true enough, I wish it sounded better.

yeah, exactly. obama is trying to break the frame which holds that saying you wouldn't nuke terrorists in Pakistan is automatically a sign of weakness and inexperience.

Please provide some supportive evidence that the Obama campaign 'over-hyped' any statement.

The pundits did all the hyping and focused on that one facet of his speech disporportionately to the content and overall perspective provided in the speech.

Please produce the emails you allege to have been sent hyping the pakistan angle.

This TPM-EC piece reminds me of the following from an ealier piece:

Update: TPM Reader DG has an interesting rejoinder:

I don't doubt that at this snapshot in time Hillary is seen as better on these issues but I think that has little or nothing to do with the spat Hillary and Obama have just engaged in. It's simply perception among an uninformed lot. What I do dispute vigorously is the idea that Hillary's internal numbers on these specific questions indicate that she has got the better of Obama on these spats rather than simply being the general perception people have of the candidates. I strongly doubt that the disputes have moved the internal numbers you sight in her direction, especially when the NBC poll showed Dems agreed with Obama's position more than hers. Indeed, I doubt most people polled even know that this is Obama's position. No doubt, Obama needs to solidify these numbers but that's the whole point of fundraising. He will blanket Iowa, NH, and SC with ads to fix the perception as best he can.

I reminder thinking that the TPM reader's "rejoinder" was a bit flawed, but I guess the folks in Iowa were not told that they are supposed to be ignorant about what Obama's position is or that CNN had decreed that most Dems agreed with Obama on this...

This piece, in fact, provides support what I had posted ealier as the reason why Obama is doing so badly:

The more Sen Obama talks the worse his poll numbers get. This was to be expected: Obama came out of nowhere and shot to the top, propped by Kennedy-esque charisma but without the experience to go along. More than the daily blow-by-blow exchanges between the HRC and Obama camps, I think that Sen Obama himself, along with the debates, can be 'credited' with helping the average voter to begin seeing the candidates for who they really are: HRC for being a smart, tough, thoughtful, experienced and, yes, warm person and not the caricature that the MSM had painted; and Obama as the half naked 'emperor'... Let him give major 'policy' speeches and propose unilateral and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations to root out Al Qaeda. Such speeches, more than what anyone else can say, would show the voters that Sen Obama still needs a few more years as a Senator before he can be trusted to lead the free world. His background as a state senator and a first-term US senator hardly qualifies him for the most important and demanding CEO job in the world. It just shows blind ambition by someone whose main strengths so far have been great oratorical skills, charisma and no (read: politically safe) resume, which will be his undoing, once the voters begin to see through the smoke... and polls suggest that they have begun to.

He is not helping himself meet his greatest challenge, which is to convince the voters that he has got what it takes to be POTUS, with just state senate and 2-year US Senate experience

Yes, you need to spend years with the Dem foreign policy establishment in Washington before you could possibly have enough "experience" to think that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Perle Iraq War was a good idea and to vote for it.

Spoken with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight...

And one more thing about leadership: It is not all about getting it always right or making the all the right decisions; it is also about how you react when you make a decision that proves disastrous. It is why History will not be kind to George Stay-the-Course Bush, and why HRC has shown marks of great leadership. She has been pushing hard in the Senate to try to extricate us from the war after having voted for it. You wish for her to issue mea culpas ad nauseam a la Edwards. That would do nothing except to satisfy the restless lefties and to leave Hillary vulnerable to the charge of flip-flopper by the rightwing smear machine. The proactive steps that she has been taking in the Senate are a mark of leadership that goes beyond the mea culpa that you're trying to get out of her. I would very disappointed if she should apologize for that vote...

The reason why an apology would be welcome is that those of us who worked hard in our towns and neighborhoods, without leadership from our national democratic leaders, to wake people up about the war , now naturally feel some resentment against those who belittled our efforts in 03/04 and now claim the moral authority to lead our cause. If Hillary would just once indicate that she was wrong, we were right, and if we hadn't fought so hard against this war that she supported, America would be in even worse shape, then I for one would consider recognizing her as having the moral authority to lead our party and country.

But to have it shoved down our throats, well that grates. And for all their flaws, Edwards and Obama both have indicated recognition of that fact that the national democratic leadership not only failed to lead their own supporters but belittled our efforts -- and that we were right and they were wrong.

Thats why so many of us see no reason at all to believe that Clinton "has shown marks of great leadership."

I haven't viewed the clip, but I think everyone needs to recognize that Obama is trying to change political conventional wisdom and that is a very, very difficult thing to do. People are, and will always remain, resistant to change.

I must disagree. People are not resistant to change, especially after nearly 8 years of this administration. They threw the bums out of the House and Senate last year and handed the control of the Congress to the Dems after more than a decade. Big nod to change! So, your premise about 'people being resistent to change' is erroneous, which makes all your subsequent arguments equally erroneous.

The resistance to Obama's 'foreign policy' positions has nothing to do with resistance change. Rather, it is resistence to the unwise policies (dangerous even) that he is proposing: Sitting down for high-level talks with Hugo, Fidel and Kim during his first year in office; unilaterally invading sovereign countries to root out Al Qaeda; public discussion of whether or not nukes would be used in the war on terror. The nukes, you might recall, are doomsday machines that should be publicly discussed ONLY when the situation escales to...DEFCON 5?...

No, Obama is doing great. It's just the MSM spinning what he's been saying, as usual, because they thrive on tabloid controversy.

His position and been consistent and sensible from day one, as he just reiterated in the video above, and it's what he's always said:

1) He supported Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring AQ. The job should have been finished in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

2) If he had "actionable intelligence" on a camp of terrorists, in Pakistan, and if the government was not willing to act, then he would. With Special Operation or other precision strike. That is not a full scale invasion or excessive force. It's proportionate to a specific goal.

Those are sensible positions. It's really pathetic the swift-boating some are attempting.

I actually think your post demonstrates my point precisely. Because his comments don't track with your own internal notion of how to respond to given events, you reject them as unwise policies. It's your right to do so, but it underscores the notion that anything that challenges or otherwise does not comport with an invidiuals existing problem-solving mechanism/knowledge base, automatically rejects it. Only time and your own adoption of a similar method of problem-solving will bring you around to his view point. Or not. Nothing he says is going to convince you otherwise.

To summarize it, Obama is saying what he's always said. (the audio gets a little better later, too) His position has been consistent and sensible from day one, as he just reiterated in the video above:

1) He supported Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring AQ and killed 3000 Americans, and planned to do so again. The job should have been finished in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

2) If he had "actionable intelligence" on a camp of terrorists, in Pakistan, and if the Pakistani government was not willing to act, then he would. With Special Operation or other precision strike, proportionate to a specific goal. That is not a full scale invasion or excessive force.

3) That's not nuking Pakistan, which would be crazy. Nor is it allowing terrorists to become "complacent" in Pakistan as they did in Afghanistan.

Those are sensible positions. It's really pathetic some are attempting to swift-boat those common sense positions.

Yeah, you have totally bought the misguided conventional wisdom on each of these items.

There is nothing dangerous about talking to anyone, even evil dictators.

He is not proposing "unilaterally invading" Pakistan, just that we don't let Zawahiri slip away again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?ei=5088&en=c01cc018d0ba81fc&ex=1341547200&pagewanted=print

It is not dangerous to say that it would not be appropriate to use nukes on some village in Waziristan where there might be al-Qaeda operatives, where we can use conventional weapons to achieve the same purpose without handing al-Qaeda a massive public relations victory or sparking a tactical nuclear arms race. They are obviously still on the table for the sake of deterrence.

To be honest, there is no good reason why these points should even be remotely controversial.

If Hillary would just once indicate that she was wrong, we were right, and if we hadn't fought so hard against this war that she supported, America would be in even worse shape, then I for one would consider recognizing her as having the moral authority to lead our party and country.

That won't do anything practical at all except to satisfy the lefties and she, rightly, won't apologize. Actions speak louder than words. She could yell on top of her lungs that she was sorry and not mean it at all. John Edwards has apologized ad nauseam for the vote, and what has that done for the country other than to appease the lefties without, ironically, gaining their support?! I am satisfied by HRC's action in the Senate to end the war that she regrets that vote and it all I need to know. It is proactive and a mark of leadership. Also (reductio ad absurdum), suppose GWB had waged this war billiantly and peace had broken out all over the Middle East, would you be clammoring for HRC to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom for that vote? I think not. You'd punish her for the vote because the results turned out to be disastrous; I wonder what you would do for HER if this had been a resounding success. I know for sure that GWB would be taking all the credit and the pundits would be declaring him the best POTUS ever. But would anyone even have remembered Hillary's vote? Not likely. Hindsight is perfect 20/20 vision. Do you know how many Senators voted to authorize the war? We are where we are today not because of Hillary's lone vote (the authorization would have passed even without it), but rather because of incompetence and flawed policies following the war authorization. So, give it a rest...It is not very smart.

Suppose after we invaded Iraq that sugar plum fairies had come down from the sky to give us all tasty and delightful treats.

Would the lefties be thanking Hillary?

She has been pushing hard in the Senate to try to extricate us from the war after having voted for it

Please list her specific efforts.

The proactive steps that she has been taking in the Senate are a mark of leadership that goes beyond the mea culpa that you're trying to get out of her.

What steps has she taken that you deemed the mark of leadership? Expressing regret is the very real first step of recognizing flawed and erroneous reasoning or actions. Which is summed up as learning from one's mistakes.

Just more conventional wisdom on your part.

That's why I prefer Obama. He listens to the merits of what people say. He bases responds on the substance of the content. Not this tired conventional wisdom that chooses to use fear to paralyze the electorate into the same thing with the same thinking as an excuse for their total lack of judgment.

It matters not what your line of work is (all individuals are resistant to change), only that you disagree with his approach. His foreign policy approach rejects the notion that the "tried and true methods" always work, in every instance. We've refused to talk to Cuba for well over 35 years. Bush thwarted all of Clinton's work with North Korea, only to turn around quietly adopt it. Funny enough, the candidate you seem to endorse (at least as implied by your comments), seems to endorse the notion of not talking without pre-conditions (which is essentially the Bush position). And for the record, I like HRC (and would vote for her in the general election if she is the democratic candidate).

Look, I've got no interest in convincing you that Obama's approach is a more reasoned approach, even though, that's what I think. This isn't a winnable argument on either side, because the results would need to be tested in the real world to have any value. I've seen the old way of doing things, I like his practical and thoughtful approach to problem-solving. Until I have evidence to the contrary regarding his approach (and not simple supposition and declarative statements by his detractors and opponents), then I'll continue to support his candidacy. I suspect you will do the same for your candidate of choice.

Here is what someone present to hear Obama had to say:

The Rev. Mike Larkin of Sioux City is a Catholic priest who has been an independent and became a Republican near the end of the Bill Clinton administration.

While Larkin said he does not, as a priest, condone the typical Democratic Party stance of supporting a woman’s right to choose an abortion, he has settled on Obama as his candidate.

Larkin said the senator has the youthful energy for change that John F. Kennedy possessed.

Larkin termed Obama “very positive in his outlook, and he brings a lot of hope. I’m hoping that I’m not going to be disappointed if he gets nominated by his party and elected.”

 

Obama's thinking expands the voter base. He does not pander to blue state or red state views he thinks about the UNITED States of America.

Hillary's "leadership" hasn't been any better or worse than any of the other Democrats who still have not gotten us out of this war.

All the Democrats suck right now. Less sucky than the Republicans, who suck far greater. But they all suck. 

Also recommend people actually watch the video, because he makes several other important points, to really flesh out a very well considered policy.

He pointed out we need to shift priorities from occupation of Iraq, to doing more to rebuild relationships with the people of Afghanistan and poor people who might become enemies if neglected.

As the saying goes, a stitch in time saves nine.

Such as actually building schools, food and agricultural aid and expertise, to help them get back on their feet rather than growing Opium and becoming terrorists. Such investments are actually very cheap compared with military budgets like we're spending in Iraq, and they yield lasting dividends, while occupation only breeds contempt and enemies.

I'll add to what Obama said, after helping Afghanistan oust the Soviets in the mid 80s we abandoned them. With a relatively small investment in Afghanistan in the 80s, to build moderating institutions like schools and agricultural infrastructure, 9/11 might never have happened.

It is, however, a violation of international law and an Act of War to initiate military action against the territory of, or individuals within the territory of, a sovereign state.

Not exactly--the assumption being made is that Pakistan not only would refuse to act on clear intelligence within its borders, but would refuse the US doing so as well. Obama's speech made clear that they would try to get Pakistan to follow through on their stated obligations, and then request permission.

I'm not saying you are "frothy" but a lot of the froth on this issue presumes that Obama would pull a Cheney and jump to step 3 first. And that's nonsense. And belies the sheen of foreign policy "competence" which comes solely from pointing out obvious Bush disasters.

What I like about this whole exchange (Obama vs voters) is that Obama is clearly not pandering. Putting forth nuanced argument to people who don't really like what is being said is a good thing for the party.

John Edwards has apologized ad nauseam for the vote, and what has that done for the country other than to appease the lefties without, ironically, gaining their support?!

Well, if you assume "lefties" include Daily Kos readers, which is a pretty fair assumption, Edwards has been consistently at the top of the straw polls. 

He has pretty strong support among "lefties." 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

This is what I'm talking about. The only rationale appears to be a superficial reading of polls.

DCshungu is, I'm presuming, either a professional political consultant/ campaign staffer for whom bravura is a common affectation, or a student waiting to back to college who doesn't realize the difference between an election campaign about the future of the country and a pennant race. Or, I suppose, a heavy bettor on the election.

For a non-anecdotal example, see this week's Nation in which Bob Moser's article describes how the Clinton campaign is planning, if they win the nom, to cut out the entire DNC to keep Dean-influenced field-work-oriented progressives out of the campaign structure. This is what I mean about lacking the moral authority to lead the party.

In any event, its why I'll support any Democrat in November except Clinton.

I hate to break this news to ya but you can take all your "Daily Kos readers" and $2.50 and get a cupa coffee.

Try this: See how your daily kos polls stack up against others.

TPM has a ton of polls anyway you want them. Daily kos does not resemble the polls at all. So a kos straw poll and $2.50 equals a coffee.

My main point was in general people don't hold pols liable for what bush did. I thinks Edwards constant apology hurts him with 'regular' people. People blame bush. People hate bush. Edwards should move on. My opinion [two cents]. I base that on polls that either should or shouldn't be ignored this early depending on whose opinion I read. I'm that sure of it.

Edwards apology is important at kos. No doubt.

"definitions of lefties"

That is a problem. I was using the "liberal medias" defintion: Anybody that wants out of Iraq and thinks bush is an idiot. That definition keeps including more all the time.

Can I get the cite for that article? That's a great quote, and I love Stephen Walt.

sure.

Obama's remarks are a simple restatement of US policy as of September 18, 2001. The fact that sitting US Senators who voted for the same policy Obama is articulating today think it's a gaffe for Obama to restate what they voted for in Congress is a farce.

Obama: