Barack Obama speaks with Rachel Maddow
Of all the cable news heads out there, this was the interview that I thought would be the most intelligent and informative. I'm so grateful to have Rachel Maddow on the airwaves this election season.
In this first segment, Maddow talks about Obama's avoidance of partisan or ideological attacks (much to our on the left's consternation) as well as shoring up our infrastructure.
MADDOW: And so, you have the opportunity to say John McCain, George Bush, you're wrong. You also have the opportunity to say, conservatism has been bad for America. But, you haven't gone there either.
OBAMA: I tell you what though, Rachel. You notice, I think we're winning right now so... (LAUGHTER) Maybe I'm doing something right. I know you've been cruising for a bruising for a while here, looking for a fight out there. But, I just think people are tired of that kind of back and forth, tit for tat, ideological approach to the problems.
Now, there is no doubt that there is a set of premises in the reigning Republican ideology that I just think are wrong. This whole notion, and then it's been captured by this back and forth about whether I'm a redistributor, I think is a great example. The notion that the progressive income tax, which was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, supposedly John McCain's hero, is somehow un-American, I think is an example of how people have gone way off track.
Part two and transcripts below the fold:
Obama speaks to the conflict in Afghanistan and our approach to terrorism.
Transcripts (courtesy of MSNBC)
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Senator, you criticize the Bush administration frequently. But, you almost never criticize the Republican Party itself. Other Democrats --
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Much to your chagrin.
MADDOW: Well, yes, actually. I mean, other Democrats, you will hear them talk about the GOP as the party that's been wrong on all the big stuff. Creating Social Security, civil rights, the War in Iraq. But, you don't really do that. Do you think there is a stark difference between the parties?
OBAMA: Well, I do think there's a difference between the parties, but here's my belief. That I'm talking to voters. And I think they're a lot of Republican voters out there, self-identified, who actually think that what the Bush administration has done, has been damaging to the country.
And, what I'm interested in, is how do we build a working majority for change? And if I start off with the premise that it's only self-identified Democrats who I'm speaking to, then I'm not going to get to where we need to go. If I can describe it as not a blanket indictment of the Republican Party, but instead describe it as the Republican Party having been kidnapped by a incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican Party, then that means I can still reach out to a whole bunch of Republican moderates who I think are hungry for change, as well.
MADDOW: Now, they do that to you the same way. When they talk -- when John McCain calls you a socialist --
OBAMA: Right.
MADDOW: This redistribute the wealth idea. He goe -- he calls you soft on national security.
OBAMA: Yes.
MADDOW: That's not just an anti-Barack Obama script.
OBAMA: No.
MADDOW: That is -- he's reading from an anti-Democrat, and specifically an anti-liberal stance.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
MADDOW: And so, you have the opportunity to say John McCain, George Bush, you're wrong. You also have the opportunity to say, conservatism has been bad for America. But, you haven't gone there either.
OBAMA: I tell you what though, Rachel. You notice, I think we're winning right now so --
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: Maybe I'm doing something right. I know you've been cruising for a bruising for a while here, looking for a fight out there. But, I just think people are tired of that kind of back and forth, tit for tat, ideological approach to the problems.
Now, there is no doubt that there is a set of premises in the reigning Republican ideology that I just think are wrong. This whole notion, and then it's been captured by this back and forth about whether I'm a redistributor, I think is a great example. The notion that the progressive income tax, which was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, supposedly John McCain's hero, is somehow un-American, I think is an example of how people have gone way off track.
The Republican Party has gone so right when it comes to how we think about our obligations to each other, how we pay for things. And as a consequence, because most people think it's pretty important to pay for roads and bridges, schools. What we've ended up doing is tax cuts, no spending cuts, huge national debt. There's a core hypocrisy to how they have governed over the last several years, that I think has to be reversed.
And so we're going to challenge those things. The important thing though is, I just want to make sure that I'm leaving the door open to people who say to themselves, well, you know, I'm a member of the Republican Party and I remember people like Chuck Percy in Illinois, or Abraham Lincoln, a pretty good Republican. That there's some core values that historically have been important to the Republican Party, but just have not been observed over the last several years.
MADDOW: There may be some policy fights ahead, particularly in responding to the economic crisis that will have both a practical and an ideological component. If we are looking at economic stimulus, is there a possibility that you could see in your first term, if you are elected, that we'd need an economic stimulus program that felt to Americans a little bit like a public works program, a little bit like an FDR-style infrastructure building program?
OBAMA: Well, I've actually talked about this. And I haven't been hiding the ball on this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China's doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st century economy and we're not.
One of the most frustrating things over the last eight years has been the ability of George Bush to pile up debt and huge deficits and not have anything to show for it, right? So, if you're going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water system, laying broadband lines.
One of, I think, the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we're going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago. And we're going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that's generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy.
But, it's huge projects that generally speaking, you're not going to have private enterprise would want to take all those risks. And we're going to have to be involved in that process.
MADDOW: Also an issue on something like the electrical grid, that's an issue of American resilience, even against the threat of terrorism. A lot of times when you look at counter-terrorism, officials think that they came out, or an al-Qaeda attack on the electrical grid.
OBAMA: That's exactly right.
MADDOW: Well you know, at this point, a snow storm is an attack on our electrical grid.
OBAMA: That's exactly right.
MADDOW: Are there Homeland Security vulnerabilities that you think are fixable in ways that would also be good for the economy?
OBAMA: Well, you mentioned one. The electricity grid I think is important. I think that chemical plant security is another where the chemical industry has been resistant to mandates when it comes to hardening their sites. But, you know what? If you've got a chemical plant that threatens 100,000, or a million people in New Jersey, we better have some say in terms of how serious they are about guarding that facility.
MADDOW: Why hasn't that been fixed already?
OBAMA: Well, I think it's a classic example of special interests lobbying. There has been resistance from the chemical industry. And it is this -- again, an ideological predisposition that says regulation's always bad. So, stay out of the market place.
Well, look. I am a strong believer in the free market. I am a strong believer in capitalism. But, I am also a strong believer that there are certain common goods that you know -- our air, our water, making sure that people are safe -- that require us to have some regulation. Now, it has to be well designed.
But, the financial system is a classic example of a deregulation philosophy run amuck. And now, you see the consequences and ironically, had we had some sensible regulation, we would not have now, actually, a much closer approximation to socialism when it comes to the banking system, then anything that any Democrats have been proposing over the last several years. When you don't guard against excess, then a lot of times government ends up having to step in anyway, in a much more burdensome way.
MADDOW: Part of the ideological argument against regulation is that government always does things (INAUDIBLE).
OBAMA: Yes.
MADDOW: I've been worried about this because I've been very focused on the GI bill.
OBAMA: Right.
MADDOW: VA is making worrying noises about their ability, their capacity to implement it. Can you give me an example of how you would make agencies better at doing what they're supposed to do? Just improving capacity?
OBAMA: Well, look. Look, look. I mean, there's a great example in FEMA. Now, they've gotten better since Katrina. But, the idea that our basic emergency functions had been under the leadership of a guy whose only expertise was you know, the Arabian Horses Association. That's a problem.
So, some of it's just getting the right people. Some of it is using technology in intelligent ways. One of the things that I'm excited about is to transfer what we've learned from this campaign in using technology, into government. I mean, there are huge areas where we can open things up, make things more transparent.
I passed a bill working with a Republican, Tom Coburn, called the Google for Government Bill, where now you can go to a single site and you can pull up a searchable database of every dollar of Federal spending that's out there. Which means now you've got a lot greater accountability.
While there are examples of that all throughout our government that can remove bureaucracy, eliminate red tape, make the whole process more customer friendly. Anybody's who's gone to the post office and wants to buy some stamps and you're trying to figure out the machine, it's not working properly, the lines are long. There's no reason why we can't make operations like that more efficient and work better. They do it in the private sector all the time.
MADDOW: I have a national security question for you about Afghanistan. You have argued, as had John McCain argued and now the Bush administration agrees that we need more troops in Afghanistan. Why do more troops in Afghanistan equal a higher likelihood of success? What's the exit strategy for Afghanistan? How long are we going to be there?
OBAMA: Well, unfortunately, I think Afghanistan's going to be tough. I don't think there is a quick fix to what's happening there.
Because we have a combination of a government that is not seen as fully legitimate all throughout Afghanistan. It's not particularly capable in terms of delivering services right now. You've got a very powerful narco-terrorism, or intersection of narco-trafficking with terrorism.
Just the terrain is terrible for trying to move out the Taliban and al Qaeda. And then you've got Pakistan, and a border that is porous and very difficult. So, it's not going to be easy, but here's what I know.
That we can't allow bin Laden and al Qaeda to establish safe havens where they are plotting to kill Americans and train troops. There's no dispute that that's taking place right now. And so, we've got to make Afghanistan stable enough and focused enough on controlling its own borders, that we're not seeing the Taliban and al Qaeda return.
In the meantime, I think the most important thing that we're going to have to do in addition to adding more troops, providing alternatives to farmers for the poppy trade. Making sure that services are actually being delivered to the Afghan people.
The most important thing we're going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan. And we've got work with the newly elected government there in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants.
And, we've got to say to the Pakistani people, we're not just going to fund a dictator in order for us to feel comfortable with who we're dealing with. We're going to respect democracy. But, we do have expectations in terms of being a partner in its terrorism.
MADDOW: But, you don't think of having a larger military footprint interferes their ability to do that stuff? To work with Pakistani government, to work with the Afghan government.
OBAMA: Oh, look. I mean, we're part of a coalition force that right now is under-manned. I mean, we have -- up until fairly recently, had one quarter of the troops in Afghanistan that we had in Iraq. And so, we're not looking to duplicate 150,000 troops in Afghanistan.
But, on the other hand, if we've only got 30,000, or 35,000, on a huge terrain and we're asking people to do a lot, I don't want a situation in which our troops continue to be under stop loss, or they are on the kinds of rotations that they've been under.
Or, they don't have the basic support services that will allow them to consolidate any gains that they make. Right now, it's just a little too scattershot an operation for them to secure and then build in these areas. And that's something that I think we can improve on. But, military power alone is not sufficient. It's necessary, but not sufficient.




First?
Rachel Maddow is so great that a mere 7 weeks after getting a TV news show, she is the one chosen by the Democratic Candidate to do a long interview just days before the election.
Rachel Maddow is the media host that we non-right-wing-extremist Americans have been waiting for since Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh was given license to lie about everything.
Olbermann paved the way, but his insulting snark turns too many people off. I only like his Special Comments, for example. But without him, Maddow would not have gotten on TV. And in just a few weeks, she has been routinely getting the best ratings on MSNBC.
Maddow is exactly what we've been waiting for for 20 years.
This isn't directed to you Comrade...
But dissenters that whine, bitch and complain about Olberman being too snarky and sarcastic... Grow up.
He's only insulting if you feel guilty about what he has to say.
That's not Rachel's style, that's why she's such a great contrast and an even better counter-punch to run alongside Olberman.
Olberman has his purpose and his points, but Maddow's move to her own show is long overdue.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
The people who complain about Olberman simply don't get it....we don't have the luxury to eat our own. I'm grateful we have Keith(and I don't always agree with him).
I like Olbermann purely as the anti-O'Reilly but I pity anyone who thinks Countdown is a serious news program. He sits midway between 60 Minutes and The Daily Show. Sadly, it's the latter that gives the best political analysis.
http://the-billablog.blogspot.com/
I don't know about that....Keith's not a belligerent, nasty, racist liar.
I say this all the time - the difference between Olbermann's welcome snark and O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh's combined hogwash is THE TRUTH. There is not a moment that Olbermann is feeding us lies or ramped up hooey. He doesn't go off on his own missives without a shred of evidence or absolute fact to back it up. His is opinion journalism as it is SUPPOSED to be - soaked in truth, reliable sources and fact-based.
The fact that there are those who say he sounds too 'angry' drives me nuts. ANGER, is what is needed to light a fire under our complacency. The reason Bush got away with what he's done is because of malaise borne out of not having a significant voice on our side willing to fight back - and we paid the price in 2000 and 2004. Not this time. Olbermann gets us fired up and working. Gone are the days of pastural niceties and pleasant discourse, I'm afraid. The other team hasn't played by civilized rules for quite some time and Olbermann has shown us how to fight back - because it IS A FIGHT. We just need to make sure it is a FAIR fight, and that we ARE armed with the truth.
What scares me is how the Right has manipulated falsehoods so much that they are mainlined to the general populace as truth, via the noise machine and the MSM. Joe the Plumber as victim? COME ON! It's ridiculous, and Olbermann is there to now voice our concerns over that without equalizing the facts with rightwing nonsense. I can count on him to address the outrage of the day and there are many. It's literally balm for my tired, aching need for justice.
Keith may seem over the top at times, but he's simply fed up with what the Bush Crime Family has done to this nation. He's ticked about it, and so am I.
He and Rachel are a fabulous one-two punch.
for the first time, he sometimes sounds like raving psychopath....if you're not inquisitive enough to ask exactly what has made him so angry.
I'm not disagreeing on the difference between Olbermann and the others, but I think he had a lot more impact when the special comments and other things were more expressions of outrage rather than simply flipping out, which is what they've turned into over the past six months or so. Whether what someone is saying is true or not, it's a lot easier to dismiss them as a nut when they're shouting at the camera.
Also, some of the things he's gotten into lately have been pretty thin on evidence. Far from complete bull like Limbaugh/O'Reilly, but a lot of making something out of nothing.
Sometimes Olberman is a bit too strong, like he's trying to craft a memorable legacy (like the news anchors of old have), yet, and this is a big YET, he's usually right. So if he is outraged, I don't disdain, cuz I'm outraged too. Someone has to say it plainly and clearly. So I give him a thumbs up.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I've been listening to this lady since the birth of Air America....she NEVER disappoints.
Even still,I love Rachel!
Seriously, this is the brightest person on television. To enjoy half that brainpower would be my greatest wish!
plus the rabid homophobia, it's no shock right wingers hate her..
Comes close. I think she is brilliant.
Rachel is very good. She's focused and centred, kind of like Obama. She doesn't let emotion trump her judgement, which I greatly respect.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I hope he wins. I think he's too centrist for what change is needed (but remain hopeful he'll pull an anti-Bush once elected), but regardless his character is so far above that of McCain and (gasp) Palin just listening to him speak is enough to give one, well, hope.
As a Canadian, I find all of your politicans too far right. If Obama can unite the country, he's already done a huge service. He is the only one with any hope of doing that. America needs that before anything else meaningful can be accomplished.
Don't you have a song, "United we stand, divided we fall"?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
The comment about Rachel, she's on a high vibe, what a boon for progressives.
Simply wonderful, great job Rachel & Barack!!
Last night when this was on, there were other sounds going on in my kitchen. When Obama said, "I tell you what though, Rachel. You notice, I think we're winning right now so..." I heard him to say, I tell you what though, Rachel. You notice I'm wearing a wedding ring right now so...Maybe I'm doing something right. I'm thinking WTF does he mean? He doesn't argue back with his wife and that's how he's stayed married?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
His comment on the ring doesn't need to be dissected, he was just making a humorous comment.
The thing is, he didn't say anything about a ring, I just misunderstood what he said when he said "we're winning". Due to the other noises in my kitchen, it sounded to me like he said, wedding ring.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Funny, I thought I heard the same thing! I was on my treadmill and was listening to the interview over that noise..
P o P, The martini shaker??
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Just bear in mind that an interview that has too many big words, and few if any 3rd grade interjections will leave Republican viewers lost and confused. Plus the fact the great Rachel Maddow is lesbian will have them frothing at the mouth with hatred.
That's her gift, and we need her excellent, brilliant mind voicing our concerns and thoughts. Rachel is lost on conservatives - they will never appreciate what she brings to the table, which is too bad for them. Anyway, I doubt that "reaching" them is even a concern. Perhaps one day the rightwing will evolve to a higher plane of thinking, but I won't hold my breathe as things look to be in retrograde for the GOP.
...'cause the right-wingers won't be evolving much as long as their leaders cling to Machiavelli, and the rank and file cling to the Bible.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Right wingers watching Maddow? Doubtful. Very doubtful.
This interview was fabulous and I can see why he chose Rachel for this select position. Rachel Maddow is wise beyond her years and is perhaps one of the most intelligent,articulate women in the business right now.
I found this interview to be insightful and informative well beyond the typical debate scenario.
What I found to be truly remarkable is that, despite the shenanigans and hateful ad hominem attacks on him, Obama refused to generalize and discredit the Republican party. This, to me, shows the depth of this man's character and his ability to "mend fences".
For me, this provided the hope that this country so desperately needs right now.
We KNOW beyond a doubt that division in our government will not save this country from the doom which sits on it's doorstep right now.
Hearing these words and this "higher self" manifested in this man has given me more hope than ever before.
I'm not the least bit surprised Obama didn't hurl mud at McCain the whole time- he took the high road, and painted such a positive vision for the future...But that is the nature of the left.
Don't expect McCain to do the same- The Republican party is a white power group, fueled by the hatred of those who are not white anglo Christians men- Don't expect him to be sending any niceties Obama's way...
The majority of Americans are not wasps, something that would surprise the citizens of the UK as both they and rethugs live in the delusion that they are the majority.
Obama will bring the reality of the diversity of this country to awareness throughout the world. He already has.
Is it the 21st century yet?
Obama wants to put aside party differences and try to solve America's problems and include people from the entire political spectrum. It is, of course, a very adult approach for a president to take, but I'm not convinced he'll be able to distract the Republicans from their frantic determination to wrest power back into their own hands. I just hope he has a Plan B if his original plan doesn't work.
I have long thought that unless the lawbreakers in the Bush administration face the legal consequences of their actions, America's Constitutional government will never be restored. Unless they are brought to justice, the precedents have been set.
Maybe the emergency matters must come first, the world economy, energy, and unrest in the MidEast, but we just cannot stop there.
We can't address these problems while ignoring the damage that's been done to America's Constitutional structure and allowing the Republican lawbreakers to go free. THAT is a matter that will need a fist of iron, since we know what the Republican response to facing the consequences would be. I don't know if Obama has the balls to finally set things right after solving the immediate problems we all face. I certainly hope so.
Will pull the brightest minds and warmest hearts from the Republican Party so some important business can get done with THE PEOPLES MONEY AND IN THE PEOPLES INTEREST.
In so doing, my dream is that the right wing wacko fundamentalist "base" of the Republican Party will go back to their "speaking in tongues" and "abstinence only" caves and form their own little Party. The Conservative Party or something. Then they can just blow off into obscurity like the Peace and Freedom Party etc. Of course that would mean the death of the Republican Party. Oh well.
And one more thing. Last night I had a thought. Why is it we can have the national infrastructure for "public" schools (buildings, teachers, aides, janitors, books etc.) because it is vital that the people of our country be educated, yet we can't seem to figure out how to create a "public" health care system? Isn't our health just as vital to the country as our educations? There is no "profit" in the public school system, why must there be "profit" (insurance companies) in our health care system?
Where there's a will there's a way. I really wish Obama, if elected, would seriously consider creating a public health care system with the states the same as our school systems were created. It's really past due.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
...the public education system is in shambles in many communities. The national "infrastructure for public schools" as you call it, hasn't been tended to much by the national government (NO Child Left Behind was a scam). Dumbing down the public has certainly been in the best interests of neo-cons.
We've been living in a "corporatocracy" for quite a while, in which the corporations (and/or the wealthy, elitists who own/run them) dictate the policies to the government, not the other way around - i.e., the lobbyists write the bills, the Congress and President just rubber-stampt them. (this is sometimes referred to as fascism) That's a main cause of the financial crisis - the banks, corps. wanted deregulation - their lobbyists and Phil Gramm made sure they got it. It's the trickle up theory of economics - the public be damned.
I agree with you that a non-profit, public healthcare system should be enacted. But, while I really like and support Obama, he won't be able to do much to fix any of our problems unless the Powers that Be allow him to. That's gonna' require something much bigger than a change to the Democrats.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
It was a pleasure to listen to a very smart newswoman and interviewer, and a very charitable and moral man. I applaud them both. As for what you say about "one of the most intelligent,articulate women in the business right now", I would replace the word women with person. She kicks ass and rightfully so. This is the sort of interview I've been waiting for... something that speaks to rational thought, normal interaction between two adults, and shows the high character of both participants. Bravo and Brava!! Wonderful!!
Finally...intelligence, calm, decorum, class...gee the qualities that a President SHOULD have.
The man knows exactly what he wants to do and how to get there.
I appreciate his sincere desire for a bipartisan effort to lead the country. He has made clear, simply by looking at this campaign staff, that there are Republicans he can respect and can work with. They can also provide cover for him from attacks from the extremists in the GOP.
Damn he's good! I want this election to be over. The country needs new leadership, a new direction and new hope. Let's get on with it!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
You could call me a small c conservative and I love Keith and Rachel just because they are level headed; the same with Obama. I certainly have nothing in common with anyone who has voted for Bush and his gang of thugs; twice.
Did anyone catch Morning Joe "the plumber" and the little thing they did having someone go up on the upper west side of NYC trying to give away McCain/Palin T's. Again it is idictative of these wingers as they found the results "disturbing". I saw one old lady say something about "you should find another party to vote for" or something like that and maybe one other person who vocally disagreed. And these idiots played it up as elitist and not in touch with America.
A friend called me while I was on my way to work and told me about this.
As you said...this was classic right wing nonsense.
Desperation has set in. They KNOW it's over.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I caught that on the first watch - Obama commented on Rachel's feeling that he should be critical of conservatism.
Of course, he might have just been briefed by his staff about her. But it is *awfully* cool to think that Obama might watch Rachel's show!
And add my name to the congratulations train for Rachel! Such a refrshing change to have an intelligent voice asking the important questions!
Noise in the kitchen...riiiight. How many martinis did you have anyway? LOL!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
The dishwasher was running....smarty pants
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Such a relief to see an intelligent Q & A session. We're all angry at the Rethugs but Obama's refusal to play at their level is what's getting him elected. He's quite right to identifyl the fact that there are a lor of people who vote Republican who aren't Fundie shills. That's who he has palinly won over.
It was a very good interview. Unfortunately, it confirmed my suspicion that an Obama administration will not follow up and go after the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Of course I hope that's not true, but it would really be a shame not to do that along with closing up all the loopholes that the Bushies used to promote their criminal enterprises.
I mean, were not talking about oral sex here - lives have been lost and destroyed. If those responsible are not brought to justice, we're no better than any banana republic out there.
He can't really come out and say, "I'm going to put these scumbags in jail." If he did that, even if that is his ultimate intent, the republican cockroaches would scurry out from under the fridge and vote their nuts off to keep their idols out of the pen. And the repubs who are running for office would try MUCH harder, whereas quite a few of them have pretty much given up now. That would give them a big club to swing and energize soft supporters who may or may not vote to come out for them.
It's better to be a little stealthy now, and kick their asses later on when he's elected and we've got the house and the senate by a comfortable margin.
me some Rachel. Why do so many intelligent attractive women 'go the other way'? Sigh.....Oh and the interview was great,too.
I believe that in SOME cases we drive women "the other way" with our bullshit. Rachel's cool though....she's like an extremely smart little sister who has answers to all of your questions.
I was going to share that wisdom with Uncle Dave, but you did it beautifully...
Two of the greatest things to happen in the last year. President Obama has the potential to change politics in America radically, and it can't come too soon.
The Repugs are the party of the past and this election is going to be the coup de grace. I welcome the new Repugs to help us recover our strong and honorable country. As for the old ones, the Hannities, Rush, Rove, Bush Faux News and hate radio Kool Aid drinkers, haters, racists... the sooner they die off the better the country will be.
McCain can't fill his audiences without "captive kids" attending his rallies in Ohio.
Today is McCain's "swan song" and with him blowing his schnoz into a white hanky, he looks every bit the patetic sold sot that he truly is.
He looks broken down and old. His stump speech is totally ineffective as he rants on.....it only makes him look like a 'washed up old candidate' at this point.
Pathetic McPappy in Ohio! Can't fill an audience without bussing in area's school children. That's about the level this man functions on anyway.
What the hell is up with that god-awful black jacket he's always wearing. That crazy stiff, upright collar makes his absence of a neck even more pronounced.
Don't tell me that every student in the Defiance School District's parents are Republicans!
I can't believe the school district would allow such a partisan use of taxpayer dollars to use public buses to take students OUT OF CLASS?? in order to prop up the campaign of ANY politician!!!
I'll bet there'll be a stink over this. I can smell it brewing all the way out to the east end of Long Island.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Greatest typo ever.
....each possesses intelligence, a good knowledge base, common sense, a sense of humor and a sense of her/himself.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
I can't help but be just a little disappointed in Obama for not taking this opportunity to make this election a referendum on conservatism/Republicanism.
I'm sure he had good reasons in mind: trying to appeal to that mythical creature the "rational independent voter" who doesn't respond to partisanship; trying not to look like the angry ideological Black man and giving his opponents more ammo for scaring the rubes, etc, etc. I get it. And obviously he's done well.
But it just seems a little short-sighted. He's done a good job building up the 'Barack Obama' brand, but I feel this was the ideal political atmosphere to finally create and promote a real 'Democratic Party' brand and 'Progressive' brand that could be used to secure a new lasting majority and get the country hungry for real social change.
Instead he ran on the "few bad apples in the GOP" platform, which may get him into office for 4-8 years, but then what? Then Dems will be the incumbents and the next smooth-talking conservative shaister will come along and convince the masses that Dems are to blame for all the problems conservatives created that Obama couldn't fix.
And if people haven't been convinced by then that conservatism itself doesn't work, they'll fall for it hook, line, and sinker and we'll be back where we started.
Why am I getting the impression you Obama supporters have hit the celebratory beverages already?
Here's a great fantasy:
George W. Bush and Laura loading all their stuff into a moving van while Michelle and Barack and the girls move their stuff in to The White House.
You know what's ironic here? Based on what I've read, Cindy McCain HATES Washington, D.C. Watch her when he's speaking. You can almost hear her thinking, "God....please....take me back to Sedona!!!"
God. Please!!! Answer her prayer!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar and obviously well educated on law and history.
I would never presume to speak for him or to even know what he is thinking, but I am allowed to speculate! LOL!
In looking back over the least two decades of politics, it is clear that the GOP did not set out to be the majority party...but the ONLY party. They have tried to demonize the left and Democrats as unAmerican, unpatriotic and an actual threat to the security of our nation. All that it has proven is that single party rule is bad. It is unhealthy for the country.
Now, I KNOW what most of you are going to say...that both parties are controlled by the same masters. I really don't want to get into a debate about the corrupting influence of money and the focus on capitalism. We all know the issues.
Having said that, I feel that Sen. Obama has seen the destructiveness of single party rule, and doesn't want to be party to it. When he talks of bi-partisan cooperation, and all of us pulling in the same direction...he never speaks of either a right wing or left wing agenda. He speaks of an AMERICAN agenda. An agenda created out of debate, disagreement, discussion and compromise. All those things are how American had always operated. Yes, debates can get heated, and yes, there was some pretty ugly personal attacks even back when the Constitution was created, but the fact is that there was also compromise. That cooler heads always prevailed, and did what was in the best interest of the country to do.
That is what I believe he is talking about.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I’m one of those of the “outer fringe” who have nothing better to do then make life difficult by expecting those whom we voted for to uphold true Democratic values. I'm also a San Francsico Liberal (BOO!) who'd like nothing better than to open a can of "woop ass" on all the Republicans.
Having said that I'm glad Obama is running for President who with a pragmatic outlook in trying to bring the country together rather than someone like myself who would love to give those who voted to give us eight years of hell by mindlessly voting for the Village Idiot Bush.
Vote Obama.
I would change one thing in your comments:
All it has proven is that single party REPUBLICAN rule is bad.
While it's true that greed, corruption and power-hunger are equal opportunity employers, there are vast differences between Democratic and Republican philosphies. VAST differences that no amount of bipartisanship will bridge. I see nothing gained by rewarding them with high-level positions in an Obama administration. That will be the real challenge for the Democrats - to show they can rise above the destructive qualities that the Republicans have embraced and work in earnest for our rights and privleges.
Well, it's never struck me that the GOP is particularly good at or particularly interested in rational debates or reaching compromise. That's like trying to get a fundie to compromise on an origin of man halfway between the Garden of Eden and Darwinism.
Empirical facts and reasoned arguments just don't matter. Every policy decision is a matter of blind, dogged faith in the unprovable.
By my read, the only reason they've clung to power for so long is because they're far, far better than Dems at telling stories to the masses on who to blame for their problems.
And the masses aren't interested in rational debate either. They've got no patience or understanding for nuanced policy discussions. They just pay attention long enough every few years to vote with their guts for or against whomever's moved them the most.
Obama personally is good at moving people. But the Democratic party as a whole needs to get a hell of a lot better at it, or this (*knock furiously on wood*) will be one very short-lived mandate for change.
that that change you all are so anxious for???
NAGAHAPUN!
More of the same, mebbe in a new dress, but the same nevertheless...
Won't rebuke Bushevik "conservatism"? Suggests to me he means to perpetuate some of it, anyway...
Rachel's premise that the republicans have exhibited a "philosophy" is an inaccurate depiction of their politics. Those guys are pure opportunists and will mask their basic greed as stemming from a "conservative" philosophy. Objecting to a graduated income tax on philosophical grounds is laughable as is objecting to government involvement in social matters other than what puts money directly into their pockets. I don't see objections to military spending for instance. All Obama is advocating is a return to what was successful in the past for the country "as a whole". So they call this socialism or Marxism without really understanding either term because it suits them for political purposes. Meanwhile they are standing in line for the socialistic bailouts.
I'm still laughing over the deer in the headlight look of McCan't when Joe the No Show didn't show.
Joe? Joe? J oe oe oe oe(like an echo in a cave.)Even Joe can't stand McShame anymore.
I'm sorry, but in an otherwise great interview, I believe she wasted too much time talking about Afghanistan when there were so many other important issues she could have asked about. Afghanistan is important, but not as important as the many other domestic issues she didn't get to, like constitutional isuues such as torture, wiretapping, Guantanamo, detainee trials, executive power, etc. I feel like she wasted an opportunity.
while I understand where you are coming from it is just impossible to make everybody happy. I would like to see a 4 hour discussion that would have plenty of time to answer and ask and dig deep. This Joe the Plumber's Help crap is idiotic but it is what the McPhalin base eats up. they can't grasp what the really NEED to know.
Have you heard the godless American ad by Elisabeth Dole?
So this is what it looks like when a couple of the smartest adults in the public view get together. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama offers Rachel a position in his administration - press secretary, anyone?
That job would be beneath her.
If not PS, then what? Just speculation, of course.
Maybe Secretary of Pragmatism.
Breathe in through your nose – out through your mouth.
In… out.
In… out.
There's nothing like taking in a breath of fresh air. ...
Happy Halloween you Obama supporters--keep the faith soon the horror will be over!!!
Dog mad, that was a breath of fresh air! No shouting over answers, intelligent questions and thoughtful responses - and he used "chagrin" in an unrehearsed sentence...swoon!
Is this what having a president with a brain is like?
Rachel Maddow versus Sarah Palin.
I know which one I'd like to spend some quality time with.
Thanks, RM, for your outstanding journalism and opinion, both on the radio and on television.
I'm still undecided (well, McCains out the question) because i'd like to know If a President Obama would reverse the unconstitutional and dictitorial powers that Bush has awarded himself the last 8 years. His first priority should be to restore balance to the 3 branches of government, but unfortunately I don't see it happening.
Rachel inspires to be one of the greats if not the greatests in Journalism to the liking of Christiana Ammanpour, Ted Koppel, Peter Jennings, Tim Russert, Walter Conkrite, etc... I am glad that someone of her calliber is carrying the torch for the next generation and not a big disappointment like Campbell Brown.
Listening to that interview, especially to Part 2, is reminiscent of the words of former Congressman Max Clelland, in that I have seen this movie before. Hearing Obama's words is what exacerbates the PTSD that I have that was brought about by my time in Vietnam. It is also the reason why I despise Obama and other politicians like him. This interview recalls somewhat the election of 1964 when the "peace" candidate LBJ ran against his more extreme Republican rival, Barry Goldwater, just as Barack Obama now claims to be an anti-war candidate. When he became president, Johnson quickly brought more troops into Vietnam. But while there is that similarity between that election and the one now, there is one big difference, a huge dissimilarity between Johnson and Obama. While Johnson deceived the American public into believing that he would withdraw American forces from Vietnam, Obama, as he baldly stated in the interview, will send even MORE American soldiers into Afghanistan with the strong possibility of ordering U.S. forces into the sovereign country of Pakistan. Obama is not even attempting to disguise the fact that he wishes to escalate the war in Afghanistan and, as previously stated, Pakistan.
