Quibbles and Bits 7/15

1) From the Politico: As the Democratic National Committee gets ready for its convention in Denver, local Denver businesses are finding that getting work from the convention is disappointing, with smaller businesses and non-profits virtually shut out. It would be interesting to find out just what companies are getting all the business from the DNC.

Read the rest ->

2) This caught my eye. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN, Obama is asked about several issues:

ZAKARIA: Tell me, what is your first memory of a foreign policy event that shaped you, shaped your life?

OBAMA: A first memory. Well, you know, it wasn’t so much an event.
I mean, my first memory was my mother coming to me and saying, “I’ve remarried this man from Indonesia, and we’re moving to Jakarta on the other side of the world.”

I have no quibble this as far as it goes. After all, a boy doesn’t control the actions of the adults around him. However, the question was about a “foreign policy event” and Obama answered with his mother’s marriage to an Indonesian man. Not the assassination of Anwar Sadat? Not the fall of the Berlin Wall? Not AIDS or something like that? OK.

But I also note that his mother came and told Obama she had already remarried this man. Remarried? Huh? OK. But what kind of a home life did Obama have if his mom tells him she has remarried after the fact??????

Zakaria asks Obama why he majored in international affairs. Here’s Obama’s answer:

Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked — was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy — it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

So, Stanley Ann Dunham was an “early practitioner of microfinancing”? Maybe she knew Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank winners of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for microfinancing.

Zakaria and Obama also had an exchange about Iraq and Iran. Here’s a bit:

ZAKARIA: You’ve also said that the chief beneficiary of the Iraq war has been Iran, which now poses a significant strategic threat to, or challenge to, the United States in the region.

If we were to leave Iraq entirely, would that not cede the field to them and allow Iran to consolidate its gains in the region and in the country?

OBAMA: I don’t think so. Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I’ve said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

I’ve talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we’re making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces — so long as we’re not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other — to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region.

So, nobody’s talking about abandoning the field.

ZAKARIA: That might be a large force.

OBAMA: Well, it — you know, I’m going to make sure that we determine, based on conditions on the ground, how we effectively carry out those limited, temporary missions.

Obama implies that Americans are likely to be in Iraq for some time, but not “combat troops” with “permanent bases.” Who will this be then? Where will they be? Under whose protection? What will they do?

Another interesting exchange is on Obama’s upcoming trip to Europe. Zakaria implies Obama is going for the adulation:

ZAKARIA: You are going to Europe and the Middle East. You know that in places like France you have 85 percent approval ratings.

Isn’t that going to make some Americans very suspicious? If all of Europe likes you, if France likes you, there must be something wrong.

OBAMA: Well, I tell you what. You know, it’s interesting. As I travel around the country, here in the United States, I think people understand that there has been a price to the diminished regard with which the world holds the United States over the last several years.

It’s something that bothers people. It’s something that’s brought up.
You know, when I’m doing a town hall meeting in some rural community, invariably, somebody will raise their hand and they’ll say, “When are we going to restore the respect that the world had for America?”

And, you know, the American people’s instincts are good. It’s not just a matter of wanting to be liked. It’s the fact that, as a consequence of that diminished standing, we have less leverage on a whole host of critical issues that have to be dealt with.
So, I think the American people are ready for a president who is not alienating the world. And if that president is liked a little bit, well, that’s just a bonus.

Now, I don’t know how long that will last. We’ll see if my approval ratings hold up after I’m president.

So, the framing here is that Obama’s trip to Europe is for Joe and Jane sixpack who are worried about American status in the world. He’s going to make us feel better about ourselves. Nevermind the fawning crowds likely to appear at the Brandenburg Gate where he can say something like “ich bin ein berliner.”

Lastly, there was this exchange about high expectations for Obama:

ZAKARIA: You’re bound to disappoint people. I mean, with approval ratings that high, it’s bound to be a letdown. Don’t you think?

OBAMA: You know, my job is to make sure that, here in the United States, the American people feel confident that I’m going to be advocating for their interests, that I’m going to keep them safe.

The way to do that though, I believe, is to make sure that we’re paying attention to the rest of the world, their hopes, their aspirations, as well, and that we’re leading with our values and ideals, and not just with our military.

I’m not sure what to make of his response to an obvious question. People have such high expectations that disappointment is almost inevitable. Surely Obama knows this. But he does not respond but to say that he’ll advocate for US interests (advocate?) by paying more attention to the rest of the world. What is that supposed to mean? Probably the same thing all his convoluted talking does: YOU figure it out.

