Will Obama Run an Oprah Foreign Policy?
By Larry Johnson on December 18, 2007 at 10:00 PM in Current Affairs
I have no doubt that Obama and Oprah are decent, well-meaning people. I am not challenging their integrity or their honesty. But I do question their judgment. Let’s start with Oprah and her school debacle in South Africa. Oprah’s desire to help African girls was genuine (I’m not going to get into the issue raised by others who question why she won’t do the same here in this country where urban schools are a disaster). But she also reminded us that good intentions and lots of money are not enough to guarantee success.
Her failure to properly vet the people involved in that project and to put in place a system to ensure it met her standards is her fault. It falls on no one else. She is to be commended for taking responsibility early on and not trying to blame others. But c’mon. If you have her money you can afford smart people who will ensure you don’t look like a buffoon. But this is not an isolated incident. This sloppiness in her approach has been the hallmark of her previous well-intentioned stunts.
Remember the car give away? Again, a great idea and well-intentioned. Only problem. She forgot to consider the possibility that car recipients would have to pay taxes. This is why lawyers and accountants exist. They are paid to think about this shit to ensure you don’t make this kind of mistake. Which is why I think there is a karmic bond between Obama and Oprah–those two sure act like each other. And that worries me.
I am putting my prejudice up front. I’m in the ABBO (Any Body But Obama) camp. He is naive and ill-informed. And yes, he spoke out in 2002 against the Iraq war. See? I’m wrong. However, if he had followed up his 2002 opposition to the war in Iraq with some tough actions then I would buy his bullshit. But he didn’t. He’s been wishy washy. If he was so goddamned prescient in 2002, then where has he been the last five years? Where is the filibuster? Where are the weekly speeches? He’s all about posture but does not really stand for anything.
But that’s not my biggest concern. It is the people leading his foreign policy effort. Tony Lake and Susan Rice are his foreign policy gurus. They worked for Bill Clinton. But when I asked a senior Clinton advisor who made the bonehead recommendation to appoint James Woolsey–neocon and PNAC supporter–as head of the CIA the answer was,
Tony Lake.
Okay, everyone’s entitled to at least one mistake. Though mistakes at the level of the President resonate more. But then it turns out that Lake and Susan Rice were essentially asleep at the switch when more than one million Rwandans massacred each other. Talk tough but do nothing. Catching a theme here?
So we jump ahead and witness Obama vowing he’ll talk to our enemies–like Iran–without precondition. Sounds good. Sure makes him look like he’s not afraid of diplomacy. But this is just another car give away to a bunch of clowns not expecting to pay taxes on the car. Let’s talk to Iran, but let’s ensure that Iran turns over Imad Mughniyeh–the bomber of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. If they are serious about peace then let’s not let them walk away from hundreds of dead Marines. But Obama says, never mind. We will talk regardless.
Sorry, but that makes us look like suckers. I welcome diplomacy, but it should be more that free schooling for girls who have to tolerate a pedophile or free cars but you got to pay the taxes. Is it too much to ask Obama and his advisors to think about this stuff first?
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
I heard Oprah say that she wasn’t interested anymore in helping children in U.S. schools because they weren’t motivated enough and she’d rather put money in a country where children want to learn. There’s something so wrong with that statement — something very baby/bathwater about it.
Larry said Obama is “naive.” I tell you, when Paul Krugman — a leftie if there ever was one — calls Obama “naive,” and in disgust, it’s time to pay attention. (That was in his next to latest column about Obama’s confusing and misleading statements on his health care plan … and now Obama is whining in mailers to New Hampshire voters that Hillary Clinton criticized his health care plan … ohhh.)
Obama does not have the experience, the time in office, or the hard work put in to run yet. Bill Clinton said in 1988 people approached him about running, but he felt he needed more experience and more time … and Clinton at that point was a hell of a lot more experienced than Obama is now.
A lot of Democrats fell in love with Obama after his 2004 Democratic convention speech, and swarmed to him. Then he won a landslide victory to the U.S. Senate by beating a nutcase carpetbagger. And the lovefest continued. But what no one sobered up long enough to realize was that it was just one speech. And a speech does not a president make. ALL of the candidates make great speeches now and then, and some of them write great policy papers. That does NOT in any way mean they can sit behind that desk in the Oval Office and lead the country.
Today, at TPM I saw an article about the FISA debate yesterday. Obama was asked if he’d return to D.C. to help. He said he “might.” Presidents don’t say, “I might.” They make decisions! It’s “I’m flying back today,” or “I’m staying in Iowa.” You gotta make the decisions … and, for pete’s sake, that was a simple one he could have announced. Either he’s going or he’s not.
