Obama quits race « Likelihood of Success

Obama quits race

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 1, 2007

The New York Times reports:

Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

Wow. One second he’s raising millions, the next he’s taking himself out of consideration even for the job I thought he was realistically running for, i.e., Vice President. Basically he’s moved to McGovernism, or some recent version of it. In the face of resurgent Russian militarism — notwithstanding how poorly it works — he’s running to the don’t- confuse- me- with- the- facts left, even as Hillary is touted in her official publication as firming up her support on the grown-up right among liberals on national security.

Well, I told you he wasn’t ready. But he’s really, really not ready.

UPDATE: At Dean’s World, I linked to this item using the title, “Obama: Unicorns, good fairies to defend US.” Looks like John Hawkins sees it the same way!

UPDATY-ER: Jaymaster brings the real words and — they’re not anything like what the papers say at all.

In fact, they’re not anything.

This entry was posted on October 1, 2007 at 11:57 pm and is filed under Politics and Poker. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “Obama quits race”

Dean's World Says:
October 2, 2007 at 12:01 am
Obama: Unicorns, good fairies to defend US

Evidently he’s taking all that money he’s raising and has decided to start a hedge fund. Because Barack Obama is giving up any attempt to be taken seriously as presidential candidate with his
JoeCitizen Says:
October 2, 2007 at 6:24 am
Wow. What a clueless analysis.

Actually, he embracing the Reagan vision, and the proposal put out by Reagan’s former Sec. of State, and Kissinger, and Sam Nunn.

I think you are in over your head, bud.
Ron Coleman Says:
October 2, 2007 at 6:53 am
Joe, is Barack going to vastly increase the amount of nuclear weapons, and enhance anti-missile defense, if our enemies don’t agree to massive cuts, the way Reagan did?

Clueless, indeed.

Originally I had appended, “Usually here anonymous commenters are worth their weight in credibility.” But I take that back. A lot of anonymous commenters are fine. What gets me annoyed is when someone doesn’t merely disagree with me but insults me — anonymously.
Ara Rubyan Says:
October 2, 2007 at 9:38 am
Ron:

Reading Obama’s statement (still waiting on the text of the entire speech), I’m reminded of Bush’s second inaugural address…and Peggy Noonan’s observation of it. You remember Bush’s speech, right?

It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.

Noonan:

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that’s an ambition, and if you’re going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn’t expect we’re going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it’s earth.

Now, you can blow off Peggy Noonan for all I care. But let’s not excoriate politicians who dare to aim high.
Ron Coleman Says:
October 2, 2007 at 9:54 am
Ara, read my earlier comment, and consider the difference between tactics and aspirations. As Bryan Costin said at Dean’s World:

There’s a big difference between routinely drawing down the number of active warheads (some of which are apparently nearing 40 years old) and proposing that we “end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.” Taken as a whole, that would pretty much hand the initiative to countries who don’t care about international agreements, which historically speaking would be pretty much everyone but us. I’m sure up-and-coming nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea would be forever deterred by disapproving frowns, backed up by our fearsome arsenal of untargeted antique missiles.

Maybe Obama is counting on the elusive Kryptonian vote. There aren’t a lot of them, but you don’t want to piss them off.
Wince and Nod Says:
October 2, 2007 at 10:50 am
I’ll go with Ara until I’ve read the whole speech. I don’t trust newspaper summaries of speeches, because the reporter and I seldom agree about what to leave out.

Yours,
Wince
Ron Coleman Says:
October 2, 2007 at 10:51 am
That’s fair enough.
jaymaster Says:
October 2, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Well, the speech is out, and Obama didn’t say what the NYT reporter said he’d say:

“We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

Speech here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/_obamas_full_antinukes_speech_blasts_beltway_establishment.php#more