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? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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

    Did you read my post? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    ...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.

    I want federal law establishing a woman's right to choose and guaranteeing equal rights for gays.
    Jeez, would the Hillary supporters please take off their blinders.  

    We are all in the same party and I AM ON YOUR SIDE.


    Parent

    When you are wrong and Faux News (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    is closer to reality, doesn't it worry you?  At all?

    Parent
    If My Sense of Reality Matched Fox News... (none / 0) (#112)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    You bet I'd be worried.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM EST
    that you say the talk shows spout nonsense, and then you quote a pundit from a talk show to prove your point.

    What you quoted is just one of the most fundamentally bankrupt narratives of the Beltway media - the notion that out there in Middle America, there are millions of centrist voters who want nothing more than to see Democrats distance themselves from the icky liberal base.

    It's remarkable how you consistently spout some of the most vapid political theories out there in these threads, acting the whole time like you're the only one who has this all figured out.  Although the concept that adopting the Republican position on an issue is "reframing" is, I confess, an argument no one but you has made.

    I would be very, very surprised to find out you're much past college age.

    Parent

    college age? (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by RalphB on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    More likely high school.  Did you see all those lovely "secret plan" comments from yesterday?  I especially liked the one where Obama had to be extra strong on defense to keep the GOP from setting off a dirty bomb in the US.  Downright fantastic.


    Parent
    I'm old enough to know you can't trust (none / 0) (#129)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:50:25 PM EST
    the government.  And you absolutely can't trust the Republican government.

    Parent
    Yep, seems I was right n/t (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:53:05 PM EST
    One of us was right :-) Not sure which. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by RalphB on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    The latest hand-waving (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by mg7505 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    is that Obama is doing a GOOD thing by giving himself room to 'refine' his policies where necessary because that's the mark of good judgment and executive leadership -- ie we don't want another "stay the course" Bush-style President. I would buy this argument except: (a) it's coming from the cultish Obamabots, (b) Obama's "good judgment" only moves him farther to the RIGHT, and (c) this flexible-refining meme is rather new, and makes me wonder why he wasn't so clear in the primaries.

    The WORM lives.

    Yes, we want a quivering jello-ish (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    President who can swerve back and forth without doing any damage.  He's totally flexible, almost like a contortionist.  

    Parent
    He's Gumby...dammit (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST
    Why the right loves it (5.00 / 10) (#78)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    We all know here that moving to the center is one of those bogus rhetorical frames, akin to supporting the troops.

    The CW about this is expressed in your quote above:

    helps him counteract the attacks he`s getting from John McCain and the Republicans.

    Or as some Democrats put it, it neutralizes Issue X for the Republicans. What it actually does is neutralize issue X for the Democrats. In effect, the Democrat says, I will not attack you on this issue. And so often, it is the very issue where the Republicans are most vulnerable.

    But remember, Republicans are not (none / 0) (#200)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    as vulnerable on the war itself (aka protecting Americans) as they are for 1) lying to get us into the war, 2) Not winning the war.  

    Parent
    Which candidate has Alzheimer's? (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    The rap on McCain that I've read too often on the youth blogz is that he's so old, he'll have Alzheimer's in the presidency -- or already does, whichever ageist attack they want to make.

    But this tack by Obama looks like he's the one who can't even remember what he said.  Or the alternative is that he lied then or is lying now.

    It would be far wiser to say, yeh, I'm changing my mind -- call it flipflopping if you want, media, but so what?  It is easily spun by the Obama campaign, if the candidate doesn't make it too difficult to do so by denying he ever said what is on the record.

    When someone tells one lie after (4.00 / 4) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    another, it gets increasingly harder to keep them all straight.  On top of that, you end up telling other lies to cover the lies you told previously...hence the confusion.

    Parent
    For which (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:20:16 PM EST
    one needs a really, Really, REALLY good memory...because everybody else has a camera and a recorder and it's all on tape, sweetie.

    Just ask Jim Webb's opponent...Senator Macaca Allen.

