Obama Gets Another Unwanted Endorsement
[Update: Well, that didn’t take long. Welcome from Little Green Footballs, Michelle Maklin, the Jawa Report, the unlinkable Memeorandum, and my good friend at Gateway Pundit. Regulars here know that I’m completely disgusted with Bush’s own appeasement of Kim Jong Il, but while you’re here, don’t miss the story of Esther Kim, an Obama constituent whose husband was kidnapped and killed by the North Koreans. Obama inspired her Hope, then crushed it with Change.]
The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.
[Update 2: Original Korean here:
ì¡°ì„ ë°˜ë„ì™€ì˜ ê´€ê³„ì—ì„œ 본다면 ë¶€ì‰¬ì •ê¶Œì˜ ìž˜ëª»ì„ ì—„í•˜ê²Œ 비íŒí•˜ê³ ì¡°ì„ ì˜ ì§€ë„ìžì™€ ì¡°ê±´ì—†ì´ ë§Œë‚˜ê² ë‹¤ê³ ê³µì–¸í•´ì˜¨ 오바마가 ã€Šë¶€ì‰¬ì˜ ì•„ë¥˜ã€‹ì´ìž ë„¤ì˜¤ì½˜ì˜ í—ˆìˆ˜ì•„ë¹„ë‚˜ 다름없는 매케ì¸ë³´ë‹¤ 낫기는 낫다. [Chosun Shinbo]
I’m sure someone can improve on this translation:
We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the “Bush clone” and scarecrow of the neocons McCain.
Somehow I had neglected to put the World Tribune link in there before. I’ve fixed that.]
It’s worth pausing to consider the disturbing rhetorical similarity between the Chosun Sinbo and Daily Kos, although the sheer incoherence of Bush’s North Korea policy makes any comparison to it questionable.
Bush’s North Korea policy may be a poor baseline for comparison, but the candidates themselves have given the North Koreans plenty to judge them by. Both Obama and McCain have told us how they’d deal with the North Koreans. McCain has expressed his distaste for the latest variation of Bush’s policy and emphasized his willingness to raise uncomfortable topics, including human rights. Obama has already shown a disappointing lack of consistency in holding North Korea accountable for its intolerable behavior. If I understand Obama’s policy to consist of direct summit talks, aid, and trying to coax North Korea into opening itself up, that same policy was tried for years, without success, by the South Koreans, and it’s now being tried without success by President Bush. If I understand McCain’s policy to consist of tightening sanctions until North Korea verifiably disarms, that was tried briefly by the Bush Administration and showed signs of considerable success until its inexplicable and premature abandonment.
(Bear in mind that the sanctions the Bush Administration applied for just 17 months were a pale shadow of the power we could potentially apply but did succeed in driving Kim Jong Il back to the bargaining table. When we lifted the pressure, the North Koreans resorted to form and balked at full disclosure or disarmament. And as we’ve since learned, they weren’t dealing in good faith to begin with. The key to any successful negotiation with the North Koreans is showing them that you’re fully capable and prepared to hasten and accept the collapse of the regime as an alternative.)
North Korea’s endorsement of Obama will probably draw comparisons to the unwanted Hamas endorsement of Obama. Hamas withdrew the endorsement after Obama spoke at AIPAC’s convention. Fidel Castro, by contrast, took a more sophisticated and self-aware approach:
[O]n Monday [Castro] gave Senator Barack Obama an endorsement of sorts, calling him “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency” while also berating him for his plan to continue the trade embargo against Cuba. “Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor,” Mr. Castro said. “I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him. [N.Y. Times, The Caucus]
Which Castro then proceeded to do, on Obama’s stated support for trade sanctions during a campaign speech to Cuban exiles in Miami.
The Republicans’ efforts to capitalize on the Hamas endorsement made me slightly squeamish, because there are separate issues here that shouldn’t be mixed. It isn’t fair for anyone to imply, based on an unwanted endorsement, that a candidate in any way supports the endorsing entity’s ideology or actions. It is fair to ask whether the endorsement suggests that the endorsing entity knows something about the candidate. Why would Hamas or Kim Jong Il both believe that if Obama is elected, his policies would mean boom times for evildoers? Are they wrong?
Finally, as with Ron Paul’s refusal to return contributions from white supremacists, it’s reasonable to demand that a candidate unambiguously disavow the endorsement and denounce the endorser. In the case of Hamas, Obama rightly did this. Given that North Korea’s human rights atrocities are as repellent as any since the Khmer Rouge was driven from Phnom Penh 30 years ago, Obama has both the duty to speak out about the evils happening in North Korea today and an opportunity to refute those who say he would merely appease tyrants.
Update 3: Now I’m been linked by the Hillary Clinton forum:
One of the reasons he supports Obama is that he knows he’s a fool and Obama flip flopped on removing N. Korea (de-listing) from the terrorist nation list. He NOW says he would remove them even though they haven’t divulged the whereabouts of Rev. Kim (a legal US citizen living in N. Korea). See my post about compiling a list of Obama’s broken promises.
This needs to be blogged and sent everywhere!! Obama is a very dangerous man! Fearing him is not paranoia. It is rational thought!
Update 4: Thanks to Ace, Neal Boortz, and the Freepers for linking.
And we have dredged a swamp. Pandagon, which will forever be remembered (by most of those who do at all, at least) as an embarrassment to the John Edwards campaign, offers a characteristically incoherent and foul rant. Your thirteen minutes are over, ladies. I can say “ladies,” can’t I? See your doctor if any of that seems coherent to you. I didn’t think we could set a lower bar, but Kos diarist “Gramarye” links with this fatwa calling for prayers for Michelle Malkin’s death. No, seriously:
According to her blog,
Take me now, Lord. My life as a blogger is complete.
[….]
So let’s all help Michelle’s request along and say a little prayer to the Lord. [….] But I have HOPE for Michelle’s plea. [Daily Kos]
Hey, they have standards to uphold over there. Yes, I kept screenshots. To be fair, even most of the Kos commenters are aghast.
47 Responses
-
Pingback: The Shield of Achilles
-
Pingback: Another Tryant for Obama « The Foxhole
-
Pingback: Well, That Settles It! « Curtis Lowe
So… Kim Jong Il, old Castron and Gadaffi. Great. Gotta love Obama’s fanbase. When will Chavez do it openly? And what other dictators do we have out there?
Too bad Hitler, Stalin and Mao are dead. I’m sure they’d happily endorse Obama as well. Hitler would love him. Instead of invading Europe and smacking the Nazis around, Obama would negotiate with him.
Kim Jong Il should rather let Megumi come home! She was 13 when the communist thugs kidnapped her. She’d be in her 40s now, that is… if Kim Jong Il’s regime hasn’t murdered her.
John McCain has got to start making an issue out of these tyrant endorsements. My fear is that he’ll continue to take the “kinder, gentler” road — i.e., the road to abject defeat.
You’re being handed some great material, Sen. McCain. Make hay with it!
I agree that McCain has so far been missing a golden opportunity to differentiate himself from Obama in regards to North Korea policy and I don’t mean because of this North Korean endorsement.
McCain should be hammering Obama over the broken promise to Kim Dong-shik’s family along with Obama’s support for removing North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. He should likewise continue to criticize the Bush North Korea policy as well in order to differentiate himself from him as well.
So, Kim Jong Mentally Il has come out in support of Baraq Hussein Osama, eh?
Why am I not surprised…
For once, the North Koreans are on the same side as most of the world. Through international media, the world’s citizens have expressed a strong preference for Obama over McCain.
Americans open-minded enough to vote for a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama aren’t going to rethink their choice based on an unsolicited endorsement from a North Korean newspaper.
I’m sure as heck not going to cast my vote for McCain because the Norks like him less than Obama. As Chris Matthews so brilliantly made clear in his televised smackdown of Kevin James, Neville Chamberlain was guilty of appeasement not because he talked to Hitler but because he signed away part of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement. North Korea is one issue of concern among many others, and rarely does a candidate’s positions align perfectly with one’s own, forcing voters to prioritize. I’m not pleased with Obama changing positions on delisting North Korea, but I’m not going to change my current candidate preference based on that alone.
Sonagi said:
“Americans open-minded enough to vote for a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama aren’t going to rethink their choice based on an unsolicited endorsement from a North Korean newspaper.”
—
Reply:
It isn’t that we are not open minded, it’s that we are cautious, educated & skeptical.
Obama Hussein sat through 20 YEARS of vile, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Wright. He agreed enough to put his baby daughter in the hands of that racist snake in order to be baptized. He was a-ok with Wright’s message even after his hatred came to light…BUT THEN – when Obama’s numbers went down, THEN Wright was no longer good by Obama?! For somebody who is supposed to be a “new type of politician” this sure does stink of the same-old-same-old…
Obama Hussein has promised to get the USA less dependant on foreign oil, but also promised not to increase drilling… (the magic oil machine is in development)
Obama Hussein thinks he can withdraw troops from Iraq by 2009 (logistically impossible) & get the warring parties to reconcile. Apparently the man with the silver tongue thinks he can make peace between Sunni & Shiite; Iranian & Iraqi; Jew & Arab; Pan-Islamists & the rest of us infidels… Does he really think “can’t we all just get along” will work on the world stage?
I could go on and on and on… Obama will be worse for the world than Clinton, who allowed Al-Qaeda to attack unchallenged, gain widespread support (as they seemed invincible!), allowed them to deploy, fortify and entrench… Obama, it seems, will do him one better by also patting them on the back & giving them a platform for their backwards philosophies.
I’ll concede your unsupported assertion and assume that 9 out of 10 people who hate and envy America, its values, and its system of government want Obama to win. I’ll even concede that the dictatorships that suppress the freedom of conscience of their subjects speak for them. We obviously don’t draw the same significance from that emerging pattern. Does this suggest that Obama might be a more effective communicator of America’s values or merely a more pliable sop to its least reasonable and reconcilable critics?
You’re a regular here, of course, so I need not remind you what a frequent and caustic critic I’ve been of George W. Bush’s appeasement of Kim Jong Il or his rank hypocrisy on human rights.
So in other words, it’s not necessarily North Korea’s endorsement, per se, that raises questions about Obama’s fitness, but his demonstrated willingness to excuse the North from standards of civilized human behavior. (But the latter, of course, has nothing to do with the former, does it?) I happen to agree with you on the broader principle, although it seems strained to deny the linkage.
Of course, Obama could disabuse the North Koreans of their misconception by disawoving the world’s worst dictator since Pol Pot, by denouncing his horrid concentration camps, his summary mass executions of refugees, and his starvation of millions of “hostile class†members. This might also disabuse me of a nagging perception that Obama lacks a moral center. I don’t for a moment impute Kim Jong Il’s acts to Obama, and frankly, I don’t impute Jeremiah Wright’s ideas or William Ayers’s acts to Obama, either. But I’m dismayed by the apparent ease with which Obama seems able to form enduring accomodations with evil ideas.
So Obama goes to Pyongyang. What does he say there? What could he say that our diplomats can’t? What wouldn’t he say? The precedent set by Obama supporter and VP short-lister “Kim Jong Bill†Richardson should give you some pause. Can we assume that what happens in Camp 22 stays in Camp 22?
I had no idea Kim Jong Il even cared. I mean the guy is seeing his state crumble away. Not McCain or Obama will save his bacon. Marketization is taking place because he is failing to deliver. All without the US’s help.
Therefore, the whole point is moot.
I hope you’re right, Jack, but how many people staked their reputations on similar assumptions in 1994? Earlier this year, I assigned a high probability that Kim Jong Il’s regime would fall this year. Unfortunately, it seems so far that he’s managing to feed his elite and at least some of his military while letting everyone else starve. The food crisis will probably be even worse next year, but a massive influx of American aid could still preserve the regime, just as it did when China and South Korea propped it up for the last decade.
I’m a dude, dumbass.
Joshua, I do agree it is impossible to predict the end of Kim’s regime in the resons you stated. If it is now, next year, five years or ten years, it is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. His state cannot sustain itself like it is now forever. The main point I was trying to make is, Kim Jong Il has not assigned a successor yet and time is ticking away to make a propaganda story stick. A sudden worship campaign cannot work in the current state the DPRK is in. Sure, they can force it, but privately, people are trying to find the next meal and ideology along with a father figure is crumbling away. I mean it is common sense in my opinion to assume it is becoming a joke.
With that said, this is all happening without Obama’s or McCain’s help. Sure, they can have a hawkish or engagement policy, but Kim Jong Il will do what he wants to do despite what any administration does. I believe the DPRK will do just fine failing on its own. Why pay for it?
Well, there are perils in making one’s self ambiguous, except for the part about being an embarrassment. No ambiguity there.
Peace, ladies!
Fidel Castro would always be an icon of history evethough he is against the U.S.-“,