When Obama Agrees With McCain . . .

it turns out it is in the crazy talk about Russia:

Brokaw: How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?


McCain: First of all, as I say, I don't think that -- we're not going to have another Cold War with Russia. But have no doubt that Russia's behavior is certainly outside the norms of behavior that we would expect for nations which are very wealthy, as Russia has become, because of their petro dollars. Now, long ago, I warned about Vladimir Putin. I said I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B. He has surrounded himself with former KGB apparatchiks. He has gradually repressed most of the liberties that we would expect for nations to observe, and he has exhibited most aggressive behavior, obviously, in Georgia. I said before, watch Ukraine. Ukraine, right now, is in the sights of Vladimir Putin, those that want to reassemble the old Soviet Union. We've got to show moral support for Georgia. We've got to show moral support for Ukraine. We've got to advocate for their membership in NATO. . . .

Brokaw: Sen. Obama.

Obama: . . . [F]or the most part I agree with Sen. McCain on many of the steps that have to be taken.

Sheesh. We are all Georgians and Ukrainians now.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Bush Administration's Data-Mining Programs Criticized | Polls Obama Likes . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nothing's changed (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    since Sam Nunn was the only one making sense.

    The agreement that annoyed me is when (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by votermom on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    McCain called Medicare & SS entitlements and then Obama called them entitlements too.

    (pounds head on wall)

    I'm Sure (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    it was reported that Georgia was actually the agressors in the recent incident. They bombed the breakaway provinces and Russia intervened at the request of the breakaway provinces. This was reported by Thom Hartman on Air America several weeks ago.

    If that is the case why are we so preoccupied with branding Russia and accusing them of the very things we actually did when invading Iraq. The difference is that we didn't leave.

    I'm always amazed at how quick we are to condemn other nations (which we are largely ignorant of thanks to the absence of any real world news being reported here)while we remain blind to our own crimes. I don't know if it's ironic or pathetic.

    Another remarkable irony that arose last night was the familiar banter of the threat that Iran would pose if they acquired a nuclear weapon. If memory serves me, only one country in history deployed Nuclear weapons (on cicilian populations) and that was us, not once but twice! So objectively, and based purely on the evidence of history, who is the real world threat here?

    Iran (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    isn't about to unleash a nuclear assault on Israel.  Israel has nukes and the capability of delivery.

    That Brokaw and company chose that question symbolizes their abject stupidity.

    A stupid hypothetical even worse than the ticking time bomb question that Russert asked during the primary debates.

    We have the shalllowest, dumbest media imaginable.


    Amen! (none / 0) (#18)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#9)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    It was supposed to read CIVILIAN populations!

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#44)
    by dutchfox on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
    Russia vs Georgia. Again, both candidates got it wrong about who was the agressor. It was Georgia who instigated it. They got it wrong last night and they got it wrong in the first non-debate.

    For a really good analysis of last night's event - pointing especially to the hawkish militarilistic approach of McCain and Obama ("the peace candidate") see Pepe Escobar on the Real News.


    When I Read Things Like This (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BDB on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    I always think of Arthur Silber's statement "Joe Biden has experience, you can take that to the morgue."  

    It does seem on the two big issues - empire and siphoning money to the rich & Wall Street - there is less and less difference between the parties.  They disagree on a few social issues and exactly how to wage the wars of empire and the war against the poor, but few seem to question the Village wisdom that the rich should get richer (and be protected at all costs from getting poorer) or that we should somehow be policing the world.  

    I'm reminded of Andrew Bacevich saying this election would change nothing because people who run for president do so because they want to be imperial presidents and the people advising them want the power that brings.  In his words, "they aren't running to make the Pentagon smaller."  Just as true of Obama as it is of McCain.

    Which is not an endorsement of McCain, only an acknowledgement that things are not going to be all that much better under Obama.

    Very depressing all the way around, IMO.

    And That's What (none / 0) (#37)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    really ticks me off! We are taken for granted and marginalized as kooks because we strive for peace. It seems no one really values our opinion and validates our worldview.

    I recently heard a progressive commentator make the remark that if we visited the web site of Obama, and McCain and then visited Nader's web site we'd likely find ourselves alligning ourselves more with Nader's platform than either of the two "corporate candidates". He went on to say that come November, however, when we step into the voters booth we'll end up pulling the lever for someone we don't really agree with, but who at least isn't as bad as the other guy.