    Parent

    so you are trying to turn (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by tben on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    this into a "youth blog" by turning the charge against our own?

    It aint flip-flopping. Hell, it aint even flipping. Unless you very much want to be making the charge - then you could turn any two non-identical statements into a supposed contradiction.

    Most of us tend to reserve such tactics for the opposition, if we do them at all.

    Parent

    No, Ben. Time to take a deep breath (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    again.  But your valiant battle against the word flipflopping is getting funnier with each of your comments, so it wasn't a total waste of bandwidth.

    Parent
    Hey Tben....aren't you banned from (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    commenting on BTD's posts?

    Parent
    Obama has not flip flopped on Iraq. (2.00 / 0) (#110)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    Our candidate is working on getting VOTES from Republicans.  His primary campaign distinguished him from Hillary on the Iraq issue.  Charlie Gibson, a Hillary supporter, tried to get him to say he'd get us out of Iraq no matter what the military commanders said.  Instead of saying "Of course I will, I'm an anti-war weenie" and having that plastered all over Republican ads, instead of giving "the same rock hard pledge" as David Plouffe, Obama said something very presidential:  It's the Commander in Chief who set's the mission.  

    Zippo to the 547s and talk show hosts.  It was absolutely brilliant, and just what we need from a Democratic candidate in order to win over right wing votes.. So why are so many here mad at him for that?

    I've said this before, if Hillary supporters view what Obama did with Charlie Gibson's question as if Hillary had done it, accolades for her cleverness would be pouring out all over this blog.

    Parent

    Yikes! First of all, it's Obama (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    not Hillary. Second, Show me a moment where Obama winked and nodded when he "lied" to us in order to "win over right wing votes." Otherwise, how could you possibly know that this was what he was doing. Third, Obama distinguished himself only in that before he was a US Senator, he said he opposed the war. Once he was a US Senator, he voted to keep the war going, each and every time. And, fourth, as for saying something "presidential" if I say the same thing, will I be considered presidential, too? There's more, but I'll leave it to others.

    Parent
    Sorry about the doublepost... (none / 0) (#130)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:51:41 PM EST
     

    Parent
    You do realize I hope (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    that Obama's answer to Gibson in April is not what people are calling a flip-flop today? Its his "refinement" statements made a few days ago.

     

    Parent

    Yes, of course. (none / 0) (#147)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM EST
    And people are using what he said to Charlie Gibson to falsely claim he's flip flopping now on Iraq.

    Parent
    So, if you agree with that, (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    doesn't it seem quite silly that you are claiming that it was a brilliant statement that didn't allow the media to claim he was flip-flopping? He can't be continually making "brilliant" statements if those statements are seen as flip-flopping. Flip-flopping is not seen by the majority of voters as a good attribute. It is not "brilliant" to say things that can be very easily interpreted as flip-flopping, however much you want it to be.

     

    Parent

    Which is why he (and I) are saying it's NOT (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    a flip flop.  His position is consistent and he found a way to not hand them a 527 statement.

    Parent
    Of course I will, I'm an anti-war weenie ... (5.00 / 15) (#161)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    Instead of saying "Of course I will, I'm an anti-war weenie" and having that plastered all over Republican ads, instead of giving "the same rock hard pledge" as David Plouffe, Obama said something very presidential:  It's the Commander in Chief who set's the mission.

    Zippo to the 547s and talk show hosts.  It was absolutely brilliant, and just what we need from a Democratic candidate in order to win over right wing votes.. So why are so many here mad at him for that?

    ::: massaging sensitive spot between eyebrows :::

    You see, the world isn't what Obama or his campaign "absolutely brilliant"ly say it is.

    This is not a SIM.

    There are hard, material considerations at work here, like unintended outcomes, blowback, actual VOTERS, a convention where Obama has yet to be certified as the official nominee.

    Obama doesn't "get" HRC's supporters like some conquering avatar in an online game subsuming 18 million points.

    Puny earthling, don't you get it? He's lying at you, not lying with you.

    Parent

    Ellie, please tell me you make tons of (5.00 / 10) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    money writing for a living.  But if you aren't, you should be.

    Parent
    Thanks Ellie, the puny earthling (none / 0) (#189)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    insult I can take.  Being called a koolaid drinking kid, well grrrr.  
    Just for the record, I'm anti-war and a veteran and I hate that warmongers think we're weenies.  Because we're not.  Standing up against war, especially this war, is patriotic and brave.  Somewhere on the Internet is an aerial picture of me and fifty or so other people lying naked on the beach in Hawaii with out bodies spelling out the word ALOHA.

    So there, now I've established that I'm an over the top liberal war protester.  And for the record, I have no doubt that our current government can and would hurt Americans to retain power.  Having first hand experience in the military, with the secrecy inherent in missions, I am absolutely sure that a few dozen soldiers could be deployed to fight a terrorist attack and be used to create the actual attack without the knowledge they are doing so.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM EST
    I don't see anyone who has a problem with that particular answer.

    Parent
    We really have to request (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign send a better class of blogcloggers, don't we?  

    Parent
    No one sent me. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:13:13 PM EST
    I don't represent Obama or his campaign.  I represent myself.  The attacks saying I must be a young Obamabot say a lot about the blinders being worn and assumptions being made by many TL commenters.

    Disagreement is not blogclogging.  It's exactly what blogs are used for, to examine and work out different ideas and perspectives.

    Parent

    Strong kool-aid. (none / 0) (#115)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:40:17 PM EST
    I don't see anyone who has a problem with that particular answer.

    OMG.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    You have a problem with the answer where Obama said he's the Commander-in-Chief, he's not going to hide behind the generals like Bush did, and he is going to keep his pledge to end the war?

    I thought what people had a problem with was the subsequent flip-flopping.  Oh well, I stand corrected.

    Parent

    Yikes! First of all, it's Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:46:20 PM EST
    not Hillary. Second, Show me a moment where Obama winked and nodded when he "lied" to us in order to "win over right wing votes." Otherwise, how could you possibly know that this was what he was doing. Third, Obama distinguished himself only in that before he was a US Senator, he said he opposed the war. Once he was a US Senator, he voted to keep the war going, each and every time. And, fourth, as for saying something "presidential" if I say the same thing, will I be considered presidential, too? There's more, but I'll leave it to others.

    Parent
    I didn't say Obama lied, you did. (2.00 / 0) (#142)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
    And it's my opinion that Hillary supporters see what Obama does in an especially negative light because of the primary race.

    If Democrats vote no on war appropriations, they are painted as not supporting the troops, and no amount of talking or liberal rhetoric will convince centrist and right wing voters otherwise.
    Charlie Gibson tried to get Obama to commit to ending the war no matter what.  He didn't take the bait.  Exactly the skills we need in a Democratic candidate.  

    His position this week is that he's still
    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."  In addition, he's managing the press and not letting them paint him as a flip flopper on Iraq.

    Very presidential.


    Parent

    When I Was A US Senator (5.00 / 13) (#148)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM EST
    At first glance, it may seem that picking on this afterthought to his main staement would be unfair. Nit-picking, even. Except, consider this: the rest of his statement was a very carefully considered defensive response. It was where the main structure of conscious thought was invested. "...when I was a US Senator" is more along the lines of unguarded thought. But, it does reveal something. The man stopped being a US Senator when he started running for President. Being elected President is the most important thing to him. More important than his current responsibilities, or the expectations of his supporters (especially those early blog-leftists who would have done ANYTHING for him), or even any issue that affects the well-being of this nation. There is only one goal: the Presidency.  

    Expect nothing good from this man in his first term, he will be working to get re-elected the day after his inuauguration. There is ambition,  then there is blind ambition.

    WORM - When Obama was JUST (none / 0) (#155)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    a U.S. Senator, not our Democratic candidate as well.

    I think it was a funny slip of the tongue but given all the time and money spent in this election, we'd dang well better win the presidency.  More Republican rule would be a disaster to our economy and the world.

    Parent

    How can we hate him? (5.00 / 8) (#165)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:26:05 PM EST
    We don't even know him!

