It is very rare to see Laura Bush in the White House Briefing Room. For the last seven years, she has stayed almost completely behind the scenes. Today's briefing could have been handled by any number of officials in the Bush Administration, and her speaking to the issue was likely intended to demonstrate her devotion to humanitarian relief and her opposition to the junta. Laura Bush handled herself very well.
If I were a GOP operative, I would constantly advocate for a greater public role for Mrs. Bush. Consider the following factors: (1) Her husband's approval rating is hovering around 30%; (2) As much as many liberals love Michelle Obama, far too many Americans see her as an angry black woman who isn't proud of her country; (3) it helps Republicans to continually use the stand up line "Do you really want Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do?"; (4) Cindy McCain looks more like a First Lady than any other First Lady in History.
Because of the last factor, more than any other, elevating the role a first lady can play, and perhaps even should play, in public life only helps John McCain. One reasonable strategy for the Republicans going forward is to elevate the public roles of both Laura Bush and Cindy McCain.
Labels: 2008, Augur, republican politics, strategy and tactics
The truth about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy "experience"
2 Comments Published by Augur on Tuesday, March 11 at 2:17 PM.
Finally the Obama campaign is starting to hit back at Hillary's preposterous overstatements about her foreign policy experience. The media has been guilty of giving her a free pass on this issue, hopefully the memo released today by Greg Craig (Former Director of the Policy Planning Office at the State Department) will inspire the media to take a closer look at her foreign policy claims.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn't guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.
The Craig memo begins: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record."
Here's the section most likely to be quoted at length:
"There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."
Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.
The first 'graph of the conclusion nails it:
"The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it."
I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn't guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.
The Craig memo begins: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record."
Here's the section most likely to be quoted at length:
"There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."
Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.
The first 'graph of the conclusion nails it:
"The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it."
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, politics, strategy and tactics
"He who hesitates is a damned fool" - Mae West
Senator Obama seems genuinely uncomfortable with confrontation, this is apparent from watching the few heated exchanges from the many Democratic debates. This is partially due to his basing his campaign on bringing "a new kind of politics" to America. His has disarmed himself from launching attacks on Hillary. Even Edwards, who most would assume would support Obama, has offered as his excuse for waiting that Obama doesn't seem like a fighter.
As Jonathan Martin at the Politico points out, Obama is way too slow to respond to attacks. And Hillary's attacks often come right before a major electoral event. Perhaps it's the educated liberals running his campaign momentarily assuming that the less educated public wouldn't take the attacks seriously. This is why swift boating sunk Kerry. There seems to be a curve of sorts where up to a breaking point, the more ridiculous the attack the more effective it becomes because there is a lower chance of there being a response. The Obama campaign's current approach could become even more damaging as Hillary's anti-Obama 527's get off the ground.
A winning mantra: Only attack in defense, but don't hesitate for a moment to respond when attacked. Do not let a news cycle go by without a response. No matter how ridiculous or offensive the attack, hit back. Temper your response based on how damaging the attack may be, and the risk of backfire, but don't wait to respond. Every counterattack should be unmistakably structured as a response to an attack, as setting the record straight and reminding the people why we need to turn the page on the politics of destruction and deception.
Senator Obama seems genuinely uncomfortable with confrontation, this is apparent from watching the few heated exchanges from the many Democratic debates. This is partially due to his basing his campaign on bringing "a new kind of politics" to America. His has disarmed himself from launching attacks on Hillary. Even Edwards, who most would assume would support Obama, has offered as his excuse for waiting that Obama doesn't seem like a fighter.
As Jonathan Martin at the Politico points out, Obama is way too slow to respond to attacks. And Hillary's attacks often come right before a major electoral event. Perhaps it's the educated liberals running his campaign momentarily assuming that the less educated public wouldn't take the attacks seriously. This is why swift boating sunk Kerry. There seems to be a curve of sorts where up to a breaking point, the more ridiculous the attack the more effective it becomes because there is a lower chance of there being a response. The Obama campaign's current approach could become even more damaging as Hillary's anti-Obama 527's get off the ground.
A winning mantra: Only attack in defense, but don't hesitate for a moment to respond when attacked. Do not let a news cycle go by without a response. No matter how ridiculous or offensive the attack, hit back. Temper your response based on how damaging the attack may be, and the risk of backfire, but don't wait to respond. Every counterattack should be unmistakably structured as a response to an attack, as setting the record straight and reminding the people why we need to turn the page on the politics of destruction and deception.
Labels: 2008, Augur, obama, politics, strategy and tactics
An active duty Lt. Colonel with two tours in Iraq explains to the country and the general staff why we have lost in Iraq.
Hopefully, telling the truth in this article will not result in the end of his career. Courage is a rare commodity.
Tom
Hopefully, telling the truth in this article will not result in the end of his career. Courage is a rare commodity.
Tom
Labels: Iraq, strategy and tactics
