Dodd and Obama: Contrast on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:36:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kos:

There's the Dodd approach:
What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that - we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.

And then there's the Obama approach:

Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.
Which senator is showing leadership, and which one is preemptively capitulating?

I'll answer the rhetorical question - Chris Dodd is leading. Obama is preemptively capitulating.

Update [2007-9-13 17:3:41 by Big Tent Democrat]: Kos posts an update that, frankly, makes no sense to me.

Obama did and said everything the AP reported. Obama did not commit to NOT voting for a bill without timelines. He did not commit to fighting to stop any such bill.

Frankly, Kos unfairly slams the AP here. This is indeed preemptive capitualtion from Obama. The full statement makes this clear.

< Proposal to Limit Access to Plea Agreements on PACER | Rethinking Sex Offender Registration and Residency Legislation >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dodd and Obama: Contrast on Iraq | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As a supporter, it frustrates me greatly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Geekesque on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:53:35 PM EST

when he plays pundit like this.

It's stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid politics.

He's correct--the Democrats will fold and they won't cut off funding.

But, he does himself no favors by talking like this.

Obama is unwilling to confront his colleagues (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by pioneer111 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:10:35 PM EST

in the senate. To change views you have to make people uncomfortable. Obama looks to finding the solution that leaves most people comfortable. That is a good kind of leader to have when things are stable. It is a problem when you have to change minds to do the hard thing.

I think Obama could have more influence than he thinks he can. But he is uncertain of his own capabilities so he reads what is so, rather than tries to get people to do what should be so. And worse he tells us what he sees rather than what he should see.

Dodd is the one in the senate stating what should happen and he is not giving up.


To be honest, Dodd is trying to get traction (none / 0) (#4)
by Geekesque on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:16:55 PM EST

in the presidential race.

That doesn't mean he's not doing the right thing.


: That's it (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:10:14 PM EST

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:40:56 PM EST

is a very popular would be leader standing with his finger in the wind afraid to lead and having to be shown how to by Dodd, who is leading but does not have the popularity so far.

What does that say about what kind of president each of them would make?

: Obama - Product of Ivy Don't-Rock (none / 0) (#61)
by seabos84 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:30:02 PM EST

-The-Boat 'Leadership'
of the tens of thousands of ivy grads in the last century,
what % have created / done something revolutionary?
(the transitor? the silicon chip? wittenburg? interchangeable parts? mass production? the printing press? the web? ...)
versus, what % have gone on to be just in charge of the pack, the first pigs in the trough?
our society has done a fabulous job of taking the results of fabulous historical good luck for a fraction of humanity AND ... creating an elite to stay in charge of the fabulous historical good luck.
oh, and by the way, we lucked out with the railroads the coal the steel the lightbulbs the wireless the phone the auto the plane
the jobs for millions and millions.
Obama ... yawn
so much ... yawn
promise.

Kos has his actual words: (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Geekesque on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:51:04 PM EST

What Obama really said.

Still not his best, but not cheese eating surrender territory either.

I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:06:08 PM EST

Very much preemptive capitulation.

He needs to get out of the pundit business and commit to not voting for a funding bill with no timelines.

How effing hard is it to do that? Obama can never answer these questins in a straight forward fashion.


: I don't think timelines at this point are as (none / 0) (#56)
by Geekesque on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:51:00 PM EST

important as getting actual troops to start coming home. Getting the process started is more important.

hmmm... (none / 0) (#23)
by mindfulmission on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:59:42 PM EST

Even Kos made a correction. Think BTD will?

It is tough to correct yourself when you are so caught up with undeserved bashing over and over and over again.


For those who don't bother to click thru (none / 0) (#29)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:06:36 PM EST

Kos sez:

The Obama campaign has a real case that the AP lede isn't quite accurate. Obama did predict that the Senate doesn't have the votes, but also urged people to contact their congresspersons to try and change things. So it wasn't so much "resignation", as it was "help us change this."

Man, even Kos is using the term (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:41:01 PM EST

"lede" now. Kind of pretentious.


It's proper usage (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:42:40 PM EST

Kos majored in journalism I think.


By default, apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:48:21 PM EST

*LEDE


: oops. The "by default" didn't (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:01:11 PM EST

refer to Kos's choice of major!

Do Kos's MSM appearances (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:15:28 PM EST

reflect his thoughts on Dodd?

Obama's political strategy... (none / 0) (#5)
by rashomon on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:41:17 PM EST

or lack thereof is always interesting. Clearly the right political move is to come out forcefully in favor of something that will never happen, namely a bill to fund a clear end date in Iraq. That would clearly position Obama as the leader of the opposition to the war...and greatly decrease the effectiveness of Edwards, Dodd, and the rest. It's really a political no-brainer when you think about it.

The fact that Obama DOESN'T do this...essentially saying that, while he'll vote for a funding end date, it'll never pass...clearly shows that he's going to tell us what he really thinks, as opposed to pretending that an end-date bill might pass if we just tried harder.

Unfortunately for Obama, we elect candidates who tell us what WE want to hear, not what they really think.

You are overlooking something (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by pioneer111 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:52:23 PM EST

Your analysis works if all things are static. What is not being factored in by Obama is the possibility that he can sway people to see it differently.

It isn't just telling the truth or telling the base what they want to hear. It is speaking out about what should happen and exhorting your colleagues to do the right thing even if they seem to have some irrational fear about challenging the status quo.

People are not angry with Obama for stating what he sees as the truth, they are upset that he is not work overtly to change the minds of Democrats to do what the country wants them to do. That is leadership/


: Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by manys on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:49:52 PM EST

Barack's honesty is not the problem, it's his wimpiness.

: Very good point, but (none / 0) (#25)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:02:11 PM EST

is that a winning strategy, though? One could say McCain tried to do that with the Repubs on Immigration and look where that got him.
I know...I know, it's better to show Leadership qualities, but remember the aim is to win first. If you don't win, you don't get to lead.

BTD (none / 0) (#7)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:52:56 PM EST

Just curious and not looking for a fight here. Why do you not include Hillary in this comparison? You spend a lot of time and word count hammering Obama and I find it curious. I loved the post on Dodd and Olberman (i am in europe this week and appreciated the link) but I am stumped as to why you are not comparing Dodd's leadership to Hillarys lack thereof relative to this issue.

BTW, i am not a fan of Dodd but his interview on Olberman was more than refreshing, it was downright likable.

Because.... (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:02:28 PM EST

Hillary is JM's preferred candidate. That's why Obama gets such a bad rap (if you go by this site alone). JM loads on him to make Hillary look good and BTD, because he can't (or won't)load on Hillary.

Tut!! tut!!..a very disappointing scenario given the high esteem this site is held in.


I ain't buying that (none / 0) (#9)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:08:22 PM EST

BTD and Jeralyn have different views and after several years on this site i believe that is totally out of character for her and this site.

I think it has more to do with BTD thinking HUH? when MSM treats Obama with kid gloves and the obscene amount of money he has raised that should be going to Dodd by his estimation but i could be wrong, hence the nature of my question.


this was something.... (none / 0) (#14)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:28:18 PM EST

I didn't want to believe. I've been a visitor here for years as well; can't remember posting since registration was required, but I'm on here a couple of imes a day and believe me this is something I've noticed.

I was here when JM was loading on Hillary (before entering the race) and I took issue with her then.

Ever since she's decided to support her though, I've been dismayed at the spin (sometimes extremely obvious postings) to cast Obama in a bad light. Case in point was a posting last week about Obama not returning Hsu's money. That was really despicable.

I don't mind each candidate given a fair shake but empahsis should always, always be on fair


BTD hasn't addressed the HSU situation. (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:30:13 PM EST

I wasn't talking about BTD in my last post. (none / 0) (#16)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:31:58 PM EST

Jeralyn has (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:09:43 PM EST

I know very little about it.

Think it is much ado about nothing frankly, of what I know.


ROTFL (none / 0) (#34)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:12:14 PM EST

What do you do, skip past J's posts?
That was very, very funny!!


On Norman Hsu? (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:41:54 PM EST

I skip by EVERYONE's post on that.

What's wrong with you? Did you feel it necessary to falsely imply a critique of J. by me when I clearly expressed a complete lack of interest in the issue?

Boy, that was weird.


: Oh please!! (none / 0) (#49)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:04:19 PM EST

That wasn't what I meant. It's difficult to believe you would skip any of J's postings, let alone that one. that was what I found funny.

ok (none / 0) (#18)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:39:25 PM EST

I can digest that, but can we agree to let BTD answer and critique accordingly? I still think he has a boner for Barack and J has zero to do with it.

Have you always gone by ascot?


Amen! (none / 0) (#22)
by AscotMan on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:53:23 PM EST

Used to be LondonMan; then got married, had a kid and moved out. Hence the name change(also think I messed up my registration the first ime ;-))


Um a boner? (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST

I have been on record on my problems with Obama since last July, before he entered the race.

Dodd is my first choice.

Edwards second.

Hillary is now third (it was once Obama.)

Then Obama.


so insightful (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:36:25 PM EST

so if obama is 4th on your list why do you consistenly rip him? Makes no sense really, like most of your posts. See someone asks you a legit question and you respond like a moron.

