 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Iowa ‘08: Barack Obama LivePosted on Dec 20, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa—The most challenging and confounding part of a political correspondent’s job is to pick out something important from the chaff of daily news. I was reminded of this when I reported to the press desk at the Holiday Inn for a credential that would admit me to Sen. Barack Obama’s speech on foreign policy. I had not sought such a badge since the 1996 Democratic and Republican conventions, and I was curious to see how the political reporting game had changed since then. Not much, really. Technically, communications are better, with e-mail, the Internet, wireless computers, Blackberries and Treos. But the work is the same. The reporting crew traveling on the Obama bus had a part of the press section reserved for them. They arrived with the same air of sorority-fraternity insider privilege that my contemporaries and I had when we were on the bus many years ago. And they had the same task I did then—trying to find hard news in a speech that they had undoubtedly heard several times while accompanying Obama around this state. Once I found a space and the program began, I had my first look at Obama in person. He is better live than on television, yet he was no different from what I had expected. He is both warm and distant. His tone is calm and cool. He doesn’t pander to the audience. Rather, he drew the 300-plus men and women in the room to him with distinctive mannerisms—his chin raised when he is making a point, his hands constantly on the move with graceful gestures that emphasize his points. Afterward, when he shook hands with people on his way out, he connected with them, listening to what they said, taking time with each person. Advertisement Now Obama is under attack from Hillary Clinton’s campaigners—her husband and, recently, one of her key celebrity supporters, ex-Lakers star Magic Johnson—for being inexperienced. In another part of the state, with the Clintons standing by, the basketball legend said, “She is the only one with 30 years of experience.” When someone corrected him, he said, “Thirty-five, all right.” So when Obama dragged out the résumé line, I thought, given the context, it had real resonance. He was making a big effort to show he was qualified to be commander in chief. That obviously was the motive of a panel discussion of foreign policy that preceded his speech. One panelist was Tony Lake, Clinton’s national security adviser. Another was Susan Rice, a National Security Council official and assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration. Adding military heft was a retired Air Force general, Scott Gration, who had held top policy posts and flown 274 combat missions over Iraq. In his speech and in the Q & A session that followed, Obama was fairly detailed about his foreign policy. I still didn’t like what he said about the war, calling for just a phased removal of combat troops from Iraq, and more emphasis on Afghanistan. This sounds increasingly like the British Empire during Victorian times, when troops were perpetually stationed in colonial India so long that their service became an accepted way of life. I did approve of what he said about Israel and the Palestinians. Start with a two-state solution, with Israel—“a stalwart ally”—assured of uncompromised security. The Palestinians’ demand for a right of return cannot be allowed to threaten Israel as a Jewish state, but Israel must acknowledge that a Palestinian state must be “cohesive and able to function.” Obama showed a restrained bit of humor when a man demanded a short and specific answer to a question about China. “I feel like I am in class,” Obama said. “Are you a professor?” He was unclear when someone in the audience asked his view on funding President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. He said that he wouldn’t give Pakistan military aid unless it is “directly related” to fighting terrorism. Since Musharraf says that fighting terrorism is all he does—even if it means jailing protesting lawyers—I didn’t see that Obama would bring a huge change in that area. But I was impressed with the details of his answer on Sudan and Darfur as he explained why we and other nations must get involved in sending a stronger force there to protect the refugees, convince the Sudanese not to resume civil war and assign a special envoy there. But I still hadn’t answered the age-old journalistic question: “What’s the lede?” The lede is the first paragraph of a story, the one that sets the tone, shapes the organization and helps determine the headline of a hard news story. I felt sorry for the reporters struggling to figure out the answer after covering an event without a hard news lede. I had watched something important that would probably disappear in the campaign abyss. Here, among the thoughtful questions and answers, Obama displayed an impressive command of details, even though I didn’t like all of his answers. And, cool as he is, he showed he could connect with people. This was at least a hint of what Obama would bring to the White House, unfiltered by the restrictions of a television debate or the mainstream media’s constant demand for news with an edge. It’s too bad so few of us saw it. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
What Can the FCC Do for You?
