Saturday, October 04, 2008
The British ambassador takes a hard look at Barack Obama
The British ambassador to the United States, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, wrote a secret memorandum to Gordon Brown evaluating Barack Obama as a potential president of the United States. Sadly for the Foreign Office, the memo leaked to the Telegraph. By all means read the whole thing, but note two points in particular. First, it is painfully clear that the British have no idea how Barack Obama will behave once in office. Despite having studied Obama exhaustively, he remains a mystery to the British:
"Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."
Well, if the senior diplomat of America's closest ally, a man with virtually unfettered access to insider Washington, cannot figure out Barack Obama, how can the typical American voter? I respectfully suggest that anybody -- whether a critic or a fan -- who claims to know what Obama will do once elected is just blowing butt wind. We have no clue. Whether that is a bug or a feature depends on your own secret fears.
The second interesting point is that the British are worried that Obama's stance toward Iran will contradict not only their policy, but that of the United Nations Security Council:
Sir Nigel detects a potential clash between Downing Street and an Obama administration over Iran.
"If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."
Focus on that last point: It is not only the hawkier-than-thou McCain/Palin camp that objects to Obama's position on Iran. He is in fact at odds with the current position of the United Nations Security Council. Yes, Gentle Reader, that is the point: On Iran, at least, it is John McCain who is "working with our traditional allies" in tandem with international institutions, and Barack Obama who has staked out a position at odds with our allies.
The McCain campaign might want to make that point.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Oct 04, 06:09:00 PM:
I don't claim to know what Obama will do once elected, but it does seem apparent that many have some kind of impression of something based on near nothing.
I predict mass disillusionment.
By 
LGD, at
Sat Oct 04, 06:30:00 PM:
Funny how the British ambassador knows that Obama made an offer to Iran for talks without preconditions. Based on his debate response, Joe Biden doesn't seem to know that.
By smitty1e, at
Sat Oct 04, 07:52:00 PM:
@LGD:
Senator Biden was busy lunching at Katie's when Senator Obama opined on Iran.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Oct 04, 08:53:00 PM:
Funny how the British ambassador knows that Obama made an offer to Iran for talks without preconditions. Based on his debate response, Joe Biden doesn't seem to know that.
Not only Biden, but much of our press. And those that do know apparently don't care.
All of this criticism about undermining our allies and acting unilaterally without consulting them seems to have disappeared with Obama's pronouncements on Iran.
But as I said, the press simply doesn't care. They want Obama elected and that's that.
By Escort81, at
Sun Oct 05, 01:12:00 AM:
The Obama campaign has worked hard to try and walk back that "I would" answer by the candidate to the question regarding unconiditional meetings with leaders of oppositional nations during the "Youtube" primary debate. To the talking heads on CNN, when the McCain camp brings it up, their attitude is almost, "oh, that again, old topic, no one cares."
When a candidate doesn't have a significant track record, of course it will be hard to predict what he or she will do, and foreign governments will be operating under that uncertainty. I suppose that could work to Obama's advantage, but somehow I doubt that it will.
I agree with sirius_sir regarding eventual mass disillusionment. Entering the presidency next year would be a difficult task for the most experienced political hand, given all of the domestic issues and foreign challenges facing the United States. President Obama will have Joe Biden helping him. Hopefully, his cabinet will be at least adequate. Once Obama takes office, the press, no longer having John McCain as a punching bag, will inevitably turn their sights on him. Why, you ask? Aren't they in love with him, all tingly and everything? In 2009, he's the president, and they are not, even though they think they should call the shots (or at least have great influence over the shots).
Obama's core base believes that he almost literally walks on water. He has nowhere to go but down, in terms of meeting expecations for that group.
Furthermore, as lame as Pelosi and Reid are, it is not beyond them to try and roll Obama the way Carter was rolled by Congress early in his administration. It is not at all evident to me that Obama's legislative agenda (um, whatever it is) will have a clear path through the House and Senate.
I have a fantasy that all centrists and conservatives will stay silent during the first foreign policy crisis of the Obama administration, if things go awry (unless it is on a 9/11 scale), and refrain from saying, "I told you so." Let the Dems deal with it amongst themselves. The quicker he Carterizes, the less likely he is to do much damage (maybe).
Look, except for appointing judges and warmaking ability, how powerful is the presidency now, anyway? I think Reagan was the last president to get through any meaningful part of his legislative agenda, and nearly all of that in the first term. The presidency was the incredible shrinking office under Clinton, even before he had shrinkage issues of another kind. W has spent domestically like a drunken sailor and had no second term legislative success to speak of (there were the first term tax cuts), but has at least used the military to kick some jihadi butt.
By , at
Sun Oct 05, 08:43:00 AM:
Escort81,
I think you are correct, to a point.
The major media organs are supporting Obama either overtly or covertly. They will have little interest in tearing him down until the poplulace is either very angry (at Obama) or are ignoring them (the media) in droves (ratings plummet). They are not about to admit that they did a poor job in explaining Obama in 2008, then turn on him in 2009. So I expect a kind of Orwellian counter-reality narrative to support and rationalize everything that Obama does, to a point. But I think that they underestimate just how their credibility has been eroded.
Again, I think you are correct in that the biggest fight Obama will have is with the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. He may be able to get some of his agenda through, but it won't be quite what he really wants.
Remembering back to the foreign policy 'crises' under JFK and how they were reported, then reading analysis about them afterward as I grew older, it will be easy for the news media to represent defeat as victory, should Obama do anything that is a really bonehead move.
It will also be interesting to see how he staffs his cabinet, as to whether he brings aboard any former Clinton people and loyalists in the Democratic party.
I think that the rift between them is hard and deep. So he will have to go to the think tanks, academia and business to bring in people to fill out his cabinet. What if his choices alienate the 'netroots'?
-David
