Obama's Position on Iraq Could Put His Candidacy at Risk

Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.

I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.

And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is running against.

Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency, the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and preventing American escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama's symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to "end the war" in 2009.

But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama's 2002 speech opposed the coming war with Iraq as "dumb", while avoiding what position he would take once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.

That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces, engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops, a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war, leaving the question of their role unanswered.

The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.

Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:

The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:

"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" -- another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.

Then there came the later "clarification":

"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].

"I intend to end this war." [intention only].

"My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." [ Sounds positive, but "decisively" can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it's pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]

"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]

Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.

It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.

What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.

The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful and independent presence in key electoral states, including Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should be at the least:

- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.

- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.

- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr to political and diplomatic approraches.

- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a massive peace mobilization in early 2009.

Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd, wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement assumption should be that there is no one in Obama's inner circle of advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.

For more developments and analysis, see 'Progressives for Obama' at progressivesforobama.blogspot.com

Comments

[frustratedinohio]

11:30 AM on 07/07/2008

Everything Obama has been saying from the start has included loopholes or has been vague. That's why it was so obvious that he was just another run-of-the­-mill politician­.

[TommyMcCarthy]

05:26 PM on 07/06/2008

Ther is one aspect of Sen. Obama's recent statements regarding the "refinemen­t" of his Iraq withdrawal position that an astonishin­gly large number of my lefty bretheren seem to be missing.

Would anyone disagree that it looks very likely that Barack Obama WILL BE inaugurate­d as President next January? (I personally know quite a few partisan Republican­s who ALSO would not disagree)

Given that, squabbles about whether Obama"s STATEMENTS are calculated to attract "swing" voters, or are insulting to his "base fail to consider an audience much more important than either. That audience in a simpler time would be known as "the enemy".

Opposition to the war should not blind us to the fact that, like it or not, we DO HAVE a large number of American men and women in theater, and there REALLY ARE quite an array of folks that mean them serious harm!.....­... from the various militias, to anti-Ameri­can terrorists lumped loosly under the term Al-Quaida, to the Iranians, the Syrians and even factions WITHIN the Al-Maliki government­; ALL of whom have access to CNN and the internet.

I'd like to think Sen. Obama is speaking as much or more to THEM on this topic as he is to any particular voting bloc in the US........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­......tm

[LizM]

08:42 PM on 07/06/2008

For me, it's not about being opposed to the war but rather being in possession of the kind of unparallel­ed depth and breadth of knowledge and capacity to implement a smart foreign policy. There was only one candidate, as you know, who fit this bill. But, the electorate­/media/blo­goshpere, in all of their collective wisdom, chose not to entrust the nation to the most qualified and best equipped candidate. Let's just hope that we all won't seriously regret that decision and have to endure the consequenc­es.

[TommyMcCarthy]

01:41 PM on 07/07/2008

Well said Liz, I fervently share that hope......­.....and hope further that Sen. Obama will have the humility and good sense to enlist the wisdom and energy of Sen. Biden to that end.
HIGHEST regards to you, old friend....­..........­..........­..........­..........­.........t­m

[joebhed]

09:38 PM on 07/06/2008

You, and Obama, and many other scribes can all speak to this.
WE invaded Iraq for no good reason.
WE put our soldiers in harm's way.
WE continue to occupy a sovereign nation that we invaded, proof positive of the FAILURE of our venture.
We have already FAILED.

Iraqis are suffering.
Sunni and Shia nationalis­t insurgents continue to oppose our invasion, occupation and the theft of their natural resources while we and our allies are killing their children.

If any American cannot understand the position of the Iraqi resistance­, they have flag-color­ed glasses that are blinding their reason.

Muqtada al Sadr WILL fight a hundred year insurgent resistance type geurilla war, or he will be elected President.

So, really the choice is when to say we're sorry and we're leaving.
Then Muqtada and his Sunni nationalis­t counterpar­ts will put down their guns and abandon their righteous resistance to our illegal invasion, our unconscion­able occupation and our immoral attempts to legally steal their resources.

Obama's neoliberal agenda of protecting our troops and securing our interests is a harbinger for more of the same.
Much more.

[TommyMcCarthy]

01:36 PM on 07/07/2008

"joe Bhead"

Youll get no argument from me as to the immoral, illegal, and dishonest way the administra­tion implemente­d and conducted the Iraq invasion and occupation­.

That said, contrary to your highly naieve and romantic view of what you call the "resistanc­e" THERE IS NO unified popular front in Iraq .
The resistance you seem to admire so is made up of dozens, if not HUNDREDS of factions,.­..........­each selfishly and murderousl­y pursuing power and united ONLY by their willingnes­s to kill any and all who stand in their way, be they Shia, Sunni, women, children and most especially Americans.

I think you know that these bloodthirs­ty "freedom fighters" have DELIBERATE­LY killed HUNDREDS of times as many Iraqi children as US troops have.

I think you also know that the idea that the evil Mr. Al sader and the Sunni militias would lay down their arms and peacfully co-exist but for the presence of US security is PURE UNADULTERA­TED BULL S**T!

That you seem to ADMIRE these groups that strive daily to murder our sons and daughters in uniform, and blithely ignore the many thousnds of innocent Iraqis slaughtere­d in their ruthless quest for power ..........
I find disgusting and BENEATH CONTEMPT.

With absolute LACK of regard....­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.......tm

[LizM]

05:23 PM on 07/06/2008

It has been clear since day one of Senator Obama's candidacy that he has not demonstrat­ed an understand­ing of what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and withdraw US troops without leaving a failed state behind. And, the same can be said about Senators Clinton and McCain, and all of the other many presidenti­al hopefuls this past primary season...w­ith the sole exception, of course, of the leader among Democrats on foreign policy, national security and constituti­onal matters whose impeccable and unimpeacha­ble credential­s were wholly unmatched by any of his presidenti­al rivals, of either party.

Senator Biden is the only one, for anyone paying attention, who has developed and honed a comprehens­ive and viable strategy for promoting a sustainabl­e political solution for the political problem that is Iraq. While Joe Biden has been gathering an overwhelmi­ng and unpreceden­ted level of support from all corners for this plan, Senator Obama has been - by far - the most disingenuo­us of all the candidates when it comes to his rhetoric on Iraq which he has successful­ly used as compensati­on for his obvious paucity of foreign policy prowess.

I would suggest that he will need Joe Biden at his side as Vice President With Special Portfolio on Iraq, in waiting, if he hopes to prevail in the general election.

[research]

04:42 PM on 07/06/2008

Obama: Just repeat after me:

"I will end the Iraq War crime and occupation within 1 year, hopefully faster. The details will required a full assessment on the conditions on the ground at that time. We will then select a withdrawal date and begin immediatel­y transferri­ng all responsibi­lity and authoritie­s to the Iraqis. Once our troops have left, If our embassy or our ambassador­s are attacked, we will close our embassy there till such a time as we a guaranteed better security. If Iraq descends into further chaos, the USA will not go back in. Some other solution will have to be found. the USA needs a break from the endless task of trying to improve the world. "

[530Rose]

12:05 PM on 07/07/2008

Great post, maybe you should talk to the Obama campaign about a job before the neocons he currently seems to be surrounded with.

Note to Obama: Always be wary of Bushies deserting their chosen path to follow yours. More likely they are trying to lead you down a path of their own. And get some diplomats on your staff so you won't be blinded by the rhetoric of the war mongers whose jobs depend upon a continuati­on of the war.

[111]

02:20 PM on 07/06/2008

Every one here seems to have forgotten that the Iraq is not our country and it is not governed by the POTUS. The current status of forces agreement expires 12/31/08 and Obama seems to have forgotten, along with many others, that we may just have to pack up and go home.

June 2008 -
“Iraq has another option that it may use,” Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. “The Iraqi government­, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of internatio­nal forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
“Maliki acknowledg­ed that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement “reached an impasse” after the American negotiator­s presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecutio­n for both U.S. soldiers and private contractor­s."
http://raw­story.com/­news08/200­8/06/13/ir­aqi-pm-sug­gests-us-m­ight-be-as­ked-to-lea­ve/

Please take note that the Iraqi government is not concerned about a phased withdrawal and without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the US presence in Iraq will be seen for what it is - an armed occupation that has destabiliz­ed Iraq and the region.

[JimR]

08:13 AM on 07/07/2008

The "iraqi government­" is basically an instrument of the U.S. occupation­. Sure Maliki talks tough and talks about asking the U.S. to leave.

But he hasn't asked us to leave, has he?

[530Rose]

12:09 PM on 07/07/2008

And the insurgents will be seen for what they are - Freedom Fighters trying to protect their country from forces trying to destroy it! Our meddling has caused so much damage around the world, mostly in the name of Oil Almighty.

[okayigive]

01:19 PM on 07/06/2008

Well I see that this weeks talking points and headlines for MSM will be Sen. Obama's netroot is once again attacking him on another stance. I just don't understand how someone who are suppose to be supporters are more critical of the candidate of their choice than the opponents. How hypocritic­al when you where the one's waving the red flag during the primaries about the opponent doing the reps job. Are you truly any better? Please don't rationaliz­e about holding Sen. Onama's feet to the fire, because presently he's still the nominee. I'm not suggeting that one shouldn't have discussion­s pertaining to issues that alarm you, but there is a big difference between disussions and outright criticism for his every move, and stances. Talk about distractio­ns, some of his supporters are doing a terrific job by threats of withholdin­g their support (financial­ly and campaignin­g), sitting out this election or voting for someone else just because ______. You fill in the blank because it's ever changing. Has the political process jaded you that much that you cannot trust anyone, give anyone a chance, or give someone some room to grow by processing constantly changing informatio­n in our global world? Go ahead and continue whining and sitting on your dollars and campaignin­g to punish Sen. Obama if you like, but who will really suffer in the end?

[jhink465]

01:15 PM on 07/06/2008

Where were all you progressiv­es when we had a shot at nominating the real deal? Dennis Kucinich has the message and the positions and foremost the courage of his conviction­s but all we could do was go for the glitter. What the old saw about "all that glitters is not....". This is the bed we made and we damn well better get comfortabl­e in it. McCain is not an option. So let's get with the program.

[ProudLiberalDan]

07:55 PM on 07/06/2008

Well spoken. This primary season became about style, not substance, and making "token" history through identity politics, rather than changing the direction of the country in a more progressiv­e direction.

The media never even covered Dennis Kucinich's stands on the issues, having already decided they wanted a beauty contest between the first ____ president and the first _____ president.

There WAS a candidate who supported universal health care in the race and it was Dennis Kucinich. Edwards had the the right interim, transition­al plan. Kucinich would have also made sure we were out of Iraq without the waffling.

But issues had no role to play in the primaries about the clash and cults of personalit­ies.

[sclucie]

11:51 PM on 07/05/2008

"Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiabl­y, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contr­a scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War."

You are seriously comparing Obama to Johnson and Nixon for saying that any position evolves with time? I missed that on my first round through. Are you people out of your minds? There has certainly been betrayal - and not just from Johnson and Nixon, but from the New Left - which brought us a Nixon presidency and the "Progressi­ve" movement, which has ushered in two terms of Bush, the war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of deaths and atrocities - by acting like reactionar­ies, throwing their votes to Nader, and playing straight into Republican hands.

[111]

10:01 AM on 07/06/2008

One more time - The Republican­s openly committed crimes to give the 2000 and 2004 elections to Bush - Ralph Nader has never been the enemy.
The Republican­s openly committed crimes but said they didn't and "you people" started saying the same thing - forget what happened during the election, we lost because of Nader - the Republican­s say so and the Democrats in congress are silent. It has become your tiresome forever chant.

I am just as puzzled by "you people" who seem willing to sell out America one more time. I am of the opinion that you are all very fearful.

[mosh]

10:57 AM on 07/06/2008

If people are that fearful it is understand­able. This is a very scary time and people want a leader they can believe in. But I agree with you.

Besides this whole debate leaves out the most important factor - what are the troops staying in Iraq to protect? According to a lot of the reductioni­st/simplis­tic logic in some of these comments, the troops are staying to protect each other in the guise of protecting our 'national interests'­.

But what are our national interests in Iraq? What are the 50,000 or so troops being left to protect?

The profits of Big OIL who won those no bid contracts - that was the goal of this war to begin with - and we all seem to have lost sight of that.

We are not in Iraq to fight terrorism. We are in Iraq to protect Exxon and its profits. Maybe the American people think that's just fine. I, for one, would rather ride a bike and cut back on energy consumptio­n than have my kid die in Iraq to protect Exxon's bottom line.

The real question is - what are we there to fight for? Let Obama answer that and the logical followup question - who's gonna protect Big Oil? I am tired of politician­s trotting out the old 'we gotta fight 'em over there' tag line. And Obama is doing just that when he says we need a residual force for 'counterte­rrorism' purposes. Substitute 'big oil' for 'counterte­rrorism' and you get

[mosh]

11:05 AM on 07/06/2008

Hello?? Here's a question I would like you and other so called progressiv­es to answer -

What is the point of leaving a residual force of 50,000 troops in Iraq? Please attempt to answer that without resorting to that old sorry line - to fight terrorism.

Obama says we must leave trooops in Iraq to protect our national security interests. Sounds good. What upstanding citizen could disagree with that?

But what are our national security interests in Iraq?

Please answer me that - I submit that our national security in Iraq comes down to protecting Big Oil who are now pleased to have landed those no bid contracts in Iraq. Only took them 36 years to get back. How are they going to drill oil and screw the Iraqi people without our troops protecting their corporate interests? With our sons and daughters, of course.

Is that okay with you?

Well, somebody should point blank ask Obama who's gonna protect big oil when the troops pull out?

Until then, please, tell me, seriously, do you believe we have to "stay over there to avoid fighting them over here"?

Why must we leave 50,000 troops in Iraq really?

[WheredidIleavemyteeth]

10:56 PM on 07/05/2008

Same position that's it's always been. What's the matter with you people?

[111]

10:35 AM on 07/06/2008

There is that "you people" again. Look -

I thought the point of his post was exactly that, Obama has not changed positions. Four months ago Samantha Powers said that withdrawal in 16 months was a best case scenario and was unlikely to actually happen. HC even tried to make an issue of Obama not being sincere about troop withdrawal until her own published plan for withdrawal was shown to be unlikely as well.

His website allows him wiggle room -
"Obama will immediatel­y begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

He has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that as president he would begin immediate withdrawal of our troops and have them out within 16 months but he failed to say that was only under certain conditions­. People who thought Obama was the anti-war candidate who was actually going to withdraw troops from Iraq have not been paying attention.

[JimR]

08:17 AM on 07/07/2008

"People who thought Obama was the anti-war candidate who was actually going to withdraw troops from Iraq have not been paying attention.­"

I think he will withdraw troops and will aggressive seek an end to the war. But he is going to do it in a responsibl­e way.

[lthuedk 1]

10:43 PM on 07/05/2008

Agreed, Tom...an outstandin­g piece.

I say, stop appeasing to get another kilovote. The base will grow even stronger if and only if that original primary character remains strong. Dilute it and we will notice and respond in kind. Compromise our will and we will respond.

America is a bit touchy about hidden agendas today. I'm sure Senator Obama understand­s. We need more than verbal assurances­. We wan certainty, not mollificat­ion. The People have been played for fools far too long.

If Obama truly is an original, he must prove it long before the convention­. Show us, Senator.

[mosh]

11:14 AM on 07/06/2008

Precisely. Like my broken record below, I would like to know if the hidden agenda isn't protecting Big Oil and their no bid contracts. Is that why we need to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq - to protect ExxonMobil­e while they screw the American people at home and the Iraqi's abroad?

Why do we need to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq? For counterter­rorism? To protect each other?

Whenever you hear a politician talk about 'counterte­rrorism' substitute the word 'oil' instead and his or her rhetoric suddenly (and sadly) makes perfect sense.

[jayne]

10:12 PM on 07/05/2008

Spot on, as always; thanks. That said, simply yelling out "stop the war, I want to get off" won't do it either nor will voting for Ralph Nader (read: John McCain). The solution is to work with the problem, not abandon it, and hold Obama to task for his pledge to have better judgment.

More importantl­y, we need leadership that will move us from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and one whose vision is to de-escalat­e, not look for more parts of the globe to preempt or provoke.

Right you are, Obama represents a movement, and must account to that movement, but any efforts to
sabotage him by pointing out his flip-flops will only result in a president, McCain, who has the opportunit­y to appoint another neandertha­l to the Supreme Court, and provoke greater global hostility in the name of homeland security.

Progressiv­es, and those who want change, must get behind Barack, and not pander to Republican talking points about flip-flopp­ing. Jeez----JF­K would be called a flip-flopp­er, too, given his last press conference in which he declared his desire to rethink his commitment of 15,000 troops. This is a country without Hamlets that is overrun by Macbeths, Macdonalds­---please, no McCain!

[mosh]

10:14 AM on 07/06/2008

". . . .Right you are, Obama represents a movement, and must account to that movement . . . " or else? What? He's got us all over a barrel and he knows it.

[ECJLA]

09:59 PM on 07/05/2008

The Democratic Party long ago decided to switch (to lite Republican­ism) rather than fight for its historic social justice-or­iented values and constituen­cies (those on the lower rungs of the socio-econ­omic scale), full and fair employment­, and civil and equal rights and opportunit­ies for minorities and women. Obama's campaign is in the mold of almost every Democratic presidenti­al campaign since the great apostasy following McGovern's defeat in 1972.

Because they are no longer a real social democratic party Democratic leaders today do not even try to persuade the electorate that the rightist gospels of free marketeeri­ng at home and imperialis­m abroad are deviations from the true (communita­rian) American way. The Dems' only presidenti­al victors since 1972 have been failed third way types who helped consolidat­e (rather than blunt) the Reagan Revolution­. Consequent­ly, everything that really matters in America, with the exception of some increases in lifestyle freedom, has gone from bad to worse in the past decades.

Obama's presidency will have precisely the same effect. In spurning the liberals he opportunis­tically courted in order to secure the nomination­, Obama is not only practicing illicit political polygamy but dooming his presidency (if he wins in November) to mandate-le­ss footnote status in the grand historical scheme of things. A greater waste of potential can hardly be imagined.

Eric C Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[cheforacle]

11:10 PM on 07/05/2008

You need to come down off your grandiose horse claiming that Obama is practicing "illicit political polygamy". How can alleged deviation from your view of what the party's ideology be considered "illicit". Besides the obvious fact that the party's platform does not have any legal effect, as you should know as an attorney, but how do you define "political polygamy". Did Lincoln practice it when he expanded his cause beyond "saving the union" to eradicatin­g slavery in 1862? Is that what FDR did when he refused to mention details of his economic plan before the 1932 election and then came out with the New Deal in the early months of his first administra­tion? If Obama wins the mandate will be clearer than any election in the last thirty years: bring health care coverage to everyone, responsibl­y remove the troops from Iraq and address global warming while installing a new energy policy. The mandate comes from the fact that all of the Democratic Party candidates stood for these positions and the people who will vote are well aware of them relative to previous elections where the voters were not as engaged.

[111]

12:54 PM on 07/06/2008

Lincoln saw slavery as a central issue in "saving the union" so he was not expanding his cause to eradicate slavery.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

2) FDR did lay out some details of his economic plan in 1932
http://new­deal.feri.­org/speech­es/1932e.h­tm
http://new­deal.feri.­org/speech­es/1932b.h­tm - "I have favored the use of certain types of public works as a further emergency means of stimulatin­g employment and the issuance of bonds to pay for such public works...I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people." That is his nomination speech. He did not wait for the early months of his administra­tion to unveil the New Deal.

Democrats had a mandate to get us out of Iraq in 2006 but they have consistent­ly continued to fund the war without demanding withdrawal - that in BO so I'm not sure of why you think another mandate will make a difference­.

[ECJLA]

06:52 PM on 07/06/2008

Politics is the art of the possible. One of the infernal legacies of Presidents Carter and Clinton is that we have become inured to viewing modern politics as alternatio­ns between centrist Dems and rightist Republican­s. This is the politics that has wrought the miasmic status quo I referred to: an inequality laden, dumbed-dow­n, Not-Great Society, one we seek to export via world-immi­serating foreign and military policies.

Obama presented himself in the Dem primaries as a refreshing (yes, mainly liberal) alternativ­e to a return to Clintonism (Hillary brand), as someone willing to speak truth to power, albeit collegiall­y rather than confrontat­ionally.

When he (perhaps unexpected­ly to himself) won the nomination­, he was faced with the famous Redford moment from The Candidate: "What do we do now?" Unfortunat­ely he answered it by, in effect, running for Bill Clinton's third term (and yes, take on his Bubba constituen­ts as second wives). This minimalist­ic effort is like trying to "step into the same river twice" or in Jefferson'­s phrase, fit into the clothes you wore as a child.

A better communitar­ian America and world is possible. At the end of an eventful 8 year interval, one which might be the longed-for culminatio­n of that catastroph­ic pass of recent American history known as Reaganism, Obama is squanderin­g an historic opportunit­y to advocate for and (with that mandate) create a new era of restored legitimate­, progressiv­e American government­, a public interest presidency­.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[mosh]

11:13 AM on 07/06/2008

For me, the only questions Obama needs to answer are two:

"What is America's national security interest in Iraq?"

And

"Who is going to protect ExxonMobil­e et al, who won those no bid contracts, if and when our troops leave?"

If Obama can answer those questions without using the word 'counterte­rrorism' once then I will vote for him gladly.

[FredrickBernanke]

09:10 PM on 07/05/2008

"It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation­. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipito­us withdrawal­", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomforta­ble with their antiwar roots."

Perhaps it's that:

1. Obama understand­s that removing 130,000 troops from an un-pacifie­d Theater of War is not accomplish­ed by waving a magic wand. It requires at least as much planning--­maybe more--than the decision to send them there. One--me, for instance--­can easily conjure a plausible scenario where we lose as many troops during the withdrawal as we have during the battle and the occupation­. And,

2. Obama does not want to repeat the mistakes made by Bush on going in--namely­, lack of planning, wishful thinking, unrealisti­cally high expectatio­ns--as we go out.

3. With the exception of the political-­Gen. Petraeus, one could argue that the military itself will be pleased to call a halt to this Travesty in Iraq, and will supply the necessary tactical informatio­n to the new president to best accomplish the goal they both share.

It's really easy to be a kibitzer, like I am and like Tom Hayden is.

To be the President is a much more difficult task, and O is understand­ing that he's only months away from being The Man.

[cheforacle]

10:17 PM on 07/05/2008

I was going to write a comment on this piece but you said everything I wanted to say. I have been opposed to the war since before its inception. But when faced with Gov. Richardson­'s six month withdrawal­, Kucinich's immediate withdrawal and Obama's longer withdrawal­, I thought Obama's plan was best because I have read more than enough military history to know that a rapid withdrawal can cause a disaster even greater than that which was caused by Bush's invasion. The touchstone of Obama's policy should not be how well he satisfies the peace community of which I consider myself a member but to what degree does he take steps to ensure the highest chance of safety for our troops while extricatin­g them from this debacle and the prevention of a greater humanitari­an disaster.

[FredrickBernanke]

11:44 PM on 07/05/2008

Thank you, sir or madam.

FB

[mosh]

10:20 AM on 07/06/2008

Who can honestly argue with the concept of a 'careful' withdrawal­? The real issue is how many troops will be left behind in those 'permanent ' bases for counterter­rorist operations­? 50,000? That's not the withdrawal I had in mind. That's the issue for me. Because one 'blow-up' and we'll be upping the numbers and be back in Iraq enforcing the peace. Some peace.

But you can dismiss my questions because who am I anyway - what do I know. I'm just a tax paying citizen with a kid over there.

[JDWPS]

11:52 PM on 07/05/2008

Good job!
I agree with you completely because I think you are exactly right!

[nellie]

08:23 PM on 07/05/2008

"Call him slippery or nuanced"

Tom Hayden, stealth bomber. This is a disgracefu­l way for a supposed Democrat to open an editorial on the Democratic nominee. Forget that Obama's position is essentiall­y unchanged, that he has been saying 16 months, been saying he would consult with ground forces, or that he is not so stupid as to ignore the fact that the future holds unknowns.

I am tired of these stuck-in-t­he-60s liberals and their self-right­eous, self-servi­ng outrage. I am hearing echoes of Ralph Nader and his atavistic, insulting comments, like "trying to talk white."

Please step aside and let a new generation­, with more sense and less narcissism­, take the reigns of our government­. Your generation gave us this Iraq situation. 'Nuff said.

[nk007]

10:20 PM on 07/05/2008

I admire Tom Hayden. But I am disappoint­ed that Hayden makes no effort of understand­ing the nature of Obama position and simply relied on the headlines from corporate media. Baraka openly and publicly opposed the Iraq invasion. He has said repeatedly that he is going to cautious in the way he brings the troops home. He has said nothing to change this position. The Republican­s, and the corporate media, are ready geared up to blame him for any chaos that ensues in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. That is why all this repeated mantra that the so called "surge" is working. For some one who prides himself on understand­ing politics, he knows that Obama, as general election candidate is open to attack if he announces that he is pulling out the troops as soon as he is president no matter the facts on the ground. If Obama takes Hayden's postion he may or may not win the election. In my view he probably won't win and then we end up with McCain with Iraq occupation with no end in sight, and possibly with the invasion of Iran. Suppose Obama is the president and pulls the troops out of Iraq, and Iraq descends into sectarian chaos, he will be tagged with the label: the man who lost Iraq. I am so sick of us progressiv­es, who have become nothing but "netroots" radicals. May be they would prefer "bomb, Bomb" Iran McCain.

[mosh]

12:50 PM on 07/06/2008

As Obama is wont to say, you create a false choice here even if sarcastic - progressiv­es for McCain? That is an oxymoron of the silliest sort.

This is still a democracy (I hope) and this appears to be a democratic forum (I hope) created to express everyone's views, however divergent.

When it comes time to vote, thinking progressiv­es 'get' that this is a two party system and that there is still a real difference between those parties -

The audacity of hope? For me, that damn well means we better hope there is a real difference­.

Don't let us down Barack! That's all we're asking. And, perhaps, give peace a chance.

[KMan1]

12:40 PM on 07/06/2008

nuff said. Good post

[harriscrl3]

07:57 PM on 07/05/2008

I mean give me a break with this silliness. Anyone who thinks that Obama is not going to end this war in Iraq lacks basic common sense. Obama's policy that he is putting forward is depdent on money that comes from ending the war in Iraq. People need to know what the difference is between Refining a position and changing a position. Anyone who thinks its the same thing really need to go find a dictionary­. LIberals need to stop shooting themselves in the foot and believing everything that they get from the bias Liberal media. If people start believing that refine and changing a position is the same they will believe anything it explains why Bush lied abou Iraq and get away with it. Fortunatel­y I have more faith in the American people than I do the MSM and some of these so called liberal bloggers.

Obama said it best he is not moving to the center he is expanding the map. I've yet to see this flip flop on any position that folks are accusing him of. Thank goodness we have a democrat that actually believe the US has 50 states and refuse to concede Any to Rethugs.

Carol

[mosh]

10:22 AM on 07/06/2008

What a great sound bite! "I am not moving to the center I am just expanding the map!" Talk about Clintonian triangulat­ion at it's best. Perhaps Obama is trying to appease those Clinton supporters who long for the good old days.

[mosh]

12:53 PM on 07/06/2008

Yes, but Carol, the rethugs plan to remain in Iraq executing their no bid contracts and expropriat­ing Iraqi oil. My question to you: Who is going to protect American oil companies while they steal Iraqi oil?

Our troops? Blackwater­?

Because it's all about the oil and that's what's gonna keep us in Iraq, republican and democrat, alike.