Iraq? In my post last Friday, I pointed out how he obfuscated about the Iraq war in 2004, even saying he wasn’t sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. Whatever he said in 2002 was easy because he didn’t have to vote on it, and he’s admitted that if he’d had to make a decision, he’s not sure what he would have done! Jeez louise.
Wasn’t sure… don’t know… might … not the words of a leader.
she’d rather put money in a country where children want to learn.
I think she was motivated because she thought she was of Zulu ancestry. She found out she wasn’t during a PBS special on tracing her roots.
Cee, that is a venerable motivation. But I did hear her also mention why she didn’t want to do this in the U.S.
Susan:
I heard Oprah say that she wasn’t interested anymore in helping children in U.S. schools because they weren’t motivated enough and she’d rather put money in a country where children want to learn.
Well everybody loves oprah..just wish that women would spend a day at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Northwestern, Cal-Berkley, Cal-Poly, MIT, Purdue or frankly a thousand other schools of higher learning…There are tech schools, Jc’s, State Colleges and on-line universities..
Students in America want to learn..Opray needs to see that..
Our Congresswoman, Julie Carson died the other day.
A black woman who was a jewel for Indiana,Smart, Compassionate, progressive and a heart of gold.
A flower grown in the rich soil of indiana..
Don’t tell me our kids don’t want to learn..It’s our failure if our children don’t grow and learn in america..our cup is half full, not half empty.
Any idea who is Hillary’s FP advisors and what their tracks records are? Just curious to compare.
Wow. Solved at last, eh? Hadn’t heard anything more than the stuff in Baer’s books.
Holbrooke and Wes Clarke. If you compare the balkans to Rwanda, we look a lot better when Holbrooke and Clarked were on top of things in the Balkans/former Yugoslavia. Not perfect, but certainly better.
LJ
I like Wes Clark. I opposed the Balkan war.
Hasim “The Snake” Thaci was a terrorist. Look him up.
He’s now the Kosovo PM.
If HRC is a polarizing figure, Obama attaching himself to an entertainer like Oprah Winfrey lays him open to barge-loads of criticism. Before her self reinvention, complete with book clubs and car giveaways, Oprah was getting rich on Springer-esque, “nuts and sluts,” television.
Her credentials for judging or endorsing political candidates are, frankly, non-existent, unless she is calling the game from the viewpoint of, “parvenu entertainment type.”
Obama is just a taller version of Gary Hart. When push comes to shove, he’ll fold, like another lefty fart in a whirlwind…
Larry: Apparently not in her case.
Oprah has more money than you can shake a stick at, yet she did not start out that way. If she has had qualified, motivated people, she should not have made this error in judgment; unless she was not listening any rational advice that may have been offered. From a simple PR stand point, giving the cars away and not paying for everything but the gas created negative publicity.
When Barrak Obama stumbled on the same question Hillary did regarding New York’s drivers licenses, with a week in the interim to fix a response, it told me his political instincts are not that sharp. Hillary should have just said “No.” and the next debate she did.
What finished it off was that Obama will abolish diplomatic protocols and “Talk” with Iran on one hand, on the other handhe would not, when he says he would send some tomahawks in to Pakistan with OBL’s name on them. Conditions change, but threats will remain. In that regard, global politics do not allow for national “AAA” politicians. Bush is the ultimate example of this, being incapable of any strategic vision or thought of the consequences and he has had some of the “best” money can buy. What does Obama bring to the table that we won’t pay for later? I would ask the same for any candidate.
Thanks for the breeze and best wishes to you and yours. I hope we make the right choices and survive.
On the Obama stumble…I still have to ask who is giving them such bad advice and how much do they stay on script?
Oh, and this. LOL!
Former senator claims Obama attended a ’secular madrassa’RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday December 18, 2007
A recently endorser of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) presidential campaign — former Sen. Bob Kerrey — claimed Monday that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a ’secular madrassa’ during an appearance on CNN’s ‘The Situation Room.’
The madrassa claim originally had been made back in January of this year and was debunked by CNN:
“Secular madrassa(sic)”?!! GAWD! I am so sick of these kinds of ignorant ravings on the part of people have exactly zero knowledge of what they are yapping on about.
First, the word is madrasa, not madrassa (the double letter makes a difference in both pronunciation, and meaning of a word). The word is pronounced MADrusuh, not MuDRAAAAAAASSSSuh.
Second, the meaning of the word MADrasa (not, please muDRAAAAAASSSuh) is merely and simply school. That’s it, folks, school. So to all of you who have kids who are in school, your kids go to a MADrasa Monday through Friday every week, and so do the kids of all those ignoramuses who scream about Obama having attended a muDRAAAAAAASSSSuh. So deal with it.
