The Volokh Conspiracy

Please, you're making me uneasy about someone who could easily be our next president. (The remedy to the disaster we have been experiencing for the past 7 years 1 month and 9 days is not to counterbalance it with another disaster, only of different polarity.)

I should think that in the course of all the debates to date someone would have asked Obama to explain what you have quoted here. Well, the opportunity will be there when he squares off with McCain. And I'm sure he is crafting an answer now.

neurodoc:

Please, you are making me uneasy. How dare anyone have the audacity to challenge the "chosen one"? Obviously, the economy in 2002 was pretty good, strongly recovering from 9/11, and St. Obama blames the Iraq war as a diversion to a "failed economy"?

Any question as to what Obama has said, or a question on what he thinks is, of course, an attack. Heaven forfend that we try to get a substantive answer from that hack.

carpundit, you don't really believe that, right?

Unfortunately, LWY, not everything is publicly available on the internet, but the Chicago Defender is available on the Ethnic Newswatch database. And btw, there is no additional context for the quote, and that's the entire quote.

Hope and Cynicism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd have a lot more hope for the future of our country if Americans were more cynical. Cynicism has been given a bad rap, but it's a truly wonderful window into the workings of the world.

Obama was wrong.
The invasion of Iraq was always on the table, way before 9/11...
9/11 helped the Utopian neoconservative fantasies push in the main stream of American thought, at least for now....

Oh, and Jeff Raimond, I do believe that too.....

Passing, anyone with an account at a decent academic library can look up the article himself, and I assure you that my credibility will remain intact. But since you are almost as cynical as Barack Obama, here's the relevant text:

Elected officials like Reps. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), Bobby L. Rush (D-1st), Danny K. Davis (D-7th) and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th) urged Bush to end his "pattern of destruction" for the sake of America and its economy.

"The president has not made his case for going into Iraq," said Obama.

"What is clear is that we have severe problems here at home."

Having traveled downstate, Obama said people are talking about health care and how their pensions have melted away through corporate scandals.

"I think the president has an obligation to focus on critical foreign policies. I also think his neglect of the economy does nothing to enhance America's long-term security."

Two days ago, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported that the price of oil surged above $30 a barrel once again, hitting a 19-month high as traders fret about the likelihood of war in the Middle East.

And, the mounting tensions over Israel's bull dozing of most of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's headquarters, coupled with Bush's strong hawk position on Iraq, the U.S. economy, Obama said, is caught between the crossfires with little relief in sight and a fear of body-bags returning home from another war.

Arafat has said: "I will not surrender," and Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We'll have to see how he responds to the pressure he is under from the international community.

"Pressure has to be maintained on Iraq until the UN is satisfied that he has gotten rid of these weapons and allowed inspectors in to make sure of that," said Powell.

"That's the only way to do it, and then we will see whether or not that is adequate or whether more action is required.

"The U.S. continues to believe that the best way to disarm Iraq is through a regime change."

Obama said Bush's push for a war is "a cover-up for a failing economy."

"We are watching the markets closely but we are not worried yet," OPEC Secretary General Alvaro Silva Calderon said.

Thanks for providing more of the article. Let's see. . . .

The president has not made his case for going into Iraq," said Obama.

"What is clear is that we have severe problems here at home."

Having traveled downstate, Obama said people are talking about health care and how their pensions have melted away through corporate scandals.

"I think the president has an obligation to focus on critical foreign policies. I also think his neglect of the economy does nothing to enhance America's long-term security."

All pretty much correct, IMHO. And more importantly, all pretty much consistent with what I would bet is majority opinion in the U.S. right now, in retrospect.

Two days ago, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported that the price of oil surged above $30 a barrel once again, hitting a 19-month high as traders fret about the likelihood of war in the Middle East.

I believe oil prices hit another all time high. Yeah, this really makes Obama look much worse than the advocates for the Iraq war.

So many conservatives, so eager to believe the worst about Obama, and so willing to seize on the slightest scrap as evidence.

Somewhere, someone seems to be mining the Chicago defender for things Obama said or that were said about him.

Thanks for posting the full text of the article, DB. It re-reminded me of one of my favorite Bush foreign policy moments: the marginalization and rejection of Yassir Arafat.

