ABOUT APPEASEMENT: what this Obama supporter thinks Obama got wrong

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

I'm going against the grain on this to suggest this wasn't a net gain for Obama. I doubt McCain got anything out of it either--and Obama certainly could've done much worse. But this should've been easier than it was.

What Obama didn't do well politically, in my opinion:

1. Obama took the bait. The story here wasn't that Bush was attacking him (even though he really was implicitly). The story here was that Bush was attacking the old nonexistent straw man, and that such attacks on things that don't exist are more old-time politics trying to pass for foreign policy. The straw man is all they got, because of their record. Cue past Bush-McCain ridiculous straw men and horrendous foreign policy failures.

2. Because Obama took the bait and rose to defend himself, Obama at times seemed defensive. Sometimes his body language and tone could've been switched with an those from an interview on Wright. Juxtapose his reaction to a) the appeasement charge with his tone and manner when talking about b) his plan for the economy vs. McCain's. The latter was the tone to take.

3. After Obama took the bait, it was too hard to make the argument that this was about anything other than his own foreign policy, when in fact Obama's own foreign policy shouldn't have been defended (which made it seem like an actual problem that needed defending). In fact, the real argument here was: 1. Bush's own advisers disagree with him about diplomacy, and Bush knows that, and so Bush, again, is lying/playing old politics. Juxtapose this with the guy who represents new politics. 2. John McCain says he agrees with Bush but really holds ERRATIC positions on dealing with Hamas. Cue video of McCain plaintalkin' about dealing with Hamas; juxtapose with the guy whose positions haven't flippity-flopped on national security; sum up with reminder that all they have are straw man attacks and old politics, because their record doesn't give them anything to run on.

4. Rather than being in need of defending, Obama should've offered his foreign policy as the antidote to disastrous Bush-McCain foreign policies. In this context, from a position of strength, as someone offering a solution, he would've been free to argue his foreign policy strenuously.

Don't get me wrong. I know most of these points came out/sort of came out. I think Obama's communication was too convoluted and defensive, though, which, for me, is why this issue played as a wash to fencesitters.


ON EDIT: I'm NOT suggesting he sit back and be swiftboated, as some posts think below. I AM suggesting he come out on the attack. That's my whole point. In my opinion, he came out on the defense.

[enki23]

1. right. you go ahead and think that

and the horde of people who would come out and say obama was "weak" if he acted more like our last nominee and failed to "take the bait" by issuing a firm response will think what they will. the one certain thing is that someone will criticize no matter what course is taken.

[Vinca]

2. I think Obama did just the right thing. Remember Kerry in 2004

ignoring the Swifties? Obama has obviously learned that lesson well and will hop all over any smear at warp speed.

[anonymous171]

6. Correct. They were trying to define him. He didn't let them.

[BOSSHOG]

I get a kick out of conservative irony

bush was over kissing the ass of his Arab handlers trying to appease them relative to oil production, counseling them on how they should live their lives while telling democrats how wrong they are to "appease."

I am a Clark supporter (will vote for the Dem nominee, always have - had to throw that caveat in lest I be chastised by cult members) but I'm glad Obama "took the bait."

[Avalux]

3. I understand your point, but it's too complex.

This is going to be a daily thing in the GE; Obama will have to respond to attacks and untruths by the GOPers. He won't have time to present his policy as an alternative; he has to make it short and sweet.

Hopefully, his camp will be hurling their share of attacks at McCain as well.

[ErinBerin84]

4. I respectfully disagree

Every television and print media that I have seen cover this (sorry, I don't watch Fox news) said that the White House had prepared the networks for Bush launching a direct attack on Obama (they're not sure if he scaled back since those initial reports, since he did not mention him by name)in Israel, and that Obama framed his defense in such a way that it looked more like an offense. After being criticized for taking too many punches from Hillary, he needed to prove that he wouldn't just sit on the sidelines like Kerry. He even said in the press conference that he was less concerned about it being a swipe at him, since he never said he was negotiate with terrorists, but said that the White House has become very savvy at manipulating the media, and that it is disingenuous to try and say it wasn't a swipe at him. Plus, Bush even trying to attack anyone on foreign policy is too ripe for the picking to not respond to it, and Obama benefitted from McCain being aligned with Bush over this. Plus, we got that little Kevin James youtube treat. It framed Obama as the general election candidate and froze out Hillary, yet had Hillary and every other Democrat coming to his defense.

[Toucano]

7. I agree with you.

Obama handled it well.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Obama has a dictionary and, in fact, actually knows what appeasement means.

The "appeasement" argument can be easily struck down simply by virtue of the fact that those flinging that poo bomb don't know what the word means ... plus they are dead wrong and Obama is pleased as hell to argue that point.

On edit: The White House gave a heads-up to reporters before his comments that Bush would be hitting Obama.

[Toucano]

Exactly.

Appeasement is entirely different than dialog.

Even if the WH now says it was directed at Carter, it still is not appeasement.

Thanks to the media for failure to point that out.

[The Ghost]

8. Weird, I heard a pundit say all these same things on one of the Sunday shows yesterday

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

12. who was it?

[The Ghost]

24. Sorry, I wish I could remember

I know Im not doing a good job of backing up my claim, but I watched so much Sunday news yesterday (Im a dork), I just cant remember :)

[BlooInBloo]

14. Ha! It's funny when people steal other people's lines...

And then when they get caught they go for the "theoretically possible" defense "What a coincidence!".

:rofl:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

16. let me get this straight...I'm a plagiarist, because I disagree with how my guy

handled an issue? Good lord, man, get a hold of yourself.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I completely disagree. It isn't a matter of "bait." Bush/McCain tried the ol' weak smear. Obama

fired back, and then shifted the conversation to his strengths. I don't think it was a wash at all.

[anonymous171]

11. Pundits are trying to discourage Obama from fighting back.

This was the GOP's attempt at labeling Obama. He didn't let them.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Absolutely. He makes their job a lot harder; they can't just sit back and repeat the White House's

talking points like they did in '04.

[still_one]

10. It was more than a strawman

bush said that equated talking with your advasaries as appeasement, and that specifically that is what the Democrats do

Not only dies bush not understand what appeasment is, but trying to equate the Democratic party with nazi Germany is probably one of the worst distortions he has made

There is a reason why congressional Democrats jumped all over it

If we haven't learned anything from dealing with these thugs is to let no LIE go unchallenged

[cali]

13. Flat wrong.

It's the MSM who decides who the winner and loser are in these skirmishes. The press decided Obama was the winner. It was a good move.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

18. it's actually the voters....no movement for him over the weekend, except against Clinton.

When he moves against McCain after McCain serves him a softball, we'll know he hit it out of the park. Maybe it's too early to tell, maybe not.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. So what you're saying is "Obama took the bait"

Unfortunately for the Republican's they were using "Uncle Karl's Old Fashioned Fear Bait" and it had an expiration date of June 2006.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

21. what I'm saying is that he should've attacked based on just that characterization...

...and not come out on defense instead. In my opinion, he would've been more effective making his points.

[graycem]

19. He counterpunched..

and he did again today. Just what he should be doing. If he doesn't fight back, they say he looks weak and people will assume what they're saying is true. If he hits back, he looks strong, as he does now. I personally love the way he's mocking them and their fake machismo. People are SICK of their sad excuse for a foreign policy. The more he keeps pounding them, the more they will look like the out of touch buffoons that they are.

[anonymous171]

22. He's defeating the rovian "label" strategy handily.

[L0oniX]

20. I would have said something about Bush's appeasement to Kim Jong Il.

[anigbrowl]

23. Disagree. If he let it slip by, Republicans would make 'appeasement' stick

It's a big code word for them. You are right, a few of them will say 'Ha! His choice to respond shows that we struck a nerve!'. But they do so with nowhere near the force that they'd argue 'he ducked the charges! In the end, his whole policy is one of appeasement!'. Anything less than total attack is appeasement in their eyes.

Let me illustrate the psychology with a personal story from a few years ago. I was walking home from amartial arts class, through a dense crowd celebrating a street party (I think it was Cinco de Mayo). As I was walking, i saw this big, beefy and rather drunk looking guy pushing his way through the crowd. The kind of guy who kicks cats for fun.

Well, for some reason he came right towards me. I'm a small skinny guy (maybe 115 pounds to his 200+), so perhaps he felt it would be amusing to push me out of his way; he had his arms up in front of him (like when your arms are folding) and he was just plowing through people. I only had a second or two to even notice this before he was pushing up against me. Well, as I mentioned I study martial arts, so with a light touch I directed his forward force to one side and down he went, carried by his own momentum.

I glanced around for a cop, but he quickly got on his feet and rushed me. So I did it again, wondering now how I was going to explain this if a cop did show up - obviously, i didn't want to get arrested! He sprang up, really angry now, said he was going to kick the shit out of me, and grabbed my arms, presumably planning to follow up with a head-butt. By this time I was getting alarmed, so I freed myself and pushed him down hard, enough to really hurt when he hit the ground. He was pretty pissed and started yelling that I was a motherfucker and so on but he didn't get up this time.

While I was wondering what to do next, a guy came running up from the same direction and asked me to leave him alone. The big guy was his friend, he was drunk, he was being an ass, and he apologized profusely and said he would get him home. Would I please let it go and not involve the cops, he requested. Well, the guy seemed sincerely embarrassed so I said 'sure - I hope he appreciates having you as a friend, buddy'. And I walked off.

And you know what the bully was yelling at me while he was still lying on the ground? 'Yeah, you better keep walking!' I know for a fact he was hurt; not because I am such a strong guy, but because I had physics on my side, and when 200+ pounds of flesh and bone takes a dive onto concrete the force has only one way to go (and it's not into the sidewalk). But it just didn't fit his understanding of 'the ways things work' - I was half his size, and he went down because of how I had pushed him rather than because I had used enormous force myself. The artistic part of martial arts (at least in Tai Chi) is to get your opponent to do most of the grunt work for you.

It's much the same with the war in Iraq. Back in 2002 when I was arguing about it with True Believers, if I said 'this risks turning into a quagmire, like Vietnam' the response would be 'Vietnam was a jundle - Iraq is a desert! shows how little YOU know!'. Um...right. There are still people out there who insist we found WMD, for that matter. Or that we had to go in there because of 9/11...never mind the complexities of Middle Eastern politics, these folk say we're fighting some amorphous 'Islamofascism'. Of course, these same people think that because we were threatened by the USSR and scared by Mao's rule in China, it made good sense for us to carpet bomb agrarian peasants in Viet Nam.

So getting back to Obama, most people feel that when confronted with a bully the wisest thing may be to step aside. And a lot of the time, they're right - in my story, I only stood up to this guy because I was in the middle of a crowd and didn't really have anywhere to go at the moment he confronted me. I don't seek out fights, and technically he wasn't getting personal with me - I just happened to be directly in front of his aggression. And it would have been wrong for me to follow up on my defensive response by attacking him in turn. A bully kicks people when they're down because the bully is terrified of what might happen when they get up again. A champion only uses as much force as they need, and (more importantly) knows that surrender has to be offered, it can't be taken.

Now Bush and his True Believers are like the guy on the ground yelling in defiance - it may make them feel better, but won't impress anyone. For the first time a politician with national standing has not only disputed their war policy, but smacked it down and dismissed it, calling it naive and saying that Bush has a lot to account for. Initiating this argument would have allowed the right to blame Obama for being an 'angry liberal'; but responding to an attack from Bush makes it clear that while Obama doesn't seek to begin a fight, he has no problem with finishing one started by someone else.