Zbigniew Brzezinski supports Obama over Clinton

This is quite a coup for Obama:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.”

“Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand,” Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said. “He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.”

Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president. President Truman didn’t have much experience before he came to office. Neither did John Kennedy,” Brzezinski said.

Clinton’s foreign-policy approach is “very conventional,” Brzezinski said. “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”

“There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,” he added. “And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.”

The press has had a field day with Hillary’s petty criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy statements. Perhaps this endorsement will begin to change the narrative that Obama lacks experience. As the Bloomberg article notes, Brzezinski is one of the foreign policy heavyweights in the Democratic Party, and he is an excellent strategic thinker. He called out Hillary on her policies and her claims of experience. Tucker Carlson addressed this on his show today. Hopefully Brzezinski will be invited on some of these programs to discuss this further.


More carnage in Iraq

Is anyone surprised?

U.S. officials believe extremists are attempting to regroup across northern Iraq after being driven from strongholds in and around Baghdad, and commanders have warned they expected Sunni insurgents to step up attacks in a bid to upstage the report.

Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said last month that he proposed reducing American troop levels in Ninevah and predicted the province would shift to Iraqi government control as early as this month. It was unclear whether that projection would hold after Tuesday’s staggering death tolls.

A fifth-grader could have predicted this. We’ve been doing the same thing in Iraq for years. Sure, the tactics have improved dramatically where we have our soldiers, but we have never had enough troops, and we will never have enough troops. We work on an area, and then the insurgents move to another area. Nothing has changed.

Early in the war, hawks like McCain argued that we needed more troops. Bush ignored them and the commanders on the ground (ho only listened to the ones that told him what he wanted to hear). Despite Bush’s incompetence and a flawed strategy, McCain and others stuck with Bush. Then they supported this foolish surge.

This situtation will not be resolved militarily. How many times do we need to be reminded about this?


Elizabeth Edwards takes shots at Obama

I’m a big fan of Elizabeth Edwards, but her latest shots at Obama are a little silly.

Mrs. Edwards added that any divide in the Democratic party this year among the candidates is the difference between “actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats.”

“Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it’s like a Hollywood set: It’s a facade and there’s no guts behind it,” Mrs. Edwards asserts in the interview, “You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John’s 2004 language, which is maybe not surprisingly since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John’s mantra as well as anybody could know it.”

“They’ve moved from ‘hope is on the way’,” the potential first lady concluded, “to the ‘audacity of hope’. I’m constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.”

So Edwards was the first politician to use the word “hope” in his stump speech? Give me a break.

Here’s another lame shot:

And while Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., was in the Illinois state legislature and not the Senate in 2003, Mrs. Edwards equally questioned his motives.

“Obama gives a speech that’s likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district,” Edwards said, “and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding… so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way.”

Obama was right on the war, and he was planning a run for the Senate. His opposition to the war was not popular, and to suggest he did it for political motives is absurd.

I applaud John Edwards for apologizing for his vote, but frankly we all deserved that apology. Edwards was a complete robot during that process. He didn’t question anything. He didn’t read the full National Intelligence Estimate. He was also planning a run for the Presidency. And yet Elizabeth Edwards has the gall to challenge Obama on this? It’s ridiculous.


Related Posts