poor, not really on the streets, because they had a middle class support system of family and friends to which they could return pretty much when they wanted to.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 1:48pm

nturner, your post borders on profound.  You are seeing Obama for what he is, a product of leftist elite academia, with all its well known prejudices, follies, and self-loathing of its American origins with the correlative desire to be part of the internationalist elite.

Obama's charm is ultimately very dangerous.  And he would, indeed, very likely be dangerous for this nation and its interests.  As well as for Israel.

The only remaining candidate who is not suspect and does not pose obvious dangers to America is McCain.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 1:56pm

OK Mr. Peretz. But are you sure all that is in Obama? Or is that what you are seeing in Obama?

Don't mind me, but what I've heard are only genius soundbites and escapism when it comes to what really matters. When I haven't heard some troubling things...

This, because rallying the masses from moral emptiness is a highly dangerous political weapon in the long run. At a certain point it can lead to the utmost deception, followed by very upseting despair.

And let's face it. Deep down, Obama is no Lincoln and no FDR. These men were not pragmatists. These men were very conscious of the moral frame  they came from, of what they wanted to achieve and of what they would never, ever, compromise.

And the man's pedigree ("Maybe some of my readers don't quite grasp what kind of mind comes with a professor of constitutional law at the University Of Chicago, right up there with Cass Sunstein and Richard Posner") really isn't relevant. This does not mean that I don't respect Sunstein (less, Posner). And since we are at it, Sunstein actually wrote immensely important Constitutional Law books and papers. The same cannot be said, by far, about Obama.

- luispc

February 23, 2008 at 2:32pm

"Tears to my eyes."  I think I'm gonna puke.

"Obama's substantive, detailed positions and solutions are brushed away"

How can they be brushed away if they don't exist?

I swear, these Obama sots are ready to toss down every conceit the guy hands them.

ChanRobt, Obama is right about one thing, he can bring us together.  I may vote for McCain, too.  

- jm_rice

February 23, 2008 at 2:44pm

jm-rice, I don't think the Democratic party has given you any reasonable choices this year.  You're lucky, and the GOP is lucky (or wise) that it didn't offer up Romney.

Giulianni would certainly have not been trustworthy the country in the way Obama and Hillary are not.  But, he's got peculiarities in his personal life beyond the normal peculiarities we all have.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 3:11pm

ChanRobt,

"You are seeing Obama for what he is, a product of leftist elite academia, with all its well known prejudices, follies, and self-loathing of its American origins with the correlative desire to be part of the internationalist elite."

I think that Clintons had the same mindset but they overgrew this childhood disease but Obamas  have not.

"The only remaining candidate who is not suspect and does not pose obvious dangers to America is McCain."

McCain  and Lieberman deserve a great respect for the surge. I can’t forget myself for being so uncritical to the Liberal press and believing everything I read there about  McCain  and Lieberman  being  nuts for advocating the surge.

However,  McCain is a one issue  President.  I don’t think it’s good enough.  I would vote for him over Obama, but I think that Clintons overall would be better.

- jacobt1

February 23, 2008 at 3:34pm

BAD TYPO

I meant to write, "Giulianni would certainly have been trustworthy for the country in the way Obama and Hillary are not."

An extra "not" in the orginal changed my meaning by 180 degrees.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 3:35pm

jacobt1, you are an honorable man to admit you followed the MSM wrongly regarding the surge.  I'm very impressed.

I disklked Hillary deeply, but think she would be less worrisome in the White House than Obama, if only because I know what she is and that she tends at least to be a pragmatist.

But, I have always felt in my gut there is a parallel totalitarian lurking in Hillary.  And an ideologue that, once she felt she were safe and the coast was clear, would raise its ugly head.

For me, Hillary vs Obama is a devil you know proposition.

McCain is the only one of the three who I'm confident would not sell the country down the river.  He had to prove that in a way that few, fortunately, are ever asked to.  In a Hanoi prison camp.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 4:31pm

Not to worry, CR, got the drift.  I guess you've read the David Brooks comment I've put up here, about how if the Democrats manage to lose this thing they'll wonder why they didn't put up a generic candidate like Biden or Dodd, instead of these two, with all their negatives.  Yes, you're right:  When the voters are saying, "We hate Bush/theGOP so much, just give us someone we can vote for," once again the Democrats blow their moment by offering up a sorry choice.

Jacobt1, shouldn't be too concerned about the one-issue candidate.  Aside from the fact that that one issue is still a huge issue -- not just Iraq but security and the juice to order around generals and admirals -- I'm not so sure the wonking factor is that important either.  No matter what your campaign positions are, your policy isn't truly informed until you're in the White House, after you've found out what you've really bought into.

Another big factor will come into play for voters:  John McCain will not be managed.  Barack Obama will by necessity be managed.

- jm_rice

February 23, 2008 at 4:32pm

"For me, Hillary vs Obama is a devil you know proposition."

I don’t agree that Clintons are devils.  They learned to  manage the country well.  Overall they made good decisions and had the good team.

Clinton administration was relatively corruption free compare to other recent administrations.

.If you don’t agree with  me, rank the recent administrations based on quality of managements and the decisions they had to make as well as  the level of corruption.

- jacobt1

February 23, 2008 at 6:13pm

I want to make note of a few different things:

First, I am sick of hearing how Barack Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Chicago.  He was a Lecturer on Law, which is wholly different from a tenured or even tenure-track professor.  It's akin to a part-time, community-college-esque appointment.  This is exactly why he hasn't authored any mentionable texts on law.  Marty certainly knows this; he just doesn't care, for this kind of snippet makes Obama look brilliant to those who don't know much about academia.  I have to read countless obnoxious posts from Marty about dinner parties in Cambridge, colleagues at Harvard, etc.  I went to Harvard, and I even find Marty's name dropping loathsome.  I can't imagine how tedious his missives are to the vast majority of people who couldn't care less who he taught in a tutorial in Quincy House.  I say all of this to demonstrate that Marty certainly knows academia.  Had Hillary Clinton been a Lecturer on Law and claimed she was a professor, we'd have surely suffered a Peretz piece about how she pales in comparison to the actual professor he got drinks with last night!

Second, if Barack Obama is our candidate, I'll be voting for McCain.  I do not trust Barack Obama.  I would not sleep well at night knowing that we surveyed the Illinois State Legislature for our Commander in Chief.  When he talks foreign policy, it is painfully obvious that he doesn't have the slightest actual clue what he's talking about.  And, Marty, let me let you in on a little secret:  I will not be alone among Democrats in my McCain vote.  I envision that working class Democrats in places like Ohio will flood out to vote for the war hero over the trendy talker.  Furthermore, I imagine a healthy lot of Latinos will do the same for "McAmnesty," especially when his Democratic opposition is Barack Obama.  That so many of you have sold Obama as the "electable" candidate -- even though getting elected means winning places like, oh, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania (against a Republican) -- demonstrates how out of touch with reality you are.  

- nturner

February 23, 2008 at 6:40pm

NT -- while anyone who has read my Obama criticism knows I'm sympathetic to some of your points, there's nothing so awful about Obama that means trading away the chance to make so much progressive progress, let alone allow McCain to cement a reactionary Supreme Court for decades.  The Dems can't let this primary tear the party in two -- I believe Obama shared nearly equally the fault for that if it happens, but I'd ask you to reconsider.  (I've said the same thing to Obama people who swear they won't vote for Hillary, though they do it in a more self-righteous, blackmailing style...)

- Lymon1

February 23, 2008 at 7:23pm

aturner,  I'm from around LaLand, where name-dropping is part of the game -- I imagine it's worse in the Hamptons -- so I just consider it part of his cute, parvenu charm.

No, you'll not be alone in your McCain vote.  It's really too bad that, should Obama get the nod, I'll have to abandon the values what make me usually a straight-ticket Democrat and go non-partisan this year, voting competence for president.  The difference in depth between the two is too striking.  I'm not so much against Obama, as disgusted at those like Peretz and the adolescents at the Plank, who let infatuation trump their judgment.  For those who trade on their purported sophistication, their ardor is unseemly.

- jm_rice

February 23, 2008 at 7:54pm

nturner, what an excellent piece.  I thought, too, that Obama had been a full-boogie Law Prof.

And, I think your analysis is correct.  McCain is going to sit better with what used to be called REagan Democrats than will Obama.

Your opinion about Latinos preferring McCain sounds very credible as well.  

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 8:22pm

www.rasmussenreports.com/.../daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43%. He also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 44% (see recent daily results and summary of recent state. Obama now earns support from 44% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 43%."

With the God-like treatment from the media  that Obama got  so far, he  is doing as bad as HRC against McCain. Obama  coverage in the media  can only get worse, while HRC coverage can’t get any worse.

- jacobt1

February 23, 2008 at 9:20pm

jacobt1, though I like the look of those numbers, I don't give much creedence to polls ten months out before an election.

Much can happen 'tween now and November.  And much will.

- ChanRobt

February 23, 2008 at 11:41pm

My good friend HenryScott35 writes over on the obama blog:

That was some quality Hillary this morning, in Ohio pretending to be handed some mailers then the fake outrage!

"Shame on you, Barack Obama."

as if that wasn't hilarious enough to yell she tacks on my personal favorite line of the entire campaign....

"enough with the speeches and the big rallies..."

yeh Hillary is right...enough with all that being successful and inspiring the nation. And saying it at a rally of her own as part of a speech no less.

classic hackery.

- jwred18

February 24, 2008 at 12:54am

nturner,

"First, I am sick of hearing how Barack Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at Chicago.  He was a Lecturer on Law, which is wholly different from a tenured or even tenure-track professor"

Do you have any explanation to the following Marty's writing?

"Maybe some of my readers don't quite grasp what kind of mind comes with a professor of constitutional law at the University Of Chicago, right up there with Cass Sunstein and Richard Posner"

What could be justifications in his mind to write such nonsense?

- jacobt1

February 24, 2008 at 10:55am

I'm starting to feel like a broken record...but please, please, to Dems above and elsewhere, for that matter, saying they'll default to McCain: think about the Republicans, and another weakkneed bunch of Dems in the Senate (even if there's a Dem majority) making another 4 years of appointments to the federal courts...That is going to be a real problem, and it's a lot more important than the "issues" of the day...thiose ain't gonna get solved anyway. But the courts make a difference (you can blame it on Mr. Chief Justice Marshall if you like, but that's the reality)....

And yes, us Democrats are in this muddle because the "base,", the media, the party big shots, the ether -- whatever -- wiped out the electable candidates at the start.

And Peretz, and other Obama fans -- the really really scary thing about this guy is, precisely, his charisma. Agreed, he's got substance to many of his positions, etc., etc, but charisma is just plain dangerous -- just look at Peretz's nonsensical hero worship, and the words used by all too many Obamaphiles all over the place.

- LISAH

February 24, 2008 at 12:11pm

....oh, and Ralph Nader's back in. No end to this clown's still growing ego. Sure, he was great way back when, but he sure doesn't know when to get off stage.

- LISAH

February 24, 2008 at 12:16pm

....and if the current flap over McCain and lobbyists sticks -- and knocks him out (okay, don't count on it), and Romnet gets back in (after all, he only "suspended") -- then what?

- LISAH

February 24, 2008 at 12:24pm

I don't understand how the bloggers here can become so focused on things that are essentially irrelevant.

Here are some relevant facts about Obama.

1.  He is very intelligent.  It takes a very intelligent person to become President of the Harvard Law Review.  It is not a "political" appointment.  (Full disclosure:  I went to Harvard Law School and didn't come close to even being on the Law Review.)

2.  He spent a summer at Sidley & Austin, a top dollar, big corporation Chicago firm, and could have easily gone back.  Instead he chose a much smaller and less affluent firm where he could do civil rights and civil liberties work.  

3.  Before law school he spent four or five years as an organizer of the poor.  He could have spent that time at IBM or selling insurance.

4.  Regardless of his title at Chicago Law, Cass Sunstein (a very distinguished prof who just migrated to Harvard) praises Obama's intellect and grasp of Constitutional Law.  Randall Kennedy (yes, I know, he's a black guy) a Harvard Law professor does as well.  All this has been set forth in TNR.

5.  McCain, by the way, was fifth from last in his class at Annapolis.  (Full disclosure:  my son, who is an Annapolis grad, does not support McCain and did not the last time he ran.)  His courage as a prisoner in Vietnam is extraordinary, but has very little if anything to do with his qualities about making decisions as president.  Note:  McCain resigned from the Navy in large part because he realized that he had no hope of becoming an admiral -- not considered capable enough.

6. The essential issue in this campaign is this:  Which candidate is best able to change a presidency which, in varying degrees over the last 27 years, has (a) essentially and secretivelyfavored the interests of corporate America over the broader common interest (including but not exclusively favoring the wealthy, but also defending the interests of the middle class, the working poor, and those left out of the system)  and (b) transformed the American military from a defender of our nation and participant in the community of democratic nations into a unilateralist international bully and, as a consequence, wanton killer for no serious purpose.  Obama recognizes what has happened.  McCain certainly does not -- he is a supporter of the status quo.  Clinton to some extent recognizes what has happened but, equally (and paradoxically) participated in the creation and development of the status quo (simple facts:  she was on the Wal Mart Board for six years, she voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq, she was part of the administration that fervently advocated NAFTA, she refuses to allow access to her White House papers or personal tax returns).  Her claims about her experience are essentially about her experience as a happy camper in the world of the status quo.