David Bernstein,

Don't you understand? Only Republicans can say stupid or disingenuous things. Heck, the next thing we will hear is that calling Obama a "liberal" is part of the politics of personal destruction and an attempt to smear him.

So many conservatives, so eager to believe the worst about Obama, and so willing to seize on the slightest scrap as evidence.

Just like Obama, apparently so eager to believe the worst about Bush, was so willing to seize on the ghost of conspiracy theories to explain his actions. And let's be clear here: Claiming Bush launched a war for the purposes of distracting national attention away from the economy is a garden variety conspiracy theory, in the vein of Canadian Bacon or Wag the Dog.

Now I don't think Obama is actually a conspiracy nut, or seriously thought Bush started a war because he was worried about approval ratings. (If you'll recall Bush's numbers at the time were actually quite high.) But no matter how much his supporters write it off as an "irrelevant scrap", the fact remains that Obama's willingness to sling the spurious accusation in the first place tells you something important about the man's character. And that is no small thing, considering Obama is running primarily on his own character, or charisma, and not a pile of experience or innovative policy.

Will this quote alone change everyone's minds? No. But combined with the other "scraps" unearthed as we begin the process of presidential candidacy scrutiny, it begins to paint a notable picture different from his self-projected image.

I would put forth the fact that we only get to choose our leaders from the pool of politicians. I like Obama not just from the rhetoric angle, but the fact that he is playing politics in a much cleaner manner than any of his opponents, all of whom were forged in the fire of Clinton &Bush era demagoguery. Everyone else is telling me to be afraid, and all the other attacks are character smears when the different candidates have legit policy views that should be attacked instead.

I get it. I realize he is a politician, and a Chicago politician as well. But when I see what the opposition has done in response to his message of optimism, in the form of Manchurian candidate emails, the whole Hussein non-issue, the "articulate" comments, quadruple Guantanamo, 9-11-9-11-9-11 chanting, hating lobbyists with the left hand, while creating earmarks to hand out to them on the right - how can I identify with any of that nonsense?

I'm more comfortable with this man who I barely know as far as policy views go. His demeanor is comforting and not divisive. I don't see him playing to the loudmouths like the other candidates do - you can see the symbiosis between Bush keeping his hands clean while the right-wing Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulters could whip up the red meat into a populist frenzy and it was very distasteful to watch.

Bush may have had a few useful policy ideas, but I'd never know, because I couldn't get past his awful delivery of the ideas and his heavy-handed blind approval of his loyal moron wonks. I liked the Social Security privatization concept; we have a powerful financial machine in this country and it has created amazing things in our lifetime already - this had potential. But he presented it like a buffoon and I cringed every time I heard about it on the media.

If anyone has captured the leadership aspect of Regan, it's Obama. He speaks in a firm manner, his voice is strong, and while he obviously is a politician, I don't get the dirty greasy feeling from the Keating Five McCain, from the Machivellian Centrist Clinton, from the Panderbot Romney, or from Greek Chorus Guliani.

Some liberals who post here are getting tiresome. ANY post that is political in nature is met by cries of equal time, and "disappointment" that a blog they like would have a post taking a shot at the crypto-radical the Democrats have decided to run out as this year's McGovern. It's not your blog.

How many searches did you have to run through how many databases to find that mildly inaccurate quote, David? Really, if this is the worst the Republican attack dogs can do against Obama, you should just give up now. Unless you'd like to rehash his kindergarten essays?

It's interesting is how little the conservative pundits have actually been able to get to stick to Obama. They try, but it just isn't working. As far as political mud goes, he's clearly the cleanest of the 3 remaining candidates.

So when I see criticism like this - which seem so light and desperate compared to what you can pin on the other 2 - it makes me feel good that he will most likely be our next president.

"As far as political mud goes, he's clearly the cleanest of the 3 remaining candidates."

Maybe because he's barely out of high school?

Some liberals who post here are getting tiresome. ANY post that is political in nature is met by cries of equal time, and "disappointment" that a blog they like would have a post taking a shot at the crypto-radical the Democrats have decided to run out as this year's McGovern. It's not your blog.

This seems like a bit of a mischaracterization. I think it's more accurate to say that some are bothered by the fact that one of Prof. Bernstein's pet topics is shaping up to be ObamaWatch. I don't see why, though. All the Conspirators have their specific interests, and many of them are political in nature. This is just one more. Some good-natured poking of fun about it might be appropriate sometimes, but Bernstein didn't really do anything wrong here. He seemed to provide as much context as was available and gave a citation. So far there's little reason to believe the Senator meant anything other than what he said.

Obama seems to be pretty "clean," but I see his biggest problem as tacking back to the political center. I frankly don't see how he is going to remain left of Hillary Clinton and attract the political middle in the general election. Of course, 8 months is an eternity in politics, so time will tell. Ask HRC about that!

So now Obama's views as a State Senator are akin to kindergarten essays? Cue the experience attack.

If we'd been willing to devote the many hundreds of billions of dollars towards some other approach, something tells me we could have acomplished a lot more good than we did through this idiotic war.

Is bribery the official lefty policy now, or should we hold off on the appropriate Neville Chamberlain accusations until a Democratic presidential candidate explicitly says it?

Also, I thought we were supposed to still be hating on the US for supporting quasi-friendly thugs and strong men who overthrew the dictators that were our outright enemies, however many years ago. Or did you have another "solution" to the problem in question, similar to Kerry's nebulous plans, which never quite materialized when he opposed policies solely for the sake of providing opposition?

(Hint: I'm secretly hoping you suggest some manner of humanitarian aid, so I can bring up the notoriously corrupted Oil For Food program.)

“I also think his neglect of the economy does nothing to enhance America's long-term security.”

How exactly does a president “neglect the economy,” since a US president has only limited powers affect it? The Federal Reserve has as much or more power to influence the economy. POTUS can appoint the chairman, but Greenspan was already in place in 2002. The president submits the budget to Congress, but Congress can change it and does. The president can veto wasteful legislation and Bush can certainly faulted failure here.

We can see how little the president can do to rescue the economy right now. The stimulus package, which requires a vote of Congress, is a joke. Already surveys show 18% of the recipients will spend the money. The rest plan to save or buy down debt. The Federal Reserve is trying to boost the economy by lowering the Federal Funds Rate and it’s not working.

The real significance of Obama’s statement is that it reveals his lack of understanding of the office he seeks. The ability to make inspiring speeches is neither necessary or sufficient to be a successful president.

JosephSlater and DB:

“I fully and unreservedly acknowledge that at root, he is a politician, …”

What does this “at root” qualifier mean? BHO is a politician-- period. Moreover he’s a politician without any appropriate experience for the office he seeks. I’ve actually had BHO supporters tell me that his inexperience is a good thing! How can that be? Would you hire anybody without experience for the job you were hiring him for? Would you want an inexperienced doctor or lawyer? Would you want to promote an inexperienced soldier to General or Admiral?

Moreover he’s a politician without any appropriate experience for the office he seeks. I’ve actually had BHO supporters tell me that his inexperience is a good thing! How can that be?

I would submit that history seems to show a near zero-correlation between the amount of "experience" a president has and whether or not he does a good job in office. The three most "experienced" presidents post-FDR were almost certainly Nixon, LBJ, and George H.W. Bush. I will be very surprised if those names correspond to whom you would name as the three "best" presidents for that same time period.

Is bribery the official lefty policy now, or should we hold off on the appropriate Neville Chamberlain accusations until a Democratic presidential candidate explicitly says it?

Actually, bribery seems to be official government policy.

I'll probably stop posting about Obama when his supporters start acknowledging that at root he is a politician, who, despite his soaring rhetoric, deserves all the normal skepticism Americans typically approach politicians with.

Just out of curiosity, how are Obama's supporters supposed to convey their appreciation of the fact that he is a politician? Should they all (1 million+ have donated to his campaign) sign a petition? Write you letters? Publish an ad in the NYT? Does their acknowledgment need to be a consensus or is a simple majority sufficient to get you to stop posting?

DB, if you're looking for what Obama said about the war before 2004, you can watch this.

I'm also another Obama supporter who admits that he's a politician. Who is claiming he isn't? But that doesn’t mean all politicians are exactly the same. Some are more corrupt than others. Some are more concerned about doing the right things as others. And some are more honest than others. I think Obama, for a politician, is less corrupt, more concerned about doing the right thing, and more honest than most other politicians. He certainly bests Clinton, Bush, or McCain on each of those three points.