3) Today’s WaPo has an article about Obama’s inner circle or potential “kitchen cabinet.” If you don’t know the players, this might help. Maybe we’ll see some under the bus later.

4) Newsweek has a piece about Obama’s faith. He is walking a thin line with this. On the one hand is this description of his early association with Trinity:

The cross under which Obama went to Jesus was at the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ. It was a good fit. “That community of faith suited me,” Obama says. For one thing, Trinity insisted on social activism as a part of Christian life. It was also a family place. Members refer to the sections in the massive sanctuary as neighborhoods; churchgoers go to the same neighborhood each Sunday and they get to know the people who sit near them. They know when someone’s sick or got a promotion at work. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama met in the context of organizing, became a friend; after he married, Obama says, the two men would sometimes get together “after church to have chicken with the family—and we would have talked stories about our families.” In his preaching, Wright often emphasized the importance of family, of staying married and taking good care of children. (Obama’s recent Father’s Day speech, in which he said that “responsibility does not end at conception,” was not cribbed from Wright—but the premise could have been.) At the point of his decision to accept Christ, Obama says, “what was intellectual and what was emotional joined, and the belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, that through him we could achieve eternal life—but also that, through good works we could find order and meaning here on Earth and transcend our limits and our flaws and our foibles—I found that powerful.”

But after his first daughter was born, Obama says getting to church frequently was a problem. Anyone with children can imagine that, but he also continues to distance himself from Trinity:

After he began his run for the U.S. Senate, he says, the family sometimes didn’t go to Trinity for months at a time. The girls have not attended Sunday school. The family says grace at mealtime, and he talks to the children about God whenever they have questions. “I’m a big believer in a faith that is not imposed but taps into what’s already there, their curiosity or their spirit,” he says.

Although this article is something of a puff piece, it is shows how Obama will frame the whole faith / Trinity question for some time to come. Will this work to neutralize the earlier examples of his faith as seen through Wright and Pfleger?

5) From the transcript of a speech to La Raza:

They’re [working mothers] counting on us to help them make a living while raising their kids – to fight for equal pay for equal work, and for childcare, family leave and sick leave, because here in America, there should be no second class citizens in our workplaces.

——————————
I have a very different answer to our health care crisis. I’ll take on the drug and insurance companies, cut costs, guarantee health insurance for anyone who needs it and make it affordable for anyone who wants it.

And today, I’m announcing my plan to provide real relief for small business owners crushed by rising costs, an idea championed by my friend Hillary Clinton, who’s been leading the way in our battle to insure every American. It’s a plan that would help more employers provide health benefits for their workers – instead of making it harder for them, as Senator McCain would do.

Obama mentions making college affordable, equal pay for equal work, childcare, family leave and universal health care. At least he credited Hillary for this – but then she is still more popular with hispanics than he is.

6) From a transcript of Monday’s speech before the NAACP:

It’s about the responsibilities that Washington has – responsibilities that start with restoring fairness to our economy by making sure that the playing field isn’t tilted to benefit the special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans; and that we’re rewarding not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. That’s why I’ll offer a middle class tax cut so we can lift up hardworking families, and give relief to struggling homeowners so we can end our housing crisis, and provide training to young people to work the green jobs of the future, and invest in our infrastructure so we can create millions of new jobs.

And that’s why I’ll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We’ll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we’re not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we’re going to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.

——————
That’s why I’ve introduced a comprehensive strategy to recruit an army of new quality teachers to our communities – and to pay them more and give them more support. And we’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom.

This speech mentions a middle class tax cut, universal health care and a tax credit for college for everyone. OK, so how will this be paid for?

7) Today, the NYT had an op-ed from Obama spelling out his Iraq policy. He closes the op-ed with this:

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

Powerline has some beefs with this op-ed though and they do a pretty good job of comparing Obama’s NYT piece with his former statements on Iraq. Powerline has Obama quotes from Larry King, Face the Nation, the Today show, and a speech to the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Convention about his objections to the surge, saying these statements contradict the NYT piece.

But Powerline finishes with this on Afghanistan:

Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he misrepresents the record.

In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007–less than a year ago–that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes:

We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

Obama has been so uninterested in Afghanistan that when he went to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with a Congressional delegation in January 2006, he skipped the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan, which was taken by others who made the trip with him, including Kit Bond and Harold Ford. And, in an embarrassing gaffe, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don’t have enough “Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers” in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the intellectual laziness and incuriosity that characterizes his campaign: they don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

Hey, you don’t have to agree with Powerline’s position on Iraq, but the piece does help to outline Obama’s movements on this issue.