home

Leveraging Iraq

Blogometer's Conn Carroll writes:

[T]here was a clear opening for Barack Obama to embrace the netroots and tap into their enthusiasm for a more progressive Dem party. . . . Obama could have joined forces with Sen. Russ Feingold (D) to end the war through de-funding and cemented his anti-war credentials.

Instead he chose a more measured path on the war (timelines, some residual forces, etc.) and did not pro-actively engage the netroots community. Now, as more and more are noting that his numbers have flatlined, Obama may be changing course.

Using his dictator-meeting exchange with HRC as launching point, Obama has launched a major netroots banner ad buy featuring a 'Judgment Matters' message that touts his pre-Senate opposition of the war and his eagerness to talk to 'our adversaries.'

It has always been my view that Obama's biggest campaign mistake was his failure to differentiate himself on Iraq. It amazed me that not only had John Edwards seemed to have outflanked him on the issue but that Hillary Clinton had neutralized it. More.

As for what to do now, I personally feel that Obama's current attempt to regain the high ground on Iraq is insufficient and ineffective.

Conn cites Chris Bowers:

Open Left's Chris Bowers observes: "Throughout this period of the campaign in 2003-2004, Howard Dean seemed to have a fairly consistently upward climb, starting in the mid-single digits, and ending near 30% ... By way of comparison, in 2008, we haven't seen anything like that sort of movement for three or four months. [Barack] Obama's upward momentum seems to have, for one reason or another, just plain stopped at some point in the early spring." Bowers attempts to explains: "Iraq is the major issue of the campaign, but it is playing out differently. ... Within the Democratic field, the Obama campaign, in terms of "superior" judgment, and the Richardson campaign, in terms of no residual forces, have both tried to use Iraq to position themselves relative to the rest of the field. So far, it has not resulted in a big change on the national scene, but that does not mean it never will.

It has not, AND will not, for the Big Two, imo, unless and until Obama decides to lead on Congressional efforts to end the war. I am in favor of the Not Funding option of course, but if there is a different plan that can work, I am open to suggestions. Obama has not shown leadership here. He must.

Conn also mentions:

Bowers also notes that unlike '06, progressives are not "driving the national conversations on the campaign." Bowers concludes: "If the progressive grassroots was driving the conversation, I simply don't think there is any way Clinton would still have a sizable lead on Obama. His upward momentum would not have stopped three or four months ago, and he would probably be close to tied with Clinton at this point."

Given the appalling lack of attention to the Iraq issue by the blogs, this is hardly surprising. Moreover, Bowers assumes that the blogs should necessarily prefer Obama to Clinton. Frankly, there is nothing in their records or their rhetoric [ADDED] as conemporaries in the Senate that makes that so. Bowers projects his own anti-Clintonism onto the Netroots. It is not so simple.

Obama has his own political style problems with the Netroots. And not just me.

< Vanity Fair Rips Judith Giuliani Big Time | The Credibility (Or Lack Thereof) of O'Hanlon and Pollack >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    These two Brookings Institute (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:26:05 PM EST
    gurus think the surge is working:
    From Monday NY Times:
    Op-Ed Contributor
    A War We Just Might Win

    By MICHAEL E. O'HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
    Published: July 30, 2007
    Washington

    VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

    Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.




    Now I see this op-ed is the subject of (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    a separate post here.  Sorry.

    Parent
    It's all good (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 11:48:24 PM EST
    You got it before you were "coached" by BTD......that is awesome ;-)

    Parent
    I read today's NYT on the trip (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 12:08:25 AM EST
    back from Cooperstown for Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony.  My eyes blurred and I could just "read" BDT exploding!

    Parent
    Nothing in their records or rhetoric? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    Clinton voting for the Iraq war and then refusing to characterize that vote as a mistake would seem to count as a difference.

    The difference also came through during the Youtube debate, where Hillary played to the DC Pundit class with her dishonest answer of 'seriousness' instead of differentiating herself from Bush's policy of "my way or the highway."  

    Remember, it's people and thinking like Howard Wolfson displays that Hillary will always be a captive of the DC political class.

    As far as leadership on Iraq in the Senate is concerned, Harry Reid is preventing any Presidential candidate's legislation from getting a vote.  Unless he (or Biden or Dodd or Clinton) are supposed to challenge Reid for Senate Majority leader, I don't know what he's supposed to do.

    Note also that I'm not a big fan of Senators allowing Presidential politics to determine how they approach the war in Iraq--Dodd, Clinton, Biden, and Obama should support what they support and oppose what they oppose on conscience, not political strategery.

    But if Politics=Policy (and it does), (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    then aren't we required to base our support of candidates on what they promote and do?

    Parent
    Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton let presidential (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:08:34 PM EST
    politics shape their IWR votes.  That didn't work out so well.

    We elect Senators to make good decisions in Washington, not to tack to the current prevailing political winds.

    Parent

    Well, if they really think (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    that keeping the occupation going is good policy, because things might somehow get better, then don't they owe it to the voters to be honest about that.

    And now that they've both voted against blank check funding (cowardly--at the last minute), isn't it hypocritical to then pontificate about responsible withdrawal and "roadblock Republicans"?

    Parent

    That too (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    Your first paragraph is very (none / 0) (#11)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    good and makes sense.

    There are disagreements about the best instrumentality to end the Iraq war--it's a complex analysis and reasonable minds can disagree--strongly.  So, one may be lukewarm on ideas like defunding not because one secretly supports prolonging the occupation, but rather becaues one believes other approaches would work better.

    I can't make any sense of your second paragraph--are you suggesting that since they've voted for a cut-off in funding they can't advocate a responsible withdrawal or complain about Republican obstructionism?

    Parent

    I should be clear (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    They appeared to have a serious policy disagreement with Democrats, but are unwilling to do anything more than make a quite vote at the last minute. If they really believe in not funding, they should say so--loudly.

    Parent
    Are you talking about Feingold-Dodd (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    or voting against the supplemental?

    Parent
    Because they were stupid (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    about it.

    It never made sense to vote against their conscience their because there was no political upside for them in doing so.

    If Iraq went well, Bush was unbeatable.

    If Iraq went awry, then they wouild lose the issue to an extent.

    Kerry screwed up.

    Assuming of course he was against the war.

    Parent

    They were thinking about the first Gulf War, where (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    Bush won the war and then got his ass handed to him by Bill Clinton.

    Politicians often don't make good political calculations--because they're out of touch.  Which is why Hillary's obsession with satisfying the Very Serious People and Wise Old Men of Washington is so disturbing.

    Parent

    AS contemporaneous Senators (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    But you are right. I need to fix my post to make that clear.

    Parent
    Let me add (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    On this:

    As far as leadership on Iraq in the Senate is concerned, Harry Reid is preventing any Presidential candidate's legislation from getting a vote.  Unless he (or Biden or Dodd or Clinton) are supposed to challenge Reid for Senate Majority leader, I don't know what he's supposed to do.

    Do you think his plan will get a veto proof majority?

    And this:

    Note also that I'm not a big fan of Senators allowing Presidential politics to determine how they approach the war in Iraq--Dodd, Clinton, Biden, and Obama should support what they support and oppose what they oppose on conscience, not political strategery.

    This is your mistake. but I admit I care more about ending the Iraq debacle than about political rhetoric.

    You must know that if Obama came out for defunding, I would be supporting him for President.

    Parent

    Responses: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    1. My point has been fairly consistent:  it will take overwhelming, political consensus--moreso than now exists--to get Bush to remove the troops.  It may come to the point where he'll only remove them if he's facing removal from office if he doesn't.  I believe that the actual mechanism of forcing withdrawal--statutory timeline vs. funding cut-off, isn't all-important.  Bush can shift funds, use the Feed and Forage Act, and do all kinds of other illegal crap to keep the war going.  Sure, a funding cut-off would eliminate his ability to legally prosecute the war--but we've seen that's not the end of the story.

    2. Problematically, a fully-funded withdrawal is not within our power to legislate anymore.  Because that requires either a presidential signature or a 2/3 majority.   If we appropriate  only enough money to fund a withdrawal, the Republicans will filibuster or Bush will veto.  

    3.  Obama did vote for the Feingold-Dodd legislation, as did Clinton (right after Obama, but I'm sure she was planning on doing so all along).  But, that vote was 11 votes of even mustering a filibuster.  

    4.  Don't discount the very real possibility that several Democratic Senators don't want a full withdrawal from Iraq.  You can tell that guys like Salazar, the Nelsons, and others are just itching for an Occupation-lite approach.


    Parent