Where am I?

HOME
  • COMMENT BLOGS Comment Central

Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

« Wednesday's comment from the papers in... | All Posts | Why are MPs so ugly? »

February 14, 2007

John Howard versus Barack Obama

Howardandobama

John Howard and Barack Obama. As Billy Bragg would say, which side are you on?

Barack Obama has introduced legislation mandating the withdrawl of US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

And in response, on Sunday the Australian Prime Minister said this:

I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory.

If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.

Here's the problem. John Howard should not interfere in the US elections. It is, apart from anything else, very short-sighted. What if Obama wins?

On the other hand... he's completely correct. Whatever the merits of withdrawal, providing an arbitrary date for withdrawal is lunacy.

So tactless, but right. Tough call, but I go with right. You?

Posted by Daniel Finkelstein on February 14, 2007 at 09:20 AM in 2008 Presidential election, American Politics, Barack Obama | Permalink Bookmark and Share

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451586c69e200d83445595853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John Howard versus Barack Obama:

» Bloglinks: creationists, jousting politicians, bitchy bloggers and prying the cigarettes from your cold, seasick hands. from The Crossed Pond
This morning, I was mostly reading British blogs. Whilst not writing anything for this one. Shame, shame on me. Some links: Thoughts on the Creationist Paleontologist: I wrote about this yesterday, here. John Howard trying to stick one on Barack Oba... [Read More]

Tracked on February 14, 2007 at 08:33 PM

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What election is Mr Howard interfering with? The March 2008 policy isn't a platform of his Presidential campaign because that election is not until November 2008.

Posted by: Ian Deans | 13 Feb 2007 20:41:03

I personally think we should have more politicians like John Howard - and who can argue with his electoral record.

Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 13 Feb 2007 23:01:42

Howard is clearly playing politics in the manner of Gerhard Schroeder at the launch of the Iraq war, simply from the other side of the debate than the ex-Chancellor. Howard is facing an election himself and trailing in the opinion polls.

Posted by: Ravster | 14 Feb 2007 11:35:15

Of course, you avoid printing Obama's response:

"I think it's flattering that ... one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced ... I take that as a compliment." [ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2867210 ]

and then:

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is (ready) to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm ]

So perhaps before Howard shoots his mouth off again, he could, you know, help?

Posted by: Nick | 14 Feb 2007 11:42:37

trust finklestein to see this as a neocon crusade rather than loud mouthed, ignorant and idiotic australian.

whether you love or hate him john howard is very much an aussie george bush

Posted by: Akram | 14 Feb 2007 14:03:15

I have no idea why Howard is doing this. The only people who give a toss, here in the US, about what John Howard thinks aren't going to vote for Obama anyhow. All he can achieve is starting a fight with someone who might end up as President of the country to which Howard has hitched his wagon.

Furthermore, even Blair couldn't drum up much enthusiasm for the war here and he's probably more popular than Bush is; Howard's not speaking to anyone who hasn't already mde up their mind.

Posted by: adam | 14 Feb 2007 14:15:56

Yeah, and Nick's right, Obama, pinko though he is, has done pretty well in response, which leaves Howard in the situation of being Obama's straight man. It's almost as if Howard should have kept his mouth shut.

Posted by: adam | 14 Feb 2007 14:23:49

Good Lord, someone still uses the word "pinko" in political commentary?

Posted by: Drew | 14 Feb 2007 16:18:56

wait, tactless is a bit generous. you say yourself that the problem ain't etiquette, but interference in another countries' democratic process. so he should not have done it, even though he might have said something true.

on the other hand, though, you might avoid to comment specifically on someone's proposal. but pretty much anything you say on iraq will show your opinion of someone else's position...

Posted by: yucca | 14 Feb 2007 16:36:09

Absolutely, Drew. Political retro-chic is the very Next Big Thing.

Posted by: adam | 14 Feb 2007 18:08:24

John Kerrys' sister went to Australia on the eve of an election to campaign against John Howard so how come there wasn't as much as whisper from anybody then?

Posted by: dave | 15 Feb 2007 14:17:25

Dave: yes, that's also pretty stupid. However, unless Kerry sent her, we can't really complain about it. She doesn't have an official position; Kerry doing it would clearly have been inappropriate. If he did it, it was inappropriate and stupid.

But in any case, Howard must be playing to a domestic audience; no one in the US is going to be affected, in terms of their votes, by this unless they liked Obama's comeback. If Howards wins and then, in 2008, Obama wins (unlikely, I think) then President Obama is probably going to find it less problematic to have antagonised the Australian PM than Howard is going to have found it to have antagonised the US President.

The Tory dirt-digging on Clinton over the 92 US election was also inappropriate and stupid, incidentally, in my opinion.

Posted by: adam | 15 Feb 2007 15:05:14

Jonathon Sheppard, What would arguing with your electoral record mean? I won the election, the world's flat? Seems a bit odd.

Posted by: Frank | 18 Feb 2007 10:08:42

John Howard, what is he doing to help our water crisis and the global warming. here's an idea, maybe he could make a rule that water tanks should be compulsary on blocks of land that can fit them. We need more seasalt stations(whatever they're called) to change seawater in drinking water. He's building the dams in the wrong places, by the time the clouds get to the dams there is no water left. He needs to do something about it.

Posted by: Kathy | 25 Feb 2007 03:32:39

Hillary no one else????

Posted by: Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD | 10 Mar 2007 10:04:41

Howard is right, and there is no reason he shouldn't speak his mind on something that ultimately affects Australia (the Global War on Terror) as well as the U.S. Lord knows the French and German governments certainly made their views on George Bush clear enough before the 2004 election. I love Australia. They are probably closer than what I think of as the American ideal (as opposed to the American reality) than America is. Common sense and love of freedom (as opposed to the nanny-state) seems to be more abundant there than in just about ny other country in the world.

Posted by: Todd | 28 Mar 2007 21:08:05

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

  • Your writers

    Daniel Finkelstein,
    is Chief Leader Writer of The Times and writes a weekly column. Comment Central is his rolling guide to the best opinion on the web.
    Hattie Garlick, the Online Comment Editor, will also be posting.

    Send us an email

    Click here for more information on the blog.

    Latest posts

    Latest comments

    Categories

    Select from the dropdown

You might also like...

  • 2008 Presidential election
  • Cassilis
  • Justin Webb's America
  • Boulton and Co.
  • Benedict Brogan
  • Dizzy Thinks
  • Chris Dillow
  • The Fink Tank
  • Daniel's Weekly Column
  • Oliver Kamm
  • Stephen Pollard
  • Iain Dale
  • Nick Robinson
  • Guido Fawkes
  • Conservative Home
  • Clive Davis
  • Arts & Letters Daily
  • Real Clear Politics
  • Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish
  • Marbury
  • Mickey Klaus
  • Political Betting
  • Times Online Weblogs
  • Times Comment

News from
Times Online

  • UK
  • Crime
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Political
  • Science
  • World
  • Iraq
  • US
  • Europe
  • Middle East
  • Asia
  • Africa
  • Technology
  • Business
  • US Elections
Other Times Online blogs
  • Crime Central
  • Faith Central
  • Urban Dirt
  • Alpha Mummy
  • BabyBarista
  • Ariel Leve
  • Charles Bremner
  • Inside Iraq
  • Irwin Stelzer
  • Mary Beard (TLS)
  • Money Central
  • News
  • Sports Commentary
  • Peter Stothard (TLS)
  • Richard Lloyd Parry
  • Ruth Gledhill
  • Tech Central
  • The Game

Feeds

Get the latest news and comments via RSS

Use the buttons below to add the feeds to your RSS reader, or right the links above, click and choose "save target as", then paste the url into your RSS reader.

For more information on using RSS, and for more feeds from Times Online, visit

the main RSS page

Bloglines
Google
Yahoo!
Netvibes

For older posts, visit the archive

  • 2006
  • 2007
  • Jan 2008
  • Feb 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009