Apparently, I don't agree with Obama that Bush should boycott the Olympic Opening Ceremony, after all.
It's my fault, really. I made an assumption.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Obamafiles | Olympics | Soo-eee! Soo-eee! Soo-eee! — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I assumed that, simply because the status of Tibet under the PRC is a hot-button issue for progressives; and because the progressive movement is taking this opportunity to bring up the status of Tibet, loudly; and because it is also a hot-button issue that I happen to agree with; I expected, therefore, that my endorsement of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton's call for the President to boycott the opening ceremonies would be very likely shared by Senator Obama.
Obama has not followed Clinton's lead in calling for an opening ceremony boycott to protest China's human rights abuses in Tibet and Darfur.
"It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong," Obama said, after talking about the need to restore America's stance in the world, "And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China."
Obama never once mentioned the Olympic Games in his response.
I will admit surprise, however. It seems such an obvious stance for the man to take...
The junior Senator from Illinois has a particularly tricky balancing act when it comes to the subject of the Olympics: Chicago is vying to host the 2016 games and one of Obama's top campaign advisors and close friends, Valerie Jarrett, is the vice chair of Chicago's bid committee.
It's like the man combines the worst qualities of the machine and reform politician. You get all of the mutual back-scratching and none of the mutual loyalty; and all of the self-serving twaddle, but none of the overriding moral sense.
Roll on August.