Eating His Waffles
Obama seems to be indicating he won't necessarily go for an automatic pull-out (in 16 months) from Iraq if elected. This is driving his base nuts, since this is the big issue for them, and he promised. But, like any politician, once he gets the nomination of his party, he started running toward the center.
Most politicians can make this transition smoothly, but it's tricky on this issue. The main, perhaps only reason the anti-war base preferred Obama over the other major Dems was his opposition to the Iraq war was 99 and 44/100% pure. So waffling is unbearable.
But the facts on the ground have been changing, and it's becoming clearer to everyone except the most hidebound that leaving right away could be a big mistake. Obama almost certainly knows this, but he can't say it openly, since it's not only giving the finger to the people who got him the nomination, but would be essentially admitting he was wrong on the war.
So one day he implies he may not pull out so fast (if at all), and the next day he says he hasn't changed his stance at all. Perhaps he's hoping his personal charm will get him through, and both sides will figure he'll do what they believe is right.
PS If I were advising him, I'd say go all the way and say he won't pull out until he's convinced it's the right thing to do. It's 1) the best position for the country, 2) easy enough to cover on the flip-flopping charge by saying he's simply going to listen carefully to what his generals say and what's happening there--who could object to that--and 3) I just don't believe his base will desert him, and the only way he can lose the election is if he loses the middle.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
6 Comments:
"...but he can't say it openly, since it's not only giving the finger to the people who got him the nomination, but would be essentially admitting he was wrong on the war."
Huh?
Reacting to immediate circumstances is hardly an endorsement of the bad policies which made it necessary to react to immediate circumstances.
He can talk all about the bad policies that led to the war. Admitting we shouldn't leave right away, and maybe should stick around and win, would mean everything he's claimed about the war since he became a Senator (it's unwinnable, the surge can't work, we should have left already) is wrong.
I agree with L.A. Guy: Obama's move will piss off his anti-war base, but they'll still vote for him.
Maybe, just maybe, if it had come down to Obama versus Kucinich at the end, and Obama had won the nomination on the grounds that he was anti-war, he wouldn't be able to flipflop this soon without alienating some of his base.
But the diehard antiwar Democrats were 100% behind Obama from the moment that the field narrowed to Obama, HRC, and Edwards. And they will vote for him no matter what, since McCain -- while "middle" or "moderate" or "maverick" on some issues -- is perceived as unambiguously hawkish on Iraq.
Nader will get virtually no votes in 2008. (Anecdotal evidence here: only one of my most socialist friends is even considering voting for someone other than the Democratic nominee.) The question comes down to whether "middle America" sees Obama as (1) a traditional Democrat, or (2) a dangerously liberal and naively inexperienced young man, or (3) a covert Muslim Black Panther who gives terrorist signals to his whitey-hating wife using a fist bump.
If McCain's campaign were competent they'd have convinced America of # 2 by now (it is, after all, true). But I'm not holding my breath. Sadly, then, if Obama loses it will be because the crazy right has convinced enough Americans thatn # 3 is true.
Of course, I'd be glad to see Obama lose because people thought that # 1 was true! But not this year....
I am glad that the surge seems to be "working" in some ways in Iraq, and I agree that we should try to leave Iraq in a responsible fashion, if there is such a thing. I don't get the overconfidence, though. Every time I hear that we "can't set timetables," I wonder, so how can this ever end? At some point you would have to call your generals and say "Put this brigade on a plane on such and such a date." Or does everyone one day wake up, realize "conditions on the ground" are ripe, jump onto a plane and go home? What has to be true before we can "set a timetable?" If you can answer that question in a coherent way, I will more willing to consider your confidence.
Maybe one such condition is: "The "Iraqi government" that we installed is asking us to set a timetable." As of this week, they are doing that.
I agree it's a different thing if Iraq sets timetables. The point about Obama is he's been saying we should leave as soon as possible for a long time, regardless of the facts, or how they're changing. I think we can see it would have been a bad idea to have left when he originally said we should.
In general, you don't set timetables for leaving unless you're surrendering or have, in essence, won. Right now the proper thing to do is look at the situation and, as always, decide if we think it's worth continuing until Iraq is stabilized and ready to handle things without our full troop presence--then we can start to pull out. Obama is saying (at least half the time) no no no, we must leave no matter what is happening.
The " 'Iraqi government' that we installed"? That's disgusting. Millions of Iraqis put their lives on the line to vote, and you spend your time writing propaganda on the side of the fascists who oppose them!
Post a Comment
<< Home