Obama’s World Tour 2008: So far, so good

The conventional wisdom tells us that Barack Obama’s principal weakness as a presidential candidate is foreign policy and national security. Obama hasn’t spent a lot of time abroad; international affairs isn’t perceived as an area of his expertise; and he did not serve in the military.

Obviously, then, Obama’s ongoing trip to the Middle East and Europe is designed to bolster the Democrat’s standing on the issue where he’s perceived to need the most help. And how’s it going so far? It’s hard to imagine it going much better.

The Iraqi government on Monday left little doubt that it favors a withdrawal plan for American combat troops similar to what Senator Barack Obama has proposed, providing Mr. Obama with a potentially powerful political boost on a day he spent in Iraq working to fortify his credibility as a wartime leader.

After a day spent meeting Iraqi leaders and American military commanders, Mr. Obama seemed to have navigated one of the riskiest parts of a weeklong international trip without a noticeable hitch and to have gained a new opportunity to blunt attacks on his national security credentials by his Republican rival in the presidential race, Senator John McCain.

Whether by chance or by design, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq chose a day when Mr. Obama was in the country to provide its clearest statement yet about its views on the withdrawal of American troops.

Even the Washington Post reported — in a stand-alone piece, no less — that top Iraqi officials have “endorsed a timetable for U.S. withdrawal that is roughly similar to the one advocated by Obama.”

With that in mind, consider the context. Obama was well received by the troops in Kuwait, had a fruitful visit to Afghanistan, and as Slate’s Daniel Politi noted, was widely received in Iraq “as a visiting head of state rather than a candidate.” And on top of that, while Obama is in Iraq, Iraqi officials implicitly endorse Obama’s withdrawal policy.

Some of this is the result of a well-executed plan, and some of this is incredibly good fortune. Either way, it’s no wonder the McCain campaign is feeling a little antsy.

Before the trip began, John Dickerson speculated about the importance of imagery.

If it comes off as the campaign hopes, with a steady flow of images of Obama looking thoughtful, diplomatic, and commanding on the world stage, the trip helps Obama address his key weakness, perhaps permanently. […]

[I]n the war zones where Obama might wear a protective helmet and flak jacket, there’s the danger that a wayward picture might make him look ill at ease, shades of Michael Dukakis taking his infamous tank ride.

How’d that work out? Ben Smith captured this very well in a post featuring two pictures — one with Obama and Gen. David Petraeus in a helicopter over Iraq (no noticeable protective gear on Obama), and one with McCain riding in a golf cart with George H.W. Bush (the sign on the golf cart read, “Property of #41 – Hands Off!”).

It was, in other words, a day of interesting contrasts.

For a day, at least, the images of the two presidential candidates offered a sharp contrast. In an interview on “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. McCain talked about securing the “Iraq-Pakistan border,” a momentary misstatement of geography. (American forces are pursuing terrorists along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; Iraq does not border Pakistan.) His aides staged an event where he was seen riding in a golf cart in Maine with the first President George Bush, while Mr. Obama flew over Iraq in a helicopter with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander. […]

Mr. Obama’s trip is cloaked in secrecy and high security, and aides have also worked to avoid images like the one that caused a headache for Mr. McCain in a visit to Iraq, when he suggested that safety had improved as he walked through a market that was heavily protected by military personnel.

So far, so good.

aides have also worked to avoid images like the one that caused a headache for Mr. McCain in a visit to Iraq, when he suggested that safety had improved as he walked through a market that was heavily protected by military personnel.

That wasn’t an “image” problem, that was John McCain vs Reality. That was an old bubble boy trying to fly the same shit past the media that his buddy Bush did for years, saying “listen to me, pay no attention to what’s really happening. Black is white, I say, and you better believe it because I’m John McCain”. The fact that the media didn’t call McCain on that BS more strongly is yet another black mark on them as enablers.

  • but mcsame was a pow. a war hero. he knows better than the iraqi government or the iraqi people what’s best for iraq!

  • mellowjohn said: “but mcsame was a pow. a war hero. he knows better than the iraqi government or the iraqi people what’s best for iraq!”

    Pity for him then that the American people will probably vote for what is best for them, and not the Iraqis.

    It seemed before the trip that the punditry was all a flutter (like vaporish Victorian ladies) that Obama would Gaff and Gaff badly while on his trip. Things seem to be turning out rather well instead. What, oh what will the punditry have to say if Obama comes through this clean?

  • Nice! Some good news to wake up this morning 🙂

    Honestly though, how bloody cool does Obama look in those shades? I know, I know, that sort of thing isn’t supposed to matter – but damn he looks cool.

    how did that internet poster go?

    President of Awesome!

  • Obama hasn’t spent a lot of time abroad

    Why buy this meme? He did live abroad for pretty formative years (6-10 inclusive) and he’s been to Africa — not as a tourist, but to visit family and explore his roots, etc. — and to Europe.

    This drives me crazy! It is like repeating that he is young and inexperienced. He’s in his late 40s which is traditionally the height of energy and earning power in a person’s professional life. But let’s just keep repeating right wing talking points over and over again.

    Say it with me now: No experience, no travel, very young…
    No experience, no travel, very young…
    No experience, no travel, very young…
    No experience, no travel, very young…
    No experience, no travel, very young…
    No experience, no travel, very young…

  • His aides staged an event where he was seen riding in a golf cart in Maine with the first President George Bush, while Mr. Obama flew over Iraq in a helicopter with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander.

    WTF?

    Why? Why would anyone think that was a good idea? Obama is out of the country doing the foreign policy rounds and meanwhile McCain is playing golf? With the guy who fathered the current nincompoop in chief? What?

    The contrast between Obama and McCain doesn’t even matter – I hear the words “McCain”, “Bush” and “golf course” and the first thing that pops to mind is Junior, smirking and saying “now watch this drive” immediately after mumbling his prepared words about how horrible suicide bombing is to the press. An image of McCain doing the exact same thing comes to mind, except that I can’t imagine the guy actually has the energy to rattle off a prepared speech to the press and then start golfing right away without having a sit-down first.

    Does McCain have the back-benchers running his campaign? Are they trying to find ways to tank him on purpose? Or is he just that stupid?

  • lance asks, “What, oh what will the punditry have to say if Obama comes through this clean?”

    answer: not much.

  • btw, nonynony. when I hear the words “McCain”, “Bush” and “golf course,” the first thing that pops into my mind is two old duffers making a break from the senior center to be first at denny’s for the early-bird special.

  • lance asks, “What, oh what will the punditry have to say if Obama comes through this clean?”

    CNN last night was already blaring his huge gaffe – he looked presidential!!1! In a foreign country!!1! Oh noes!!!1! Doesn’t he know we only have one president, and only the president can talk about discussions with heads of state? Except McCain, of course.

  • In all of the images coming out of Obama’s trip he looks like the President. He looks calm, confident, thoughtfull. He seems genuinely engaged, as do those around him. What a contrast to the last eight years of the borish George Bush smirking while world leaders stiffly stand by him looking uncomfortable. And John McCain? He’s like the old, vaguely creepy neighbor all the kids avoided when he came out to water the lawn. This trip may be the Republican’s worst nightmare.

  • It’s all over. I’m starting to get a little embarrassed for McCain. I think by the time November rolls around, there’s going to be no doubt who the next president is going to be. Comparative imagery such as the photos above will start to pile up, become fodder for later-night comedians and result in a thorough thrashing at the polls for McCain.

    And I said the Giants were going to win the Super Bowl. No shit.

    Obama 08!

  • That picture of McCain in the golf cart prompted two immediate responses from me.

    1) Welcome to Bushwood, Judge Smails!

    2) more of an image thing really- Holding the pen, he looks a lot like Bob Dole.

  • When will it dawn on the Republican party that for most Americans and the world community these days the following mantra is being repeated – McCain and Cheney and Bush, Oh My! -Kevo

  • Did anyone catch Andrea Mitchell on Hardball last night? She heavily criticized Obama because reporters weren’t along when he met with soldiers and hit the 3-pointer. “I have never seen a situation where the media were so tightly controlled,” she said (or words to that effect.) WTF? How about GWB’s “staged” events?

    She then made a point, repeatedly, that the military PR folks who shot and released the footage were feeling very uncomfortable because it might have a political effect. Yeah, right. She said she couldn’t comment on the reaction Obama was getting (as seen in the footage) because she wasn’t there (suggesting that somehow the scene was faked). She then reported that Obama and Gen. Petraues had a very “animated” discussion heavily implying a strong disagreement. (I doubt that she was at that meeting but had no problem “reporting” what happened.) Her body language showed that she was very uncomfortable. It wasn’t pretty.

    Did anyone else see her?

  • Andrea Mitchell has been in total Republican shill mode the past couple of weeks. The zeitwife watched her report late last week with a dropped jaw as she asked how in the world Mitchell is allowed to cover Obama given her bracingly obvious bias.

    Anyone who saw the helicopter photo, with Obama and Petraeus both smiling comfortably will have trouble buying the implication Mitchell is trying to pass off as real news.

  • I did see Andrea Mitchell last night, but I have a hard time following what she says because I’m always so distracted by how disproportionately huge her head is compared to her body.

  • McCain’s talking points (exhaustive list):

    (1) The surge worked. I won the war. The surge worked. I won the war.
    (2) Obama is able to travel safely – only because I won the war.
    (3) Iraq is asking us to withdraw in 2010 – only because I won the war.
    (4) Gas pump, Obama, no drilling, Obama.

  • TomB,

    Not only did I see Andrea Mitchell on Hardball, I saw her do a preview of that lame routine on Morning Joe yesterday as well. I pointed out on the First Read blog yesterday that it is the height of hypocricy for Andrea to say she can’t comment on the tape because she wasn’t there and it wasn’t shot by “journalists” (lol), when that didn’t stop her from commenting on the Rev. Wright tape, the Father Phlager tape, or Obama’s “bitter” comments.

    To put it plainly, Andrea Mitchell is a political hack and the success Senator Obama is having abroad is eating her alive. What a loser!

  • If Obama could have managed to get captured and spend some time as a POW while on his trip, he could have pretty much locked up the election.

  • while Mr. Obama flew over Iraq in a helicopter with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander. […]

    That picture of Obama & Petraeus looking out the chopper window is very cool. And, I’m not saying Iraq is perfectly safe yet, but if you look closely at the ground below you’ll see a gay pride parade in progress.

  • Ben Smith’s photo contrast, wow.

    Best comment (IMHO):
    “Matrix vs Metamucil”

    No comment needed:
    “Property of 41
    Hands Off!”

  • Bumiller said: Mr. McCain’s comments were mild compared with the bleak mood and frustration on the part of his advisers, who have taken to referring to Mr. Obama sarcastically as “The One” and railing against the large amount of coverage Mr. Obama is receiving compared with Mr. McCain.

    They sound like the Hillary Camp during the Dem campaign. Barrack put the ‘O’ in mOjO.

  • The contrast is real, but photos do lie. You could probably get some pics of when McCain went to Iraq and contrast them with what Obama was doing at the time…like first day at high school or something.

  • Here’s where I’m concerned, after watching the Terry Moran interview last night:

    Violence is down significantly since the beginning of the surge. We can argue until we’re blue in the face whether this is due to the Sunni Awakening, the actual increase in troops and their placement, or because we’re paying a bunch of people not to shoot, or other factors and combinations of factors. But the less informed voters aren’t going to care about all that. Many of them simply think “the surge worked.”

    And following from that, it is even more clear now that when we leave, it is not going to be a disaster. And I see people crediting McCain with this.

    People have short memories. Nevermind that we shouldn’t have ever been there in the first place. Nevermind that McCain was dead wrong from 2002 to 2007. What has he done for us lately? If you buy the hype, he brought us the surge, and the surge worked, and the reason we can think about leaving is because of the surge.

    That’s what I’m worried about. Somebody placate me.

  • Why? Why would anyone think that was a good idea? Obama is out of the country doing the foreign policy rounds and meanwhile McCain is playing golf? With the guy who fathered the current nincompoop in chief? What?

    I know! The spouse and I burst out laughing at the footage! WTF are they thinking?

    Does McCain have the back-benchers running his campaign? Are they trying to find ways to tank him on purpose? Or is he just that stupid?

    Not many people know this, but David Axelrod is running McCain’s campaign…from the Obama payroll.

  • Photo 1—Barack Over Baghdad.

    Photo 2—McLoser Over Par.

    And then, there’s the overt subtlety of the sign in that golf-cart. The one that’s on McCain’s side of the golf cart. The one that says, “Property of 41. Hands Off!” Given all the ReThug attempts at picking up other guys—parks, airports, text-messages—it would only make sense for GHWB to put up a sign that says, “Leave McCain alone—he’s MY boy-toy!”

  • Although the Obamaphiles are enjoying the “presidential” trip abroad, and the McCainiacs seem displeased with it…the reality is that very few voters are paying attention to this ongoing parade of play-acting. In fact, that most of us distrust the media and this incessant “staging.” Let’s have live, town-hall meetings with these two candidates responding to unscripted questions.

  • Photo #2 looks like two old farts headed over to the rec center for a late 4:00 dinner of liver and strained peas with a bowl of lime Jello with mini marshmallows for desert.

  • Obama is probably pulling off the biggest smoke and mirrors act ever performed by a politician. His mid-east vacation does nothing concrete to improve his credentials – it is, however, a perfectly staged farce.

    God help us all.

  • Papa Bush put it best when he said he was a bit jealous.

    The John McCain of 2000 would be a supporter of Barack Obama in 2008.

    Obama ’08

  • McCain almost demanded that Obama take this trip, I know now that he wishes he had suggested something else. Baseless attacks have only served to enhance Obama’s image. McCain needs to fix his campaign ASAP. McCain is digging himself in a deeper hole every time he opens his mouth. Obama is allowing team McCain to self destruct.

  • Doesn’t McCain know that there’s a Presidential moratorium on golf? What would military mothers think? I know what I think, because I am one….

  • Senator Obama is turning out to be a real disappointment and a very dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.

    There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:

    Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.

    Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).

    Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.

    The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:

    On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.

    On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
    On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.

    Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid … the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.

    A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”

    In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.

    The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?

  • Comments are closed.