Politico Friday

Viewing of the day: Hardball, May 15, 2008
One of the political shows on television I find interesting is Hardball on MSNBC. Chris Matthews is the bulldog host who obnoxiously interrupts his guests with another question as they are still trying to answer his previous question. And while his style can be brash, he has the confidence to call a spade a spade and the intellect to back up his assertions.

Last night on Hardball Matthews invited a talk-show host from the left and from the right to debate the story yesterday where President Bush covertly accused Barack Obama's support of an open dialogue with Iran and Hamas as "appeasement" of the radical Islamic groups just as the Nazis were appeased prior to WWII. When the talk-show host stopped screaming and was pressed to answer Matthews' question of how the Nazis were actually appeased, he couldn't answer the question. Matthews proceeded to unload in a tirade on the guy. It was highly entertaining and in my view, completely justified. This guy might read up on some history before he goes on a talk show the next time to regurgitate right-wing talking points.



Op-ed of the day: "Obama Admires Bush," David Brooks, NYT, May 16, 2008
Obama clarified and articulated his foreign policy position towards Islamic terrorist organizations like Hezbollah in a discussion with David Brooks. At first glance Obama's positions can be dismissed as naive and ideal. He supports discussions with Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and Hezbollah whereas his critics (many conservatives and even Hillary Clinton) do not believe in acknowledging the leaders of these radical regimes. But when you read deeper into his view that engaging enemies in discussions is not a sign of weakness but sound foreign policy, I think this illustrates a needed change in our attitude toward other countries. It represents -- finally! -- a Democrat willing to shine the light on the vast differences that exist between our two parties when it comes to engaging our enemies.

This is the debate the country should be having between now and November rather than goofy ministers and flag pins on the lapel.

“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”

Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”