Dems' Fightin' Words!

Did George Bush do for the Democrats what the Democrats couldn't do for themselves? That is: unite them? Man! The President's comments in Israel yesterday prompted a blistering and unified reaction from the two Democratic Presidential candiates and a few others.

This is the statement that got everyone going:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Then Obama responded with a statement, assuming that the President's words were a shot at him:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Hillary Clinton jumped to Obama's rescue, as well:

"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush. There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House."

And John McCain, who is trying to distance himself from George Bush, weighed in with this: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Of course, he probably lost his bearings in not remembering that Robert Gates just this week said we have to find some leverage from which to approach negotiations with Iran.

But back to the fun.

Then Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded to the McCain comment:

"It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon. Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."

And then Hillary jumped in again, linking Bush's comment to McCain's speech on his vision for his first term:

"I think today we’ve had two examples of why this country is going to be voting for a Democratic president. And I hope that people really look seriously both at President Bush’s comment and at Sen. McCain’s speech and realize that the only way we’re going to restore our leadership and our moral authority and deal with the very real challenges we face in the world is by electing a democratic president and I believe that I am a stronger candidate against Sen. McCain and will be a president who could accomplish that," she said.

And finally, Joe Biden had the best line of the day when, referring to Bush's comment, he simply said, "That's bullshit".

People, this is politics!

So, here are some interesting ideas to ponder. First, it's clear that Obama is not following in John Kerry's footsteps. Any shots across the bow (real or imagined) are not going to pass without a stern and swift response. Second, with all the talk of a Hillary VP offer from Obama, her swift response has to go into his calculus. If you're looking for an attack dog, she's right up there with Dick Cheney in terms of effectiveness. Third, if you're a Democrat, you have to feel good that the leaders of your party are finally showing some spine. And fourth, if you're a Republican, you have to marvel at the fact that your linguistically challenged President has once again come up with a simple word that tells an entire story: appeasement. This will be the new catch phrase that the GOP will use to characterize the Dems foreign policy. Unfair? Of course. Effective, probably. Brilliant? Absolutely.

And speaking of that, you still have to know the context of the word 'appeasement' in relation to the Nazis if you're going to argue about it. For example, last night on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', right wing radio bloviator Kevin James (not the comedian) was trying to excoriate left wingers for their policy of 'appeasement' when Matthews asked James if he knew what Neville Chamberlain actually did to earn his infamous place in history as the main appeaser. James tried to shout his way past the question but Matthews pressed him into finally admitting that he didn't know that Chamberlain had met with Hitler and relayed the message to everyone that Hitler wouldn't invade Europe. Classic.

Finally, on a day when George Bush united the Dems, a huge court ruling in California may revive a wedge issue for Republicans. The California State Supreme Sourt ruled 4-3 that gay marriages are constitutional. If you're gay, this is a big day. If you're Tony Perkins or James Dobson, you'll be rolling up your shirt sleeves to get the state legislature to pass a constitutional ban on it. That, of course, is already in the works. Interesting to note that seven of the eight judges on that bench were appointed by Republican governors.

Obama and McCain have cloaked themselves in the"states should decide" cop out. If I were running for President I'd just say, "I'm running for President of the United States not Match.com. I've got more important things to worry about than who's zoomin' who." Stay tuned on this one. It'll heat up.

So the question is: Did George Bush's comments amount to a deft political manuever or a mistake that will backfire on the GOP as it helps unify Dems? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', by passing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.