Scanning the columns at Townhall.com is part of my early-morning routine, and it was at about 6 A.M. today that I read Charles Krauthammer's "Obama Bombing." I marveled at how perfectly the Pulitzer Prize-winning author had captured the essence of Hugo Chavez, calling the Venezuelan thug "a malevolent clown."
Krauthammer's words obviously impressed Matt Lauer, too. For barely an hour later, I was pleasantly surprised to find the psychiatrist-turned-pundit's phrase turning up on the screen at "Today," with Lauer clearly seeming to advance the conservative commentator's theory.
Lauer was interviewing MSNBC's Chris Matthews on this week's Hillary-Obama dust-up.
"TODAY" CO-ANCHOR MATT LAUER: Let me ask you about this debate, the issue that came out of the debate, this whole inexperience-versus-change thing, when Barack Obama answered that in the first year of his presidency he would meet with people like Castro and Chavez. Let me read you what Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this morning:
Do the Democrats want to risk strike three, another national security question blown, but this time perhaps in a final presidential debate before the '08 election, rather than a midseason intraparty cattle call? The country might decide that it prefers, yes, a Republican -- say, 9/11 veteran Rudy Giuliani -- to a freshman senator who does not instinctively understand why an American president does not share the honor of his office with a malevolent clown like Hugo Chavez.
View video here.
Lauer continued, clearly appearing to value Krauthammer's viewpoint.
LAUER: Do you think Obama did some real damage to his credibility with [his answer to] this question?
MSNBC HOST CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well it depends who you're looking at . . . The big fight's going to be in those early primaries like in Iowa. Those early primary voters and caucus voters are very, very anti-war. You have to assume they're going to be more anti-war six months from now [Chris is apparently betting against the surge.] Obama is setting himself up to be the anti-war candidate. Hillary is still playing the pivot; she can go either way, hawk or dove, depending on the circumstances. I think Obama is taking the risk he has to take, which is to be the "change" candidate.
I think Matthews is on to something. Obama, seemingly mired in second-place, needs to take the risk of going left in order to win the nomination. He'll worry later, should he succeed in becoming the nominee, about getting out of a McGovernite box of his own making.
In the meantime, it was heartening to see a serious conservative thinker like the good Dr. Krauthammer approvingly cited.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Will the real "malevolent
July 27, 2007 - 08:01 ET by VT Con ManWill the real "malevolent clown" please step forward...Chrissy, come on Chrissy...clearly he is doing his fast talkin, droolin on himself shuffle with his "answer". What a dou- - - bag.
"The big fight's going to
July 27, 2007 - 08:12 ET by danbo"The big fight's going to be in those early primaries like in Iowa. Those early primary voters and caucus voters are very, very anti-war. You have to assume they're going to be more anti-war six months from now [Chris is apparently betting against the surge.] Obama is setting himself up to be the anti-war candidate. Hillary is still playing the pivot; she can go either way, hawk or dove, depending on the circumstances. I think Obama is taking the risk he has to take, which is to be the "change" candidate."
Translation. This isn't about have a core belief. Or think something is right or wrong. It's about getting elected. Who needs a soul?
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
Hillary's defining principles
July 27, 2007 - 08:43 ET by ThisnThat"Hillary is still playing the pivot; she can go either way, hawk or dove, depending on the circumstances."
Depending on the circumstances?!? You mean depending on the outcome of President Bush's decisions (the Surge, IRAN, etc) don't you Chris? Or do you mean the poll results over the next n months? Or whether the Republicans in Congress cave in to the Reid & Murtha lunatic actions.
In any case, Chris, you hit the nail on the head. Hillary will not make a decision based upon principle. She has none. And we thank you mightedly for pointing this out so succinctly. Please start repeating it over and over so that everybody elso also understands this.
Pivot...riding the fence
July 27, 2007 - 09:38 ET by LionKingHillary is just going to take the position that is most popular in the polls. She and liberals are not true leaders, but poll-followers.
Unfortunately Mark,
July 27, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Wineguy13Unfortunately Mark, Krauthammer is being naive in thinking that the typical American voter will think beyond whether he 'likes' the person, or wants a black/woman/Mormon etc. That is sadly as deep as most people go when exercising their franchise.
malevolent
July 27, 2007 - 09:43 ET by iveseenitallUnfortunately, most Amerricans need a dictionary to look up the word "malevolent". Lauer and Matthews probably did too.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Engagement
July 27, 2007 - 10:28 ET by KC MulvilleLike every morning, I was adding opinion to my coffee by reading various op-ed columns. I happened to read Krauthammer’s column immediately after Peggy Noonan’s, and this connection struck me. Noonan’s column was on the lack of manners despite our affluence. She talked about being assaulted/pressured by the sales-people the moment she walked into various Manhattan shops.
Why do you want to engage a dictator? Obama needs to understand that Noonan is right. Dictators want to “turn you upside down and shake the coins from your pockets.” They didn’t get to be dictators by being selfless, altruistic statesmen. Dictators are experienced at using people, and casting aside (or shooting) anyone who doesn’t serve their immediate purpose.
Obama lives in a benevolent fantasy where talking builds relationships. In that fantasy, people will treat us properly because they have a “relationship” with us. The real world doesn’t work that way. Other countries pursue their own interest, just like we do. They don’t abandon it because of any relationship. And why should they? Think of what the Democrats are trying to do in Iraq. We formed “relationships” with Iraqis, and asked them to put their necks on the line and trust us. Now the liberals want to bug out. Anyone who trusted us is now a murder target. We formed a relationship with them, but the Democrats want us to abandon it. Why? So we can be friends with Hugo Chavez? Please – don’t embarrass yourself any further to lecture us about the value of relationships.
Ask the hard question,
July 27, 2007 - 10:51 ET by TheDeuceAsk the hard question, Matt...
"Isn't a dem pairing of Hillary / Obama better identified as the Empty Pantsuit ticket?"
I'm still not sold on the
July 27, 2007 - 12:14 ET by shannon20I'm still not sold on the war being the beat-all, end-all, of the next election. I think Illegal immigration is what most average-Americans, are worried about. The war is important, but I believe most of us are willing to let the POTUS handle that, but the person running for POTUS better have a good plan for stopping the illegals from coming here. Just my opinion.
Very good Shannon
July 27, 2007 - 14:02 ET by Lame CherryVery good Grasshopper to quote Kung Fu, you have seen the situation and defined the real drive which will fuel the 2008 elections while Democrats and the MSM try to make it Iraq.
God's Wisdom has shown through you today.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Krauthammer The Man
July 27, 2007 - 14:00 ET by Lame CherryI have watched liberals savage Krauthammer with everything from zionist stooge to neocon flunky, but I always marvel at this gentleman because he is the epic American without excuse.
Krauthammer is not that big of a man in size and if you ever met him you would not even notice behind his desk that he can not walk. Even in television appearances you sort of notice his frailty, but usually people are too busy with his lightning bolt intellect to consider it.
He is the perfect example of not hiding behind a problem. No one gives Krauthammer any quarter and he would take none.
Compare that to John Edwards using his sick wife to trash people because he knows no one will respond. That is the difference between liberals and Krauthammer.......when Krauthammer DEFINES Chavez a malevolent clown.....that is exactly what it IS.
When Elizabeth Edwards calls people like Ann Coulter names.....that is exactly what it is and the nation could care less.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS