home

No Flip, Today's Attack Flops

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:15:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Funny headline:

Target: Barack Obama. Strategy: What Day Is It?

The McCain campaign's shotgun attack strategy would be more effective if the campaign had any ammunition with which to load the gun. Today's attack:

On Thursday McCain aides and the Republican National Committee pounced on a comment by Mr. Obama that he would be willing to “refine” his long-held plan to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within his first 16 months in office.

Because an inflexible unwillingness to respond to changing conditions, even at risk of further endangering lives, is principled? Obama's response:

"We're going to try this again. Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end."

The Illinois senator added, "I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that we would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed."

Do you have a superior withdrawal plan, Senator McCain? Oh, that's right ....

< Holiday Eve Open Thread | Late Night: America >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No Flip, Today's Attack Flops | 204 comments (204 topical)
    Obama wasn't flipping. But he was bringing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:33:41 PM EST
    "nuance" to the subject of how many troops would be left behind after we have withdrawn. Think about that for a second.

    Yeah, hey, isn't that... (3.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ribbon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    exactly what context McCain was talking about when he sated matter of factly that troops could remain in Iraq for 100 years. Sounded reasonable to me when McCain said it.

    Supporting the surge and advocating an increase in troop levels years before Bush conceded the fact that Iraq needed more troops trumps some stump speech to a gang of hippies in Chicago in 2002 anyday.

    Obama's "superior judgment" on Iraq stems from his ability to engage in the single-most obvious exercise of arm-chair quarterbacking I have ever seen in my entire life.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:47:45 PM EST
    according to what he said today, most of those withdrawn troops will be withdrawn to Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget Pakistan!! (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is anyone besides me (none / 0) (#141)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM EST
    worried about Obama and Iran?  

    If Israel decided to bomb Iran, I think it would take President Obama so looooooong to decide what to do.  He be thinking and thinking...  And a few weeks later he'd have a plan...  And an hour later he'd change his mind...  And an hour after that he'd be trying to explain the nuances between his first plan and his second plan and why they were both really the same plan, they just sounded different...  

    In the meantime, Iran would be shipping whatever nuclear weapons they had left via rubber raft or gondola so they could angle up close enough to the USA to hit us...  So, basically Iranian boats would have to be like 20 miles off our shores....

    And President Obama would still be thinking and changing his mind and trying to decide what to do and what clever name he could give the plan and what kind of speeches he could give in front of how many flags...  And lapel pin or no lapel pin?  Important things....  

    And the USA would suffer it's very first nuclear attack.  

    This scenario scares me.  I want a President who is decisive!    

    [ Parent ]

    what on earth are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    When has Obama ever been indecisive on matters of war and peace? He came out early with a strong position on this war, one that Sen. Clinton was either too scared (for her career), or to unwise to adopt, and he has stuck with it.


    [ Parent ]
    I can't see Iran attacking the US (none / 0) (#144)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:02:25 AM EST
    I'm more afraid our own government would facilitate slipping in a dirty bomb somewhere in the Northwest and using it to scare the electorate into voting for military man McCain.

    Or worse, Bush would use it to put into effect his continuance of government act and cancel the November elections altogether.

    [ Parent ]

    Ya know, I've been talking about (none / 0) (#161)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:42:31 AM EST
    this for a couple of years. It just seems that Bush has this no care attitude and it begam to worry me and he appeared so calm in his "convictions" that I began to think that maybe he knows something that the rest of us don't, namely, he will in essence re-elect himself!!! Too scary. P.S. Everyone I ever said this to thought I was nuts!@

    [ Parent ]
    lets hope so (none / 0) (#162)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:46:46 AM EST
    Thats where they should have been all along.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:13:58 PM EST
    Kerry was hurt by not HAVING a position on Iraq in the minds of voters.  I seriously hope we've drawn a lesson from the 2004 campaign better than "don't make any horrible sound bites, and you can get away with whatever vague position you like."

    Actually (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    fighting the last election is never a good idea, this isn't the Kerry Bush election, and the flip flopper charge makes no sense.  Unlike Bush v Kerry where Kerry was seen as a Flip flopper and bush was not, both McCain and Obama are seen as flip floppers
    Poll

    [ Parent ]
    Bush in 2000 and 2004 (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    Flip flopped plenty, but he always flip-flopped with conviction.

    There was no mealy-mouthed, mushy talk of 'inartful' prior statements or long, wordy explanations of how nothing he said today was a contradiction to the opposite thing he said the day before.

    This country is in crisis, and people are looking for hook to hang their coats on, not a moveable feast to chase.

    here's an interesting article on Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by kempis on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:04:21 AM EST
    Iraq policy, it transformation, and its likely direction:

    link

    In reality, I'm not so sure there would be a drastic difference in the approaches taken by McCain and Obama in Iraq. At this point, Petraeus is being hailed as a the miracle worker, so either would defer to him for fear of stirring up the hornet's nest again and getting the blame for it.

    I know Obama-supporters who think that if Obama is elected, he'll end the Iraq War within 16 months. They're going to be disappointed. In their view, however, they've bought the Obama campaign's contrast on the issue: McCain likes war in general and we'll be there forever; Obama thinks this war is stupid and will wrap it up and get the troops home ASAP.

    Not gonna happen.

    not so (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    I know Obama-supporters who think that if Obama is elected, he'll end the Iraq War within 16 months.

    Maybe in your caricature of Obama supporters, but I think most think realistically after his first term there will be a significant draw down in the presence in Iraq.

    There is a pretty clear distinction between him and McCain, Obama is for a draw down, McCain is for continuing what we are doing.  McCain actually has the bigger issues, he supports a permanent presence in Iraq, even if that took the shape of Korea, which i don't think is possible, the Iraqi's probably would never pay us like Korea.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not intending to caricature (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kempis on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    Obama supporters. I really do know some who think he'll end the Iraq War quickly. I wouldn't have said so if I didn't.

    I think they're overly idealistic and I think that either McCain or Obama will take their lead from Petraeus. In fact, Obama has said as much. Obama has said that in his ideal scenario, we draw down a battalion or two per month, effectively pulling out combat forces in 16 months. BUT he's left himself wiggle room for "facts on the ground" and the advice of the commanders.

    I really think that in the end, both McCain and Obama will follow Petraeus on Iraq--just as the Democratic Congress has done. Either Obama's withdrawal or McCain's staying til hell freezes over is just red-meat for each candidate's respective base.

    [ Parent ]

    The obvious difference (none / 0) (#189)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    is that McCain seems to be just peachy with how things are going in Iraq with the 160k US troop level, and so he would be perfectly content to stay at that amount, if not quite for 100 yrs, then for the entirety of his term.  No substantial withdrawal under a Pres McCain  in other words.

    Obama has been fairly consistent about going rather immediately into withdrawing troops at the 1-2 brigade/mo pace, and hasn't been inconsistent about also needing to check in with the generals about the situation on the ground.  That's just sane and sensible CnC conduct.  

    He isn't and never has set his feet in concrete on a timeline, since it was always qualified, and is not letting the generals dictate whether the withdrawals will begin and continue, but he is going to listen to their advice as to the rate of withdrawal as it affects the safety of the remaining troops.  Perfectly sensible approach and no evidence whatsoever of flip-floppery.  

    Failure to heed their advice, in fact, would have opened him up to valid Repub charges in the GE that he was being reckless with US lives in slavishly adhering to an artificial timeline.

    He also would be putting himself on the wrong side of the military right from the git-go -- not exactly the best place for a fairly liberal Dem president who's never served to be in.  Of course, once he's sworn in, he might be well advised to put someone in charge in Iraq who would be more inclined to be sympathetic to a consistent and steady withdrawal, someone he feels would loyally implement, and not surreptitiously undercut, his policy.  

    [ Parent ]

    What criminal acts are those? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Radix on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    The telecoms will be given retroactive immunity, so they can't be prosecuted. As for his stance on Iraq, you are correct, he never said that had a "firm" date in mind, only that he might have one, to sum Obama up his statements. It was dishonest, on the part of his supporters to claim he did have a firm date and no one else commitment could be trusted. How about his change on Pro-Choice, that is clearly an "evolving" stance?

    You, imo, misread the electorate (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    and those in it who believe Obama is not qualified to be potus. There is no personal dislike, at least for me. When you campaign on a promise of change, and you preach gospelly about change, and then you act worse than most politicians, then you get what you vote for. Some of us feel this country deserves better than that. It's not that Hillary lost, it's not that Edwards lost, it's that Obama didn't win fairly and he has changed most of positions w/o even blinking. The only thing, imo, that is changed, is me, who will vote country this year, not person, not party. Obama is a follower, not a leader. We need a leader, my opinion only!!

    I don't believe in heroes (none / 0) (#175)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:24:07 AM EST
    much anymore. I believe we are all heroes within ourselves (corny, I know). But I think we need someone who fights for more than just him/herself. I want someone who is willing to take on the fight to restore this country and its people.

    Hero

    [ Parent ]

    He was going to vote Roberts. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
    You can google and find those results. In voting for president, there is not "right or wrong" vote. Welcome to America, we get to vote our choice. Problem is, the choices this year are less than acceptable to me. I have been around a long time, have been a staunch dem for a long time, I am bringing up dem children....Obama is not standing up for dem principles and therefore he has not "earned" my vote. I will not, once again, vote for someone just because they have a "d" after their name. Me, my children, and you, imo, deserve so much better, especially after the last 8 years.

    Heh (4.40 / 5) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    What is this thing that I've made up my mind about, but you haven't?

    Also, screw you for the "you live in a bubble" cheap shot.  I'll tell you who lives in a freakin' reality of his own invention, the guy who claims there is anti-Obama rhetoric at this site worse than what you'd see at redstate or freerepublic.

    I hear all sorts of harsh anti-Obama rhetoric in my professional and social life, and I'm not talking about wingnuts, I'm talking about people who voted for Kerry.  You can make all the self-righteous speeches you like about how everyone loves Barack except the dead-enders here at TalkLeft, but that won't make it true.  I'm frankly having a very hard time reconciling the poll numbers with the stuff I hear from regular people on a daily basis, and it has zero to do with thinking the commentariat at TL is a fair sampling.

    It's possible that (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    our nudges and criticisms are helping Obama a bit.  I tend to think we are a bit ahead of the curve on how the media are going to treat Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Although the site rules are important (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:38:29 AM EST
    it is a shame that anydemwilldo's claim that there is anti-Obama rhetoric at TL worse than what you'd see at redstate or freerepublic is now lost to posterity.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Really Lost (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:43:19 AM EST
    Because we can take your words for it. You seem like an honest guy...

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:09:17 AM EST
    A saint I tell you!  It's just that 99% of lawyers insist on giving the rest of us a bad name...

    [ Parent ]
    You think that perceived flip-flopping (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    is NOT a weakness?  Hmmmmm

    I don't really see your point. (4.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    A flip flop, by definition, brings into question a candidate's honesty. The more serious the issue, the bigger the question raised. Obama has flip-flopped on some of the very biggest questions, IMO.

    Honesty? No. (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:39:51 PM EST
    By that logic, every time you make a mistake you're implicitly being dishonest.  Changing one's mind isn't the same as lying.

    Now, obviously you don't see this as Obama "changing his mind", because you distrust the guy already.  You are more willing to believe either that he's lying now or was lying earlier.  Which is your right, of course.  But the point is that you've already made up your mind about his honesty and are just using this as evidence.

    But needless to say, you (and I, and pretty much everyone commenting on a political blog everywhere) aren't the target market here.  We've already made up our minds, and the change of position isn't going to make a difference.  But to the undecided voters, this tends to look more like "changing his mind" as facts change.  That's normal.  Whether it's good or not depends on what you think of his new position.  If it's closer to your opinion, then you like it.

    Ergo, politicians flip flop around until they arrive (surprise!) at a reasonable approximation of their voter's opinions.  The are advantages to flopping too, which is why they do it.

    [ Parent ]

    Too much verbiage for a simple point (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    We will see whether or not the flip-flop attack works. I think it will work because Obama is  largely undefined to the public, so a lack of core message will hurt him. You feel otherwise.
    Wait and see.

    [ Parent ]
    Umm (none / 0) (#125)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:53:41 AM EST
    What, exactly, was today's flip flop?  I didn't hear Obama say anything different than what I heard and understood from him throughout the campaign - he wants to bring the troops home on a 16 month timeline, but factors on the ground will have an influence.

    [ Parent ]
    right (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    that's why the repug charges of flip flopping against Kerry didn't work and he won the election...oh, wait a minute, i forgot

    [ Parent ]
    Read up two posts (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:01:43 PM EST
    Where I mention Kerry.  He wasn't hurt by flip flopping itself.  His new position was actually popular.  It was the gaffe that hurt him.  Here's a great Poblano post on this issue.

    [ Parent ]
    There may be a different set of standards... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by EL seattle on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    applied if you're running as a new kind of candidate and "change" was a big part of your campaign through the primaries.  Flip-flopping might be buisiness as usual, but it might not be the change that a lot of folks were waiting for.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by BernieO on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:26:25 AM EST
    Obama's big claim was to be a different kind of politician.
    Early in the primaries my twenty-eight year old son said he was worried that so many of Obama's supporters who were getting involved in politics for the first time would wind up disillusioned and cynical. Those of us who are political junkies forget that not everyone realizes that politicians always flip flop to get elected so you have to discount what they say. By Obama changing his stand on so many issues he will turn millions off to politics.

    My favorite flopper this year is Elizabeth Dole. She recently came out in favor of offshore drilling then quickly came out for protecting the coral reefs off the shores of North Carolina. She claims we can have it both ways.

    Republicans think her seat is in jeopardy. I really believe Dole can be defeated - she hardly ever even comes to the state. I hope Hillary comes here to campaign and raise money for Dole's opponent Kay Hagan. There are a lot of women who worked on Hillary's campaign that could be energized by Hillary to campaign for Hagan. In addition, the Dem candidate for governor is a female, Bev Perdue.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, the Clinton pantsuit had coattails (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    but only if she was picked as the nominee.

    This is a new one -- now Clinton is supposed to provide the coattails to get our candidates in Congress plus get Obama into the White House?  Nope, you'll have to hope that the empty suit has coattails.

    [ Parent ]

    Problem is that Obama says he's not (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:02:06 PM EST
    flipflopping when he is.  He's "refining" but not, he says, saying anything different.  Ha.  He's counting on adoring fans not having listened closely.

    It's different now, and the media have him on tape.  "Refining" won't fly.  They're calling it (correctly) flipflopping.  If he had called it changing his mind, or being flexible, it might work.  But denying a flipflop when it is one won't work -- not when it's happening almost daily.

    Watch for the Leno jokes on this.  That's the tipping point in popular culture.  That's fatal.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was very clear on this in March (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:54:28 AM EST
    March 7, 2008, Obama adviser Samantha Power called Sen. Clinton a "monster."

    Around the same time, Ms. Power also said that Obama would not necessarily stick to the 16-months-and-everyone's-out plan, but would reformulate his plan upon taking office, once he had a chance to sit down with the generals, get access to presidential intelligence, etc.

    Hillary Clinton was merciless.  She said that Ms. Power's remarks showed that Obama wasn't really serious about quitting Iraq in 16 months.

    Sen. Obama turned around and immediately fired Ms. Power, and re-iterated his commitment to 16-months-and-everyone's-out.

    * * *

    Now TChris is writing what Ms. Power said back in March: that OF COURSE Obama is going to formulate his plans for withdrawal based on the situation on the ground, and based on consultations with the generals, so maybe we aren't completely out by 16 months.  Maybe we stay a lot longer.

    Of course TChris is correct: that is the better approach to Iraq, and that is what Obama really intends to do (there's no way he can "force" himself not to change his mind if he feels like changing his mind later).

    But Obama won't admit it.  Obama has steadfastly refused to admit this.  Today he "refined" his remarks to re-iterate that he absolutely disagrees with what TChris wrote.

    Obama's own supporters don't know where he stands on this issue, and are divided as to which is best.  It's a mess.

    [ Parent ]

    watch for McCain (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    to begin calling his flip-flops "refining" with a sly grin and a wink.  I'm sure the Press will giggle with knowing laughter and write him up as a great guy with a good sense of humor.

    One can get away with stuff like this when one has a history and is known.  Obama doesn't have a history and is an ever-changing blank slate.  It's true that those who want to see the best will then be able to see it, but it's even more devastatingly true that his opponents will then be able to more effectively paint him with not-so-good stuff and, being unknown, voters will be more willing to buy it!

    Being all things to all people doesn't always work.  Not in life and certainly not in politics.  A more experienced, mature politician understands this.  Obama doesn't.  

    [ Parent ]

    I ask (none / 0) (#127)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:55:01 AM EST
    as I asked MarkL above.  What was the flip flop?  How is what he said different than his usual refrain that we should be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in?"

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:57:55 AM EST
    "we should be responsible" is not a position, it is a truism.  No one is in favor of doing the irresponsible thing.

    This is the second commentor I've seen this argument from tonight - the argument that because Obama said "we should be responsible" then, and he says "we should be responsible now," he hasn't changed his position one iota.  Where the heck do you guys come up with this stuff?

    [ Parent ]

    Tell me how his position on this has changed (2.00 / 0) (#130)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:02:39 AM EST
    You can't.  It hasn't.  He has always left the caveat, in one form or another, that the situation on the ground may dictate changes from a proposal he's made as a candidate.
    I know you hate Obama, and I will gladly agree that he has moved his position on FISA, but on this one to say there was some change is being intellectually dishonest.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:30:12 AM EST
    I find it utterly useless to try and have an intelligent conversation with the type of person who randomly throws "I know you hate Obama" into the discussion, so I won't bother.  Best of luck electing your candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, I fully admit, that was gratuitous (none / 0) (#138)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:38:20 AM EST
    and unnecessary.  I apologize for tone and implication.
    Now that I've (hopefully) communicated my regret, can you point out how his position has changed?

    [ Parent ]
    All three of them (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:47:24 AM EST
    Edwards Clinton and Obama said they would not guarantee all troops out of Iraq but 2013, so i don't see how you can turn around now and say they promised 16 months, and refused to move from it.  It never happened.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama needs to convince lefties that (none / 0) (#131)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:07:43 AM EST
    he'll get us out of Iraq.  He has done so.  He also needs to give a timeline, but not an inflexible one because that would demoralize the troops, undermine the mission, and give the enemy info on how long to wait..  Whatever he says to those of us who want an end to the war will be used against him in ads by the Republicans.  

    So far they don't have great  soundbites to use against Obama regarding Iraq or terrorists.  They can't put him down with a video of him saying "we should be responsible."

    What would you have him say?


    [ Parent ]

    For an alleged liberal (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:33:04 AM EST
    you sure have a lot of right-wing talking points at your disposal.  Setting a firm deadline "would give the enemy info on how long to wait"?  I can't even believe you wrote that.

    You've made clear that your sole interest lies in seeing Obama make as many Republican arguments as possible between now and November, in hopes of fooling as many Republican voters as possible.  The rest of us should just take it on faith that he's lying the whole time.  Fine, but you're becoming a bit of a Johnny One-Note with this wild theory.

    [ Parent ]

    Republicans have been fooling the electorate (2.00 / 0) (#140)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:39:09 AM EST
    for a long time, and if Obama can get them to trust him instead, I'm all for it.

    But what sounded right wing to you?  The word enemy?  Or the argument against a timeline?  Because I'm definitely a card carrying liberal.  

    [ Parent ]

    what do you think "responsible" means? (none / 0) (#170)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:10:56 AM EST
    What do you think it has ever meant? What do you think it meant when Hillary said it?

    In these contexts, it has always meant that there is a goal - in this case withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq - and that the exact timing and modality will be calibrated to the exact conditions on the ground starting in Jan 2009.

    As opposed to making a firm committment now to simply taking the oath in Jan., then turning to the brass and saying - start loading 'em on the planes immediatly. That would be irresponsible, even though a politically popular thing to promise in a Dem primary.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right about flip flops not being inherently (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:11:43 PM EST
    dishonest, since there are reasons for politicians to change positions if they learn more about a particular topic, and politicians generally don't promise to hold on to a specific position forever.

    However Obama's flip on the FISA bill does show dishonesty not because it is a flip-flop, but because he vowed to filibuster a bill like it.

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly think (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    there really isn't any change in Obama's position on Iraq here, now that he's come out and explained WORM. (The hypocrisy of the attacks on Hillary for taking essentially the same position during the primaries are another matter.)

    But there's a big difference between changing your mind and just flip-flopping, which is what Obama's been doing on so many other issues.

    If you change your mind and you explain why you changed your mind, people (including me) generally accept that.  However, if you do what he's been doing, which is pretend he hasn't changed a thing and some staffer just said or wrote something "inartful" that gave the wrong impression of WORM, that's a problem.

    If there are a lot of those, the public isn't willing to trust the pol.  Nor should they.

    McCain's done some about-faces himself, for sure, but with most of them, he's explained that he's changed his mind and why, not tried to weasel his way around it with huge quantities of "nuanced" verbiage.


    [ Parent ]

    Very well put... (none / 0) (#115)
    by IzikLA on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:16:47 AM EST
    I have a problem with this repeated assertion that if he just Says that was always his position then it must be so, even when the facts don't pan out.  It's starting to happen over and over again and that is disturbing to me.  

    I think he'd be much better off if he just explained himself better.  People might actually respect that.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (none / 0) (#166)
    by massdem on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:55 AM EST
    thats whats been happening for the past 8 years, right - say it enough and it becomes true in the mind of the electorate.  How did W word it? - catapult the propaganda?

    [ Parent ]
    Yah I just love the advantage I, a voter, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:13:49 AM EST
    am getting with Obama's 180 on FISA. Another Constitutional right being eroded. It would IMO be a real stretch to think that this decision is a reasonable approximation of his supporter's (i.e. voter's) opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    No Big deal?? (4.00 / 4) (#32)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:09:23 PM EST
    Obama has no integrity. He changes from day to day, depending on the audience and the weather.  It is not about flexibility.  Who the heck is he and does he even know?  I am not suggesting that he makes mistakes; I am suggesting that he is politically unstable.  The more I see, the more I don't like.

    The basis for his new "nuance" on Iraq:


     

    [ Parent ]

    You could vote for Nader (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:12:18 PM EST
    He seems pretty consistent.  But if you want consistency from a real candidate (and yes, that included Hillary too), you're going to be looking for a very long time.

    [ Parent ]
    here's the difference (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:45:00 PM EST
    She did run in the primary as if she was running as a centrist general election candidate.  

    right?

    Obama was billed as the leftie with magical cross over appeal.

    That's a huge gulf ideologically from primary to general.  Not that I care one way or another at this point. I tended to think he was fooling chi-chi lefties.

    [ Parent ]

    There are degrees (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:40:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    er...no. (4.00 / 4) (#116)
    by ribbon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:17:55 AM EST
    I think you've pulled a bait and switch here.

    The key distinction between simply "changing one's mind" and "flip=flopping" lies in the underlying motive.

    Changing your mind to bring your present stance in-line with your superceding core principles after circumstances have changed is quite a bit different than flip-flopping.

    McCain's stance on drilling is a good example of this. Framed by liberals as a flip-flop but viewed by everyone else as a fundamnetal economical response to demand for oil that is outstripping supply.

    On the other hand, changing your mind constanantly when your motivation to do so has more to do with the fact that you have no core principles other than to win an election makes you a flip-flopper.

    Iraq, NAFTA, Welfare, FISA, Rev Wright, it goes on...

    [ Parent ]

    McCain is principled? (none / 0) (#129)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:59:02 AM EST
    The tax cuts offend my conscience... I want more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans!
    I support a cap and trade system... but not mandatory caps, that might mean companies will actually have to limit their emissions!
    I believe that global warming as a result of burning fossil fuels is a real problem... but I want to create a gas tax holiday and drill for more oil off of our coasts which will increase our emissions due to increased consumption!
    I could go on.
    Yes, very principled that McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    please... (none / 0) (#185)
    by ribbon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    Economic growth stems from saving and investment. The wealthiest among us have always carried the lion's share of this important function. Investment fuels long-term growth. Tax cuts to the lowest income brackets disproportionately increase consumption expenditure, which just doesn't do a thing for long-term growth.

    The system that we have has more than doubled average real income since 1950. As much as people love to complain, things have gotten better, continue to get better, and will get better.

    I assume that corporate tax cuts also "offend" your conscious.

    The U.S. corporate tax rate rate is second highest among developed countries and is long overdue for a drop.

    Only Japan is higher, and Germany was higher until 2000.

    What offests this for firms is the capital U.S. offers that amps per capita production. However, this advantage is beginning to erode.

    As for McCain's cap and trade system, frankly I don't think you know what your talking about. Under his plan, mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions must be met one way or the other (reducing the emissions, or paying penalties to avoid doing so). Either way, this simply shifts monetary incentives to favour a reduction in emissions by internalizing costs. His plan seems to me to be focused on accomplishing some practical reduction targets without sucker-punching the energy sector. Seems reasonable to recognize that cleaner energy is the long-term goal which will take time to transition to.

    In the meantime...

    As stated above, drilling to increase supply makes short-term economic sense. It's so simple I could strangle people who seem to refuse to understand some basic economic principles: The increase price of oil increases the incentives to increase output - period.

    This means increasing output from current reserves, more exploration, more investment in alternative energies and more efficient means of transportation, and increasing output from unorthodox sources (e.g., sands, shale).

    [ Parent ]

    You're missing something. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:54:38 PM EST
    I like complex arguments when i'm dealing with topics and issues.  However in politics you need to be able to comunicate at grade 5 level.  Newspapers write at grade 8 level.

    I don't expect a politician to openly talk about signs and signifiers, semiotics or semantics in their own policy platform.

    I'd prefer if those things were used seamlessly so that writers and the public couldn;t notice and call Obama out on is sophistry.

    obama will probably win teh election anyway.  8 years of thr GOP in the WH is enough for any mad fool of an American.

    [ Parent ]

    Tell that to George H.W. Bush (none / 0) (#117)
    by IzikLA on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:18:29 AM EST
    Let's not assume we have this in the bag.  That would be our biggest mistake.  And, unfortunately, Obama is not helping us out here.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please... (4.00 / 4) (#9)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:36:53 PM EST
    "Because an inflexible unwillingness to respond to changing conditions, even at risk of further endangering lives, is principled"  You must be kidding?  Obama used his 16 months charade to win the primary.  There is nothing principled going on here.

    What's the principle? (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    Stubbornness isn't the same as principle.  What's the principle he's violating?  This just sounds practical to me: it's a quantitative question about how long it will take to move troops from one place to another.

    FISA, sure:  civil liberties are a principled issue that you can scream at him about, and I won't stop you (because I basically agree).  But withdrawal timetables?  That's a policy question.  As far as I care, he's free to change his mind as much as he wants as long as the ultimate goal stays the same.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no principle involved. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
    He made a promise he intended to break, and he's now broken it.  This isn't about new information.  This was simply the intended outcome.  There was no uncertainty that he wouldn't change his position after the primary, and now he has.  There is no principled basis for the initial promise or the change.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with masslib (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    Politicians will always change their position for political advantage and maybe there's not even a point in complaining about it.  But please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that when Obama suddenly lurches to the right on a whole bunch of issues immediately upon beginning the general election campaign, it's all a principled reaction to facts on the ground and it shows his admirable willingness to change his mind.

    When you just happen to take the position in the Democratic primary that Democrats want to hear, and you just happen to take the position in the general election that general election voters want to hear, there is no way you can spin that change of position that will make me compliment your character.  The only thing I might compliment is your ability to get away with it - if you do.

    [ Parent ]

    It means he has utter contempt (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Salo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    for the people who consider themselves left or antiwar.  i KNOW A POL MUST PLAY SOME GAMES but this shift looks like a sneering contempt to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that's what he displayed to (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    Clinton and her supporters as well.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see any sneering contempt (2.00 / 0) (#120)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:30:36 AM EST
    I see a politician trying to make sure he doesn't give the enemy easy material to slam him with.

    Where do you see contempt?

    [ Parent ]

    He gave them (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Salo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:32:52 AM EST
    all they need to beat him in the primary.  The shifts now will destroy him.

    [ Parent ]
    it was contempt when he chose not (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by kimsaw on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:54:10 AM EST
    to vote on the MoveOn resolution, he placed calculation above doing the right thing. 16 months turns into maybe by offering he needs to be flexible. Clinton's a monster and he's a super hero when he's really a political Gumby.  I suggest antipathy toward those in opposition buried in contempt and arrogance offers a clearer definition of who this candidate really is.

    [ Parent ]
    Lurches to the Right (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:53:08 AM EST
    The only real lurch to the "Right" is the FISA issue.  Everything else is same ol', same ol'.

    Death Penalty.  Consistent with his earlier stated views....

    Faith based programs--I cannot see how this could be a surprise to anyone, or how it is a change....He wrote a diary at Big Orange long ago talking about how Democrats should talk differently about religion and was loudly booed....

    Guns.  His ambivalent statement reflects his ambivalence over the last few years.

    Iraq.  The caveat about the generals has always been there.  And if he takes 24 months to withdraw instead of 16, it would still be a very good thing.....As it stands, it appears we are coming out one way or the other....It could be we will leave by "declaring victory and going home."  We simply cannot afford to stay.  The big news today was the head of the Joint Chiefs saying we need more troops in Afghanistan but don't have them because they are in Iraq.....We're leaving Iraq....  

    Public financing.  He has changed here.  But I hear precious little complaining from the Left on this point.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:32:50 AM EST
    I absolutely love it.  Because Obama has been all over the map on guns, it's entirely consistent for him to be all over the map today!

    Mind you, you can't actually lurch to the right much more obviously than walking back a perfectly clear statement that "the DC gun ban is constitutional," which apparently no one realized was inartful until this week.  But setting that aside, your argument belongs in a trophy case somewhere.  "His ambivalence reflects his ambivalence over the last few years!"

    [ Parent ]

    You're probably right (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by IzikLA on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:22:30 AM EST
    The problem I had with him was actually in the lead up to this.  He sold his whole candidacy on his opposition to the war and on getting us out.  Yes, obviously, reality has finally butted heads with fantasy, but my initial issue is actually with his original posturing, not with this current situation.  However, his die-hard supporters should be disappointed, if this is one of the reasons they hated Hillary so much.

    [ Parent ]
    Only Idiots (3.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    Drunk on kool aid believed Obama was going to end the war. Anyone who cared to read his plan, or listen carefully would know that it would be a miracle to be out in 16 months, the same goes for anyone that believed Hillary would do the same.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you calling vast legions of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    supporters idiots?
    Just checking.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    But masslib is making the claim that vast legions of Obama supporters are idiots because s/he is implying that 18 million voted for Obama only because they believed he was going to end the war in 16 months.

    [ Parent ]
    What was the other reason? (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    That he would filibuster FISA and stop pandering to evangelicals like that dishonest doublespeaking centrist triangulator, Sen. Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:55:58 PM EST
    that was it.   lol

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that alot of people (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:57:03 PM EST
    did support Obama because they thought he'd have the troops home by Christmas. They should have gone to his website.

    [ Parent ]
    And Many Hillary Voters (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM EST
    Bought her schtick about ending the war too. Many want to end the war soooo badly that they skip the fine print, a big mistake when listening to pols, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    So remind me again what was so great (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:20:32 PM EST
    about Obama in the primaries. I thought it was his steadfast and early opposition to the Iraq War. That is certainly what I was told, over and over again.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:33:51 PM EST
    That he was the same as Hillary, basic centrist democrat, but a different flavor.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me run that one by (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:37:55 PM EST
    the friendly folks at Daily Kos.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, of course (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    he had the judgement that would have kept us out of there in the first place.

    Either Hillary lacked that judgement, or lacked the courage to apply it.

    That remains a very big difference between the two, one decidedly in his favor.

    How to extract ourselves in the least damaging way is an entirely different issue, and one they both left themselves wiggle room to "refine'.

    Actually Hillary left herself far more wiggle room, since all she basically did was to promise to start a withdrawl within six months. No promise of how fast it would go, or whether it would continue relentlessly till all were out etc etc.

    [ Parent ]

    How do you know he would have (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    had the judgement to keep us out of Iraq in the first place? It is easy to sideline guess things, he doesn't exactly have a stellar voting record in IL and the US Senate (he votes "present" alot, or he presses the "wrong button). Please, he was going to vote for Roberts until he was pulled aside and talked to....you have no idea how he would have voted. And, if he felt so strongly about the war and it's voters of it, why didn't he speak up once while he was in the senate. You can support our troops and fight against continuing the war. He didn't do a thing but vote the same as most other dems.

    [ Parent ]
    He took a very public postion on (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by tben on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    the war. No guessing required.

    The Roberts vote thing is exceedingly silly. Hold the guy accountable for the votes he takes, but give him credit for the things you agree with.  You dont have a clue as to what the factors were that led him to vote as he did.

    [ Parent ]

    er not quite, really. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    she was pretty damned ambivalent about it. You know, Pragmatic and all that good stuff.  I thought she was being cagey and crafty in many of her responses and respected her for that honesty about being ambivalent.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:10:21 PM EST
    They believed it because they sure were "selling" the idea during the primary season.

    Replace "what would you do for a klondike bar?" with "what would you do for the Presidency?" and you pretty much have Barack Obama IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    well that was the impression (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:32:45 PM EST
    Obama's supporters tended to leave in the mind of many observers.

    Especially the bit where he bashed the IWR vote over everyone elses head.

    Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter how many Dems decided to resist the IWR.

    [ Parent ]

    ya got that right (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by wasabi on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:59:45 PM EST
    Neither Obama or Clinton would have ended the war any time soon.  Leaving a residual of 80K+ soldiers/marines in place in Iraq is not "ending" a war.  You put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

    [ Parent ]
    the 80K+ number (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:24:21 PM EST
    came from an interview from an Obama adviser who claimed it was only HIS opinion when those who didn't support Obama tried to stick Obama with it.  There was NEVER an 80K+ number associated with Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:25:49 PM EST
    I've been trying to think of where I've heard this argument before.  I realized it reminded me of all those Republicans who run around claiming that tax cuts increase revenues, and all my Republican friends assure me "oh come on, no one really believes tax cuts increase revenues."

    There are a heck of a lot of people who will take you at your word when you say you have a concrete plan to bring the troops home, and when you criticize other candidates for not having as concrete a plan.  The fact that you and I can sit here and be cynical and say "come on, everyone knows we're stuck in Iraq for years" doesn't justify it.  Obviously he thought he could fool a lot of people or he wouldn't have bothered.

    [ Parent ]

    Thought he could fool a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by RalphB on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:30:09 PM EST
    and, apparently, did just that.

    [ Parent ]
    And the ones who voted to break it in the first (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rojas on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:59:00 PM EST
    place and refuse to take responsibility...
    WHo are they fooling?

    [ Parent ]
    Bravo. (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:50:39 PM EST
    Exactly so.


    [ Parent ]
    How has Obama changed on Iraq? (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:38:50 AM EST
    He may be "my" candidate, but I have yet to read anything to suggest he has changed his position....

    Is it the word "refine?"  Is that it?  He has always said he would also consider what the generals had to say....

    [ Parent ]

    Idiots? Perhaps... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:15:34 AM EST
    But I've been told by any number of those idiots that Obama was the guy who was going to end the war in Iraq.

    I was told that he even had a plan.That he was "the" candidate on this...and that the others weren't going to do much of anything.

    That is, they told me so...right up til he changed his position...

    [ Parent ]

    I Guess You Are A Bushlover Then (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday - no matter what happened Tuesday.


    [ Parent ]
    Just flat-out wrong (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:17:16 AM EST
    Anyone who cared to read his plan, or listen carefully would know that it would be a miracle to be out in 16 months

    No.  Dr. Samantha Power said that 16 months was a best-case scenario.  Obama fired her the same week, and proclaimed that we were going to be out in 16 months no matter what.

    Anyone who listened to Obama, or read his plan (you can still read it on his web site), would come away with the idea that we were out in 16 months, no matter what.

    [ Parent ]

    You Missed The Fine Print (none / 0) (#214)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    JUN 2006: Obama Called For an "Expeditious Yet Responsible
    All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American
    troops from Iraq.  The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the
    ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.  Troops would be removed from secure areas first,
    with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two
    combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next
    year.  

    Exit from Iraq." In 2006, Obama said,
    "What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq." [Obama Floor Statement On Kerry
    Amendment, 6/21/06]

    SEP 2006: Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly.  In West Virginia, Obama said, "We must exit
    Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and
    genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America...We have both moral and
    national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way." [Charleston Gazette, 9/26/06]

    [ Parent ]

    Well IMO large segments of voters (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:24:14 AM EST
    did and do believe that Obama plans to end the war and within a 16 month timeframe.

    I agree that careful listening or reading his plan would not lead to that conclusion but most people were just hearing over and over again that he was going to quickly end the war.

    None of the Democratic candidates were going to end the occupation of Iraq on that I agree. There will be American troops in Iraq for years to come. Draw down of some troops? Yes. End the occupation. Doubt it.

    [ Parent ]

    Do they think we are all stupid? (4.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:05:40 PM EST
    I mean, I am getting pretty tired of them trying to sell me on the beauty of Obama changing his positions as often as he changes his underwear; he might as well start running bright and sunny ads that say "Don't like what I'm saying today?  Tune in tomorrow for a whole new outlook!"

    Leading in accordance with one's principles and core beliefs does not mean that everything is black and white - it doesn't rule out the gray,  being open to the options within that personal boundary that may be available as circumstances change - but the cir