home

Obama "Puzzled" By Flip Flop Charges

Barack Obama is puzzled:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday his plan to end the Iraq war was unchanged and he was puzzled by the sharp reaction to his statement this week that he might "refine" his timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops. . . . "I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off with what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said on a flight from Montana to St. Louis. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war." . . .Obama said he did not make a mistake Wednesday with his choice of words in describing his Iraq position -- even though he called a second news conference a few hours after his initial comments to clarify his stance. He laid the blame with reporters.

"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

Let me see if I can explain it to Senator Obama on the flip.

You see Senator Obama, after you completely flip flopped on telco immunity and did a heck of a contortion on campaign finance and flipped on the validity of the DC gun ban and softened your view in support of a women's right to choose by agreeing that "mental distress" is not a sufficient reason for a late term abortion, people are prone to think you are going to "refine" (aka flip flop) all of your views. Consider also that the Village WANTS you to flip on Iraq and voila! - your statements on Iraq get turned upside down.

Ah, the dangers of a "move to the middle." People start to believe you're going to move to the middle on all the key issues. They start to say things like this:

SCARBOROUGH: Next up, is Obama‘s liberal base cracking up? Almost 10,000 of Barack Obama‘s most ardent supporters are protesting his support for FISA. They are doing it on a social networking site that lives in Obama‘s own campaign website. It seems as though the Internet, the campaign‘s not so secret but ultra-powerful grass roots organizing tool, may be on the verge of back-firing on team Obama.

John Harwood, our second question of the day, is it possible that the left could fall out of love with Obama if he fades on FISA, if he fades on interrogating, and if he seems siding with Cheney-Bush and the NSA on wiretapping?...

HARWOOD: No, it is not a problem for Barack Obama. This is one of those things that sounds like a problem, but if you really look at it, getting attacked from the left on national security issues is good news for Barack Obama, because it tells mainstream voters that he‘s not out on the far extreme and helps him counteract the attacks he‘s getting from John McCain and the Republicans.

SCARBOROUGH: But, you know, Richard Wolffe, changes are very good that Barack Obama—he‘s backed down on FISA. He‘s going to back down on Iraq. Everybody knows we‘re not getting out in 14 months. That‘s absolutely ridiculous. Chances are good he‘s going to back down on interrogation to a degree. On these national security issues, where he went far left, at least by today‘s standards, far left to win the Democratic primary, he is going to bolt back to the center in a Nixonian sort of way. Will the left stay with him come hell or high water?

WOLFFE: Joe, look, one of the raps against Obama is that he‘s never bucked any part of the liberal base and he‘s doing it right now. I‘m sorry, I hate to break this to you; I‘m with John on this one. I think when it comes to Iraq, actually, he‘s going to stick with withdrawal. It‘s not going to be the same kind of ambitious, fast paced withdrawal, but there is a real contrast there with McCain. In the end, elections are about choices. The people on the left are going to look at McCain and they‘re still going to vote with Obama.

SCARBOROUGH: You really believe, Richard Wolffe, that we‘re going to get out of Iraq in 14 months?

WOLFFE: No, I said it would be slower. He‘s still going to start withdrawals. That‘s going to be an important message for his base. He‘s not going to even do it all by the mid terms, but he‘s going to start it. That‘s what‘s important to these people.

SCARBOROUGH: You watch. We will have troop in Iraq, a significant number of troops in Iraq—we‘re still in Bosnia ten years after Bill Clinton said we‘d be out after one year. It‘s just not going to be that easy.

THAT conversation came BEFORE Obama said he would "refine" his Iraq policy. It should not come as a surprise to Obama and his people that a capitulation on Iraq by Obama was also expected and interpreted from his comments.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Assuming a Move to Invesco Field for Obama's Acceptance Speech | A Generational Shift? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't get it (5.00 / 19) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    During the primary, the media was so good at reporting What Obama Really Meant as though it were the full picture!

    The WORM has turned? (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's like something has changed (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    I am puzzled.

    [ Parent ]
    The RNC started after him? (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:39:23 PM EST
    Criticisms from Hillary Clinton were always brushed off, so. . .

