Lately I've been thinking about poker and face-to-face diplomacy with enemy states.
I mean, if I'm getting ready to sit down at the poker table with some friends, I sure as hell am not going to say: "Look, I'm only playing a hand if I have a clear winner. Don't worry about me bluffing."
In effect, that's what John "Pander Bear" McCain is saying when he says he will not meet with the heads of enemy governments. Republicans - and even some conservative Democrats - have been shaking their heads over Barrack Obama's position that he would be willing to sit down, without preconditions, with the heads of enemy states like Iran or excommunicated natons like Cuba.
In an OpEd piece in Sunday's Boston Globe Mark Oppenheimer made an excellent point: once you set preconditions you're saying, "I won't play unless I've already won."
How does one reach any kind of accord with a nation unless there is some kind of meeting of the minds? Does that mean we get everything we want? Those that even think that's possible are stuck in some kind of time warp, romanticizing about the "perfect" outcome of World War II.
Talking does not mean capitulating.
Anyway, I don't think our foreign image can get much worse than it is right now after eight years of the vaunted Bush Doctrine.
The globe is a much smaller planet than it was 60 years, or even 30 years ago. We can no longer dictate our policies to the world. Might no longer makes right. While we do have to remain strong and be willing to defend ourselves from enemies, we no longer have the luxury to ignore our foes or potential foes unless we stack the deck first. I think the days of enemies squaring off against one another on the field of battle, clearly identified by their different uniforms, are relegated to the history books.
Besides, it's not such a radical idea to talk to the enemy. Even the God of Presidential Hawks Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev.
Obama is not saying he's going to be a patsy for these charlatans. He's not saying they will dictate the rules of the game. All he's saying is he won't rule out sitting with them at some point if both sides can mutually agree to the rules and place.
And, to me, that's good poker playing.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
It ain't over til it's over, but now it's over
If Tuesday night's developments were any barometer, the presidential race may be over pretty quickly.
In delivering his first speech after sewing up the Democratic nomination Obama flexed his oratorical muscles before an energetic crowd of more than 20,000 in the arena that Republicans are scheduled to coronate John McCain later this summer. Meanwhile, McCain's advisors apparently thought he could go toe-to-toe with Obama on the stump by setting the Pander Bear up before a crowd of his own supporters.
Unfortunately for McCain he actually had to speak. It was one of the more brutal political addresses I have witnessed in some time. Not as bad as former Gov. Lincoln Almond, but close.
Unlike Obama's crowd - which was adoring and wild - the Republican afficonadoes appeared to be barely awake and missed several obvious applause lines.
Then, in an even bigger head scratcher, the McCain campaign challenged Obama to a series of town hall meetings/debates across the country. Obama's campaign couldn't say yes fast enough.
Every time Obama and McCain stand next to each other Obama wins. Obama's ability to inspire people with his speech will only look better compared to McCain's wooden style.
Obama's biggest challenge may be in smoothing over the frayed feelings of Hillary Clinton supporters. But, as I've said before, it's hard to believe that those labelling themselves feminists can support McCain over Obama given the tenuous makeup of the Supreme Court. Giving McCain the ability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens would be a disaster of biblical proportions for all the issues Clinton supporters hold dear.
A lot was made of Clinton's refusal to concede Tuesday night. But I think she did the right thing for party unity. Her supporters were still in campaign mode and a concession speech would have exacerbated any ill will they felt towards Obama.
On Wednesday Clinton gave a clearer indication of her role in the upcoming election. Following Obama in a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs group, Clinton was quoted as saying, "Let me be very clear. I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
First, Clinton obviously defended Obama in an area he is considered vulnerable because of his stance that he would hold diplomatic talks with Iran, Israel's enemy.
Second, her use of the terms: "will be a good friend to Israel" was an indication that she has conceded the nomination. She just isn't doing it formally yet for political reasons. And I don't believe it's so she can secure the VP nomination. That kind of policitcal blackmail would not ingratiate one with the party's nominee. And, as ambtious as Clinton might be, I don't think she's crass enough to believe it's in her best interests to do so. No, I just think she's easing her supporters - at least those with wounded pride - back under the party's umbrella.
In delivering his first speech after sewing up the Democratic nomination Obama flexed his oratorical muscles before an energetic crowd of more than 20,000 in the arena that Republicans are scheduled to coronate John McCain later this summer. Meanwhile, McCain's advisors apparently thought he could go toe-to-toe with Obama on the stump by setting the Pander Bear up before a crowd of his own supporters.
Unfortunately for McCain he actually had to speak. It was one of the more brutal political addresses I have witnessed in some time. Not as bad as former Gov. Lincoln Almond, but close.
Unlike Obama's crowd - which was adoring and wild - the Republican afficonadoes appeared to be barely awake and missed several obvious applause lines.
Then, in an even bigger head scratcher, the McCain campaign challenged Obama to a series of town hall meetings/debates across the country. Obama's campaign couldn't say yes fast enough.
Every time Obama and McCain stand next to each other Obama wins. Obama's ability to inspire people with his speech will only look better compared to McCain's wooden style.
Obama's biggest challenge may be in smoothing over the frayed feelings of Hillary Clinton supporters. But, as I've said before, it's hard to believe that those labelling themselves feminists can support McCain over Obama given the tenuous makeup of the Supreme Court. Giving McCain the ability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens would be a disaster of biblical proportions for all the issues Clinton supporters hold dear.
A lot was made of Clinton's refusal to concede Tuesday night. But I think she did the right thing for party unity. Her supporters were still in campaign mode and a concession speech would have exacerbated any ill will they felt towards Obama.
On Wednesday Clinton gave a clearer indication of her role in the upcoming election. Following Obama in a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs group, Clinton was quoted as saying, "Let me be very clear. I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
First, Clinton obviously defended Obama in an area he is considered vulnerable because of his stance that he would hold diplomatic talks with Iran, Israel's enemy.
Second, her use of the terms: "will be a good friend to Israel" was an indication that she has conceded the nomination. She just isn't doing it formally yet for political reasons. And I don't believe it's so she can secure the VP nomination. That kind of policitcal blackmail would not ingratiate one with the party's nominee. And, as ambtious as Clinton might be, I don't think she's crass enough to believe it's in her best interests to do so. No, I just think she's easing her supporters - at least those with wounded pride - back under the party's umbrella.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