Third, the majority of MADrasas in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and in the rest of the world, are “secular MADrasas”. If your kids go to a public school they go to a secular MADrasa. Therefore, if Obama went to a “secular maDRAAAAASSSuh”, he actually went to a MADrasa, which is, merely and simply, a school.
Any questions?
PS There ARE, of course religious MADrasas. Some religious MADrasas teach Islam, some teach Christianity, some teach other religions. If your kids go to a Christian school, then your kids go to a religious MADrasa. Some religious MADrasas do not teach kids the kinds of values some of us might prefer that they taught them. That includes some Islamic MADrasas, and that includes some Christian MADrasas.
Any questions about THAT?
PPS Yeshivas are also religious MADrasas, therefore anyone who has attended a Yeshiva went to a religious MADrasa. As is the case with all religious MADrasas, some Yeshivas teach good Jewish values and principles, others do not.
And Hillary’s foreign policy is better than Obama’s exactly how? For example, has anyone actually looked at her record on Iraq, and how much she has sounded like Bush?
And has anybody actually considered to what degree she and Obama sound more alike than they sound different?
No to Obama, and no to Hillary.
Thanks for making some good points. I too am in the OBBA camp and don’t much like Clinton either. I have supported John Edwards from the gitgo and believe he would now be leading in all the polls if he had ever gotten half the press the two front-runners, chosen by the media, have gotten. better “hope” Obama doesn’t win because the Republican Thugs will eat him alive.
“Let’s talk to Iran, but let’s ensure that Iran turns over Imad Mughniyeh–the bomber of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983 that killed 241 Marines.”
But Larry, why should they do that?
It was an act of war, asymmetrical maybe, but WAR nonetheless!
Unless of course you buy the Bushite canard about “terrorism”.
It’s never “terrorism” to kill invading military forces. And who believes US Marines (and French paratroops) are ANYWHERE “to keep THE peace”, and are not occupying foreign troops to keep “somebody’s peace”? Well, others will take exception and fight…
“By any means necessary” Malcolm would add…
Michel
You make a fair point. Although the US Government has defined the attack on the Marines as an act of terrorism, it really was a legitimate military target in light of other US offensive actions in Lebanon at the time. But, regardless of whether we call it an act of terrorism or an act of war, Iran has been willing over the years to use military force against US interests. Getting Mughniyeh from my point of view is important in bringing closure to his wanton attacks over the years. No quarter.
And, Larry, what American individuals would you suggest it is important for other nations to “get” who have been subjected to wanton American attacks over the years in order to bring closure to those?
“Getting Mughniyeh from my point of view is important in bringing closure to his wanton attacks over the years. No quarter.”
Larry, you make it sound as if it all happened in a vacuum, with us White Knights fighting the good fight against “wanton” killers whose motives are as murky as they’re evil!
It’s the middle of the Lebanese civil war, the Palestinians as usual are paying for everybody, Israel went for “Peace for Galilee” (Orwell anybody?), Sabra and Shatila…, Hizbullah is formed as a legitimate Lebanese defense group fighting the Israeli onslaught and occupation of South Lebanon…
Bill Buckley (not the right wing ideologue, he of Firing Line, but CIA station chief in Beirut) has been kidnapped, tortured and killed, retaliation follows against the then-head of Hizbullah (name escapes me), it’s a miss that kills nearly a hundred people on the streets of Beirut, more people are kidnapped in Lebanon, TWA flight is hijacked by Mughniyeh (??), US Navy guy is killed…..
And you want Mughniyeh to get No Quarter and pay for everybody’s doings?
Then he must be Palestinian!!!
Newsflash, and I’m not trying to be snarky, but Mughniyeh is Palestinian. He is a legitimate bad guy.
And are there some American legitimate badguys in this story that someone else has a right to “get” as a condition of beginning diplomacy?
I knew that he was Palestinian Larry, hence the winking smiley
Now, I’m not sure I get your other point.
Is he a “legitimate bad guy” BECAUSE he is a Palestinian?
Or is he a “legitimate bad guy” who happens to be Palestinian?
In other words, he (or any other) could be a “legitimate bad guy” who happens to be an American.
And so be a “legitimate” target?
So we’re back to the Marines compound in Beirut that fateful morning in 1983: 241 “legitimate bad guys” who happened to be Americans were killed in an act of war by a most “legitimate” bad guy who was fighting a foreign invader by any means necessary.
Since it seems to be popular to reach back into history for context, who were the “legitimate bad guys” on July 22, 1946? Is it possible to have a moment of “closure” for this act of terrorism? Context can be a tricky thing. How many future world leaders had their names on the bombing of the King David Hotel which was widely condemned as an “act of terrorism”? Damn history can be messy.
I don’t know about “popular”, but it can be most necessary.
Closure for Irgun (or was it Stern gang??) terror is easy to achieve, at least on paper:
Begin and Shamir’s memory are dragged into mud, immense reparations are paid to the Palestinians who are allowed to return to the lands stolen from them over the past 60+ years. The “zionist dream” of “eretz israel” is limited to a 100 square kilometer of Negev desert where zionists are allowed again to “make the desert bloom” as one great myth has it.
See, closure absolute. On paper. Or blogs…
He who owns the press, has the freedom. In that context, the people who history tells us “won” are freedom fighters. The people who history tells us “lost” are terrorists. Very broadly speaking.
Larry, and what would you say to Iranians who say, “no quarter,” for our involvement in the 1953 coup?
Precisely, wethornet! An utterly illegitimate - one might even say criminal - action, as contrasted to, for example, attacking invading foreign military forces.
Shirin
You might consider purchasing copies of “Overthrow” and “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup” by Stephen Kinzer. If you’ve already read these two books hell buy them anyway and pass them on to the “Uninformed” as gifts of Holiday enlightenment.
So can someone show me a link to where Sen Obama has said he will be appointing Oprah as his National Security Advisor or as his Secretary of State ( or both sequentially ).
Protocol is defined as the way things had been done until they are done a different way and then that becomes protocol for a while.
“Legitimate Bad Guy” ( is that like jumbo shrimp or authorized freedom ?) ok so who is an illegitimate bad guy? How does one legitimize a bad guy? Get him elected of course?
TPM this morning. First:
Got a Bridge in Brooklyn to Sell You
Obama flack: “No candidate in this race has undergone more investigations and examinations than Barack Obama has.”
–David Kurtz
————–
Then, from Josh Marshall himself:
You’re Kidding Me, Right?
I really hope the Obama camp is kidding when they say Barack is the most scrutinized candidate in the race. If they’re not, they’re living in a fantasy world that makes me question whether they’re up to the rigors of a national campaign.
Let me be clear: there’s legitimate scrutiny of legislative records, policy positions, personal finances, history of decisions made in tough, pressure-filled situations (the only really legitimate meaning of character), etc. There’s been some of that and should probably be more.
Then there’s the collective assault that constitutes modern press ’scrutiny’, especially for a Democrat who generally has to deal with the tag team of the national political press and the regrettably much more able and ruthless GOP oppo research cadre, which has an established feeding operation mainlined to most national political reporters.
It ain’t fair; it ain’t right; but it’s the reality. And if he thinks he’s already gotten that, well … what’s he been smoking?
–Josh Marshall
At Huffington Post:
“Obama Called Out Ted Kennedy: ‘You’re Getting A Little Old…Get Some Spine’“
And this from someone who has a consistent record of ducking out of controversial votes?
Michel, “US navy guy is killed”, yeah NAVY S.E.A.L. Robert Steadem VOLUNTEERED his life to protect civilian passengers. Be nice to Shirin & maybe she’ll take you real estate shopping in Syria next summer. Since it’s obvious you hate the US, why don’t you just leave?
justsomeone, are you sure you are spelling steadem’s name properly? i just did a google search and got nothing with that spelling.
i don’t recall you ever posting before…who are you? introduce yourself, if you care to.
how do you know about this? it was, iirc, about 21 years ago or so. i was on active duty at the time.
Larry I talk of good intentioned, well meaning behaviour a lot in my to be published book.
Prior to the debarkle you mentioned some parents were comparing Oprah’s school to Colditz or an inflexible prison and its staff, wardens. The Mother Theresa was not a good person. She was a zealot. Likewise Oprah is not well meaning or good intentioned, she is a lay preacher lacking the skills of someone like Dr Phil.
I think that Oprah should forget the black thing and side with Mrs Clinton to make the mean team. I am reminded of Jefferson in one of his quotes where he talked of Priests aiding and abetting [people of power] to support their own vices.
If we look at that. Heroin use has been popular in the British aristocracy, yet they speak out vehemently against [hard] drugs. The Beligian royal family had members who had been priviledged guests at underage sex shows, yet they are one of the louder voices against paedophilia. There have been numerous influencial Audstralians caught drunk driving and not prosecuted. Yet they all speak of drunk drivers deserving only of hard jail time. I guess that is what Jefferson was talking about. I could go on….and on.
Larry, given the choice of Obama or Clinton, I would endorse Obama with a 1000 kisses. However, we are in agreement that he is a slimeball toerag, and unfortunately, sad to say…..PERFECT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.
[...] [...]