On this site, Arianna Huffington was the first to warn Barack Obama that he would disappoint a lot of his enthusiastic supporters, and not necessarily gain any new ones, by moving too fast to the center. Apparently, he wasn't listening.
He started out safely enough: renouncing a pledge to take public financing. No big deal. He moved on to more serious matters: letting states decide when to apply the death penalty to child rapists and supporting an individual's right to own a handgun. Issues on which Democrats can honestly disagree. Then he reversed course on providing immunity to phone companies who joined George Bush's wiretapping blitz. Why? Especially when he publicly promised not to?
Still, those were not issues central to the campaign. Obama could shift positions on such secondary issues, most observers agreed, as long as he didn't waffle on the war. Uh-oh. Guess what? He just did.
Speaking to reporters upon arriving in Fargo, N.D., Obama said he was looking forward to meeting military commanders when he visits Baghdad later in the summer and, based on what he learned, might "refine his policies" on Iraq.
Oh, no. Say it isn't so. Obama didn't win the primaries by being fuzzy on Iraq. He generated so much excitement and support principally because he was out front, opposing the war in Iraq from the very beginning, while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and others were voting for it. More than any other issue, opposition to the war in Iraq defines Obama's candidacy. He can't go soft on Iraq.
To his credit, Obama quickly moved to clarify his statement. He repeated his determination to end the war and to start bringing homes immediately at the pace of what he hopes will be one or two brigades a month - by which schedule all American troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months. There was, Obama insisted, no change in his position.
And in fact, during the primaries, Obama repeatedly expressed the caution (perhaps lost on his supporters) that how quickly we could pull troops out of Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground. As he put it so artfully: "We have to be as careful getting out, as we were careless going in."
Still, the damage is already done. Perception, too often, is reality. To hear Obama say he's open to "refining" his policies on Iraq is enough to inject joy into the McCain campaign and fear into the heart of every Democrat.
The 2008 election will be won or lost on two issues: the economy and the war.
On the war, McCain and Obama have been polar opposites. Obama wants to end it, McCain wants to carry it on. Obama wants to start bringing troops home immediately, McCain says the earliest we could bring troops home is 2013. Obama wants all troops home by 2013, McCain doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq another 100 years.
The differences are clear and must remain that way. Iraq is a winning issue for Democrats. As long as Obama doesn't muddle toward the middle.
Bill are you kidding? These are all central issues to the Democratic Party! What exactly does he stand for? Sounds like a Republican to me. Barack Obama is an unknown entitly. We have no idea what he believes. There is no history or record, just words. Why do you continue to support this candidate? He is not trustworthy. Can you trust him to make the right decisions on Iraq? On Iran? I have been a democrat for almost forty years and this guy is not a democrat! I know, you may say he is better than McCain. Well, I disagree. With divided government, the democratic congress will stop McCain from going too far right. At least we know who McCain is and what he stands for. Obama will lead the Democratic Paryt off the cliff. George Bush with a D after his name. NObama for me thank you.
Now, I'd much rather have an Obama in the WH that is willing to listen to the ground commanders in Iraq rather than take his marching orders from HuffPo, DailyKos and MoveOn.
Obama may be indicating that he is not a "defeat at any cost" democrat.
The real shame is the potentially misconstrued rhetoric of "redefining" his position. Thank goodness McCain is the nations most consistent "flip-flopper" ...
If the war, actually an illegal occupation, were such an important issue for the election then how could you have supported Clinton who voted for an illegal occupation and never apologized for that vote?
Would not her pro-occupation stance have been an equally, if not more, damaging position for the Democrats in the Fall?
Oil now costs four times what it did back in the day.
That alone should tell US that it wasn't such a good idea.
Obama has said he would get US out. That alone ought
to be good enough to get him elected. If so, he will be
expected to make good on that promise, TOTALLY.
Too bad that won't get the oil prices down, ever.
Thank you, George Boosh!
are running the Presidency, oil prices quadrupling
is not exactly seen as a 'problem'. More like an
'opportunity'. As for OPEC, they're still getting
what they used to get, in terms of what the dollar
was worth pre-Bush. And so is Big Oil, for profits.
Those Repos. Still fooling most of the people, all of the time.
Let me give you a little tip...If he refines his position on the war, it wont be from 16 months to 12 months , it will be for more time in Iraq. Bad news.
polish, refine, fine-tune, down (improve or perfect by pruning or polishing) "refine one's style of writing"
complicate, refine, rarify, elaborate (make more complex, intricate, or richer) "refine a design or pattern"
refine (treat or prepare so as to put in a usable condition) "refine paper stock"; "refine pig iron"; "refine oil"
refine, rectify (reduce to a fine, unmixed, or pure state; separate from extraneous matter or cleanse from impurities) "refine sugar"
refine (attenuate or reduce in vigor, strength, or validity by polishing or purifying) "many valuable nutrients are refined out of the foods in our modern diet"
refine (make more precise or increase the discriminatory powers of) "refine a method of analysis"; "refine the constant in the equation"
How on earth are people equating "refine" with "going soft", or changing position? You must all be swallowing whole the Republicans' prepared talking points for when Sen. Obama visits Iraq. I bet it will not matter in the slightest what Sen. Obama says, the Republicans will still put an Alice in Wonderland spin on it. His supporters ought not do the same.
what part of the word 'refine' do you not understand the dictionary definition of? to 'refine' something means, by definition, to improve it. NOTHING Obama said indicates any sort of change of position. why are even Democrats so ready to believe Karl Rove's false narratives? boggles the mind.
Or so they thought, anyway!
How dare he mess with the plan.
They've been funding this thing for a year and a half so that they could run against it.
I really enjoy your show.
On this topic you are worrying about nothing. Barack Obama came out again on July 3 and reiterated his postion. He was crystal clear. It was wonderful to a leader talk so clearly about what he was going to do. He was the one that will make the mission decision to end the war.
This focus should be why does Bush/McCain/McBush want to stay indefinitely. It is imperialism or empire building. They want a permanent presence in Iraq. Barack Obama clearly said we are getting our troups out. He gave a time table with common sense adjustments as required, but his intent to get the troops out within 16 months.
He is quite comfortable with his position and that he will have the authority to do it as President.
Barack Obama is an adult who treats us like adults. Maybe we will get an adult in the White House this time.
They're pretty sure the left will not abandon them even as their stances on Iraq and FISA soften, just as they're pretty sure that Hillary's supporters, still smarting from their recent defeat, will eventually come home.
Time will tell if their fine tuning will work.
But, I can damn sure guarantee you that Senator Biden DID NOT VOTE FOR WAR! And, anyone who still believes that a vote for the AUMF was anywhere near the equivalent of a vote for what the Bush-CHENEY regime did in Iraq needs to seriously revisit the entire matter.
I might also add that if Senator Obama wants to get elected, end the civil war in Iraq and withdraw US forces without leaving a failed state behind, then he better soon realize that he needs Joe Biden at his side as Vice President With Special Portfolio on Iraq.
Unfortunately, there has been such a tremendous amount of misinformation and spin disseminated over this resolution that it is difficult to recognize the truth of the matter. If you want a better understanding of what the AUMF and a vote in favor of it was all about, then you really need to take a good look at the debate in the US Senate which preceded the vote. You will also need to focus on the senators who actually knew what the heck they were talking about - personally, I would suggest you pay particular attention to all of Senator Biden's statements on the subject.
Senator Obama has been disingenuous or not sufficiently informed in his statements about what this resolution was all about and in suggesting that a vote in favor of it was a de facto vote for war. Frankly, I don't think he actually believes his own rhetoric. I believe he has used this issue - with great success - to portray himself as someone with superior judgement on the war in an effort to compensate for his paucity of foreign policy prowess.
What exactly do you mean by "going soft on Iraq?" You have to articulate the basis of your accusation rather appealing to our emotions and biases. May be you can also tell us what is the opposite of "going softer on Iraq." Is that the Bush/McCain way?