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
By Tony Wicher, December 23, 2007 at 5:59 pm #
Re #122046 by hazmaq on 12/23 at 9:27 am
(Unregistered commenter)
“There is a HUGE difference between Obama and Clinton on Palestine and Israel. If you only looked deeper into their records rather than just a few limited sound bites, youd see a clear difference.”
——————————————————————————
hazmaq,
I want to have hope, I want to believe in Obama. But Boyarsky correctly states that Tony Lake, Bill Clinton’s National Security advisor, is now Obama’s top foreign policy advisor. His statement quoted here advocates the same 1 state + 1 Bantustan solution that is also advocated by Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and the Israeli government. I know that the Israel lobby is active in every presidential campaign. So, much as I want to believe in something, to have some kind of hope, please, please give me something to go on. I have heard that Obama spoke with Edward Said; I am sure he is aware of proposals by Palestinian negotiators for a one democratic state solution to the conflict. It is at least true that Obama has also been advised by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has been condemned by the Israel lobby because of his neutral position on Israel. Another point in his favor is that at least he is not being advised by extreme Zionist Alan Dershowitz, who told Obama to repudiate Brzezinski as “anti-Semitic” merely because of his neutral and pro-American, rather than pro-Israeli position. So that’s something, at least.
Can you give me some more hope, please?
Report thisBy hazmaq, December 23, 2007 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is a HUGE difference between Obama and Clinton on Palestine and Israel. If you only looked deeper into their records rather than just a few limited sound bites, youd see a clear difference.
1. Hillary Clinton is owned by A*I*P*A*C* -her Iran vote is just the last in a long line of votes benefiting their interests, not our. Both she and Steny Hoyer advertised that they DID NOT believe in a balanced hand in dealing with Middle East. In that speech, while clearly defining Israel as a valuable ally, Obama seeks a balanced solution.
2. The ultimate difference presented itself last summer. After Israel dropped over 400,000 child burning cluster bomblets over all of Lebanon, Senator Feinstein of California broughr up legislation to place a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs- but only in civilian areas. Feinstein had the world behind her.
Hillary Clinton voted against the bill and joined with ALL of the Republicans to defeat it.
While Obama supported Senator Feinstein and the majority of Democrats.
We do NOT need more of Hillary Clintons kind of experience -but LESS.
Obama looked to the bigger picture, rather than the narrow view as defined by Clintons donors.
There can be only one candidate fitting the role as leader of the free world.
And it sure as hell aint Hillary Clinton.
Report thisBy Outraged, December 23, 2007 at 4:58 am #
Bill Boyarski:
Your quote: “But I still hadnt answered the age-old journalistic question: Whats the lede? The lede is the first paragraph of a story, the one that sets the tone, shapes the organization and helps determine the headline of a hard news story. I felt sorry for the reporters struggling to figure out the answer after covering an event without a hard news lede.”
Really Bill, I gotta tell ya’ I feel sorry for YOU. You actually “got” this lede. Whoa…what was it? A “hint” of what Obama “would” bring to the oval office. You’re joking right..? Let me give you a “hint”, Bill:
This is not a game and America isn’t going to roll the dice on a HINT or a GUT FEELING. Try the facts Bill. What’s that..? There were no HARD FACTS at this speech…..that WAS the lede Bill, sorry buddy…you missed it. And Bill if you find yourself repeating that over and over and over again…well Bill, now you HAVE A STORY.
You’re welcome….....
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, December 22, 2007 at 7:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think that Obama would make a good president, forget the experience part, what experience did Bushie Boy have, all he had was an election machine behind him, Obama is good, Clinton is good, Edwards is good, all the Democrats have good candiates.
Chris Dodd is not mentioned but he would also make a good president, he left the compaign trail and when back to the Senate to filibuster a debate and because of his action H.Reed had to pospone the spying on Americans without a warrent, and you can bet that Bush did it on the flimiest of reasons, Chris Dodd is a man of convictions.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, December 22, 2007 at 7:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Who Would The World Elect?
Report thishttp://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
By cann4ing, December 22, 2007 at 3:54 pm #
Bill Boyarsky’s opening line reflects the shallow level to which corporate campaign reporting has descended. Journalism involves more than picking something “important” from amongst the chaff. It means lining up the candidates one-by-one on where they truly stand on issues that truly matter to the American public. But some intriguing polls reveal precisely why the corporate media does not do that. A blind poll conducted last August that listed candidates’ policy positions but excluded their names. When this occurred, the “wrong” candidate (insofar as the conglomerated corporate media was concerned) received 53% of the vote—Dennis Kucinich. The corporate-sponsored big three, Clinton, Obama & Edwards, each received less than five percent.
As revealed by a recent IndependentPrimary.com poll, the gap is even greater when those who do not allow the corporate media to be their primary source of information, was even greater.
Kucinich 76.7%
Edwards 9.5%
Obama 4.8%
Clinton 2.6%
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/content.jsp?content_KEY=3623
When we look at issues we find, for example, Kucinich standing alone amongst presidential candidates in proposing a single-payer health care system that would eliminate the unnecessary parasitic for-profit carriers and HMOs that account for $350 billion of waste per year while Obama/Edwards/Clinton propose variations of the same the scam healthcare insurer subsidy scam that was advanced by Richard Nixon in 1970 to head off Sen. Kennedy’s national health care proposal at that time. But none of that matters when the corporate media ignores Kucinich whenever possible, and when it can’t, during debates, makes it clear that he is as welcome as a bastard at a family reunion.
The corrupt state of the U.S. electoral system is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but few do anything about it. To the contrary, most continue to buy into this notion of selecting candidates on carefully erected image, poll data and selecting the “lesser evil.”
As revealed by the “actions” of the do-nothing Democratic Congress, if we get to 2009 without experiencing a declaration of emergency rule and a cancellation of the Nov. 2008 election by the Bush regime, it is unlikely that there will be significant change from our plunge toward national disaster—and we will have only ourselves to blame.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, December 22, 2007 at 2:45 pm #
Re #121869 by newsreader on 12/22 at 8:48 am
(2 comments total)
“Obama has already shown and demonstrated that he has the good judgement to lead and the wisdom to distinguish bad policy from good. I like that he looks at all sides of a problem to find a thoughtful, pragmatic and long-lasting solution.”
Report this—————————————————————————-
I think that Obama calling Israel “a stalwart ally of the United States” shows the worst kind of political judgment. Just what has Israel ever done for the United States, other that to aid and abet the imperialist policies of the Bush Adminstration? Our alliance with Israel in its current form is extremely bad for this country. Obama’s acceptance of a “two-state solution” which Palestinians will never accept shows his lack of committment to democracy and human rights.
By Hammo, December 22, 2007 at 2:09 pm #
Can Obama (or Edwards or others) restore trust of Americans in the federal government? Maybe.
Mistrust of some elements of the federal government seem to be at disturbing levels, according to a recent survey:
“Survey shows majority of Americans suspect cover-ups, distrust federal government”
AmericanChronicle.com
December 21, 2007
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46800
Report thisBy newsreader, December 22, 2007 at 1:48 pm #
Obama has already shown and demonstrated that he has the good judgement to lead and the wisdom to distinguish bad policy from good. I like that he looks at all sides of a problem to find a thoughtful, pragmatic and long-lasting solution.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, December 22, 2007 at 1:45 am #
I had the “audacity of hope” that human rights and democracy would be the highest principles of an Obama foreign policy, but after I saw this, my hope balloon got seriously deflated.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, December 22, 2007 at 1:23 am #
“I did approve of what he said about Israel and the Palestinians. Start with a two-state solution, with Israela stalwart allyassured of uncompromised security. The Palestinians demand for a right of return cannot be allowed to threaten Israel as a Jewish state, but Israel must acknowledge that a Palestinian state must be cohesive and able to function.
Report this—————————————————————————-
He “approved” this part, did he? This was the part I most disapproved. With “stalwart allies” like Israel, who needs enemies? “The Palestians demand for a right of return cannot be allowed to threaten Israel as a Jewish state”? And why not, I would like to know? What is so sacrosanct about the idea of a Jewish state? Why should there be a Jewish state? There is no universal moral principle that says there should be a Jewish state. The very idea of a Jewish state is as undemocratic as the idea of a white state or a black state or an Arab state or an Islamic state. The United States should only be supporting democracy. Zionism is a form of religious fanaticism. It is just as bad as Islamic militancy. The United States should not be supporting either side in a religious war.
By bg1, December 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why did Obama"s presidential campaign receive its earliest substantial donations from the same right wingers who funded the Swift Boat attack ads against Kerry? Is it because they like his politics? (see See NYT"s story 3/7/07: Jared Abbruzzese ” supporter of Swift Boats and Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
Report thisWhy did Obama get his first major media mention from conservative pundits? Could it be that Obama has no chance in the general elections and would be an easy candidate for the GOP to beat, at least by a hair, despite their current problems in the polls? Could it be that the only Democratic candidates Wall Street prefers are either Republicrat DLCers or unelectable, or both?
By Pacrat, December 21, 2007 at 12:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Who needs foreign policy experience?
Bush had and has none! Barack has none, but his brief life in another country (even in the US) is a big help to at least being sympathetic to another culture.
Hilary has been to many more countries and has met many important leaders of the world - but she was always given red carpet treatment and never really saw the country that she visited. Having visited a number of foreign countries myself I must confess that I didn’t see the real country much either - walking on a red carpet is hardly visiting another country.
A couple of other candidates have far more foreign policy than either Hillary or Barack. Neither one’s experience is that great! They are about even.
I am not being facetious. The president is the tone-setter, but it is his cabinet that does the work. It doesn’t make a great difference who is president as long as the people he selects are competent - and honest, unlike this white house crew. In most countries they would have been imprisoned for their abuse of authority and power.
Report thisBy 13 Martyrs, December 21, 2007 at 10:05 am #
I agree that Obama is a little too vague about his policies, but so is everybody else. He does, however, provide more details about the direction he is heading if elected President and isn’t afraid of blunt talk. I’ve noticed, though, that he seems a little forced and stiff in one-on-one exchanges. And he doesn’t come off well in some of these stage-managed roundtable discussions. I see it as Obama being uncomfortable in engaging in small talk, which indicates to me he looks at the larger picture rather than these candidate who do well with the banter.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
Report thisBy BlueEagle, December 20, 2007 at 9:35 pm #
Obama offers vague non-committal propositions that will change nothing.
War - Obama will bring some troops home, but never bring them all home. How about the troops in the other 130 countries?
Healthcare - “...it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair.” -Barack Obama
Right, they just buy 9 out of 10 seats.
Obama will do nothing to bring change to our republic. He is just more of the same.
Obama is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Before you vote, I suggest you read up on the CFR.
Report thisBy Kevin James, December 20, 2007 at 7:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillarys camp is using shameless tactics in their desperate last ditch effort to gain some ground against Obama. First they put it out there that Obama had a drug problem and then Kerry cleverly tries to suggest that Obama is a Muslim. And of course it is as if, when they go and apologize later or detract the statements, that it is all going to go away. It is like when a lawyer in a court room will mention someone’s legal history intentionally against the order of proceedings and proper conduct when it has no bearing on a case just to make someone look bad in front of a jury. The judge will then instruct the jury to forget what they already heard!!
Report thisBy rickroberts, December 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm #
Let’s be careful not to have a love fest. Bokay?
Report this