Was it not a fair q?

If you are promoting dodd why trash a distant second who has very little chance?

You are a guest blogger here who is supposed to provide insight and yet all i see from you is the same juvenile excrement that i post on a regular basis. It is laughable that your posts are no better than mine. Pernhaps the question was too tough.

Let me spell it out differently and take back my olive branch as cramming it up your arse is logistically impossible:

No one cares about your "rankings" when you criticize number 2 for number 4. No one votes for number 4 because number 2 is a crappy option. Tell us why #4 is better than number 1 according to the polls and perhaps we will listen. Until then, i will continue to consider you irrelevant.


Dude (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:40:14 PM EST

You did not ask me a question. You wrote

"I still think he has a boner for Barack and J has zero to do with it."

I think my objections to Obama and WHEN they were first expressed on THIS SITE was relevant to your comment.

But have it your way. I am a moron. You need no explanations from a moron.

Onwards and upwards.


: Ok perhaps i missed it (none / 0) (#45)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:50:35 PM EST

this was my q
Just curious and not looking for a fight here. Why do you not include Hillary in this comparison? You spend a lot of time and word count hammering Obama and I find it curious. I loved the post on Dodd and Olberman (i am in europe this week and appreciated the link) but I am stumped as to why you are not comparing Dodd's leadership to Hillarys lack thereof relative to this issue.
Perhaps you ignored it or skipped it because i have been rude in the past but truth be told i am curious. Would you humor me and address this? It would help me with perspective

: ok (none / 0) (#46)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:53:47 PM EST

you are right i was a d head in my last post i apologize

sorry (none / 0) (#51)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:15:54 PM EST

your arruments reminded me a poster several years ago that i used to argue with. Perhaps we can argue top fill that void altho truth be told SUO, Peaches, Patrick and jim are my soul mates relative to poltiical discourse. Let me disagree with you though,Jeralyn is not a hack, she presents on fox news and defends them fairly, and is very very fair.


That is quite possibly (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:08:25 PM EST

the biggest load of BS I've ever read.


: That is saying a lot (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:12:41 PM EST

given some of the stuff one sees here!

Except when I do load on Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:07:21 PM EST

which I did why, just last night.

As I did, why today, at MYDD.


what is my dd (none / 0) (#35)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:18:33 PM EST

sorry for my ignorance have no idear what that means


MyDD (none / 0) (#37)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:23:53 PM EST

is here.


Mydd, Direct Democracy (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:32:28 PM EST

mydd


thanks (none / 0) (#48)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:04:15 PM EST

i went there and found no stance as to how deal with iraq. why the hot air with zero substance


Did you read this? (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:09:24 PM EST

mdd


: ihave a fight this weekend and have taken several (none / 0) (#52)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:22:58 PM EST

shots to the head
perhaps you can tell me where the substance is in this article

wow (none / 0) (#11)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:09:38 PM EST

Can you provide some examples so that I can have a better perspective of where you are coming from?

sorry andgarden (none / 0) (#12)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:10:25 PM EST

I thought that was ascot responding to me

Dodd was very impressive (none / 0) (#17)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:37:21 PM EST

on Countdown, and in so much else lately. He comes off more like a statesman than just another vote-grubbing pol.

Interestingly, I thought, in that Countdown interview he spoke about what's going on in Iraq as "our mission" and as "their civil war." The wingers (and the media) consider what's happening in Iraq as our war - war (especially one you're in the middle of) being something one has no choice but to fight and win or "cut and run." That's one reason why setting timelines for withdrawal and cutting off funding never quite sit right emotionally, because people still view America's last half-century of wars in the context of wars like WWII and the struggle against an existentially dangerous aggressor.

Talking about it as a mission is interesting - less inflammatory than calling it an occupation but it emphasizes the U.S.-initiated and U.S.-controllable nature of our involvement rather than it being dependent on defeating an enemy before we can disengage. Perhaps just an accident of how he chose to express himself in this interview, but I thought it was a significant part of how well he presented his message.

And more... (none / 0) (#24)
by mindfulmission on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:01:40 PM EST

I love how Kos (and in turn, BTD), uses the actual words of Dodd by an AP paraphrase for Obama.

Nothing like fair and accurate blogosphere reporting.

ugh... (none / 0) (#26)
by mindfulmission on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:04:22 PM EST

type alert...

there shouldn't be a comma after the parenthese and by = but.


The AP reporting was accurate (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:04:53 PM EST

as Obama's own remarks make clear.

I love how Obama supporters can't deal with the words their candidate says.


: Sorry... (none / 0) (#59)
by rashomon on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:25:10 PM EST

no, it wasn't accurate. I can't even FIND the original AP story...that's how bad it was. The Google links just go to yesterday's story.
But, I doubt you're satisfied with the whole transcript, anyway, so it's probably academic.

Tragedy (none / 0) (#36)
by koshembos on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:21:21 PM EST

The tragedy of this presidential campaign is Obama. An intelligent, charismatic and young candidate, Obama could have risen above Hillary Clinton had he used his talent. However, for reason I don't understand, Obama decided to be on the fence, a centrist. It may be him, it may be his advisers, and it may be the Dean scare (avoid being a candidate like Dean at all cost); it really doesn't matter.

Now we are stuck with Hillary who is a centrist and has the charisma of Alberto Gonzales.

: This is very interesting (none / 0) (#60)
by robrecht on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:20:56 PM EST

He is still young and inexperienced at the national level, probably still finding himself at this level, perhaps sort of scared to use all his talent and not yet able to discern the great advice from the good but conventional wisdom. But, realistically, I'm not sure anyone had much of a chance against Hillary & Bill this year.

Kos has updated in a new diary (none / 0) (#53)
by mike in dc on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:24:02 PM EST

...with the full comments by Obama. Very different in its proper context.
Why are we playing the "gotcha game" with our own candidates?

Circular firing squad, anyone?

See my update (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:34:16 PM EST

See Kos' most recent.

Why is it important? are you seriously asking that question?


It is an important distinction (none / 0) (#57)
by mike in dc on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:53:22 PM EST

"we don't have votes we need, but you can help us get them" vs. "we don't have the votes, so why bother" is a very important distinction.

I don't get the incessant sniping at Obama.

You, Stoller, Sirota, et al. I don't think it's really warranted.


: I see you do not (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:17:18 PM EST

I stand by everything I have written on him since 2005.

News Flash! (none / 0) (#55)
by Saul on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:43:04 PM EST

Tim Russet has heard and said on Hardball to Cris Matthews that tonight Bush is going to request a permanent bond with the Government of Iraq creating a long term committment to that government (which is not even formed) similar to S. Korea and Germany committment. If this is true then this should bring the republican votes over to the democrats for a definite timeline for withdrawal.

Out of Topic (none / 0) (#62)
by timber on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:05:12 PM EST

Kos said you quit and was not banned. So why not crosspost too at DailyKos.

* [new] BTD quit, he didn't get banned (0 / 0)
As for refunds, I give them to whoever asks, pro-rated for the amount of time they enjoyed them.
by kos on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:53:33 PM EDT

Kos is a good friend of mine (none / 0) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:57:04 PM EST

I think it is accurate NOW to say it is my choice that I am not there.

He would let me back if I asked but he and I both think that is a bad idea.

Please do not hold that against Kos.

It is fair to say at this point it is MY choice.

Though I think he agrees with it.


: Given Kos is now receiving e-mails from (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:59:03 PM EST

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and that Kos is touting Dodd's candidacy due to Dodd's stance on getting out of Iraq now, and Kos seems to be a go-to guy for the MSM, and you are a better apologist for Dodd than Kos is, perhaps you could guest post there until the nomination is sealed?

"centrists" (none / 0) (#63)
by diogenes on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:05:59 PM EST

If, as some here write, both Obama and Hillary are "centrists" who tailor positions to the polls rather than lead then why in heaven's name would anyone support the uncharismatic one of the two who will be elected not because anyone likes her but because a ham sandwich could be elected in 2008 against a republican and has Nixonian personality traits to boot?

: Wow. Say what you think! (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:00:30 PM EST

"Tailor to the Polls".... (none / 0) (#68)
by Jeff in Texas on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:14:47 AM EST

...if Hillary and Obame actually do that, why don't they listen to a majority of the American people who despise Bush and his war? Why won't they say the sort of things that Dodd is saying (and thank god at least a couple of Democratic candidates actually are)??? The big "secret" plan that the administration has, to dump this in the lap of the next guy (which has been patently obvious at least since the point years ago that Bush said when to bring the troops home would be for the next President to decide), that the media is finally waking up to, was set in stone the minute Congressional Democrats like Hillary, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi rolled on the Iraqi supplemental lo so many months ago (and don't tell me who voted against it after it was a done deal). And yet, even now, Hillary and Obama cannot bring themselves to change course, even rhetorically. It's frustrating because it is both immoral AND against their political interests.

: Clinton voted for Reid/Feingold and (none / 0) (#69)
by oculus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:36:50 PM EST

Against the "capitulation" bill. The problem is she won't speak up on defunding.