    [ Parent ]
    criticisms? (5.00 / 11) (#120)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM EST
    I saw them as warnings... flashing red lights... Everything is not what it seems with this guy, people. Pay attention.

    But did they pay attention? No.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that part of it is that (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    these latest changes of positions are so blatant, that it's impossible for most in the media to go along with it like they used to do.

    [ Parent ]
    So blatant & so numerous (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    as well

    [ Parent ]
    the difference between (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:47:28 PM EST
    Obama's flip flops and McCain's is that McCain flopped over a year ago BEFORE he started his primary campaign.  Obama's flops are all NEW and therefore more newsworthy

    [ Parent ]
    Told You So (5.00 / 12) (#24)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    Very few people here and at other blogs agreed with me the the media was going to turn on Obama. But it was already destined from Iowa on that come the General the media would turn for reasons I have already explained. Even some front posters here disagreed with that and their names don't start with a 'J' or a 'T'.

    How so many people could miss what has been going on for decades and think that it wold be different this time is mystifying.

    And the bad part for Obama supporters is we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet as to how the media will turn on him. All I can say is that he is giving them an awful lot of ammunition. As more than a few astute posters here have pointed out they don't have to look far to find material for being a stand-for-nothing flip-flopper which alone will be the kiss of death for Obama.

    Like he didn't know being a flip-flopper was a bad thing?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes talex, you're the only one who knows anything (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No not true (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    and I said that in my post if you would have read and absorbed it before your knee jerking.

    But to those who did NOT agree...

    Told You So! :)

    [ Parent ]

    Somerby was a bit ahead of you on this one. (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:37:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    People of substance (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by Jeannie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:35:58 PM EST
    have opinions with substance and have accomplished things of substance. Our president should have depth of thought and be a person who is able to get things done because he/she knows how.
    Does anyone see that in Obama?
    I was just over at MyDD and they are still talking about hope and change and faith. The country and the world deserves someone who understands and knows and works and has accomplishments.


    [ Parent ]
    Puzzling how they are treating me like Clinton... (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    ...is he that dumb or is he just being sarcastic?

    [ Parent ]
    He was "puzzled" by the Wright reaction (5.00 / 14) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    too, he said -- never expecting that the Rev would be that much of a problem for the rest of us.

    If true, Obama is not attuned to most Americans.  A lot of wealthy, intellectual, creative class types are not, of course -- but that's why pols have  pollsters and advisors.  So he isn't listening?  

    [ Parent ]

    I think before this campaign he was (5.00 / 10) (#86)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    used to having everyone around him glued to what he said and he could say no wrong. True when he was at Harvard, true now. He's just never had his judgement questioned like this. Remember when the press pressed him over Rezko and he had to retreat after a few questions. Amazing!!

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention... (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    his reaction to the ABC debate and refusal to participate in any future Primary debates.

    He's a pathological liar. Whether or not he is simply following direction is immaterial.

    His behaviour towards the media is viewed by some as part of the Axelrod frame: feign ignorance and indignation at the slightest hint that the narrative is straying to far from the script.

    [ Parent ]

    judgement (5.00 / 7) (#141)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    never had his judgement questioned like this

    that could explain why he thinks his judgement is so awesome

    [ Parent ]

    What did the media love more? (5.00 / 9) (#88)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM EST
    Obama (&/or his Movement) as an excuse to re-hate Sen Clinton AKA The Clintons and relive the glory days of being teh kewl kids?

    Obama (&/or his Movement) for their own sake?

    (I've barely turned on the toob since HRC suspended her campaign.)
     

    [ Parent ]

    Just wait. (4.75 / 12) (#194)
    by Jeannie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:45:08 PM EST
    Look what the media did to Gore and Kerry. They are just waiting until after August - and then all hell will break loose.
    As a semi-Puma I must say I will enjoy seeing him destroyed.
    The idea that Obama is not the insider candidate is just plain silly - look at who is backing him. Do they want change? Uh-uh. They were scared that Clinton might actually change things in their comfy world. That is why they will all back this losing candidate in August. There will be little left of the present Dem party by the time it is over.

    [ Parent ]
    Does obama truly think he is fooling anyone (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    by his "I don't understand" b.s.?  He shows, once again, how stoopid he thinks the electorate is.  All those news articles about his flip-flopping came from somewhere...

    At least he didn't say (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    he was "saddened" by it.


    [ Parent ]
    Or use the word (5.00 / 18) (#12)
    by madamab on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    "inartful."

    [ Parent ]
    Or disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:27:32 PM EST
    in the media for twisting his words.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I am saddened that so many obama (4.88 / 9) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    followers have been hoodwinked by his inartful rhetoric.  C'mon people....wake the hell up!!

    [ Parent ]
    no kidding (none / 0) (#93)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    but it's too late for most since he slew the ideal candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    and, once again, (4.75 / 16) (#38)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    Obama turns the attention back towards himself (his constant use of the pronoun "I") instead of to where it should be:  the Voters.

    It seems everything he says nowdays centers around what "he" thinks or how "he" feels or, most damningly, what "he" REALLY meant to say.  Will he ever understand that this Election isn't about him, but about us, the Voters?

    Sorry, I know it's OT, but it just ticks me off the amount of self-involved, narcissistic, ego-centric BS this man spouts.

    Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Presidenial elections (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    for good or ill revolve around the persona.

    [ Parent ]
    Does this give you a clue (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:28:22 PM EST
    "when I was and united States senator"?

    Also, just to note:

    "but if you really look at it, getting attacked from the left on national security issues is good news for Barack Obama, because it tells mainstream voters that he`s not out on the far extreme and helps him counteract" per Harwood.

    Does that say that we are the "extreme" left? OMG. Are we now the counter culture of the Democratic Party, the Underground?  

    Are we being excluded...again?

    [ Parent ]

    you're correct (4.75 / 16) (#84)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    but if one compares the difference between how someone like Hillary spoke ("what I will do for you") to how Obama speaks ("what I will achieve"), the self-involvement of Obama's personality becomes clear.

    I don't get the sense he has a strong vision for how he wants us Americans to live or to benefit from an Obama Presidency.  How will our lives change for the better based on what he plans to DO for and with us.

    I DO think, however, that he has a very CLEAR picture of what it will be like for him to BE President, to be in power, to have attention, to be in the history books.  To fly on Air Force One and be referred to as "Mr. President".  To finally be not only in "The Club" but to be it's reigning Member.

    There is a clear difference, at least to me, between the two.

    [ Parent ]

    I've always been bothered by this as well (5.00 / 14) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:15:46 PM EST
    And specifically because the contrast with Clinton's rhetoric was so stark.  She always spoke in terms of 'we' as a nation and what she would work to accomplish for 'us'.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Jeannie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:48:14 PM EST
    You nailed it.

    [ Parent ]
    As much as he disses the 60s (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    he behaves like a "me generation" tuned into himself hippie.

    [ Parent ]
    Wait a minute Wolffe (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    one of the raps against Obama is that he`s never bucked any part of the liberal base and he`s doing it right now.
    Did he ever make any real commitments to the left? Sure, there was Iraq, but other than that? There was also the NAFTA thing in Ohio. But other than that? His healthcare plan was rightly attacked from the left. He has been a down-the-line moderate all the way through the primary. Anyone who cared to look knew this.

    He flat-out made that up (5.00 / 13) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    Wolffe did.  There's no "rap" on Obama that he's too far left except in the mind of Rush Limbaugh.  Is that who Wolffe is taking his talking points from?

    Good grief.


    [ Parent ]

    Richard Wolffe (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    is one of them feriners.  And that accent doesn't make me swoon.  ;)

    He went easy on Bush.  Tells me all I need to know.

    [ Parent ]

    Where's Obama's speech against the Iraq war? (5.00 / 8) (#99)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    Where's the footage of Obama leading a march, taking a stand, going up against the Patriotic Police of the moment?

    All we have is his accepted and unchallenged statement, after the fact, intellectually and in the magical land of rhetoric that he was against it -- compared to Bad Monster Lady who was in the Senate at the time and on record.

    Where's the copy of the Greatest Anti-War Speech Evah?

    The recorded action of Obama in relation to Iraq is voting FOR funds to continue the occupation, but fund-raising and having lunch on an unchallenged presumption of his opposition.

    Intellectual opposition.

    (I say this as someone who ducked "patriotically" HURLED debris with other anti-war marchers when we were out early and often, strenuously opposing the unilateral, premature, ill-considered invasion.)

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed. (5.00 / 9) (#108)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    The central tenent of his anti-Iraq jiberish amounts to the greatest instance of arm-chair quarterbacking in recent history.

    If superior judgment qualifies Obama to be President and his judgment rests on early opposition to the war in Iraq, then that qualifies yourself along with tens of millions of other citizens - not to mention those members of CONGRESS who actually opposed the war from the get-go.

    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't it be nice (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Jeannie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    if someone had a recording of that famous speech? Wanna bet it isn't the same as the one he recorded to prove his anti-Iraq credentials?

    [ Parent ]
    are you kidding me?... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    ...speaking from the viewpoint of a moderate centrisit, since when is raising minimum wage and indexing it to inflation and opposing free trade moderate centrist policies?

    [ Parent ]
    Raising the minimum wage (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:13:40 PM EST
    is popular with just about everyone but the Club for Growth. If Max Baucus is voting for it, it's broadly acceptable.

    And opposing free trade? Well, he's flip-flopped on that one, but I said so in my comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Max Baucus (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    is a pol who comes from a state that ranks in the bottom five for PCPI. Citing Max Baucus as an advocate for raising the minimum wage (aside from being pretty disingenuous) as sufficient reason to cow to a terrible fiscal policy is about as convincing as Obama's speech to the AIPAC.

    Increasing minimum wage is dubious. Indexing it to inflation is insanity.

    [ Parent ]

    The same Max Baucus who shepherded through (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM EST
    George Bush's massive tax cut? Sorry, your CfG blather won't wash with me.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget our (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    "huge" monetary gift from the Bushies that we'll have to pay taxes on next year.

    Hilarious.

    [ Parent ]

    My bad (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:15:57 PM EST
    I thought you enjoyed money. Come to think of it, your aversion to reduced taxes does explain why you think the most-liberal Senator in Congress is a moderate centrist.

    [ Parent ]
    So you voted against Reagan and G HW B riiiight??? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:21:35 PM EST
    They both raised taxes.

    [ Parent ]
    Taxes (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    in and of themselves aren't wedge issues for me and alone have never made or broke my vote for a candidate. Fiscal and monetary policy is important to me, and of course taxes present a big component of fiscal and monetary policy. My personal assessment of Obama's economic platform stems from a cluster of terrible policies among some admittedly good ones.

    No one has speculated on how a McCain Presidency and a Congress which will look more Democrat in 2009 than it is now might turn out to be a great balance for this country.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, I will speculate: (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    There will never be enough Democrats in the Senate to block John McCain's Supreme Court appointments, and they are certian to be extreme in ways that are unacceptable to me.

    You will vote for a Republican because you want a Republican, not because you are aiming for some kind of "balance."

    [ Parent ]

    not true (5.00 / 6) (#207)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    if the dems control the senate, they control the judicial committee.  The dems would just have to find a backbone and then NO McCain Supreme Court nominee they don't like would ever get out of committee to be voted on in the full senate.

    [ Parent ]
    Judicial appointment (3.00 / 1) (#204)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:53:46 PM EST
    is obviously a wedge issue for you and something you find particularly important. Care to articulate your concerns on which specific decisions you feel might be threatened?

    Do you think, for example, that McCain's appointments would be any worse than Bush's? Certainly even you don't think that.

    But have Bush's appointments turned out to be the demons they were supposed to be? Has Roberts, for example, turned out to be that bad? His dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush on habeas corpus is actually pretty damn reasonable. Certainly less fiery that Scalia's.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my. (5.00 / 7) (#105)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    Come to think of it, your aversion to reduced taxes does explain why you think the most-liberal Senator in Congress is a moderate centrist.

    Reduced taxes?  How has that benefited most Americans?  

    The issue isn't taxes; it's how how tax money is spent.

    Education, the common welfare of the American peple.

    Reduced taxes should be the result of fiscal responsibility/restraint.

    Spend my tax money in the right places, and I'm happy to pay my share.

    Not Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    benefits depend on (none / 0) (#158)
    by ribbon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:20:53 PM EST
    whether or not you mean individual or social.

    Those who believe in a publicly funded education system prefer to measure the social benefits, rather than individual benefits.

    At any rate, by in large I agree with you on your main point.

    Defense spending has always been rediculous: Upwards of 50% of government expenditure.

    Iraq is a cost of which we currently bare some portion of.  

    The choice for '08 is whether or not you this as an investment. In other words, do you think it will pay off in the long-run. I think it will. There's been some amazing progress already. The Iraqi government is making billions on oil revenue - they are making money faster than they can spend it. They have some big choices to make in the future: whether or not to relax the market restrictions on oil extraction and production; investment in their infrastructure.

    Iraq will stabilize further: their economy will continue to expand, which will fuel more economic prosperity which in turn will fuel more social and political stability.

    There's no question on the payoff: the world, not just us, will benefit immenseley from a stabilized and democratic Iraq.

    The cost, obviously, is too much for some to bear.

    [ Parent ]

    I f what you say about Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:33:12 PM EST
    then that says that George Bush was right.  Stay the course is the thing to do.

    WOW

    [ Parent ]

    Obama sure looks new and fresh now--- (5.00 / 19) (#5)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    like a newly minted Mondale or Dukakis.
    Gosh, he's impressive. He really GETS it.

    MarkL...stop it, yer killin' me... :) (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:40:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    THat's an insult (4.73 / 15) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    to Mondale and especially Dukakis, both of whom were genuine liberals.


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, that was the Spanish Ham (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    talking.

    [ Parent ]
    in my best Al Martino voice...ooooh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    spanish ham, tastiest ham in all obamaland... :)

    [ Parent ]
    spit take (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    OK you guys, I'm going to have to clean up my keyboard now...

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder if the real reason obama wants (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    to be president, is so he doesn't have to pay for that Spanish ham and can have it everyday free 'o charge and at the taxpayer's expense... :)

    [ Parent ]
    I read a diary and comments at DKos for the (5.00 / 19) (#10)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    first time in a long time. According to most of them, Obama didn't move to the center at all on abortion. What he is doing is actually moving all the states to the left...he's going to make them allow third term abortions for the physical health of the mother.

    I'll tell you, I have never read such twisting in my life. Mental distress is when some poor woman just has a bad day.

    There is nothing he can say that is going to turn those people away from him. I can understand the ones who say there is no good alternative (McCain), but the ones who try to justify his every word amaze me.

    The world is really screwed up when I am in agreement with eugene.

    I often used to agree with eugene (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    But the kool aid did not escape him.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe I am thinking of the wrong person but he (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    always seemed awfully hard on Democrats who don't live in a state or a district where they can win running on a liberal platform. I do know I went around and around with him on mandates. He doesn't think he should be forced to buy health insurance at his age just to lower the cost for the rest.

    He was also pretty insulting to old people who live off social security.

    [ Parent ]

    How embarrassing (5.00 / 15) (#36)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    Is this what liberals have become?  "We should do all these great things for people, as long as it doesn't cause me any personal inconvenience"?  No wonder so many people entertain this fantasy that we can pay for every program we want to enact without raising taxes on anyone except the super-rich.

    [ Parent ]
    I think so. (5.00 / 12) (#72)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    The arguments back when Edwards was still in the race convinced me that many of the Obama supporters weren't my type of liberal. I have health insurance but I'd gladly pay more taxes to insure those without.

    With Edwards still in, they couldn't argue the issue the same way they did with Hillary and her earlier attempt on health care. Their reasoning was nothing but selfish (I don't need insurance, I'm young and healthy, my student loans are too high, I'd rather buy a nicer house, etc.) That issue eliminated Obama from my choices long before other circumstances made me a Clinton supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    When one of my co-workers (5.00 / 8) (#188)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:39:21 PM EST
    found out Edwards had been my first choice, he said he could never vote for someone who wanted health insurance for everyone.  His reasoning was that right now all those people without health insurance weren't "clogging up" his doctor's office; if they could afford to go to the doctor, he'd have to wait longer for an appointment, and that was just not acceptable.

    When I pointed out that those people weren't able to see a doctor at all, which was far worse than him having to wait, he looked at me as if I'd suddenly lapsed into Sanskrit.

    Of course, he had an excuse - he's a Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhh (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    the "mandates are bad" crowd. Yeah, that was mostly a function of Obama cultism. I seem to recall that he was for letting everyone buy into medicare, like most reasonable people on the left, so I really don't understand how he came to that.

    And as for being down on social security. . .I find that hard to believe.

    But I think he was a Naderite once upon a time, soooo. . .

    [ Parent ]

    I went back to that old diary from January... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    he was telling me how some of his friends feel about boomers...he said he doesn't share their views and defends the boomers with his friends.

    My memory was bad so I apologize to eugene on the social security part of my comment.

    [ Parent ]

    If anyone said anything even mildly (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:16:41 PM EST
    instructive on illegal immigration he "screamed racist." He absolutely believed in open borders and nothing less. He never saw another side to illegal immigration and believed any attempt to examine ALL of the issues was an attempt to scapegoat the immigrant.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I pretty much agree with him (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Yea, he was one of the first (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    kossacks that turned me off at dkos.  Petty and ageist.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, you see, woman sometimes have (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    problems at "that time of the month", but once they're pregnant, all that is over with. There's no place for mental distress in a happy human incubator.

    [ Parent ]
    I read the pathetic drivel (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    from one of the resident Obama supporters on the flip flop thread (re the FISA amendment).

    Round and round they go. Where they stop...

    I don't know.  I just wish they would.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, the kool-aid drinkers make me dizzy (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    they are pretty bad. You know, if this wasn't all so serious, it's be kind of funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    If these are the kind of people supporting Obama, then there's something wrong.

    Very wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that a lot of peole on that site (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by rjarnold on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    are starting to wake up though. Like around 30-40% of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    the nightmare doesn't stop when they do.

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone who can think (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    Obama has not moved to the right on abortion hasn't read Greenburg at ABC or my diary (just up) summarizing her article.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll explain it to barack obama like this (5.00 / 15) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    you wouldnt be where you are if people didnt play this game with Clinton so you look like a monumental hypocritical fool when you whine and whine about others playing this game with you.

    I know that's not how everyone would explain it to obama but that's how I would.


    I recall quite a few people warning he should (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Burned on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    reject the stuff his surrogates and the media used against Clinton during the primary to give himself a leg up during the GE.

    Acting confused about it now is ridiculous.
    It's bad acting.


    [ Parent ]

    Ahem. (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    He's an orator, not an actor.  

    I know this because, if he were an actor, he would have his speeches memorized.  

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    I find this tidbit from the Reuters (5.00 / 20) (#22)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM EST
    reporter strangely amusing:

    "I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

    A reporter's subtle revenge? Another lesson in measuring words? A wicked sense of humor?

    That got a good laugh from me. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Burned on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    I wish it hadn't, but it did.
    Mean ol' reporters!

    [ Parent ]
    That says a lot!! (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    HAHA>. very good (4.91 / 12) (#25)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    Of course, it looks like he has forgotten what a Senator actually does, so the slip is not surprising.
    I've said it many times---Obama is extremely inartful with words, bordering on W.-hood.
    It's only because he's smoother in delivery that he gets away with it.


    [ Parent ]
    I doubt very much (5.00 / 11) (#51)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:15:45 PM EST
    he'll get away with that slip.  If I were McCain, I'd be making hay with his inartful "when I was a Senator" slip.  You know, highlight his Senate record, how much the constituents love him, even joke that he looks forward to meeting the Junior Senator from Illinois soon ... whoever that might be as it's obvious he's somehow missed an Election.

    Man, I just can't imagine the bone-chilling depression this man will feel when he wakes up in February 09 and finds himself back in the Senate chamber doing the "boring" work of the People of Illinois.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops! (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    Now reporters are also under the bus.  That makes his staffers, grandma, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, clingy bitter people, Wes Clark, and Jim Johnson. (Oh yeah, and half [or more] of the Democratic Party).

    Am I missing anyone?

    as a matter of fact (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by dws3665 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    pro-choice voters.

    And although not a person, please don't forget the 4th amendment.

    [ Parent ]

    To clarify, I don't think Obama (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    is puzzled in the slightest at the charge of flip-flopping. He's just trying to bamboozle the voters.

    Someone needs to remind (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    Barack Obama that "Words have Meaning."  (I thought he gave an historic speech about this very topic?)  

    Any words that flutter out of his mouth, Michelle's mouth, any of his aides or people working with his campaign -- anything any of them say is going to be open for interpretation by anyone who chooses to interpret them, including the Media.    

    [ Parent ]

    He doesn't really care about the reporters (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    He's getting today's talking point of the day out to his super netrootz operatives, so it will be all over the internet by tomorrow that 'Obama hasn't flip-flopped!  It's those horrible press meanies that are twisting his words!'

    slightly OT: Over the years I've been on this planet, I've noticed that with a lot of younger people tend to define 'fairness' only in relation to themselves.  Anything they dislike is unfair, while anything they like or advantages them is fair.  And they are passionate about defending this definition.  

    Most folks grow (up and) out of it.  Some, not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    He's trying to manage the press. (none / 0) (#54)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yea, by (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    acting like a victim.  That works on many liberal-guilt-ridden Dems, but not the general public.

    [ Parent ]
    O'Fanboy Wolff (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by DFLer on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    is sounding the theme/meme I'm beginning to hear from blogamas, "pi$$ing off the evil liberal left is a good thing, as it is a ploy to win middle america"

    he's wrong (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by Turkana on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    it's not the media's fault. it's yours. and mine. and digby's. and lambert's. and melissa's. etc.

    Dirty effing hippies! (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:06:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And his staff's, I'm sure (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    as they go under the bus on a regular basis, even blamed for what is in his own handwriting.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this quote from Obama's own website one (5.00 / 13) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    major reason people think he's flip flopping on Iraq?

    Via Jake Tapper:

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

    And here's more from the wayback machine:

    On a conference call with reporters earlier Friday Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama has been "crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in - as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity."

    ....

    Clinton decried comments Samantha Power made about Obama's Iraq policy, saying she was "told about something that one of Senator Obama's top foreign policy aides told the BBC recently about Iraq."

    "While Senator Obama campaigns on his plan to end the war, his top advisors tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. We saw this with NAFTA as well," Clinton said.

    "He has attacked me continuously for having no hard exit date and now we learn that he doesn't have one -- in fact he doesn't have a plan at all according to his top foreign policy adviser," she said. "He keeps telling people one thing while his campaign tells people abroad something else I'm not sure what the American people should believe but I would refer you to the BBC interview in which the top foreign policy adviser is speaking about senator Obama and Iraq," Clinton said.

    And still more:

    GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."

    So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

    OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.

    That's not the role of the generals.

    And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."

    Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

    Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.

    Look, even if Obama elsewhere said somewhat more equivocal stuff, it doesn't get around statements like those assembled here, whose clear intent is to lead people to believe that his commitment to getting all combat troops out in 16 months was something you could count on.

    Now, of course, having won the Democratic nomination and having fooled many voters into believing he will get all combat troops out within 16 months, he wants to "refine" his views with impunity, and is shocked, shocked, that anyone might think there was some real deception going on.

    But there's not enough KoolAid in all of Berkeley and Cambridge and Palo Alto to make that notion go down.

    Excellent research and roundup (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:53:40 PM EST
    Thanks.  This is what I've been trying to get across to so many I know, that he backpedaled from immediate to within 16 months to indefinite and needs to be "refined."  But I didn't have the evidence, the exact quotes.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's another one I'm sure he's flipping on: (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    We will not have permanent bases there.

    He hasn't used those exact words yet, but now he's talking about only pulling combat troops out -- none of the other troops (like support, training, etc.)


    [ Parent ]

    aside from the point being made (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST
    comparing our involvement in Iraq right now with our involvement  in Bosnia right now is totally moronic.

    I wanted to add that.

    The important part in Obama's statement (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    on Iraq wasn't really the 16 months deadline. It was what he said about revising how many troops would be left behind after the main withdrawl. There is a ton of wiggle room in there which could leave tens of thousands of troops behind. That might be good policy. It might not be. Either way, I think he should be upfront about it.

    The new nuance (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Burned on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    Combat brigades do not equal troops.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the key folks: (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    HARWOOD: No, it is not a problem for Barack Obama. This is one of those things that sounds like a problem, but if you really look at it, getting attacked from the left on national security issues is good news for Barack Obama, because it tells mainstream voters that he`s not out on the far extreme and helps him counteract the attacks he`s getting from John McCain and the Republicans.

    Obama has to undermine the nonsense that Faux News and talk shows spout.  To do that, he needs to reach right wing and centrist voters now, while the electorate still doesn't have a good sense of who he is.  He has to speak to their fears, using their language say what will show he's not the extremist he's been painted to be.  Right now they're hearing that those crazy liberals thought Obama was one of them, and he's proving them wrong.  They're taking a new look at him.  If he reaches them now, and they feel an emotional connection, smears won't be as effective later on.  It's that simple.

    Put the tankard down. Now. (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    Or we might have to stage an intervention. Guzzling that stuff can kill ya.

    [ Parent ]
    Look, Obama was asked point blank (3.50 / 2) (#75)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    by Charlie Gibson:
    So you give the same rock hard pledge [as David Plouffe], that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home.
    He replied:
    Because the commander in chief sets the mission Charlie.  That's not the role of the Generals.  Now I will always listen to the commanders on the ground with respect to tactics.  Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq.  

    Our candidate brilliantly answered Gibson's direct question without giving the GOP a soundbite that would let them make him look silly or inexperienced.  Obama did not commit to bringing the troops home no matter what.  Instead, he answered the question, "If and when the commander in chief says to it's time to bring the troops home, will you enforce that order no matter what the military commanders say."


    [ Parent ]

    You "brilliantly" left off the (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    first part of Gibson's question.

    And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."

    And that exchange is EXACTLY what Scarborough and others were nailing Obama with the other day right before he hit Maddow with the cackle crack.

    I don't think the word "brilliant" means what you think it means.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't leave it off (none / 0) (#94)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    I added [David Plouffe] to my quotation and the entire thing is already included downthread.

    [ Parent ]
    You know, in a year when a Democrat should (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    walk all over a Republican, why in the world would you move to the center or right on issues you don't even have to? What makes it necessary for him to do this? This is the best chance we've had in years, if ever, to really get our issues enacted.

    I will never ever get over the fact that we gave up on universal health care when we didn't have to. Why does he feel the need to let us down on these issues to get elected when any generic Democrat wins the election based on polling? If he'll do it when he doesn't have to, just wait until he's in a position when he needs to. He sell us out for sure then. He is no fighter for any cause but getting elected as far as I can see.

    [ Parent ]

    Since we had a tight race that split the party (none / 0) (#90)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    it's not a cakewalk for us this year.

    I'd love to have a candidate who's more liberal than either Obama or Hillary.  I want someone who says enough to the gay rights and abortion issues, who sets about the task of enshrining a woman's right to make all decisions about her body and who eliminates the gay wedge issue by establishing once and for all equal rights for gays at the federal level. But I live in America, where even on a left wing blog like this I bet there are plenty of people who don't think gays should have equality.  And in our country, our Democratic leaders get fired for standing up for our issues.

    So I support the candidate who I think is most likely to further my issues, even it it's his supporters who will get the work done.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama split the party, so the sense of urgency (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    ... that he must ride his Unity Pony into the waiting embrace of the right alleviates him of responsibility for what he and his campaign have wrought.

    I'd love to have a candidate who's more liberal than either Obama or Hillary.  I want someone who says enough to the gay rights and abortion issues

    Huh, I'll bet! Good thing the application of Constitution protections don't depend on your personal whims.

    Whack your holy book of choice, or other code of personal order, on your own head and, in the privacy of your own mansion or cardboard box, pretend all you want that it trumps law and constitution.

    It doesn't even apply to people who consider themselves co-signators to whatever your personal moral covenants are, much less those who don't.

    If you're sick and tired of people's exercising their rights to make personal decisions on reproduction, love and family without your freakin permission or approval, by all means retire to your mansion or cardboard box and Quetzlecoatl be with you always.

    Now Go.

    Be.

    But mostly go.

    [ Parent ]