Is Obama perfect?  Certainly not.

Is there any indication that McCain or Clinton could do a better job of doing what is necessary to redirect the focus of our federal government?  Absolutely not.

- PeteBeck

February 24, 2008 at 2:12pm

Believing in someone or something without or despite the lack of empirical evidence to justify that belief is the definition of a leap of faith  Barack Obama, is such a leap of faith.an orator with no track record or experience to back up the belief in the absence of such empirical evidence, that he is the best qualified man to lead the United States,    Pace Harry Calllahan, "Does America feel lucky?"  

- bl462

February 24, 2008 at 2:50pm

PeteBeck ,

#1, #2, # 3.

You can the same things about Clinton.

"Which candidate is best able to change a presidency which, in varying degrees over the last 27 years, has (a) essentially and secretivelyfavored the interests of corporate Amerrica"

This is a foolish Obama talking point.

Clinton Presidency was a boom for ordinary Americans.

" (b) transformed the American military from a defender of our nation and participant in the community of democratic nations into a unilateralist international bully and, as a consequence, wanton killer for no serious purpose"

In other words, who can bring the American military back to the Clinton years.

I guess, Clinton can.

"she was part of the administration that fervently advocated NAFTA"

If she is responsible for all the failure and successes of the Clinton administration, she deserves to be the next t president.

- jacobt1

February 24, 2008 at 3:12pm

READY ON DAY 1

Mberger81 (11:07:32 PM): this hillary argument- ready on day one

Henryscott30 (11:06:56 PM): obama should just come out and say

Henryscott30 (11:06:58 PM): day 1

Henryscott30 (11:07:04 PM): i am gonna give a speech

Henryscott30 (11:07:08 PM): be innaugurated

Henryscott30 (11:07:15 PM): sign a couple bills

Henryscott30 (11:07:19 PM): give away some pens

Henryscott30 (11:07:28 PM): and go to a bunch of dances

Henryscott30 (11:07:34 PM): and lets be honest hillary

Henryscott30 (11:07:37 PM): so would you  

Mberger81 (1:55:57 AM): this ready on day 1

Mberger81 (1:56:00 AM): to hillary

Mberger81 (1:56:06 AM): it actually does mean something

Mberger81 (1:56:15 AM): the clinton’s got their asses kicked

Mberger81 (1:56:19 AM): not just on health care

Mberger81 (1:56:22 AM): and gays in the military

Henryscott30 (1:56:41 AM): that doesnt make it any less silly

Mberger81 (1:56:50 AM): and not just in the congress

Mberger81 (1:56:58 AM): where they wound up losing both houses

Mberger81 (1:56:59 AM): lol

Mberger81 (1:57:01 AM): but sheeg man

Mberger81 (1:57:07 AM): it doesn't mean anything

Mberger81 (1:57:11 AM): to anybody in america

Henryscott30 (1:57:27 AM): listen man

Henryscott30 (1:57:30 AM): on day 1

Henryscott30 (1:57:39 AM): hillary is gonna be dancing around

Henryscott30 (1:57:49 AM): changing dresses

Henryscott30 (1:57:59 AM): going to balls

Henryscott30 (1:58:05 AM): that is what day 1 is

Henryscott30 (1:58:13 AM): enough with the day 1

Mberger81 (1:58:16 AM): lol

Henryscott30 (1:58:20 AM): day 2 maybe

Mberger81 (1:58:25 AM): it has a litle better ring than

Mberger81 (1:58:29 AM): i'm ready day 2

Mberger81 (1:58:31 AM): lol

Henryscott30 (1:58:35 AM): im for her doing the following:

Henryscott30 (1:58:40 AM): come out and say

Henryscott30 (1:58:48 AM): listen i am gonna leave the balls early

Henryscott30 (1:58:52 AM): on day 1

Mberger81 (1:58:56 AM): excellent

Henryscott30 (1:58:58 AM): im not gonna drink too much

Henryscott30 (1:59:04 AM): ill get some sleep

Henryscott30 (1:59:08 AM): so day 2

Henryscott30 (1:59:12 AM): im ready- and ready early in the AM

Henryscott30 (1:59:18 AM): but c'mon

Henryscott30 (1:59:22 AM): day 1 is booked

Henryscott30 (1:59:45 AM): imagine if on day 1

Henryscott30 (1:59:50 AM): hillary goes right to work

Henryscott30 (1:59:59 AM): blows off all her supporters

Henryscott30 (2:00:07 AM): everyone that made this possible

Mberger81 (2:00:11 AM): makes a 2 minute inauguration speech

Henryscott30 (2:00:18 AM): i am in the oval office

Henryscott30 (2:00:21 AM): its day 1

Mberger81 (2:00:21 AM): gotta get to work

Henryscott30 (2:00:33 AM): you idiots dance and eat shrimp

Mberger81 (2:00:36 AM): making her entire staff and bill

Mberger81 (2:00:40 AM): leave the parties the night before at 5 PM…just dragging bill home.

Mberger81 (2:00:44 AM): announcements all over the place…

Henryscott30 (2:00:47 AM): so silly

Mberger81 (2:00:51 AM): day 1….walking around the white house

Mberger81 (2:00:59 AM): snapping at people

Mberger81 (2:01:02 AM): to put down the cake

Mberger81 (2:01:06 AM): get to work

Henryscott30 (2:01:08 AM): i'd settle for them getting to work around feb 1

Henryscott30 (2:01:17 AM): settle in

Henryscott30 (2:01:29 AM): decide where to put the couches

Mberger81 (2:01:36 AM): you know who went to work day 1?

Mberger81 (2:01:47 AM): lbj and harry truman

Mberger81 (2:01:51 AM): that was it

Henryscott30 (2:02:07 AM): and carter

Mberger81 (2:02:11 AM): lol…yeah carter.

Henryscott30 (2:02:32 AM): day 1

Henryscott30 (2:02:35 AM): amazing

Henryscott30 (2:02:44 AM): obama just lets her say that

Henryscott30 (2:02:59 AM): he could be completely light-hearted about it

Henryscott30 (2:03:24 AM): and it defuses one of 4 hillary approaches

Mberger81 (2:03:36 AM): but ultimately

Mberger81 (2:03:39 AM): it ain't helping her

Henryscott30 (2:03:46 AM): right

Henryscott30 (2:03:49 AM): but still

Henryscott30 (2:03:52 AM): its anoying

- jwred18

February 24, 2008 at 3:26pm

PeteBeck, you make some persuasive points.

About Obama, even if his credentials are as sparkling as you say, they make him no more than an academic and an activist.  Next to McCain's his poltical credentials are negligible.

As for McCain in the military, I tend to agree with you in a way -- I've never been impressed by McCain's intellect, and I guess his failure to advance (if this is true) can be laid to this.  And I don't think "war hero" is appropriate for him.

But I am very impressed by the way he came back after being all but written off last year.  I'm impressed by the way he cleaned his campaign house and bulled ahead short-funded.  If campaigns are supposed to be crucibles for the preisdency, then McCain's performance makes relevant the credential of resilience he got in Vietnam.

Look, on core issues I'm a Democrat, but Carter and G. W. Bush have shown me that being right or wrong on the issues is less important than perfromance, and I just think someone like McCain, with combat service and 25 years in national government, has the obvious edge over a callow Barack Obama and an even greater advantage over a Barack Hussein Obama.

About the nitty-gritty of govenrnance....  Do you honestly think Obama will be capable of winnowing out the bullshit in defense appropriations anywhere near as well as McCain?  Do you think the brass will push around McCain like they will Obama?  Do you think Obama knows the arcana of the bills on his desk to sign anywhere near as well as McCain?  Do you think Obama knows foreign policy as well as McCain?  Do you think Obama as president will know any more than what his staff tell him?  Will he have the store of experience to fill in the blanks?

Of course the Democratic mandarins of the Senate want Obama over Hillary.  Do I need to tell you why?

I think we need an increased Democratic majority in Congress far more than we need a Democratic president.  McCain has lots of Democratic friends in Congress.  I think he and a Democratic Congress would work out quite well.   By the way, why aren't we hearing more about the congressional races?  They are extremely important.

- jm_rice

February 24, 2008 at 9:19pm

www.nytimes.com/.../25kristol.html

Agreed!

- basman

February 25, 2008 at 10:15pm

This too:

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obamas_appeal_depends_on_your.html

- basman

February 25, 2008 at 10:23pm