In my opinion, when Biden said, “there’s truth to that,” he wasn’t saying it’s true that Democrats in general or Democrats today are weak on national security or that they are wringing their hands and blaming America for everything that’s wrong in the world.

Lauer was referring to the way Democrats are perceived, based on how Democrats were effectively characterized during the Vietnam period — which came after Kennedy and largely after Johnson. That’s where the “babykiller” talk came in for me — the people spitting in soldier’s faces may not have been Democrats but they influenced Democratic politics and allowed Republicans to characterize Democrats as unpatriotic and passivist.

It’s true that Democratic politicians of that period weren’t spitting in soldier’s faces, but the perception among many Americans was that Democrats were beholden to an anti-war left that identified itself in terms of criticizing America on moral grounds and opposing use of the military under almost any circumstances.

That’s why Biden talked about how he was “viewed as a hawk.” He and Lauer are both talking about perceptions, which have more to do with electoral politics than with policy. Was Biden a “hawk” in 1972? Or was he just perceived that way because his veiws seemed hawkish back then to many Democratic voters who were radically dovish as a result of Vietnam-era polarization?

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Biden of conceding propaganda points just for acknowledging what everyone knows to be the case: Democrats were smeared as “weak” on national security as a result of the politics surrounding the Vietnam war. Ronald Reagan exploited this when he called the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” contrasting his criticism of the “enemy” with the left’s criticism of America.

I strongly believe Biden would not have said anything to suggest that Kennedy or Johnson were weak or were perceived as weak, or that Kennedy or Johnson were unwilling to project military power. Kennedy and Johnson are NOT characterized that way by conservatives (except maybe a few whackos) — to do so would be ridiculous, as you correctly point out — and that’s not what Lauer was referring to in his interiew.

Biden’s point was that Democrats’ willingness to go to war in the Balkans showed that Democrats aren’t always opposed to using military force — and this may have reassured some voters that Democrats aren’t afraid to use the military in general.

I don’t believe Biden supported war in the Balkans because he thought such a war would make Democrats look tough to voters. Maybe I’ve being naive, but I don’t think that’s what motivated Biden in that case. But if there’s evidence to suggest that, I’m open to it.

I do believe that Hillary Clinton talked about “totally obliterating” Iran during the primary in order to show how tough she was — and that’s one big reason I’m thrilled she wasn’t picked to be Obama’s running mate.

In general, this whole debate (a heated one at times, and for that I feel sheepish) reflects the big risk with Biden: he says things that can be misconstrued.

Reread my original posting, and Biden’s response to Lauer. When I say Democrats feel the need to seem manly, I do not mean that they feel the need to address national security concerns. I meant that they accept the tacit association between “manly” militarism with “strength” on national security.

This is precisely the conjunction of terms that I think Democrats should be working to destroy forever.

In his interview with Lauer, Biden accepts that “there’s truth” to the claim that Democrats are “a party wringing its hands and blaming American for what’s wrong in the world,” then holds up as a proud counterexample of how tough the Democrats are that Clinton wanted to bomb Bosnia but McCain was weak for saying “no no no you can’t do that… no no no we can’t do that.”

Biden is not talking generally about antiwar activists–the spitters I am apparently unwilling to condemn–but HIS OWN PARTY. Did Democratic politicians in 72 spit on soldiers and call soldiers baby-killers? The answer, as far as I know, is no.

I demonstrated in my original posting that Biden made a historically inaccurate statement by pointing out that Kennedy and Johnson were anything but peaceniks. They started the Vietnam War, which “Not a Crook” Nixon continued after campaigning as an antiwar candidate. Am I wrong in that historical assessment or is Biden wrong?

Biden is moreover apparently proud of the fact that Clinton, with him pushing, went to war in the Balkans. Maybe Biden believes this is the right thing for Clinton to have done, but he is certainly wrong if he thinks that Clinton was some precedent-setting Democrat willing to go where no Democrat had gone before. Clinton went where basically every Democrat in modern times has gone before.

Moreover, Biden seems to conflate a willingness to bomb with strength on national security, and McCain’s hesitation to bomb Bosnia as a sign of weakness. If that’s what we mean by protecting our national security–a generic willingness to bomb other people, apparently apart from the facts–then I think Biden is wrong.

Sometimes–I would say overwhelmingly often–our national security is best served by not bombing others into oblivion. To conflate a willingness to bomb with strength on national security is a huge mistake in my opinion, both strategically and morally.

Am I wrong to say that Biden does just this in his interview?

Regards my being “nervous,” I don’t mean to imply that I don’t respect Glenn Greenwald, or that he shouldn’t be listened to, or that he’s somehow someone we shouldn’t associate with in a general way. There was nothing technically untrue or “unpatriotic” about his post. It’s just that I’m trying to be so careful about my rhetoric, and I don’t think I agree with the way Greenwald frames his arguments. I’m happy to restore Greenwald to our blogroll, but I might want to add some other folks to the list as well…

I also want to protect this country from its enemies, and I’m not afraid to talk about my commitment to that objective. Maybe someday someone will accuse me of trying to show how “manly” I am for wanting to defend this country, but I don’t care.

It was you who wrote, “Why do Democrats feel the need to show how manly and tough they are as a strategy for defeating Republicans?” To suggest that somehow I am contributing to this frame is the utter opposite of what I was saying. You are the one imposing the dichotomy on the argument by suggesting that Democrats should avoid demonstrating their manliness and toughness.

You were the one who characterized Biden’s views of foreign policy as an effort by Biden to show how “manly” he is — an unfair attack that allows you to attack him personally without actually explaining why Biden is wrong.

The fact that you’ve urged Obama to hit harder has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate we’re having. Of course you and I both want Obama to campaign effectively. It sounds to me like you either aren’t thinking clearly, or else you just attack people’s motives whenever you disagree with them.

As for the “HIGHLY EXAGGERATED” “anecdotes” about the anti-war movement of the 1960, I think you need to do some more research into that period in our history. You are simply ignorant of what went on then. It wasn’t “mythology” — that’s just your way of rewriting history to suit your argument.

I think it’s interesting that you refuse to weigh in on the question of whether it was appropriate for anti-war protesters to call returning soldiers “babykillers,” or to spit in their faces. Was it? Are you capable of answering that question honestly?

I am. It wasn’t.

It sounds like Republicans have successfully framed the distinction between conservatism and liberalism for you. It’s amazing how effectively their propaganda captures the minds of even liberals.

In short, I don’t accept the dichotomy you are trying to impose on my argument. It is a wrong dichotomy.

How many times do I have to say that Obama needs to hit harder? How many times do I have to say that conceding–perhaps I should say in a “weak,” “feminine,” “thoughtful” way–Republican talking points just makes the case for Republicans.

That is why Obama is not winning by a bigger margin, because he has not been “tough” and “manly” enough in hitting McCain hard.

Being tough and being a militarist are different things. The left is in such a sorry state that we forget that the anti-war protesters were highly effective, and all we remember are stupid HIGHLY EXAGGERATED anecdotes like that everyone was spitting on soldiers in the 60s.

Another example of how the right has captured the mythology of the 60s–in even your mind. If we want to fight this bullshit propaganda, we should not, as you do, accept the myth, but kick the right in the ass.

You don’t need to be thoughtful or nuanced to say that the neoconservatives are savage warmongers. There’s no nuance or arugula there, just red meat truth.

I will work on a little research project on Biden and write a post giving my view on whether Biden is an “excellent spokesperson for the left.” It sounds like a fun challenge.