Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/politics/22assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...f=slogin</a> Obama, much at the McCain camp's urging, has gone to Afghanistan and Iraq and so far has done extremely well. Not only that, it looks like the Iraqis agree with Obama on a timetable for withdrawal. I'm not sure what McCain supporters thought was going to happen - was Obama going to present Hamid Karzai with a copy of Mad Magazine as a gift? Watching Obama shake hands and hold talks with Afghani and Iraqi leaders just makes him look like a...well...President.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <a href="http://www.poprock80s.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/carrottop.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.poprock80s.com/word...ttop.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think McCain handed Obama an absolute gift in the form of those visuals of the troops in Afghanistan giving Obama huge ovations. They can debate the policy all they like, and they will. But one of Reagan's people (forget which, and I'm paraphrasing here) said something like "say or write whatever you want; if we supply the visuals, our message wins." And the visuals I saw from the first couple of days of his trips were amazing. This wasn't the usual polite but uninspired applause the troops give some politician who goes over there when he walks into the room. This was huge, enthusiastic ovations from the troops to Obama (who will be a fool if he doesn't use that footage in future campaign ads). I have no idea how the majority of troops feel about McCain vs. Obama, but the message this footage sends is clear: the troops like Obama a lot and would be (more than) fine with him being elected President.
Originally Posted By Mr X I never heard that before Dabob (about Reagan), but it's certainly true. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Originally Posted By ecdc Seriously, what on earth were people thinking was going to happen if Obama went on a foreign tour? Did they think Leslie Nielsen was going to show up, accidentally set the Koran on fire, cover the Afghani flag in horse manure, and knock the First Lady down a flight of stairs? Obama doesn't have to do much of anything other than be careful about what he says, shake hands with foreign leaders, and be an American in front of the troops. They're probably just thrilled to see any American with their name in the news. This trip was a gift.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Seriously, what on earth were people thinking was going to happen if Obama went on a foreign tour? Did they think Leslie Nielsen was going to show up, accidentally set the Koran on fire, cover the Afghani flag in horse manure, and knock the First Lady down a flight of stairs?>> If that would have happened that would have happened with Bush. I am wondering have Presidential candidates always done these foreign tours as part of their campaigns? I can't remember this being done.
Originally Posted By Mr X Seems a little weird to me too. I would think candidates would want to focus all their efforts on the U.S. during this time. On the other hand, they are both active senators so I suppose it makes sense (or is at least "justifyable"). It'd have been weird for (for example) Ross Perot or Steve Forbes to go hoping 'round the war zones meeting with leaders, even thought they were (fairly) major candidates for president.
Originally Posted By dshyates Well, there hasn't been a presidential campaign during wartime since the Vietnam conflict.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Obama doesn't have to do much of anything other than be careful about what he says, shake hands with foreign leaders, and be an American in front of the troops. They're probably just thrilled to see any American with their name in the news. This trip was a gift.< exactly - I wouldn't read too muchinto it oneway or the other. Remember most were thrilled when Jesse Jacksonmadesome trips to the middle east also a few years ago, they like when entertainers visit as well. I agree with the fact, just don't say anything really dumb ( which was very unlikely) - and this holds true for anyone who visits there not just Obama - and it will be a news event and be covered positively.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Seems a little weird to me too. I would think candidates would want to focus all their efforts on the U.S. during this time. > I think Obama felt he had to do it because he is generally viewed as weak on foreign affairs experience. Now going there and shaking a few hands doesn't qualify one as an expert - but then no one is accusing the general voting public as being rocket scientists. Some will say look at how well he gets along with everyone there. His target audience for this trip likely views it as extremely positive - I view it as part of his campaigning just like any other trip right now
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yes but Team McCain needed him to really blow it on this trip, say something that would become a huge gaffe. It just didn't happen. Remember that the right and left have made up their minds. It's the middle ground that's being fought for from now until the election. McCain should have done something, anything, to attempt to upstage Obama's trip. Instead, he stayed home, seeming grumpy about the whole thing. That isn't going to cut it.
Originally Posted By woody >>Obama, much at the McCain camp's urging, has gone to Afghanistan and Iraq and so far has done extremely well. Not only that, it looks like the Iraqis agree with Obama on a timetable for withdrawal. I'm not sure what McCain supporters thought was going to happen - was Obama going to present Hamid Karzai with a copy of Mad Magazine as a gift? Watching Obama shake hands and hold talks with Afghani and Iraqi leaders just makes him look like a...well...President.<< Obama did well on his trip in the sense that he went and he gave his speeches well. Nothing that Obama did contributed to the withdrawal position of Iraq's Maliki, but its disingenious to say the positions are equal. They are not, but by virtue of the situation, they are closer to Obama than McCain and that's a disappointment. The amazing thing is actually that Obama still does not agree with the surge and this might be his greatest weakness. His attempt at explaining his position on the surge is completely inarticulate and incomprehesible. Now Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan. There is a contradiction and not enough people see it.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Now Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan." No, Obama wants the troops in Afghanistan that should have been there to start with. After Bush took his eye off the ball to invade Iraq, there has not been a focus on actually catching the terrorist. To call finally sending the appropriate level of troops to where the actual terrorists are, a surge, is disingenious. It really sounds like you are getting your logic from talking point spewing ideologues.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>There is a contradiction and not enough people see it.<< It's not a contradiction at all. It's not the same thing to have a surge in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's simply astounding that people continue to think it is. Afghanistan is where the people who actually attacked us are. Iraq is where George W. Bush's boogey men were - WMDs, Saddam, etc. We caused the situation in Iraq, we created it, then we acted as if we didn't and we needed to fix it with the surge. It's like if I threw a bucket of water on you and said, "Wow, you look all wet. You really ought to get a towel - I have some for sale here."
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The amazing thing is actually that Obama still does not agree with the surge and this might be his greatest weakness.*** McCain and his supporters certainly hope so, anyway. Aside from that, they've got nothing else to throw at him...guess it's time to start the smear campaigning. "America First" (interesting new slogan from the man who claims he is NOT out to attack Obama's patriotism...er, til now anyway) They're so gonna lose this one. I don't even think it will be close, I really don't. It's going to be like Reagan or Clinton, Obama is going to crush the other side in November.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Obama is going to crush the other side in November.<< They will if McCain can't do better than acting like Statler and Waldorf, jeering from the balcony, like he's done this week.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I am wondering have Presidential candidates always done these foreign tours as part of their campaigns? I can't remember this being done. >>> A partial answer has already been posted: <<< Well, there hasn't been a presidential campaign during wartime since the Vietnam conflict. >>> The rest of the answer lies in Obama being a sitting US Senator, to whom US foreign relations is very much in his job description.
Originally Posted By Mr X True, but in that case wouldn't it have been more appropriate to leave the campaign plane at home and travel over there the way any other Senator would? (I do appreciate some of the arguments that this trip was politically motivated, and very much a part of his campaign...in fact I received an email from them with a link to the speech in Germany along with a "donate here" button...seemed kinda strange) I just sort of feel like this was a little too much of "have your cake and eat it too". I'd prefer they called a spade a spade, and I'm reasonably certain that if Obama had lost the primaries to Clinton this trip never would've happened (certainly not on such a large scale).
