Obama Rising? He effectively elevates the issue that we've failed to kill or capture bin Laden

[jefferson_dem]

Obama Rising?

Agree with him or not, Barack Obama has become the hot candidate over the past week, gaining the attention of presidential candidates from the other party as well as his own. Obama and Hillary Clinton have sparred recently over what conditions they would or would not set for a presidential-level meeting with some of the world's most shady characters. And at yesterday's Republican debate in Iowa, the Illinois senator's insistence that, as president, he would attack terrorists in part of Pakistan — with or without that nation’s cooperation — triggered discussion.

That much-debated policy point allowed Romney to deliver one of the best lines of the day. "In one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," Romney said. "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Pakistani and State Department officials have also criticized Obama's comments — but GOP candidates might want to be careful not to go too far in criticizing the Democrat. Diplomatically correct or not, Obama has managed something few in his party have been able to do effectively — highlight a glaring hole in the administration's fight against terrorism.

Democrats have tried to elevate the failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden for the better part of the past six years. During the 2004 presidential campaign, they grew fond of referring to the al Qaeda leader as "Osama bin-forgotten." Obama's recent comments are a reminder that bin Laden has still not been taken down — and, more importantly, his terrorist organization continues on, potentially planning new attacks. Obama's position makes him look tough on terrorism, and that's the one thing Republican candidates cannot cede to Democrats in 2008. — Vaughn Ververs

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/06/politics/purehorserace/main3137590.shtml

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Seems to have lit a very temporary fire under jr's ass. A least he

felt obliged to lie about doing something about it today.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Clark showed the way in 2004 on using the failure to capture Bin Laden against Bush

and nobody fucking listened. It's plain as day; al Qaeda kills 3K Americans and we failed to bring the organizers of the attacks to justice. Meantime, the Republicans strut around with their chests puffed out and we're the weaklings. Hopefully, we don't make the same mistake twice.

[sandnsea]

3. What way was that?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[BeyondGeography]

4. He was the first candidate to confront the Republicans on the failure to capture Bin Laden

it was a top-line talking point for him; others had buried it in their speeches, mostly because they had (unlike Clark) supported IWR and (no fault of their own) had done the patriotic thing and offered supportive words to Bush on national security in the aftermath of 9/11. Clark was the first candidate in the '04 campaign to mount a successful critique of Bush on national security, which is valid to this day and has always been underplayed by the Democrats: Namely, BushCo was so focused on Iraq, from the beginning of his presidency, that they ignored Osama Bin Laden before and after 9/11.

At any rate, the failure to focus on Al Qaeda is still with us. Here we are six years later and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. As a party, it is a theme that we should finally embrace. What tends to get in the way is pro-IWR candidates who endorsed this take-your-eye-off-the-ball strategy in the first place.

[sandnsea]

5. June 2002

when others were saying we ought not to criticize the President in a time of war...

"In March, the Pentagon sent US soldiers to the same area to lead another campaign, Operation Anaconda. But by then, bin Laden and his operatives had apparently escaped.

"The fact is that the prime target, al Qaeda, has dispersed and in many ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the mountains of Tora Bora," Senator Kerry said."

Kerry was the first to go after Bush on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Party elite wanted an economy campaign, the grassroots wanted a peace campaign; and they both picked him apart far more than they ever listened to anything he had to say.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/24/1023864552359.html

[goodgd_yall]

6. The "glaring hole"

being highlighted in 2004 didn't seem to work then and Kerry tried his best to seem as tough or tougher than the Republicans, as well. I think Americans have gotten used to Osama. That isn't going to matter one iota to voters. It's Obama's perceived lack of taintedness by Capitol Hill that will get him votes.