[Marxism] SF CHRONICLE: Say what you mean, mean what you say

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(Obama's plan for "immediate" withdrawal of U.S. troops calls for
keeping a "residual force" in Iraq to protect diplomatic and military
personnel in Iraq and "continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." How
many troops does that mean? He doesn't say.)
=======================================================================
COMMENT: Obama's position that he's willing to talk to governments he
doesn't agree with is a good one, and it sets him apart from Clinton,
McCain and Bush, as yesterday's presidential press conference showed.

Much of Obama's support is coming from people who are against the war
and want withdrawawl of the troops from Iraq. That's what's needed.
Those who listened to the last debate know quite well, and as this
column in yesterday's San Francisco Chroncle shows, people seem to
be hearing what they want to hear rather than what he's actually
been saying on Iraq, and even more so about Afghanistan, where less
is said in general

Meanwhile, the hysterical pressure among the Democrats to prevent
any political alternatives to their left is currently coalescing
in the mad dash to denounce the campaign of Nader and Gonzalez.

Two samples of the anti-Nader-Gonzalez campaign:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/ralph-naders-nadir_b_88215.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/29/MNFCVATTD.DTL&ts
p=1

As GRANMA pointed out a few days ago in their article "Nader
candidacy is bad news for the Democrats,":

  "None of the presidential contenders focuses seriously 
  on the crimes committed by the big companies, the squandering 
  of resources by the Pentagon, or truly promote workers rights," 
  emphasized the politician.
  http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1791.html
=======================================================================

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
Say what you mean, mean what you say
Debra J. Saunders

Thursday, February 28, 2008

"Well, can I just point out that, in the last several debates, 
I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind," 
was Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's
response to a question about her position on NAFTA during Tuesday
night's MSNBC debate in Ohio.

That answer demonstrates why Clinton is trailing in the polls. She
can't give a straight answer - for her life. If Clinton didn't mind
getting the first question, then why did she bring it up?

Clinton continued, "You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do
find it curious, and if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know,
maybe we should ask Barack (Obama) if he's comfortable and needs
another pillow. I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting
the first question on all these issues. But I'm happy to answer it."

Funny. Clinton didn't seem happy.

In those few lines, Clinton instead came across as the
passive-aggressive candidate. And she complained about the
opportunity to answer first and set the tone of debates.

Later, when MSNBC's Brian Williams asked Clinton about a stump speech
in which she took on Barack Obama as a grand-talking candidate,
Clinton demurred. "Well, I was having a little fun," Clinton
responded. "You know, it's hard to find time to have fun on the
campaign trail, but occasionally you can sneak that in."

Just having fun? Come on. If you want voters to think Obama is
all-talk, no-delivery, you have to be willing to say as much
yourself. Be a man. Or the female equivalent.

Williams also asked Clinton if she thought Obama was "qualified to be
commander in chief," and Clinton would not say Obama was not
qualified. She would only say that she was qualified.

Four years ago, Democrats argued that a presidential candidate should
have military experience. They argued that Vietnam combat veteran
John Kerry would make a better commander in chief because Bush only
served in the Air National Guard. Now the Democrats are about to
nominate a candidate with absolutely no military experience - and it
doesn't matter.

One thing the debate did not do was clarify what either Democrat will
do about Iraq. Both say that they immediately would begin withdrawing
troops from Iraq, but you have to listen carefully to understand that
neither is talking about a complete withdrawal, which many Democrats
want.

Obama's plan for "immediate" withdrawal of U.S. troops calls for
keeping a "residual force" in Iraq to protect diplomatic and military
personnel in Iraq and "continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." How
many troops does that mean? He doesn't say.

Clinton has said, "If this president does not get us out of Iraq,
when I am president, I will." But like Obama, she would leave troops
in Iraq.

MSNBC's Tim Russert asked Obama and Clinton what they would do if the
Iraq government, angry at the limited troop withdrawal, told
Washington to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Russert should have
asked what the Dems would do if insurgents decimated residual forces
that had trouble defending themselves because they lacked the numbers
to fight back. And isn't limited engagement the Rumsfeld strategy
that Democrats attacked before the 2006 election?

Answers to those questions might get the attention of those who think
that a vote for Obama - who opposed the war when Clinton voted for it
in 2002 - is a vote to end the war. When it isn't.

In that, Barack Obama has something in common with Hillary Clinton.

E-mail: dsaunders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/ED5TV9KGU.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism