2 min read
If the Iowa result turns out to be a predictor of the nominations themselves (although I'd say that Obama must now be odds on, but the status of the Republican nomimation will only start to be clear after New Hampshire at the earliest, and for what it's worth my prediction remains McCain) then it is the worst possible outcome.
Obama might have many positives as a nominee, and as a President but, as Oliver Kamm has pointed out, he: patently doesn't understand the world, as was demonstrated by his eagerness to talk to the leaders of rogue states without any hint of pressing them for concessions in return. Oliver cites an aide to Obama as quoted in the Washington Post:[David] Axelrod, a senior Obama strategist, was more direct [than the candidate], linking the Pakistani crisis to the different positions that [Hillary] Clinton and Obama took on the Iraq war in 2002, when Clinton voted to authorize it in the U.S. Senate, and Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against it.
"Obama opposed the war in Iraq explicitly because he feared it would divert our attention from al-Qaeda, Pakistan, the whole region," Axelrod said. "It underscores the fact that you have to have a president who understands the world, who is going to analyze these events, and who will chart the right course, counter to the conventional thinking." As Oliver then writes:The remarks of his aide must surely imply that had Obama's views on Iraq been followed, then there would have been no incitement to the murder of Benazir Bhutto. The only other interpretation I can make of such remarks is that, in some unspecified way, the US might have been able to prevent Mrs Bhutto's murder had its forces not been engaged in opposing terrorism and autocracy in Iraq. So either Obama is committed to a view of the stimulus for Islamist terrorism (if that is indeed the force behind the assassination) that pays no attention to Islamist ideology, or he grossly overestimates the ability of the US to influence events in other (nominally friendly) countries.
In either case, I find Obama's incomprehension and inexperience alarming. As a European leftist who cares more than anything about the defence of liberal values against our totalitarian enemies, I have an intense interest in Hillary Clinton's winning the Democratic nomination. Me too.
As for Huckabee: here we go again. Another nutter (like Ron Paul) who doesn't believe in evolution. Daniel Finkelstein points out why this matters:The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?
The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.
It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.
This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.
Oh well,at least someone will be pleased if Huckabee makes it to the White House: the Iranians. Have a look at the gushing words of the hard line Fars News Agency (via Tom Gross).
UPDATE: One of the comments says it's unbecoming to insult Huckabee by calling him a nutter. I take that point. I'll make sure that I now only refer to him as a man who believes in nonsense with as much basis in evidence as the idea that fairies live in the Rose Garden.