Can you name one successful president with as little experience as BHO?

Objection: vague. What do you mean by experience?

Lincoln obviously had less experience in elected office than Obama. I can't recall Jackson offhand, but he'd be close. Eisenhower never held any elective office other than President, and the same is true of other generals (Taylor, Grant).

Define your terms.

the same is true of other generals (Taylor, Grant).

I thought it was self-evident that we should exclude military generals from the "no experience" category, since they have exactly the kind of executive experience one would expect to see in a President.

"Can you name one successful president with as little experience as BHO?"

Lincoln's leadership experience was private lawyering and a short length of service various legislative capacities . . . the parallels to Obama are obvious. GW Bush's cabinet (especially that of his first term) of course has an enormous amount of collective experience, dating back to the illustrious Ford administration. The at best lackluster and at worst shameful results are all around us, especially in the Defense and State departments. Don't ideas, principles and judgment matter too/more?

Do you think that Obama's "politic's of hope" mean that he is never allowed to be critical, or let alone cynical? Cherry picking one quote from 5 years ago doesn't really show much.

As far as showing that Obama "at root ... is a politician" - do you think anybody is confused as to whether or not Obama is a politician? I thought that was obvious.

And finally, you say that Obama "deserves all the normal skepticism Americans typically approach politicians." Does this mean that in your eyes all politiicans deserve the same skepticism automatically?

And finally, you say that Obama "deserves all the normal skepticism Americans typically approach politicians." Does this mean that in your eyes all politiicans deserve the same skepticism automatically?

Of course not. There should be an intentionally undefined "basic level" of skepticism applied to all politicians everywhere, which can be increased when the case warrants.

On that note, I humbly submit that the presumptive nominee for one of the two major parties--who boasts a very light track record and equally little substance on the campaign trail, yet somehow inspires an enthusiastic following--deserves more cynicism than the known quantities he's running against.

Thales:

“Lincoln's leadership experience was private lawyering and a short length of service various legislative capacities . . .”

Lincoln had somewhat more leadership and political experience than BHO, but he does constitute an exception. However I don’t think one, or even few exceptions provide enough evidence to make a case that experience doesn’t matter. We should not have to gamble that BHO will become another Lincoln.

“Don't ideas, principles and judgment matter too/more?”

They do, but not enough by themselves. Good ideas are cheap and plentiful; it’s execution that counts. With respect to BHO, we don’t even know if his judgment is good, and his ideas are vague.

Almost as funny as this one liner:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Seriously, when it comes to killing Iraqi civilians, the U.S. has made Saddam look like an amateur.

Do you actually believe this? And if you do, can you provide a source for this assertion? And if you can't, can I also just make stuff up? Because if I can, then I'll assert that Obama has killed more Iraqis than Saddam and Bush and Bush combined. The difference is I'll admit I'm lying.

Seriously, when it comes to killing Iraqi civilians, the U.S. has made Saddam look like an amateur.

[responding]Do you actually believe this? And if you do, can you provide a source for this assertion? And if you can't, can I also just make stuff up? Because if I can, then I'll assert that Obama has killed more Iraqis than Saddam and Bush and Bush combined. The difference is I'll admit I'm lying.

There are numerous sources, but if memory serves the administration charged Saddam with killing about 355,000 Iraqis while he was in office.

Extrapolating forward from the epidemiological report in The Lancet on the Iraqi death toll (which was a conservative estimate in the first place), the number of excess deaths since the invasion has almost surely exceeded one million. If you remove from that number the combat deaths of members of the Iraqi army, and the deaths by homicide of insurgents who took up arms (estimated to be far below 100,000), you get a civilian death toll which quite obviously exceeds 355,000 by a significant amount.

"Obama said this in 2002, at a time when there was a considerable amount of head-scratching as to which idiots in the administration thought an attack on Iraq would be a good idea, and why."

Clearly, at least one of the idiots was outside the administration.

So the sources are your memory and the deeply suspect Lancet paper.

The Lancet report was not suspect to those in the field of epidemiology. The primary shortcoming of the study was that the data excluded one large city, Fallujah.

As for the White House's claims against Saddam, add them up yourself using the highest numbers, and we'll not worry about my memory:

link

And you do understand that you're suggesting that over the past 5 years there have been something on the order of 1000 "excess" funerals per day in Iraq. Per day.

The daily number would be about half that, but they're not my numbers.

If you have another statistical report of excess deaths since the invasion, please link it. Happy hunting!

If you have another statistical report of excess deaths since the invasion, please link it. Happy hunting!

I don't think basing your thesis on a single report strengthens your argument. Especially when said report is considered suspect by more than just a few fringe whackos.

And let's not stop there. How about if I stipulate that the Lancet paper was accurate? Let's return to the implied point: Iraq was better off under Saddam. Agree or disagree?

Wow, it's amazing how far the cult of personality surrounding Obama extends. Quoting the man's own words is an attack! If this kind of ridiculous contempt at any mere discussion of Obama's weaknesses continue there's got to be some backlash coming.

Open Eyed Dem

If you were responding to me, I was obviously talking about those who attack Obama as lacking executive experience. If you can show me where Obama has stated he lacks the executive experience to be president, then I guess you're comment makes sense...if not.....it doesn't.

Experience for a candidate for president means he should have held an important executive office such as the governor of a large state like California, New York, or even mayor of New York City. A General or Admiral would also qualify as experience since he has to run a large organization, and have leadership skills. He has to delegate authority. Moreover, since the president is Commander and Chief of the US military having been a successful General or Admiral is a good qualification. Even CEO of a large business organization might qualify as experience.

Presidents with no previous executive experience per your definition are Lincoln, B. Harrison (he was a brevet brigadier general, but his actual rank was colonel), Harding, Truman, Kennedy, L. Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.*

Those with minimal executive experience (2 years or less, or in minor office) are Van Buren, Polk, Fillmore, and Arthur.

Interestingly, we've done better -- indeed, much better -- with zero experience than with just a little.

*As should be obvious, I don't consider that VP meets any serious standard for executive experience.

“When was Hillary or McCain a general, admiral, CEO of a major corporation, or governor of a large state? Huh?”

I agree, but that’s not the context. HRC and McCain don’t enjoy the starry eyed adoration that BHO gets. There is really no reason to suppose he’s more fit than the others for office other than charisma. I personally don’t put much faith in charisma. I’m afraid that none of them gets my vote for the reasons stated. Other may differ.

Zarkov: ""*As should be obvious, I don't consider that VP meets any serious standard for executive experience."

That's where we differ."

Oh! So now the truth comes out -- Zarkov voted for Al Gore in 2000!

The original point was that the U.S. had a more meaningful reputation as a killer of civilians than did Saddam Hussein.

Within the timeframe that Saddam was gassing his subjects, would you care to name a similar body count collected by the USA? Or are you delving into history a few generations removed, or more?

Any other dictators you would wish to absolve by comparisons to some aspect of American history, perchance?

“Oh! So now the truth comes out -- Zarkov voted for Al Gore in 2000!”

Everything else being equal I’ll take a governor over a VP. Of course a Texas governor has a lot less responsibility than a CA or a NY governor. You’re getting close. Gore has a much better attitude on immigration than Bush who seems to think he’s president of Mexico. On the other hand, Gore’s AGW activities don’t speak well of him. But AGW could really be a problem and Gore is right for the wrong reasons. Ain’t life complicated? Always keep em guessing.

Attack? What attack? The guy said something stupid, and now he's stuck with it. Lots of politicians get caught up in the local group they are addressing, and forget that everything they say will eventually become part of their life transcript, only a click away from anyone with a computer. If a politician has a bunch of idiots in front of him who keep nodding their heads, he's apt to feed them whatever keeps them smiling and nodding. Nodding heads lead to votes.

Obama will face the same problem when he eventually has to climb down from his promise to change or quit NAFTA. So, while it's fresh, did Obama really mean he will dump NAFTA unless the treaty is renegotiated to benefit US workers? Would anyone care to tell us what he really meant? Now's the time to start spinning and laying the groundwork for a climb down. Alternatively, one could just wait and say it's an attack if anyone mentions it in the future.