See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama's war position could be his weakness
Source:
NY Times
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2008
Author: John Vinocur
Post Date: 2008-03-21 15:53:14 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 463
Comments: 47
Obama's war position could be his weakness Politicus
Byline: John Vinocur The New York Times Media Group
Edition: 2
Section: NEWS
When John McCain says he could lose the presidential election because of his position on Iraq, people nod. But Barack Obama?
Put it this way: Obama doesn't acknowledge that his call for a complete withdrawal of American troops by a specific date has become a risk to his candidacy. But the evidence suggests it is no longer the golden path to victory in November, or even to the Democratic nomination, that many of his backers once seemed to think.
On Friday, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll reported that about 35 percent of Americans believed that it was McCain who had the right approach to the war - not giving up and not leaving Iraq to Al Qaeda and chaos - compared with 30 percent for Hillary Rodham Clinton and 27 percent for Obama.
Specifically, on a pullout of troops, the Pew Research Center, in a report published two weeks earlier without reference to the candidates, found a virtually even split for the first time since 2006: 49 percent saying bring the troops home "as soon as possible" (a notion that both McCain or Clinton could endorse as long as it comes without a completion date); and 47 percent wanting troops to stay on until "the situation stabilizes."
Add two chunks of reality and a caveat to the mix.
A) In the bruising Ohio Democratic primary won by Clinton this month, Iraq was the most important concern of only 9 percent of probable Democratic voters, a small fraction compared with those focused on economic and health issues.
B) According to Pew Research, while 54 percent of Americans think the war was "the wrong decision," 53 percent now believe the "U.S. effort in Iraq will succeed."
Caveat: Beyond the current run of diminished casualties and seeming military successes - plus a surge in troops and the Bush administration's contrasting withdrawal of five combat brigades by the end of July - no polling on Iraq can ever soften its potential to become the issue foremost in America's mind at any moment before Election Day.
So where does all this point? To the proposition that Obama is in the process of losing some of the effect of what he once obviously thought were his wonder-weapons.
The double warhead: First, the charmed innocence of being demonstrably opposed to the war from before the get-go - a kind of one-man freedom from original sin - while 70 percent of his countrymen (including great numbers of Democrats) had approved George W. Bush's handling of Iraq the night attacks on Baghdad began five years ago, on March 20, 2003.
Then, there is the certainty of announcing a specific time frame for a troop withdrawal. If Obama is elected, it's over by the end of next year. By this stroke, consider Baghdad free for vacation travel by Easter 2010.
But the legitimacy and touch-of-the-prophet routine no longer functions magically for Obama at a time when rage and contrition about the war have diminished from their 2006 congressional election level.
With the polls saying the possibility of the United States NOT losing in Iraq is an increasingly respectable notion (and no longer a shameful desire), telling the terrorists and insurgents we're gone on such-and-such date has a massive downside.
Would Woody Hayes or Joe Paterno (two legendary field-marshal type football coaches from the win-or-else Ohio/Pennsylvania heartland) signal their game plans to the world before the second half began? My guess about the answer from the Reagan Democrats Obama so much needs to capture in next month's Pennsylvania primary could sound like "ain't no way."
The problem here for Obama suggests that he doesn't seem to be picking up on this or the general trend in the polls - and if he does, that he won't risk alienating his support among the Democrats' left-wing activists.
When Clinton challenged his notions about withdrawal, Obama shot back from on high, "She doesn't have standing to question my position on this issue."
The "standing"? That's something like telling the 70 percent of Americans who, according to The New York Times, went along with Bush as the war began, that they are forever compromised. And that their concerns about Obama's position on a withdrawal are not fully legitimate.
Actually, what this approach might be doing is adding substance to the supposition that Obama thinks something else about Iraq than what he's now saying.
On the withdrawal timetable, that notion has a basis in fact. Indeed, Samantha Power, a valued foreign policy adviser to Obama, who got fired for calling Clinton a monster, also said, concerning Iraq if Obama is elected, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. senator."
There was no give from the Obama camp suggesting that Power's remark - hardly an unreasonable one - might be more than a little true.
Questioned in a campaign debate if after the withdrawal he would send troops back to quell an insurrection or civil war, Obama avoided a specific response, The Associated Press reported.
Yet Power suggested that Obama would be listening to the generals, among others, on issues like when a withdrawal finishes, or whether a permanent troop presence in Iraq is required. Rather than saying, sure, there's some wisdom there, Obama again chose being right about Iraq as if by revelation, and all the time.
Coming from a man who promises an end to divisiveness in American politics (and in light of current polling), this is the equivalent of saying you are hopelessly wrong to what could be half or more of the electorate. And in a way, it's an echo of McCain's line that his position on Iraq could lose him the election.
These days, Obama's stance looks like a brittle one that may need revision.
After all, this is the self-proclaimed candidate of historic change.
And he did say in July 2004, when it looked like America was winning the war in Iraq, and long after his first announcement of opposition to it, "There's not much difference between my position and George Bush's at this stage."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
On Friday, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll reported that about 35 percent of Americans believed that it was McCain who had the right approach to the war - not giving up and not leaving Iraq to Al Qaeda and chaos - compared with 30 percent for Hillary Rodham Clinton and 27 percent for Obama. 30 + 27 = 57 to McCain's 35. This article is a bit goofy.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Anyone that believes the US will be leaving the ME is deluding themselves.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Reagan got out of Lebanon in a couple of weeks. Clinton quit Somalia in days. Bush got out of Saudi shortly after the Saudis told him to get out. Clinton or Bush first quit 2 huge bases in the Philippines shortly after the Philippine gov't requested it. I know, it's going to be heart-breaking to leave our defenseless, nukular-armed friend and ally all-alone over there but... it can be done and it could actually happen.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Very true. However there is a catch. We have seen a steady parade of American power holders wailing at the wailing wall, the latest being McKooK and Lie-berman. Clinton/Obama separately or as Queen and lackey will make the same required journey to pay homage.
I would not bet the farm on it.
I know that Hillary or McCain would not get out of the ME. Obama might but it's hard to say how events are going to turn in the next few years.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
We have ONE black in prominent government service, ONE. If Obama becomes president, no one dare say he will populate his cabinet with blacks. We all know who will be there.
I suspect that, if Hillary makes it to the WH, you will see a majority of women in the top positions. McCain could fill the payroll with senile geezers. I doubt that Obama would have more than 10-15% blacks in top jobs because it would not be helpful and, remember he IS half-White.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
CFR will give all three a list of "available" people ready to run the government, with a black or two sprinkled in. It would do me good if Obama wins and he has ONE token white. That would be a hoot.
This guy is no Jesse Jackson. Is his campaign staff mostly black? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Have paid no attention. All I know is he takes in 2 million a day from somewhere.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Oh, yes.
i just went out to lunch and in the parking lot of the restaurant was an SUV which had on it one of my Bring 'em Home magnetic ribbons and an Obama 2008 bumper sticker! ;)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Capitalist. Bourgeoisie.
i do too. i haven't sold my ribbons for a couple of years. i don't even have one on my car anymore so it surprised me to see one today.
The Magic Negro is losing his magic?
A few months ago, supporting the war in Iraq was a real political liability. That's not necessarily true now. The media have managed to spin the "surge" into enough of a success (which it isn't) to either convince people to support the continued occupation or at least lull them into not caring. If this spin continues, I wonder how long it'll be before Hillary returns to her pro-war roots and Obama discovers his. People have pretty short memories and attention spans.
This article is a bit goofy. Goofy? No. Just not complimentary to the Prophet. The 30% and 27% are the same study group, each compared separately to McCain's 35%. The MSM says we're winning the war and must stay indefinitely. So does Obama's clique at the CFR.
Yep, the anti-war positions of Paul, Kucinich and Gravel garnered about 8% nationwide. Endless war is the winning position.
His mojo is vanishing faster than money from The Kingfish's vest pocket.
How'd you meet the Kingfish, Andy? I put my hand in my pocket to get my wallet and shook hands with the Kingfish.
No, the media masters won't permit that with so many of their cousins depending on us in Israel.
It's not so much that most voters are actively pro-war. They really don't care about that or any other issue until it bites them in the ass personally. Most of the time, people vote for a name and face they recognize and like, and for somebody in "their" political party who they think can win.
I met him at the candy store.....
You don't see that everyday!
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
it really surprised me because i haven't actively promoted the ribbons for 2 years. amusing seeing one pop up next to an Obama '08 bumpersticker. ;)
My point is, the two Democratic nominees' #s are 57% to McCain's 35%. So when either get the nomination, very likely all of that 57% will now belong to him or her, against McCain's 35%. Obama and Hillary have similar positions on the Iraq war (at this point in time; except Obama gave a firm date when our troops would be out of Iraq). If the question had been, do you agree with Hillary and Obama's approach to the war or McCain's, it would be more clear how goofy the idea is that McCain has the strongest position. The liberal's anti-war stance has been divided almost in half.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Sounds like the owner of those bumper stickers are really hoping Obama will enforce that date when all troops will be out of Iraq.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Without knowing if each of the 57% represents a unique person, the stat can't be measured against McKooKs 35%.
In a poll, you would only get to vote once for one of the three.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Step up to Huh? In a poll, the same sample could - and is often - asked about different, similar scenarios.
The percentages add up to 92%, the 8% missing are most likely the undecided or those who refused to answer b/c didn't like any of 'em. What you are suggesting would mean no poll has any value whatsoever.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
The % are meaningless w/o knowing the sample size and if multiple questions were asked of the same people regarding all, some or one candidate. This is a totally useless stat unless more info is made available.
I cannot imagine a poll like the one you describe, it would be totally useless. One vote for one of the 3, that's the only poll that makes any sense, and the #s add up like one would expect.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I can't assume, as you do, that the anti-war vote against McCain is running nearly 2 to 1 (the total of HRC & BHO) when the same article is saying, for the first time in two years a slight majority of the people now want the troops to stay on until "the situation stabilizes."
Maybe it was how the question was asked. I do not believe that the anti-war sentiment has dropped that much as was claimed recently.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
I agree. The MSM is in total war manipulation.
LSMFT.
Put it this way: Obama doesn't acknowledge that his call for a complete withdrawal of American troops by a specific date has become a risk to his candidacy. But the evidence suggests it is no longer the golden path to victory in November, or even to the Democratic nomination, that many of his backers once seemed to think.
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
#3. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
Or his strength.
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#4)
#6. To: ghostdogtxn (#4)
This is true. We won't leave unless we are forced to leave by either excessive casualties or bernankruptcy.
#7. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#5)
it can be done and it could actually happen.
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
#9. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#8)
Obama might but it's hard to say how events are going to turn in the next few years.
#10. To: Cynicom (#9)
#11. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#10)
#12. To: Cynicom (#11)
#13. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#5)
#14. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#12)
Is his campaign staff mostly black? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
#15. To: Cynicom (#6)
#16. To: ghostdogtxn (#15)
The question is whether they'll pay homage afterward.
#17. To: Jethro Tull, robin, Cynicom, ghostdogtxn, Ferret Mike, a vast rightwing conspirator, aristeides, lodwick, ALL (#0)
(Edited)
#18. To: christine (#17)
#19. To: christine (#17)
out to lunch
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
I still see "Bush Cheney '04" stickers here.
#21. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
the legitimacy and touch-of-the-prophet routine no longer functions magically for Obama
I've already said too much.
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
(Edited)
#23. To: robin (#1)
30 + 27 = 57 to McCain's 35.
#24. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#22)
If this spin continues, I wonder how long it'll be before Hillary returns to her pro-war roots and Obama discovers his.
#25. To: MUDDOG (#21)
#26. To: Jethro Tull (#25)
(Edited)
I've already said too much.
#27. To: Cynicom (#3)
Anyone that believes the US will be leaving the ME is deluding themselves.
#28. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
Yep, the anti-war positions of Paul, Kucinich and Gravel garnered about 8% nationwide. Endless war is the winning position.
#29. To: MUDDOG (#26)
How'd you meet the Kingfish, Andy?
#30. To: christine (#17)
#31. To: robin (#30)
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#29)
#33. To: Jethro Tull (#23)
#34. To: christine (#31)
#35. To: robin (#33)
#36. To: Jethro Tull (#35)
Wall Street Journal poll reported that about 35 percent of Americans believed that it was McCain who had the right approach to the war - not giving up and not leaving Iraq to Al Qaeda and chaos - compared with 30 percent for Hillary Rodham Clinton and 27 percent for Obama.
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#35)
Kool McKook.
I've already said too much.
#38. To: robin (#36)
In a poll, you would only get to vote once for one of the three.
#39. To: MUDDOG (#37)
#40. To: Jethro Tull (#38)
(Edited)
#41. To: robin (#40)
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#41)
#43. To: robin (#42)
#44. To: Jethro Tull (#43)
#45. To: robin (#44)
#46. To: Jethro Tull (#39)
I've already said too much.
#47. To: MUDDOG (#46)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest