Monday, February 12, 2007

Obama and "the netroots."

Putz's predictable, partisan response to Obama's recent sparring with Australian Prime Minister:
JOHN HOWARD, BARACK OBAMA, AND OSAMA BIN LADEN: Richard Fernandez has a roundup.

A tempest in a teapot, mostly, but Obama demonstrated that he could use a bit of seasoning -- though in truth, calling one of America's closest military allies a chickenhawk will probably play well with the netroots crowd.

First, let's review what Howard said.

"If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Aside from the fact that Howard doesn't seem to know that al Qaeda isn't the biggest problem in Iraq, and thus fundamentally misunderstands the war he claims to be so concerned about, his slander of the party just elected into power is empty: Americans heard this same tired words directly from the President -- then promptly voted for Democrats in record numbers.

Obama's response:

"I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Bingo. If the outcome in Iraq is so consequential to the survival of Western Civilization As We Know It, then why doesn't Australia send more than just a symbolic number of troops? You simply can't have it both ways. Are we to believe that 1,400 troops is all Australia can spare for World War Three?

But to Putz, John Howard is perfectly justified in his vicious, slanderous partisan attacks on Democrats. And Obama, in defending himself and the majority party, is name-calling and "needs seasoning" and his stance on the war only appeals to the "netroots."


What is the difference between the netroots' position on the war and more than 60% of the American people who oppose the surge? It's really remarkable that even after the GOP was routed at the polls, largely because of Iraq, Putz still clings to this odd right wing fantasy that only "the netroots" oppose his beloved war.


No comments: