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

[charley0008]

I think you miss the irony, Mr. Hayden. You supported Obama but not on issues? So much for credibility! You slam Obama as using "parsed and lawyerly language" then do some jaw dropping parsing of your own. You apply potential 'other' meaning to simple words Obama used like he was the manchurian candidate with a GOP agenda rather than a Democrat. But Democrats should worry about Rovian tactics?
I voted for Obama on the issues, not all, because as a grown up I don't expect to agree on every issue. I try to remember the candidate is also a person, in a difficult, always changing situation. I have not seen Obama tack either right or left or change his position without reason. I will agree or I won't but I am not going to get my knickers in a twist over it during a General election. Obama never put himself forward as an anti-war, anti-gun, anti-death penalty candidate. He has always called for a responsible & honorable disengagement from Iraq stating he would be "as careful getting out as we were careless in getting in". Like the Kennedy's he has always called on citizens to be more involved in helping their country, be-it students, community organizations or faith groups. He did not change his position on Iraq or emulate Bush that is all spin from the liberal media. Rove must be thrilled.

[Quinty]

Let's see how his million and a half donor base reacts?

I suspect many who have given money to the Obama campaign hoped for more than he now promises. And that he may now feel the pinch if too many progressive, hopeful backers stop giving.

If Obama doesn't become more convincing, and more persuasive that he will end the war, then hold back. Don't give.

That's one way of getting their attention.

[ldsrapha]

Obama has changed NOTHING in his position on IRAQ and has always been pragmatic. As one of his 1.5 million supporters. I am HAPPY to continue supporting him thanks for caring.

[druidlady42]

No one---I repeat, NO ONE,---not even Obama, can instantly extricate the U.S. from this complicated, cancerous mess in Iraq that the Bush administration has created and enlarged over the past five+ years! To think or demand otherwise is unrealistic! As Obama wisely judged in 2002, this is a war we should NEVER have gotten involved in! Rational people (unlike the neocons, including John McCain) knew that, once we went in, a Pandora's box of evils would be unleashed! MANY elements have to come together before the damage of this war can be resolved, i.e. "put back into the box"! To demand of Obama a date certain for withdrawal is equally irrational!

Of one thing I am certain though: Obama wants to end this war and get our soldiers home a.s.a.p., unlike John McCain. He has demonstrated, unlike McCain, the intelligence and judgement to put together the elements of a responsible withdrawal which will honor our soldiers and the Iraqis' interests, as well as our own!

It is time to quit all this bickering within the Democratic Party, to quit playing into the hands of the GOP strategy to divide us, and stand together behind Obama, whose heart is in the right place and who will be a President we can, once again, be PROUD of!

[django707]

Right on, Druidlady!

[mosh]

I will vote for Obama but I will never be proud if he leaves 50,000 American troops in Iraq in the guise of fighting 'counterterrorism' that really amounts to protecting big oil and their no bid contracts -

That is not withdrawal I can believe in but a continued occupation to satisfy American corporate greed masquerading as national security.

And no amount of flag waving and feeling proud can change that.

[nk007]

Quinty:

I am sorry to disappoint you. I am going to give four times more than before. I am dedicated to ensuring that we be no George Bush third term with John McCain. Not only will McCain not end the invasion and occupation (stop calling it war) of Iraq, he is poised to bomb and possibly invade Iran and Syria. The time to challenge Obama is after we have elected him president. I agree with his positions about 90% of the time whereas I disagree with McCain 100% of the time. FISA can be amended once he is in office. Once United States invaded Iraq it assumed the responsibility of ensuring its stability. Unlike you, I trust Obama. I will withdraw my trust if betrays it once he is in office. Trusting someone does not mean that they cant change their position if they give you a reasonable explanation for the changes. A friend of mine borrowed some money from me. He promised to pay it back in six months. But he lost his job, that meant that the conditions changed. So should I view him as having betrayed me for missing a payment? Obama "refining" his position in Iraq based on the facts on the ground does not equal changing his position on withdrawing.Facts on the ground mayl allow him to bring the troops in 12 rather than 16 months So will he be accused by the right of betrayal and "flip-flop/"

[mosh]

I will vote for Obama too but not because I trust him or in the belief that anything I do after he is elected will change what he does.

My question to you and everyone else posting here is why we are leaving such a large residual force in Iraq - upwards of 50,000 troops? Can you imagine if another country, perceived by many to be hostile, garrisoned 50,000 troops on our shores? Would we consider it anything but an occupation? And add to this the fact that American conglomerates have been awarded no bid contract - sweetheart deals - to drill oil in Iraq? Can a majority of Iraqi's think of them anything but as exploiters of their only national resource?

Let me ask a simpler question - how come we have to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and not in Pakistan - where they do have the ultimate in WMD and are just as unstable?

My answer: no oil.

[mosh]

You are right. I have to vote for Obama - or face four more years of bush - but forget about that fifty bucks I was going to contribute to Obama every month between now and the election. I'll put that in escrow or send it to greenpeace or, heaven forbid, send it to Nader/Gonzales just to support a third party concept. 'Cause this two party system sure ain't democratic.

[CSE]

Sometimes, the best offense is a good defense. It may be that he is shoring up his "soft" defense while banking that the anti-war crowd is smarter than those who are moved by fear. In the polar extremes are the zealots - and you sound as such. The premise of the title is unless Obama pledges to stop the war on his knees in front of your minions - he will lose to McCain who has no intention of de-escalating anything. Is there logic in there somewhere?

Continued...

[CSE]

Time has played out the Iraqi scenario. The decade of sanctions that kept the Iraqi masses oppressed in so many ways -

1996

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

_______

This was the Democratic plan - to make the masses revolt - but it was absurd to think any internal challenge could stand up to Saddam. It also missed the mark in that if it partially succeeded or failed - the U.S. would be out of any future Iraqi oil deals. As the remainder of the world saw the futility of that strategy - and began to appear destined to reap the oil and moved toward that end - the remaining solution was to do what was hoped the Iraqi masses would do. And now we see who is lined up to extract the Iraqi oil - wanting a percentage instead of contracted services - the companies that would have had hind teat if Saddam had remained.

It's much like a spoiled child that refuses to lose at the game and hurls the board and it's pieces skyward when all appears lost.

[mouselion]

It would have been more cost effective for the U.S. to not have subsidized oil, to not have fought a pre-planned war and to have begun the push for a larger degree of energy independence back in the day. Now that America is seeing the writing on the wall, Neocons have squandered future generations' treasury and invaluable lives.

[detwob]

The premise of the title is that being in "the middle" (a place that 30 or 60 years ago would have been described as "right wing") is no answer.

Whether it is war & empire, the environment & the unrelenting class war of the rich against the rest of us, the so-called "middle" is not the place to find "change". I don't want bipartisanship, that means compromise with the war-mongers & the corporations.

The real place to get new voters (and win the election) is by inspiring the majority of voters (who don't vote because they don't see enough difference) with such things as ending the imperialist adventurism, calling for a new Works Progress Administration (fix the roads, build schools & mass transit, etc), fixing health care and so on. Sort of a new New Deal.

That's not radical or zealotry. It's a moderate position (which is described in today's political environment as 'way left').

[CSE]

I respectfully disagree.

Using the short list of demands in the article will also inspire those adverse to "way left" as you describe. The education need not be an "anti-war", which is stilted and narrow, but an education on opposing viewpoints. What you see as compromise and your reluctance to it is no less dogmatic than the platform of the groups you oppose. No compromise as you infer is a shift to the other polar extreme - such a shift is, as such, radical. Whether Obama intends a radical shift is an unknown - he wouldn't be the first to diverge from his campaign rhetoric once elected.

With your list to inspire voters, include more to reach a broader base.
Overhaul welfare so recipients cannot choose to sit and earn $800/month instead of working to earn $1,000/month. Dovetail this into a serious evaluation on how to recapture a significant amount of manufacturing in the new economic environment and come to terms with the importance of the relative points of the trade-offs between jobs and environmental issues. While you can make some progress with compromise and subsequent jobs - you cannot ultimately make any progress with the opposite. Once unemployment creates enough discomfort amid the middle class - at some point the choice is so acute that any incremental gains made will be dashed in the name of relief.

An engine performs best when well tuned and firing on ALL cylinders. "All or nothing" is the cry of despair!

[nk007]

So why do you think Dennis Kucinich, and to a certain extent John Edwards, did not succeed? While I agree that we need to inspire new voters, it is important for you to know that part of Obama's appeal was his campaign to transcend the Red state/blue state dichotomy as well as as his call for bipartisanship. Now you may not like it, but that was the fundamental premise of Obama's campaign. Here is my question: Do you really think Obama would have a chance to win by simply appealing to the anti-imperialist , class warfare issues? Again, if that is the case, how do you explain the dismal showing of my preferred candidate, Dennis Kucinich? Why has Ralph Nader failed to attract more than 4-5%? I wish all of you fellow "radicals" would be honest. More than any one in this election Obama has brought in new voters, talked about the issues you listed, and barely won the race for the Democratic nomination. Have you forgotten the antipathy of blue collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky? Please stop all this arm chair rhetoric and face up to the reality of American politics.

[Peter Brown]

IGiven the drum beats on Iran, I have a proposal that might satisfy truly fearful chicken hawks and anti-war progressives alike. Have the US and any of its allies that have so-called intelligence on the nuclear threat capabilites of Iran to offer the following proposal to Iran:

Iran agrees to give the US and its allies who believe they have credible intelligence on Iran's nuclear threat unfettered access to inspect Iran's alleged nuclear program. If a credible threat is found, the US and its parteners in this diplomatic exercise will have full rights to disarm the program.

If, however, the US and its diplomatic partners do not find credible evidence of nuclear threat capability,
(comparable to finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite all of the so-called intelligence), then the US and its diplomatic partners would pay what would amount to punitive damages to Iran---let's say the amount of our current military expenditures for two years of war in Iraq. I don't know how many billions that would be but someone in the Administration must.

[Rjmartinelli]

I'm sorry Tom but you're overly mincing his words to find things to contest with.

Ordering an immediate withdrawal with zero consideration of the consequences or how best to go about pulling troops out would be naive and foolish. Not only would it put our troops in potential danger, but it would cause further destabilization of the region (something which I will admit may be unavoidable either way) and it would hand the Republicans a big rock to hit Barack over the head with labeled "He's naive and inexperienced."

He's always said "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in".

What, pray tell, did you expect that meant?

[mspost]

Thank you Rjmartinelli;

You said just what I wanted to say!

[riley85]

I'm voting for McCain so you don't need to call me a troll. I haven't heard Obama using the "we could be in Iraq for 100 years" statement by McCain. Maybe because Obama has realized he will have to leave some troops in Iraq indefinetly, as we have in other countries.
When Obama goes to Iraq and realizes the surge has worked---what's he going to do? He can't look at the troops and say "this isn't working and all your sacrifices have been in vain".

Obama has a way of wording things so that voters hear what they want to hear---but it leaves him a way out. He can no longer avoid difficult choices by voting "present" he has to take a stand.

[arglebargle]

You're still a troll.

[closetodemfection]

Grow up.

[mouselion]

Pundits are coming up with wish lists for Obama to operate by, left and right, now. But stop and consider:

To simply "stop" the Iraq war -- at will, at the exact moment you wish it to end -- would require a super-hero. Last I checked, there are no super-heroes in reality. Ever seen a tractor trailer rig stop on dime? Of course not. That would defy the laws of physics. No doubt , Obama will work to end the war in his first term, and I believe he will succeed at it. But the reality is, you can't just saw off the limb W. stuck us out on -- that would be a complete, unrecoverable disaster. You have to crawl down the way you got up -- and crawling down is always way more difficult than climbing up, as any ten year-old tree-climber or fireman rescuing a cat from a tree will tell you. Reality in the situation requires grace and utmost care.

Obama is correct to point this out as his new position. If he simply repeated the mantra, End The War Now!, saying nothing about the technical reality of the matter, I, for one, would consider him to be unrealistically pandering to voters.

[elizaW]

Yes but Obama scored votes and a following by leading people to believe he'd get out of Iraq fast. Hillary was more honest in her plans and McCain has always been very clear about his position. It's interesting that those who can't / won't see Obama for who he really is have shifted their focus from his reversal on Iraq to their hope / belief that well, at least, Obama will use "grace and utmost care" in handling the situation. "Grace and utmost care" ? Wow, what a fall-back position. That's like saying Obama may have lied to us, if elected he won't be getting us out of Iraq right away but he's got really good table manners. Keep clutching at those straws but understand that it's going to get harder and harder to do.

[mouselion]

Would you rather him state what he sees as being the way things should be handled, or just simply say what you'd like to hear -- and then be even more disappointed later because he lied to you?

For me that's not a "fall-back" position -- that is exactly what I need to hear him say, as I've understood that all along. You think any politician can unequivocally say they won't change their position, the more they learn about it? That is the worst kind of politician -- the kind that can never admit they are wrong (think GWB).

I supported Obama when he was saying he'd do a quick withdrawal in 2009, although I did not believe that was totally possible (which anyone who really analyzes the situation will have to admit is not possible).

[SShaw490]

I've been following his candidacy for the last year, and he's had the same position - 1 to 2 combat brigades a month, combat troops out in about 16 months. I don't understand what the issue is. In fact, there was no distinction at all between his postion and Hillary's.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Well stated.

[JimR]

And he will get us out of Iraq. But nobody can wave a magic wand and presto chango, the war's over and everybody comes home. All military experts agree that a safe military withdrawal will take at least a year. A YEAR. It took us a long time to build up our presence; it will take a long time to reduce it.

There ain't a damn thing that's honest about Hillary.

[cheforacle]

No he didn;t. In January of 2007 before a foreign policy group in Chicago he unveiled his plan of removing 1 to 2 brigades per month. For you to suggest that he claimed to have a fast withdrawal indicates either you are misinformed or you are deliberately passing on false information. Your acccusation that he is a liar then is based either on your ignorance or your doing what you claim he has done. You are stabbing Hillary Clinton in the back by making supportive words of McCain at Obama's expense. She has stated very clearly who she supports and you are undermining her deliberately. You write your posts despite this because your personal hatred for Obama surpasses any attachment you had to Hillary.

[JimR]

Thank you for providing a voice of reason. Obama wants to end the war, but he wants to do so responsibly and realizes that things he says could have an impact throughout the world.

[nk007]

Obama never repeated "End the War Now!" I have carefully listened to Obama. I have had him say that he is dedicated to ending the war and bringing our troops home. But he always said that he would be "careful" withdrawing the troops, as George Bush was "careless" in sending them over there. He believed that setting a time table-16 months- would demonstrate to the Iraqis that America does not intend to stay in Iraq for ever and they need to get their act together in overcoming sectarian differences. The propagandist in the corporate media, and the McCain campaign, have manufactured this idea that Obama has changed his position. He has not. He has no new position Period. End of story. Refining his position does not equal change. What is amusing is to see people who have continuously changed the rationale for why Bush invaded Iraq tripping over themselves to attack Obama. First we were told Bush invaded because of WMD; then it was to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy to Iraq and the region; then it was to fight Islamic terrorism; then it was the surge to stabilize Iraq, so Iraqi factions can form a unity government; and, recently it has been to counter the influence of Iran. McCain tells us he wants to win, though he never says exactly what winning entails.

[racom]

"yes we can, yes we can, yes I CAN"T"

[SShaw490]

I don't know how a guy who's as smart as Tom Harkin can expect an absolute, detailed formula that has no flexibility when dealing with a situation as dynamic as Iraq. If anything, Obama has been TOO specific - he should have said he'll end he war as quickly as prudence allows, he's shooting for a 16 month timeline, and let it go at that.

The 16 month withdrawal timeline was developed in 2007. He'll take the oath of office in January 2009. Lots of things have changed since then in Iraq, and anyone who says his plans don't have to change to accomodate changes in the situation in a war zone is irresponsible.

To parse his words and ponder the distinction between "let me be as clear as I can be" and "let me be absolutely clear" is the difference between a guy who actually solves problems and one who only wants to promise to solve them.

And, at the end of the day, this election is between one candidate who has promised to remove our combat troops and one who has promised not to remove them. Now, THAT distinction has some teeth to it.

[Fabienne]

I am a pacifist, but I do not understand how Obama can make a firm decision on how to withdraw from Iraq at this point in time. By January, everything could be entirely different than it is now. Since II am a pacifist, I do not hold the military in high-esteem, but I would think consulting with them on how to leave the country is not unreasonable. Obama has never been a pacifist, most of the country are not pacifists, and as President of this country, he does need to leave in as graceful a manner as possible.

[mouselion]

I totally agree. Militarism is not the way to solve problems -- it creates more problems, as the history of the ME has taught us. However, the reality is, as immoral as it is to be there -- it is equally immoral to turn our backs irresponsibly on our the former immoral act. This has been my position all along, and although Obama caught the anti-Iraq faction's attention and support (I won't characterize them as necessarily anti-war) by saying he will get troops out immediately, I am glad to see that he has added nuance to his position. Anything less would indicate that he is (as the media and some liberals try to portray him as already doing) just saying whatever it takes to get elected.

[WFV]

He will have to compromise to achieve the change he promises. This country is now used to a non-thinking dictatorship, and it will take a bit of time to get used to a thinking, reasonable approach. Criticizing every nuance he proposes is not productive and not realistic.

[lwaxanatroi]

Criticizing is not productive. Keeping the pressure on, reminding him who his real supporters are, is absolutely necessary. As for "realistic," our "realistic," compromising, race for the middle candidates have been biting the dust ever since Dukakis. Not that I'm having buyers' remorse, but if this article were about Hillary Clinton racing for the middle, backing off on Iraq, and listening to conventional wisdom, the posters would be frothing at the mouth and accusing her of the worst kind of betrayal. Obama gets no free pass; I don't just want a Democrat in the White House, I want a progressive. No, make that a liberal.

[emcd]

Excuse me, but isn't one of the LAST things we want, another president who always keeps in mind "who his real supporters are" ???

We have had enough of a guy who is always thinking of and doing things only for "his real supporters" and we need a PRESIDENT who is willing to LEAD us forward, sometimes down paths that we find difficult or don't agree with.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I want what you want.

On top of that, I don't want a cult of personality where a charasmatic leader is given a free pass and no one is allowed to disagree with or point out mistakes that charismatic leader has made.

[keepemhonest]

Karl Rove & Steve Schmidt are running McCain's day to day campaign.

Rove/Schmidt playbook, "Perception is Political Reality."

CNN reported the McCain campaign primed the pump the press to suggest Obama is changing policy when he had not. -- That is to say, Rove/Schmidt are sending emails to the press to give the "Perception" Obama is flip/flopping on issues, like the war & abortion, when he is not.

McCain is the ultimate flip/flopper. Rove/Schmidt want to distract the media attention away from McCain's flips and direct it with the FALSE PERCEPTION Obama is flipping.

I suggest that people remain aware of the Rove/Schmidt playbook and don't fall for the con game of Rove/Schmidt.

[godsbreath64]

Lets not forget the slab of Cheney!!!

[randyjet]

Once again we see the lack of common sense in Tom. He supported Obama despite his the fact that he discounted all his statements and positions. Just WHO did Hayden think was going to be making the decisions in an Obama Presidency? This makes about as much sense as his column attacking Clinton because she drove his wife wild with hatred for her and her positions. NOW we find out he thinks NOTHING of what a candidate says for their proposals. I have no respect for this cheater and air head.

[TheShoveler]

There is only one way for self-respecting progressives to deal with a cynical manipulator like Obama, and that is to pressure the super-delegates to the Democratic Convention to change their preferences and deny him the nomination. The guy who promised to forsake "the old way" of doing politics can't play us for suckers.

[godsbreath64]

Um, in lieu of the last 8 still unfathomable years, what case can be made that we are NOT $ucker$?


It doesn't amass to be quite as much of a working assumption, as the contrary.

[Fabienne]

So the super delegates should elect an even more cynical manipulator like Senator Clinton? May I remind you that she supported the war in Iraq originally and continued to support it until she began running for President? May I remind you that she has made incredibly hawkish statements regarding Iran and the Middle East? To believe that she is a better candidate to bring about peace of any kind is patently absurd.

[closetodemfection]

You should read HC's floor speech (link below) about her war vote. It may put her vote into more context. Many people see it as a black and white thing, I do not.

I also do not agree that O SAYING that he wouldn't have voted for the war is the same thing as NOT voting for it, like K ucinich. Who really knows how O would have voted.

As far as the obliterating comment - lets look at that in context too. It was a response to a loaded question: What would you do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?

Even B iden said that although her words could have been softer, it was the correct response. What else was she to say? That she'd do nothing? That she'd use diplomacy to talk to them after they nuked Israel? C'mon.

I would absolutely trust HC over O to be able to get us out of Iraq, finish what we started in Afghanistan and to bring peace to the middle east. Sorry, but he has no idea what he's doing, he'll just use advisors to make his decisions. Which is probably why he's flopping on Iraq now. Someone told him to.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[darcy]

I agree, Shoveler, but I doubt if they have the guts to do it.

[ProudLiberalDan]

The Superdelegates could vote for neither Clinton nor Obama, and if no one gets a first-vote majority, it throws the convention wide open. Then we can recruit someone like Gore.

It won't happen, but it would be a dream come true.

[rwe2late]

Perhaps US citizens are not ready to renounce further military expansion. And if not, perhaps public opinion could still yet be swayed.
The choice, it seems to me is:
(1) Have Obama appeal to the alleged “middle” voter by offering ambiguous positions about jingoist militarism, popular economic ignorance, and curtailment of rights and liberty. In the past, such a course appears to have lost as many votes as it gained, due to the intrinsic disingenuousness which voters perceived and rejected.
This course relies on Obama becoming an unlikely saviour after election, overcoming established military-corporate power without having developed any popular political base or political platform to support such moves.
(2) Have Obama appeal to voters, and attempt to sway opinion, by more clearly articulating how military expansion is ruining our economy, shifting wealth and power to a tiny elite, creating unnecessary enemies abroad, and forcing the curtailment of our liberty at home.

Does democracy work? Can the majority of voters be reasoned with? Can the establishment media be overcome? If not, then perhaps the neoCONs are right. The pretense of democracy is good enough. The prejudices of the masses must be molded and used “for their own good” which they cannot comprehend.

Lincoln did not run on a platform to end slavery, but at least he argued it should not spread.
We do not ask Obama to promise to dismantle the military empire, but to at least promise to halt its growth.

[MetryJen]

I see what you're trying to say, Tom, but I don't know what you expect to happen. Anyone, Obama included, who flatly states that they can end a war without caveats is a fool. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans over there, and literally tons of American equipment and weaponry. There are too many variables to be able to say "I'm going to do X," no matter what. I can think of dozens of scenarios that could speed or slow withdrawal, and I'm hardly a military strategist. Imagine what scenarios a potential president has access to. Would you prefer that he blindly pick a number and stick to it regardless of accuracy? Just be happy he's committed to withdrawal.

I know that nuance and consideration are too complex for average Americans, but you should know better.

[druidlady42]

Good post, MetryJen!

I, along with the thousands of anti-Iraq War protesters and Obama, have been against this war even before we went in, for I knew that--once we did--there would be NO EASY WAY OUT! The complications and ramifications of our five-year presence cannot be eliminated--as much as we would desire--in an instant decision, nor with a fixed, inflexible withdrawal date. To insist that Obama provide one is unrealistic and potentially fatal to his candidacy!

Many Obama supporters need to take a step back, REALLY evaluate what he is actually saying, and give him credit for the intelligence and superb reasoning he has shown throughout his life! Certainly, Obama demonstrates far more wisdom, even at his younger age, than does McCain, and I, for one, would rather trust him than McCain to sort out the sorry mess the Bush administration has made of the Middle East!

There ARE NO EASY ANSWERS, NO QUICK FIX for Iraq! But, we on the "Left" must quit playing into the hands of the GOP and its slime tactics, whose ultimate goal is to portray Obama as a "flipflopper" who cannot be trusted! I DO trust Obama because he, unlike McCain or Bush, has the intelligence and judgemental capacity to make rational decisions in the best interest of America, and not simply on a stubborn, unyielding ideology!