Opinion: Rivals react to Obama
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The immediate reaction from other Democratic presidential contenders to Barack Obama’s high-profile speech today on combating terrorism was telling, in terms of both what was said and what wasn’t.
Lying low was Hillary Clinton, as traditionally befits the front-runner. No way, unless she has absolutely no choice, is Clinton going to yield to the impression that someone else might be driving the campaign’s debate. The result: no official statement from her team.
One can be fairly sure, however, that off-the-record and not-for-attribution, Clinton’s phalanx of aides is sniping at aspects of Obama’s remarks. And the candidate herself no doubt soon will have a carefully conceived rejoinder to Obama’s expressed willingness to launch a unilateral attack on terrorists in Pakistan. The subject surely will come up at her appearance this weekend at the YearlyKos convention of progressive bloggers, if not before then.
The Democrats who are chasing Clinton and Obama in the polls and in fundraising did not hesitate to critique the foreign policy speech. As befits Joe Biden’s position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (as well as his reputation for verbosity), his written release was the longest.
In it, he damned Obama with faint praise. The headline: ‘BIDEN CAMPAIGN CONGRATULATES SEN. OBAMA FOR JOHNNY-COME-LATELY POSITION.’
Focusing on Obama’s call for a greater U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan, the release says ...
... that much of what Obama proposed, Biden ‘has already initiated or accomplished.’
It then refers to committee hearings Biden conducted earlier this year on Afghanistan and suggests that Obama, who also serves on the panel, did not seem particularly engaged on the issue. You can read the entire release here.
Biden adopted a much sharper stance in comments to reporters in Washington, when asked about Obama’s assertion that if the opportunity presented itself for a military strike in Pakistan against terrorists he would launch one if Pakistani officials failed to do so.
‘The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it,’ Biden said. ‘The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.’
Bill Richardson, a former ambassador to the U.N., used his background as a reference point in his comment. ‘My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort,’ he said. ‘It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world.’
Chris Dodd, in his statement, drew attention to the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons: ‘Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning,’ he said. ‘But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power.’
John Edwards, in verbal comments to reporters, said he would not hesitate to use force against terrorists but added, ‘As president, I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’ to get them to take the lead in using force.
Edwards earlier in the campaign, in his own bid to distinguish himself on the foreign policy front, said it was time to abandon the concept of a global ‘war on terrorism.’ He famously decried the Bush administration’s war on terror as ‘a bumper sticker, not a plan.’
The bottom line on Obama’s speech: He’s provided plenty of fodder for what should be lively--and important--exchanges at the next candidate debate.
-- Don Frederick