    And sadly, neither do you.  

    Immediate Withdrawal Call (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST

    Sorry I am having trouble getting a link posted in the tiny url format (I must be an idiot) Anyway:  on 9/12/2007, the day after Gen.Petraeus testified, Obama called for the immediate withdrawal of "all" combat brigades from Iraq, to be completed by the end of "next year". If the link doesn't post,  search "Obama calls for immediate withdrawal". You will see many links to many newspaper, etc. for 9/12/2007. It was big news that day because the news media used Obama's words to contrast him against Hillary Clinton.

    Thank you. Yes, I remembered that (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    and now will have another quote to bookmark for whenever I again will be told that it must not be so -- and even when I replied to them with emails from them (I love searchable email) then, saying that Obama was for immediate withdrawal and thus was so different from Clinton, blah blah blah.

    Up is down with some people, some intelligent people I know who have prodigous memories when it suits them.  But about Obama, not so much.

    Parent

    A bit earlier, Bob Beckel (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    told Larry Elder on Fox that "Obama has changed his position on Iraq because conditions in Iraq have changed completely since he was for a withdrawal".  Of course, conditions had changed because of the surge.  Democrats like Bob Beckel don't do Obama any favors when they defend him like this.


    Go read Digby (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by wasabi on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    Go read Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/running-with-devils-by-digby-glenn.html) on the press meme of the repudiation of the left by Obama.  Says it all.

    Sorry, but the link mechanism is not working...


    It is so weird (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by Montague on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    that this is one way in which he is frighteningly like GWB:  He blames everyone but himself.

    Someone should ask Obama if (4.80 / 5) (#50)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:15:37 PM EST
    he will withdraw US troops from Grenada.

    I have been expecting this (4.75 / 16) (#6)
    by madamab on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    since Samantha Power said the withdrawal plan was "a best case scenario."

    Obama does not mean anything he says.

    And can we stop referring to his political calculations as a move to the "center?" What "center" is rabidly anti-abortion, anti-FISA, anti-Iraq withdrawal...It's a move to the far, far right.

    True. He started out as a (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:38:14 PM EST
    centrist. Any move he makes that isn't to the left moves him off center and over to the right. so far its all been rightward movement since the primaries.

    Parent
    A centrist without Hillary's (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    baggage.

    There were a few real lefties who thought he was just pretending to be a centrist but was really one of us, but they were deluding themselves.

    They thought he had better judgment too.

    Parent

    Hillary Had No Baggage (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    At least that is what half the country thought and probably more than half really.

    I wish people would quit using that tired line without at least attempting to qualifying it.

    Parent

    She was portrayed as having (5.00 / 14) (#53)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM EST
    lots of baggage, while Obama was portrayed as clean and luggage-free.  Neither was accurate.

    My mistake, I realized after I posted I was unclear.

    Parent

    Oh OK (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    I agree.

    Parent
    I always thought she had loads of (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    baggage, but I thought her baggage had been thoroughly inspected by several thousand of the toughest customs agents around.  Those customs agents insisted she was hiding contraband and used harsh chemicals on her baggage for a good 12 years, attempting to make the dirt/debris rise to the surface -- and even after all that time, her baggage still appeared to be contraband-free.

    So, no.  I never thought she was without baggage.  I thought her baggage had been pretty well vetted though.    

    Parent

    Not Exactly Half the Country (none / 0) (#41)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    Half those in the country voting in the Dem primaries.

    Parent
    Well thanks for clarifying (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    what didn't really need to be clarified.

    Parent
    Not only the Samantha Powers (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:33:56 PM EST
    thing but the Goolsbee/NAFTA thing at practically the same time.  

    I think that was around the same time I lost faith in Obama being anything more than a "sweet talker."  

    Parent

    Well, it's been obvious to me (4.66 / 12) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    from the beginning that positions had no place in Obama's plan for winning in November. It's all about aggression and misdirection, modeled mostly on W. (IMO).
    Will the press play along? Hmmmmm..

    Parent
    Obama is doing what he needs to do (4.16 / 6) (#102)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    because of what he has done in the the primary. In the primary he and his campaign used Rovian tactics to split the democratic party and liberal leaning voters. That has now resulted in him having support of just barely over 50% of the Dems as per a CNN poll today. So to win he is must go right or else McCain will get all the Repub and right leaning voters. However as always he is trying to have it both ways, while burning his bridges behind him. The more he does this the more his positions have to change, waffle, and be hard to pin down in order to split what voters are left. He has only one underlying position. Obama must win.

    Why must Obama win? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    That is his opinion not mine. I am not (none / 0) (#118)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    agreeing with him or his actions. Just stating my perception of reality.

    Parent
    Sorry, this is who's opinion? (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM EST
    As stated. My perception of Obama. (none / 0) (#140)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:03:36 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Just to be clear, then: In Obama's opinion (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    he ought to win?  

    Oh.  

    Parent

    Ummm... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    My opinion's opinion is that Obama must win, in Obama's opinion.

    Clear as mud?    

    Parent

    That was the answer to the question (none / 0) (#205)
    by my opinion on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    you asked. Not the point of my initial observation.

    Parent
    If Obama is (5.00 / 5) (#210)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:06:56 PM EST
    doing what he needs to do to get Republican and conservative voters, what party does he represent?  Why isn't he consolidating his base in the Democratic Party, and seeking out independents, who would vote for him because of positions he backed in the primaries and is now changing?

    Any Dem campaign that truly thinks Republicans will vote for Obama because he does an about face on so many issue subscribes to the view that all of the voters can be fooled all of the time.

    Yes, Obama is taking a far more conservative turn on many issues of late. Perhaps he thinks this is what he needs to do to win, but what he really needs to do to win is to secure the DEM base by focusing on issues they care about, such as the rising food and oil prices, the housing crisis, and leadership that can be trusted, in contrast to the "compassionate conservatism" of GWB.  If Obama is worried about his national security credentials, he should select an appropriate running mate and start talking about what it means to have REAL national security; instead, he is allowing the Republican themes of 2000 & 2004 dictate what he says & does.  The 2006 mid-terms demonstrated these themes carry far less weight now.    

    Parent

    And just because HE says it (3.66 / 3) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    makes it true?

    Lord...step away from the koolaide.

    Dadler said (none / 0) (#122)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    Claims he was saying nothing new
    Doesn't that fly in the face of your whole schtick, Barack?  The one about how you are change and you are new...

    I clarified that what Obama said, as shown by BTD's story quotations above, was that he wasn't saying anything different about Iraq than he's already said in the primary.

    My response to Dadler wasn't even about believing Obama, it was correcting Dadlers mistake.  

    There is no reason to insult me.

    Parent

    Oh, the outrage! (3.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Veracitor on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    Can you believe it?  Obama is a politician!

    A Dumb One At That (4.66 / 12) (#34)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    "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."

    Joint chiefs? What ever happened to diplomacy? Wasn't that the Lefty 'version' of his foreign policy? Now that he thinks he doesn't have to pay attention to the Left everything is framed in military terms. Now he is going to be the Military President. Coming Soon: The Strategic President

    Parent

    and I laughed (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by ccpup on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    when I read the part about "when he used to be a United States Senator".

    Um, he still IS a US Senator and, after November, probably will still BE a US Senator.  I get that he's very optimistic about his chances and he's driving the narrative that his Inauguration is a "Done Deal", but there's a fine line between optimism and arrogance.  Without a record to back him up and with a week (or two) of flip-flops behind him, this could easily be read as arrogance.  

    Besides, I wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you too quickly, Barack.  You may have to convince these Constituents who, in your opinion can no longer consider you their Senator, to give you a job in 2010.

    I doubt McCain is going to jump the shark and smack the voters of Arizona that publicly regardless of how well he'll think he'll do in November.

    Parent

    I missed that (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by talex on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    Thanks for highlighting that.

    Arrogance sounds right.

    Parent

    Claims he was saying nothing new (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    Doesn't that fly in the face of your whole schtick, Barack?  The one about how you are change and you are new and blah blah blah.  So, if you were saying nothing new on Iraq...then keep your trap shut until you come up with some material that is consistent with your "message of hope".

    Howard Beale, where the f*ck are you???

    Talk about faux shock (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:41:10 PM EST
    Obama has said almost the exact same thing on numerous occasions.  

    For instance on March 19th....

    "Let me be clear: Ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved -- just as there would be dangers involved with staying indefinitely. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure.""

    Or what he said on March 2nd...

    "Let me be clear: Ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved -- just as there would be dangers involved with staying indefinitely. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."

    or Feb 5th...

    "I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission. And my strong belief is that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be in Iraq permanently. I mean, I have a fundamental disagreement with John McCain on this."

    November 1st..

    "I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force."

    Source

    I realize that some people are upset FISA but his position on Iraq has been consistent, even if some people didn't bother to know what it was.

    You might try to read again (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    and this time focus on what the post actually argues.

    Parent
    I did read the post (none / 0) (#139)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    and I know what BTD is saying.  

    But he clearly is NOT capitulating on Iraq.  

     

    Parent

    Strawman.i (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    No one said he is "capitulating". He's just "refining(AKA flip-flopping)".

    Parent
    Perhaps you should re-read (none / 0) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:14:38 PM EST
    the diary.  

    Parent
    You do get it (none / 0) (#179)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    Good.

    He has not changed one whit on Iraq.

    But the price he pays for "moving to the middle" is this.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    This is how the game is played.

    Say you're going to "refine" your position, and people like you will be convinced he's not changing his mind one bit.

    Other people will be equally convinced that maybe he's not going ahead with that withdrawal after all.

    You can't both be right.  But it's a great game if you can manage to make both sides think you agree with them.

    Parent

    Game? (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    But it's a great game if you can manage to make both sides think you agree with them.

    It also happens to be the exact opposite of leadership - unless you consider kicking the can down the road to be leadership, and what you want out of your future commander-in-chief.  

    Actually, I think that's one of the few things that those who feel strongly in favor of a victory policy and those who feel strongly in favor of expedited withdrawal happen to agree on.  That, and the fact that war isn't a game.  

    Just to be clear - the criticism goes to Senator Obama, not to Steve M, who I believe is merely describing what he observes, not expressing a preference.

    Parent

    I want our candiate to win (2.00 / 0) (#144)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    If warmongers don't realize he's committed to ending the war, all the better.

    I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war.  


    Parent
    To requote the ever quotable Ellie (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:34:17 PM EST
    He's lying at you, not lying with you.


    Parent
    Well, obviously (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:49:47 PM EST
    you aren't old enough to remember Carter.  If you did, you'd remember all the years of Republican rule that came after that disasterous Presidency.

    Sometimes, you are better off if your candidate doesn't win because you can still live to fight another day.  

    I'd like our candidate to win too, but I think we are putting up the wrong candidate.  

    Parent

    Do me a favor (none / 0) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    Provide a link to Barack Obama advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq in the last 4 years.

    Parent
    Do me a favor (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    Don't post any more pedantic and useless comments like that one.

    Parent
    Right (2.00 / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    In other words there is no need to show that Obama actually flip-flopped.  


    Parent
    If you read my comment (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    instead of just making up a strawman to respond to, as you typically do, you would have seen that my point was about the deliberate ambiguity, not an express contradiction.

    I frankly think, at this stage of the game, anyone who is confident that Obama or any other Democrat to the right of Kucinich will end the war is a fool.  Yeah, it might happen, and I hope it does.

    Parent

    What strawman? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    Honestly I don't get you guys sometimes.  My initial comment was in response to BTD's pointing out that it is understandable that some would see Obama as capitulating.

    OF COURSE there is ambiguity.  He is talking about events in the future that will be impacted by other events.

    Parent

    You miss the point of the post (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    and Steve M.'s comment.

    Parent
    Thank you flyerhawk (none / 0) (#163)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn, BTD,

    can we please have a topic that will draw Obama supporters so we can work toward getting our candidate elected?  Just one topic where we don't get lamblasted for what we say, and anti-Obama comments and commenters can be directed to some other concurrent topic where they can blast away at Obama.

    Parent

    We don't need (3.50 / 2) (#192)
    by pie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:43:29 PM EST
    Obama supporters like you.

    Sweetie.

    Parent

    Frankly0 already did that way back (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST
    at post #39. From Obama's website, 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.


    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    he says that he would withdraw the majority of troops within 16 months then and he says it now.

    What is the inconsistency?

    Parent

    Do you imagine (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    that the words "all" and "majority" actually have the same meaning?

    Parent
    No, today he says that the pace of his (none / 0) (#206)
    by tree on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:54:35 PM EST
    withdrawal plan is subject to "refinement". That means his firm 16 month withdrawal is not not so firm anymore. You can't claim that the out point is  still firm if you are at the same time admitting that the timeline is subject to change.

    Parent
    Per request (none / 0) (#159)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    Did you read my post? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:30:10 PM EST
    The MSM (the Village) have had a hand in all this (none / 0) (#29)
    by Rojas on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    for the most part and their kids don't bleed. It's in their interest and I think you nailed it pretty close.

    well said and I hope he eventually gets it n/t (none / 0) (#209)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:01:26 PM EST


    Obama Flip Flops (none / 0) (#213)
    by Angry in Queens NY on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:21:33 PM EST
    Obama won the nomination based on his anti war stance. His drumbeat through the primaries was that he would end the war quickly. He is flip flopping on this issue and all other major issues. Who is the real Obama???

    RE: Intentionally Calculating (none / 0) (#215)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:19:31 AM EST
    Whatever I thought about Bush before Bush made everything I thought come true, turned out to be true. Everything I thought about Obama before he made everything come true, is true.

    Personally this is a lot more disturbing than Clinton's exaggerations which they crucified her for. She came out and apologized and said it was "stupid" I believe prefacing it with "but I'm not stupid?"

    Anyway, the point is this is not stupid, it's  intentionally devious, calculated, plotting...

    More Media Cover on the Way (none / 0) (#216)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    In the current issue of New Yorker, George Packer paves the way and offers cover for still Senator Obama's "Iraq Problem". The sixteen-month timetable for withdrawal of combat brigades is considered a mistake, albeit, an understandable one.  The improved conditions, owing to the surge, General Petraeus, al Qaeda on the lam, a muted Sadr, and luck, mean that we cannot leave any time soon; the developments may be just temporary you know, and the original Obama plan is now inoperable. So, a change would be quite acceptable, after all, that was then, this is now. How to continue to borrow and pay for it, is left unsaid, as is the question of whether or not this once "dumb war" has become a smart one. The linchpin of Mr. Obama's primary campaign was his early opposition to the war, and the good judgment that it represented, by extrapolation, to other areas as well.  Reaching out, it is hoped, is not a split-the-difference between McCain's 100-years and the previous get out now--50 years is way too much, don't you think?

    "Do me a favor (none / 0) (#143) (none / 0) (#217)
    by mkevinf on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    Provide a link to Barack Obama advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq in the last 4 years.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481393/Obama-calls-immediate-withdrawal-US-combat-troops-Ira q.html

    September 12, 2007.

    "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."

    "But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said.

    "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year(2008)."

    Earlier, someone suggested Googling "Obama calls for immediate withdrawal."

    Try it. And yes, he says we must get out "strategically and carefully...keeping some troops in volatile areas until later", but there's no question that he called for an immediate withdrawal, beginning on September 12. 2007.

    Easy (none / 0) (#218)
    by xdemocrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    If you just think of every word out of Obama's mouth as calculated - often on the spot, so incompetently calculated -- to position himself optimally at that precise moment, none of it is puzzling.  For me, from the first moment, not a single syllable or inflection seemed genuine, or based on an inner core belief in anything except his talent and lifelong MO -- appearing genuine.