Obama is attempting to claim that he will "only" send 30,000 to 35,000 troops into Afghanistan and that the amount of U.S. soldiers will never approach 150,000. For those too young to remember, this is also what JFK and LBJ said in the 1960s, with the end result that over 500,000 American troops ended up in Vietnam in 1969. But yet somehow Americans and liberals are supposed to believe that because Obama promises hope [but certainly not change], that sending in "only" 35,000 troops into Afghanistan will never reach 150,000.
If only Maddow had pointed out to Obama that increasing the number of U.S. troops in the Middle East will only add more gasoline to the fire as it is the inflammatory presence of those American soldiers that is exacerbating the violence in that area. The last thing that al-Qaeda wishes the United States to do is to leave the Middle East [said the spider to the fly].
And yet so many Americans and liberals are pinning their [to use one of Obama's favorite words] hopes that Obama will somehow bring peace and stability to that region. Unfortunately, when the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan [if not also elsewhere] are slaughtered by American bombs and bullets due to the policies of President Obama, it is extremely doubtful if those people will be grateful that their families had died because of the "humanitarian" policies of Barack Obama.
With all due respect, I don't believe the current situation in Afghanistan is completely analagous to the Vietnam war. It is more complicated and more dangerous. And very poorly understood by the American public -- although, as you point out, many pin their hopes on Obama bringing stability to the region.
Having spent a couple years there, I am one of those who hopes as much. Until recently, I didn't think Obama "got it" at all as far as what's what in Afghanistan. While I agree that a troop increase is not the answer, I suspect that Obama is using this position to appear hawkish enough for prime time, but he is also wise to the regional political game and will leverage diplomacy and aid to far better effect than the Bush regime. (Yes, I am assuming Obama will be elected.)
Keep in mind that Afghanistan is not an oil-producing nation and not part of the Middle East -- it is Central Asia, and its neighbors (India, Pakistan, former Soviet states) have their own games going on and their own set of national and regional interests. If we're going to have any success there, we need to approach it from that perspective.
*To the commenter who said Afghanistan is not important enough to discuss in an interview: The pretense that John McCain is some kind of foreign policy expert is one that needs to be shot down at every opportunity, and Afghanistan is the most urgent and most complex foreign policy issue the US will deal with for the next several years.
.
Samuelhendricks
I do not believe that I ever said that the "current situation in Afghanistan is completely analogous to the Vietnam War." The example I used was the election of 1964 which could be compared to this presidential election because the Democratic candidate in 1964 [LBJ], like Obama, presented himself to the American electorate as a "peace" candidate. In the runup to the 1964 election, LBJ assured Americans that "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." In 2008, Obama is not even making the pretense that, after the U.S. being in Afghanistan eight years, he will bring the troops home anytime soon.
You say that you "suspect" that Obama is using his position to "appear" hawkish in order to somehow use "leverage and diplomacy" in the region. Can you explain what exactly you are basing this suspicion on? An American voter, just as in 1964, can only judge the candidates on what they say and as Obama explicitly stated, he wishes to add 30,000 to 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan. As I had written earlier, this is what Kennedy did in the early 1960s when he sent US forces into Vietnam as "advisers". Obama certainly appears to be walking in the footsteps of his fellow Democrats by escalating a war against a people who never threatened anyone in these United States.
Also keep in mind that while Afghanistan may not be, as you say, "an oil-producing nation", there is an oil pipeline that is running from Central Asia through Afghanistan and to the Caspian Sea. Since Obama and McCain are in the pockets of the big corporations and the vested interests, both of them are going to make sure that that pipeline is protected at all costs.
You also talk about the U.S. having any "success there". Afghanistan is considered the graveyard of those countries who thought that they could be successful against the Afghan people, from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Army. Yet you think that the U.S. should be able to "succeed" in Afghanistan. That also is reminiscent of Vietnam when other Democratic presidents thought the United States could "succeed" in Vietnam where they ended up, like the French, being proved wrong. You may wish to inquire of your candidate why it is somehow more acceptable to kill a man who is defending his country in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. He may not tell you this but I will: it isn't.
Re: analogy of current situation to Vitenam -- point taken.
As far as sending 30-35k troops: that's simply impossible -- we don't have that many to send. And Nato countries won't contribute the difference.
Which leads to the issue of the coalition -- this is not a war in which the US is acting alone, unlike in Iraq, for the most part. There are 50k troops from around 50 countries, and this doesn't include Op Enduring Freedom. (Wiki 'ISAF').
There is no oil pipeline running through Afghanistan. There was a plan to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, but it never happened. A natural gas pipeline has since been built running through Iran into Pakistan.
There are energy and resource issues at play in Afghanistan, but at this point its main value to US interests is more about global strategic positioning. Just look at a map.
I respect your point of view -- I just happen to think there is a way out of this mess. It's a slim chance. And I think we agree that sending more troops is not the way to do it. Period.
Happy Halloween.
.
Samuelhendricks
You advise "Just look at a map." Actually I have and by doing so it becomes abundantly clear [ or at least it should as this article points out] that "Georgia and Afghanistan will act as 'energy builders'" in order to obtain that coveted resource known as oil. This article also notes that "Washington has long promoted a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India. Construction is planned to start in 2010." I could easily link to about a dozen other articles that persuasively support this point of view.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/481731
You say that sending 30,000 to 35,000 troops is "simply impossible." It would be most helpful if you could please convey that information to Obama as he certainly seems most intent upon escalating the war in Afghanistan if not the rest of the Middle East. As Lance Selfa points out in his excellent and most relevant book The Democrats: A Critical History, the Democrats have a long history of promoting corporate and military interests, going back to the Populists down to the present day. As it should be evident from his rhetoric, Barack Obama will be no exception.
The name Operation Enduring Freedom is most apt since the Afghans have had to endure eight year of the United States military bombing their families and children with Obama wishing to continue Bush's policies once he is elected. Of course it should be noted that the [alleged] antiwar candidate wishes to leave approximately 50,000 troops in Iraq as well as civilian contractors in Iraq [which would include the infamous para military organization Blackwater] even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan is finally completed.
The only sensible way out of this mess, as you term it, is for the United States to remove its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly and as rapidly as possible. As long as it refuses to do so, more violence will occur in those countries as well as the rest of the Middle East. But the [alleged] antiwar candidate refuses to do just that.
...with everyone on here that has remarked on the brilliance of Dr. Maddow. She may be the smartest person on the teevee. I think the following sums up the vital role she plays in today's political landscape: Rachel Maddow is almost single-handedly destigmatizing the word "liberal". By the way, I think this was the most intelligent and thoughtful interview of a presidential candidate this entire election cycle. Kudos to Rachel!
This was heaven for me -- my two favorite people, talking to each other one-on-one. I love Keith, and also watch Chris Matthews and the Daily Show regularly, but Rachel has quickly become my all time favorite news show, ever. It's the only show I have ever rushed home to see, or stay up until 1 am to watch the rerun.
And Rachel with Obama? They're both almost so awesome that they didn't even have anything to say to each other. It was just like, "Ommmmmmm... We are perfect." Though they did talk about a lot of good policy stuff, especially the public works project ideas. And I liked seeing him relaxed, clearly he knew he was talking to a member of his flock...
I've been working on campaigns for months and I can see the tide turning.. it's beautiful. And it's nice to see people like Rachel and Keith (and Barack) in a GOOD MOOD for once! It's been a long time coming... As Barack said in a conference call to some organizers last week (maybe not the exact wording, but how I remember it) -- "We are standing on the precipice of something truly great."
After her Obama interview, Maddow had a conversation with Olbermann on his show about that particular exchange she had with him regarding the failure of conservative policies.
You could tell from her words and the pained expression on her face that Obama's response, his dodging the question and instead celebrating his "winning" was a bad sign that he in fact wasn't the agent of real change his supporters had wanted. He weasled out, missed the opportunity to properly attach this current economic disaster to "conservative" policies his opponents have prided themselves in for decades and thereby indicated that he was as much a hack politician out for his own "me, me, me, win, win, win" hide as the rest of them.
Here is how it went. But the image was of her pained expression of disappointment. Even Olbermann's attempt at a save in the end seemed forced and desperate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27474248/
OLBERMANN: Infer from that-that answer we played to your question about conservative policies of Bush and McCain. If he wins, if he's president, may he prove to be more conciliatory, more of a compromiser than many in the base might be expecting? I mean, we've had hints of this, the NSA FISA Bill for example. Do you think it's pervasive?
MADDOW: I think that in that answer, I'm glad you guys went with that, that segment of the interview, that was right at the top of the interview, and you can sort of see not only his mood but what he was willing to get into right away. That is essentially him saying, "I know how to win." It's not him saying, "I know how to change the country."
And I think that represents why a lot of liberals, a lot of progressives, a lot of people who are sort of unabashedly on the left, don't see him as-don't see him necessarily as their guy. They may want to vote for him, they may see him as the best chance for ending the Bush administration, they don't see him as a progressive standard bearer.
When he said, "We are winning," again, I had not asked him about the election.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
MADDOW: I was asking him about essentially telling America that conservativism has been bad for the country, as a way of changing the country, changing Americans' ideas about conservatism and liberalism. And his reaction to that was, well, I'm winning this election. Almost, we were talking in two different paths. I'm talking, I guess, as a liberal; he's talking as a candidate. But the twain were not meeting in that interview.
OLBERMANN: Yes. Then, again, if you beat conservativism to some degree, you have beaten conservatism. Sell me on the rest of it.
MADDOW: Yes.
See, I took Obama's comments to be a little different than the way Rachel interpreted them to be. I think, the little laugh after he stated he was winning was his way of saying, you can't put the cart before the horse. I remember being so frustrated watching the debates, that Obama wasn't mean enough. Wasn't aggressive enough. It turns out I was WAYYY wrong. Obama is not campaigning to win mine or anyone else on C&L's votes. He knows he has them. He needs the votes of those undecided, who want someone who they can be comfortable with, feel secure with, and who they feel relates to them. He's incredibly gifted at this. I do not EVER consider that he's not aware of the fundamental issues and challenges this country is facing right now. I will bet my last faith in this United States, that once in the White House, Obama will work and act in a manner beyond our best hopes. First, let's get him in!
I'd think that'd be obvious. He's got so much hate stacked against him, and so unfairly (books can, and I hope will, be written about how this superlative man has exposed, like MLK, with his very being how alive and "well" racism remains in the USA) that he has to keep a bit mum about his true feelings and, we hope, agenda.
He really do hope he pulls an anti-Bush.
From my perspective, I'd like to hear him say "tree-huggers" with a little more humor in his voice. Said neutrally as he did doesn't negate it's origins as a derogatory term.
Comments are closed on this entry