by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 3, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

osing ground in the presidential sweepstakes, Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obaama (D-Ill) has been getting shellacked by front frontrunner Hillary Clinton, unable to shake his youth and inexperience. Hillary knows the stakes heading into Iowa and New Hampshire, realizing that, despite recent polls putting her up by a comfortable margin, if she stumbles momentum swings to Obama. With a methodical strategy, Clinton has painted Barack as not ready for primetime. Slammed by Hillary and the right-wing media for suggesting that, as president, he might go after Bin Laden in the ungoverned tribal lands of Pakistan, Obama clarified his position, taking nukes off the table. “He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afhghanistan and Pakistan,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki, clarifying his position about using force in Pakistan.

      Obama responded to collective frustration about the Iraq war, detouring the war on terror away from the primary target of neutralizing Osama bin Laden and leftovers, like Mullah Mohammed Omar from the Taliban. GOP officials, presidential candidates and Hillary seized the opportunity to highlight Obama's youth and inexperience, for daring to say he'd go after Bin Laden in Pakistan. For over four years since embroiled in Iraq, White House critics have repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider Iraq and go after Bin Laden, rumored hiding in the tribal lands near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Now that Obama restates the obvious, Clinton and GOP critics seize the chance to score cheap political points. “I think presidents should be very careful at times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons,” said Clinton, painting Barack as lacking needed savvy and experience.

      Responding to the Associated Press, Obama clarified his remarks about going after Bin Laden in the ungoverned tribal lands between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Had he been coy with the reporter and refused to rule it in or out, it would have seemed disingenuous. Hillary has no problem condemning Bush and then Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for refusing to rule out using “torture” to interrogate terrorist detainees but enjoys pointing out Obama's naïveté. Hillary knows there's no conceivable or inconceivable scenario for using nuclear weapons in Pakistan, Iraq or any other terrorist related mission. Yet pointing out that it's ill-advised for a future president to tip his or her hand accomplishes the objective of making Obama look inexperienced. In reality, Obama reassured the press that there are limits to the type of U.S. military options in Pakistan or elsewhere.

      Hillary criticized Barack for saying, as president, he would meet, without preconditions, hostile adversaries, including, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Cuba's Raul or Fidel Castro, or even North Korea's Kim Jong-Il. Hillary called Barack's position naïve for considering meetings without some preexisting diplomatic groundwork. Obama's point was that, as president, he wouldn't let the State Department, or past diplomatic mistakes or obstacles, get in the way of forging new relationships with the power of the presidency. “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blank statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” said Clinton, totally missing the meaning of “deterrence” in the Cold War, referring to stopping nuclear powers.

      Pakistan's military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf has done virtually nothing to go after Osama bin Laden or remnants of the Taliban in the militant-controlled tribal lands. Musharraf walks a dangerous tightrope supporting the U.S., while, at the same time, placating Islamic militants wishing to turn Pakistan into another Iran, or Islamic theocracy. Hillary and Barack's GOP critics warn that U.S. military intervention in Pakistan could hasten a coup that turns Pakistan into world's first nuclear-armed theocracy. Whatever the reasons, President George W. Bush has never ruled out going after Bin Laden anywhere with good actionable intelligence. Recent polls show Barack slipping against Hillary, in part because she's successfully defining him as naïve and inexperienced. Hillary and the GOP have the same objective: Make sure she wins the nomination.

      Obama's problems stem less from controversial remarks than with the strange alignment between Hillary and the GOP. While Democrats believe Hillary represents the strongest candidate, Republicans believe exactly the opposite. GOP strategy is geared toward sabotaging Obama to get the chance to run against Hillary. Republican strategists believe no one galvanizes an apathetic GOP base more than Hillary. Once Hillary becomes the nominee, the GOP plans to drag out of the closet all her mischief at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas in the Whitewater land deal and other incidents while she was First Lady. Before Iowa and New Hamphire, Hillary and the GOP will continue to beat up on Obama, attacking his best asset and worst liability: His youth and inexperience. All the collective wisdom and experience of this White House has gotten the country into the worst mess since Vietnam.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.