    So it all boils down to the "lesser or two evils". That's just wrong in my opinion. Unless we start holding the candidates and parties feet to the fire by voting for and financially backing third party candidates nothing will ever change for the better. In fact, as we are seeing more and more, the lines between the two parties will blur even further.


    Pussy Dems (none / 0) (#2)
    by zvs888 on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    Don't win elections.

    Only hawkish Dems win elections.  He had to outflank McCain on this, and with respect to the whole idea of chasing Bin Laden into Pakistan.

    Just think of it as the Republican's version of the HOLC idea last night.

    Even my dad who voted for Bush was impressed with Obama's foreign policy last night and that is a rarity  for a guy who thinks Dems are too peace-minded to run foreign affairs.

    Language (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    Don't do that again.

    BTW (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Obama is right on attacking Al Qaida in Pakistan.

    He is crazy on NATO membership for the Ukraine and Georgia.


    IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    Obama is wrong about going into Pakistan to attack anybody unless the Pakistani government is in agreement.
    All these attacks wind up killing civilians - including small children. This is what Bush is doing now.
    It is always framed as an attack on "suspected terrorists", based on "actionable intelligence". Our intelligence is notoriously faulty. Killing people who are "suspects", along with anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity is not the way to win the friends we need in the region.

    Agree 100% (none / 0) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    The last thing we need is to dabble in the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation.

    Absolute madness.


    BTD, you are nuts on AQ and Pakistan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    How on earth do you conclude that murdering more innocent people, in another sovereign nation, is a just thing?  Do you think somehow, with all our monumental phuckups everywhere else, that we are only murdering people who deserve to be murdered in Pakistan?  Sorry, but offing a dozen people here and a dozen people there (in other words, mutilating little children, women and men with bombs), in the HOPE that MAYBE you kill a few people who MIGHT deserve killing is, in a word, insanity.  The same type you decry in the "We're all Georgians" nonsense.  You make no sense on this issue, either logical or moral.    

    WRONG!!! (none / 0) (#47)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    It's absolutely amazing to me that someone thinks attacking Pakistan is justified.

    Obama is no different than the Neocons with their constant "Let's attack" talk. Look what eight years of that kind of talk has done to the country. People don't even seem appalled at that kind of talk anymore.

    Obama will not bring change to Washington with his warlike attitude. We will never have peace under these kind of leaders ever again.


    I Think We Already (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    have a name for Hawkish Dems - Republicans!

    I used to be attracted to the Dems because I thought (incorrectly I guess) that they were the party of Peace. Apparently I was wrong.


    Right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    and this is why Obama will never, ever get elected on a platform of withdrawal from Iraq and diplomacy with Iran.

    The excuse that Dems have to act like Republicans on foreign policy to win elections is just laziness.  Obama does just fine on Iraq and Iran, so where is it written that he's dead if he goes to McCain's left on Russia?  Just agree or disagree with his position, and leave it at that.


    Bush dems (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    Maybe your Dad was impressed with Obama's tough talk, but will he actually vote for him?

    Apparently, noone reads the papers. I saw this (none / 0) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    article on the NY Times website the other day and thought about posting in an open thread, but it seems it was better to wait.  I've said it before, these guys better be just be talking tough because it's an election year.

    Where do you get these sinister motives from? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    Of course Russia would love to cut those supplies off to enrich themselves as the only supplier in the region to Europe

    Who wouldn't want to have a particular market all to themselves?  That's not gonna happen though.  In addition, Russia knows it can't just go attacking some other country w/o at least the appearance of a justification.  They had it when the citizens of Georgia who want to be Russian came under attack.  

    As far as engery slaves, Europe is already beholden to that oil.  Who they buy it from doesn't really matter.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    for including the link. Hopefully more will read it and see that there is someting foul in Georgia!

    So Once Again (none / 0) (#20)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    it all boils down to our own selfish and greedy self-interest.

    Good Lord, when will we realize we are only a part of Planet Earth and not the Overseers!


    Yeah. (none / 0) (#10)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    That stinks

    Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    missed an opportunity to hammer McCain on some of his crazier anti-Russia ideas like kicking them out of the G8.

    McCain wants to kick Russia out of the (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    G8? Oh, that's real brilliant John. The way things are going, WE'LL be lucky to be in the G8 soon.

    I can count on about one hand the number of politicans who I don't think are abject idiots.


    Hey they have to keep us in (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    China wouldn't want to lose that vote they'll have financed, I mean c'mon would you want to do all that work buying a client state only to go and lose their vote?

    And Let Me Guess (none / 0) (#21)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    you'll still have a couple of fingers left over right?

    I kid you not (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    The usually sober Fareed Zakaria called it "the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years."

    Along with George Bush's proposal (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    "Hey everybody, lets put our Social Security money in the stock market" it's also one of the dumbest.

    Why didn't he? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    Why didn't Obama "hammer McCain on some of his crazier anti-Russia ideas"?

    Because he agrees with them.
    Either that, or he's afraid to say that he disagrees with them.
    Bad news either way.

    Add to that Obama's tough-guy mob lingo about "taking out" Bin Laden in Pakistan - with or without the consent of the government of Pakistan - and we have us another cowboy in the white house.

    To paraphrase BTD, we can only hope that Obama doesn't actually believe his own B.S.


    I Remember an Old Negro Spiritual (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    that said: "If we ever needed the Lord before, we sure do need Him now!"

    The longer this campaign goes on, the more it's looking like this election will be a Catch 22 for Progressives!


    He didn't say "take out" (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by votermom on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    bin Laden -- much worse. He said "We will kill bin Laden."
    Godalmighty. I had to rewind the tape to make sure I heard it correctly. Nice due process there.
    Too much like the idiot-in-chief's "dead or alive" bluster.

    I've heard him say this before (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    I think he also said it in the last debate.

    I missed it then (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by votermom on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    and I think it's unconscionable for a presidential candidate to say stuff like this.

    And..... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    Cue the Band..."Hail to the Chief..."

    Welcome to America in the new Millenium!


    I do too ... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:15:39 PM EST
    but it seems everyone else thinks it's just fine.

    In fact, it seems the only way to show you're a real man in politics today is by talking about which people you will kill.


    "Kill" (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:17:41 PM EST
    Kerry said it also.  I found it jarring and disturbing four years ago and I find it jarring and disturbing now.

    Ick...I hate that (none / 0) (#39)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    overcompensation for the public thinking you are weak in FP because you are a Democrat.

    Even worse, it doesn't get you anywhere.


    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:32:12 PM EST
    No Dem since Carter has been willing to do otherwise, Clinton and I believe Gore (possibly wrong on Al) were just as bad here, on Bin Laden they have to sound tough, I mean if there's anohter "Death to America" tape released in a few weeks and Obama (whose already gone pretty far out on limb by actually being rational on Iran) had said something soft on Bin Laden it could be an October suprise.  

    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#43)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    You are right.

    Uh (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    Look, the rhetoric on Russia is overheated and probably could be toned down without losing votes (if done right- sell the truman doctrine, hell the fact that this isn't how NATO membership is being sold tells you that FP experts ffor both camps know the MAPS for Georgia and the Ukraine are dangerous), but the "kill Bin Laden" thing, yeah um Obama not only has to say it, its actually probably a good idea.

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    Obama came out pretty firmly against the G8 thing back in July.  I think he just lost his focus a little bit because it was near the end of the debate.  It would have been a good shot to take.

    Interestingly, I read a great piece the other day from a Russia expert: "If the Kremlin Could Vote, It Would Vote for McCain."


    Neither Obama, nor McCain ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    think well on their feet.

    They're terrible debaters.


    Obama will be another cowboy in the WH (none / 0) (#46)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    I totally agree.

    If he doesn't mean it he shouldn't talk as crazy as he does:

    e.g. ": I think they've engaged in an evil behavior ..." - here Obama is clearly channeling Reagan re Russia. The media has been wrong in their reporting about Georgia and Russia but who cares ... Brokaw's phrasing of the question tells you all.

    Obama warns about Russia. He wants to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan and doesn't rule out attacking Iran either.

    Russia is again the evil empire because the country has made a come-back and has not forgotten the years of US humiliation after the Soviet breakdown. They will fight back in word and action and the US doesn't like it after that long smooth ride they had building bases around Russia.

    Obama was the Peace candidate only as long Hillary Clinton was his rival. But now he brings out the tough talk and agrees with McCain. He really lacks principle. The Iraq vote means nothing anymore. I guess the Obamacans who held it against Hillary Clinton as the deciding factor could care less.

    The Iraq vote is totally meaningless in the GE. Hillary Clinton would not have been hurt by her vote at all. Is Biden getting attacked for his Iraq vote? Nobody mentions it. It is Obama who now has to turn and twist in order to appear tough.