That's More Like It

Here's Barack Obama talking today in Denver:

It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that’s exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One – you have to be right from Day One.

Obviously, Obama, too, would have some problems against John McCain who'll argue that he's too green. But the basic spirit here seems correct to me. You want to argue that discontentment with the fruits of Bush's policies should cause you to vote against John McCain, and the best argument you can make to that effect is that Bush and McCain have very similar records. But to make that argument, you need to be able to step a couple of paces back from your opponent and really wind up and throw a solid punch.

Comments

"Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans."

he sounds like bush for crying out loud. "courage", "judgment", and "clear plans"? pfffttt.....

Posted by english teacher | January 30, 2008 1:48 PM

Hillary's the only candidate who can unite this country. To my mind, she's like a combination of Joan of Arc and Golda Meir.

Posted by ken | January 30, 2008 1:49 PM

If I don't see THAT Obama at the debate then I will be forced to cry.

Posted by Callimaco | January 30, 2008 1:51 PM

Query whether Edwards' withdrawal from the race doesn't make it easier for Obama to force the issue of the Iraq war vote.

Posted by alkali | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM

Joan of Arc? Hahaha...now I've heard everything.

Posted by Wallace | January 30, 2008 1:55 PM

The Clintons cannot win against McCain. Period. It will take McCain about 5 minutes to put together his new ad: "Straight-talk vs. Liars-in-Chief"

Posted by DoM | January 30, 2008 1:58 PM

"Too green"? Too Canadian?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 30, 2008 2:03 PM

I like it when Obama makes clear, forceful statements like this. Much better than all that "Red State, Blue State", "awesome God" dreck.

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM

It looks like the Obama campaign has been waiting for McCain to emerge as the clear likely Republican nominee before springing this trap.

Clinton has touted her "positioning" vis-a-vis McCain as a reason to nominate her, presumably relying on the theory that the candidate with the most hawkish bona fides will be best able to withstand the built in McCain advantage of perceived military glory and mightiness.

But why one would think McCain has the advantage here is beyond me. This is the same old-style Democratic loser thinking that brought us the Iraq authorization. It seems that no matter how politically unpopular right wing national security policy becomes, some Democrats will always feel insecure about the progressive alternatives, and approach national security from a defensive posture, as though they are automatically on the losing side of that debate.

What seems a bit new in today's Obama statement is the suggestion that Clinton's wrongness on national security is not just due to poor judgement - they have been saying that for weeks - but also due to a lack of political courage and clear foresight.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 30, 2008 2:06 PM

Damn speech turned my street into a parking lot. And what's more, since my smarter and better-looking half attended, I had to drive her tiny doppelganger to preschool -- which was a problem given the aforementioned street/parking lot issue.

(Apparently, there were about 12,000 people for a venue that sat 9,000 people, so they had to set up loudspeakers at the lacrosse field across the street.)

Posted by Joe | January 30, 2008 2:11 PM

Obama is exactly right. He can simultaneously reach out to disaffected Republicans and independents with this message as well. Hillary can draw contrasts, but not as sharply as Obama will be able to, not even close. Clinton vs. McCain will go just slightly less well than Kerry vs. Bush, in that Clinton has none of Kerry's war stature and is quite inexperienced in comparison, whereas McCain is thought of more highly than Bush in most circles in the US, for whatever reason. I don't understand it, but I know it is the case.

Aside from that, just the contrast of personalities. McCain - Clinton debates, yawwwn. McCain vs. Obama will be very Kennedy vs. Nixon. The past vs. the future, works in Obama's favor in every regard. McCain can be tied so closely to Bush that Obama's arguments to win independents will be far more effective than McCain's could be. With Clinton, McCain will just have to say "do you want the Clintons back in the White House or not?" and that answer will be 'no'.

Posted by onceler | January 30, 2008 2:12 PM

I second MY's post and my reaction is - finally! You actually attack HRC on her wrong-headed hawkishness instead of recycling Clinton hatred memes from the 90's or offer us some vague "up with people" happytalk. I'd be glad to vote for Obama in Virginia if he'd talk like this. More, please!

Posted by scott | January 30, 2008 2:13 PM

"But why one would think McCain has the advantage here is beyond me. This is the same old-style Democratic loser thinking that brought us the Iraq authorization. It seems that no matter how politically unpopular right wing national security policy becomes, some Democrats will always feel insecure about the progressive alternatives, and approach national security from a defensive posture, as though they are automatically on the losing side of that debate."

Bingo. I read an interesting analysis not too long ago that found that many progressive Democratic members of Congress came of age during the Kennedy-LBJ years (cutting off before Tet, the protests, etc.). As such, they became politically aware in a time of Democratic political ascendancy. The Blue Dogs tended to come of age post-Tet, during the second half of Carter's presidency, etc., so they became accustomed to seeing liberals as weak. This generational thing isn't a perfect metric, but it does seem to help explain the mentality of how Clinton would only pursue liberal legislation through backdoors even when he had a clear winner, such as cleaning up Northern Marianas (he could have easily put the Republicans in a situation where they would have to either sell out their corporate backers or come out as pro-sex slavery and rape, but he chickened out). If you can't stand up for your beliefs forcefully, no one is going to do it for you and no one will think strong people can hold the same beliefs.

Posted by Reality Man | January 30, 2008 2:16 PM

This should be Obama's big theme at the debate. Let him sound like John Edwards too. And let him extend a hand in greeting - see if she deigns to take it.

Posted by lampwick | January 30, 2008 2:24 PM

Clinton's response seems to be aimed at low-information voters. Reading it, you'd think Obama voted for the AUMF, that Kyl-Lieberman was just like Obama's bill, that Bush's posturing non-diplomacy diplomacy is still the way to go, or that you have to ask retired generals whether or not torture is a good idea.

If Obama is supposed to be the lightweight, why is Hillary aiming so low? Maybe it was a rush-job?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:32 PM

An add contrasting mccain's experience and hrc's 'experience' woudl be pretty powerful too.

Posted by yoyo | January 30, 2008 2:33 PM

the built in McCain advantage of perceived military glory and mightiness

... which he earned by being captured. Some great record, there.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:35 PM

An add contrasting mccain's experience and hrc's 'experience' woudl be pretty powerful too.

Posted by yoyo | January 30, 2008 2:36 PM

Clinton's response seems to be aimed at low-information voters.

Very much so. She's run a classic Bush/Rove campaign up to this point. Distort, misrepresent, and exaggerate everything your opponent has ever said or done. Appeal to the lowest common denominator. Pull all sorts of stunts knowing that most people won't understand it. In other words, pretty much lower the bar for everyone involved.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 2:37 PM

Didn't you see that the first paragraph you quote is an obvious set of misleading lies by Barack Obama. An objective look at the facts at hand shows that Obama lies four times in one sentence!

Clearly you're just not educated on the issues at hand.

Posted by Zach | January 30, 2008 2:41 PM

Cue Bill Clinton entrance music....

Posted by Rid | January 30, 2008 2:42 PM

Isn't this going to cause Andrew Sullivan to get the vapors? His one favorite candidate going after his other favorite candidate?

Posted by JMS | January 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Clearly you're just not educated on the issues at hand.

Cue the low-information voter ...
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:52 PM

Didn't you see that the first paragraph you quote is an obvious set of misleading lies by Barack Obama.

Cue the low-information voter ...
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:53 PM

Hmmm. Refresh told me I had not posted. I guess the gerbil in Matt's server was getting tired.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 2:57 PM

you need to be able to step a couple of paces back from your opponent and really wind up and throw a solid punch.

Technical note: boxers above the level of rank amateur don't "step back" and/or "wind up"--ever.

Posted by James Gary | January 30, 2008 2:57 PM

The problem with Obama argument in my opinion is that he never voted on these issues so it's very easy for him to monday morning quarter back. He did not vote on war resolution because he was not a member of the senate then. He likes to say that he was always against it but he still funds it. He never bothered to vote on the kyl-lieberman resolution. He was a member of the senate at the time and DID NOT VOTE. He had the opportunity to put his views on the record when it mattered and he did not. Whether you agree with HRC or not at least she let her stand be known by voting how she felt. When obama talks like this it makes him seem like he is the one willing to say anything and do anything to win.

Posted by buyproduct | January 30, 2008 3:01 PM

boxers above the level of rank amateur don't "step back" and/or "wind up"--ever.

That was a good one, James. I imagine that would get you a one way ticket to Sleepville.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 3:03 PM

The problem with Obama argument in my opinion is that he never voted on these issues so it's very easy for him to monday morning quarter back.

Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, they've already insisted that their voting records are indistinguishable.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Or, "But to make that argument [that violence doesn't work], you need to be able to step a couple of paces back from your opponent and really wind up and throw a solid punch."

Metaphor madness.

Posted by Tom Maguire | January 30, 2008 3:23 PM

That is a good line of attack but I would nix using courage and stick to judgement. Obama has folded more times than he has been courageous since joining the Senate. Plus you are not going to win a fight on courage over someone who was tortured for five+ years. Pointing out that they are brave but crazy would work however.

Posted by needs editing | January 30, 2008 3:27 PM

I plan to vote for Mrs. Clinton in California's primary.

Part of the reason I plan to vote for Mrs. Clinton next week is that I think what is needed now is a deep engagement in the world with an eye toward greater national and regional self-sufficiency in years and decades to come.

I don't think you get a world with fewer western military occupations and in need of less western aid by bellicosity; that's the problem with McCain. I also don't think you get a world with fewer western military occupations and in need of less western aid by isolationism and there of hints of isolationism with Obama; I think he's getting ahead of our times.

I think Mrs. Clinton is the best hope for the kind of engagement that's needed.

Posted by Linus | January 30, 2008 3:31 PM

Finally!

This is the argument to win this election.

The reasons Obama sets forth are the very reasons Clinton does not have the requisite character to be our Commander in Chief.

Keep it up, Barry, keep it up!

Posted by Anybody but Slick Hilly | January 30, 2008 3:32 PM

boxers above the level of rank amateur don't "step back" and/or "wind up"--ever.

Not true. I've seen Rocky Balboa do it many times.

Plus you are not going to win a fight on courage over someone who was tortured for five+ years.

True. But, while Obama is talking about how he will deal with McCain, he is actually attacking Hillary for her lack of courage in not standing up to Bush about Iraq.

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 3:33 PM

Cue the low-information voter ...

Oh, come on! Way to snub me and avoid my experience examining the candidates' records you ignorant Obamabot.

Posted by Zach | January 30, 2008 3:34 PM

I personally see Clinton as more a combination of the Virgin Mary, Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, and Edith Piaf. She's that good.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 30, 2008 3:38 PM

"Whether you agree with HRC or not at least she let her stand be known by voting how she felt. When obama talks like this it makes him seem like he is the one willing to say anything and do anything to win."

Better Hillary supporters, please. I mean, Obama publicly opposes the Iraq War at the beginning...but Hillary is still better precisely because she voted FOR the Iraq War?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 30, 2008 3:39 PM

Linus, please elaborate. I don't hear isolationism in Senator Obama. I grew up in the US Foreign Service, in Jakarta at the same time as Obama. I just do not hear isolationism, not in we should talk with lots of folks etc etc.

Posted by djeri | January 30, 2008 3:39 PM

Jim W

Obama hasn't stood up to Bush on Iraq either.
In 2003, he would have hypothetically stood up to Bush on timelines and funding but by 2006 his position had "evolved."

Posted by needs editing | January 30, 2008 3:43 PM

As someone who's a big fan of divided government, I heartily recommend Matt's strategy to Obama, and Hillary, too! I think it's a wonderful idea to make yourself sound as naive as possible on foreign policy, in hopes that everything in the world will go just right for you over the next nine months. That way if Iraq happens to reverse itself and deteriorate instead of slowly getting better and if there isn't another big terrorist attack and if Iran doesn't do something particularly outrageous and if Pakistan doesn't go into the toilet, the Democratic candidate can claim, "See! The world really is a wonderful place after all, just as long as we are particularly nice."

This is an especially good strategy given the fact that neither McCain nor Romney has anything like a reasonable domestic agenda and either Obama or Hillary can make mincemeat of them. Given that fact, further radicalizing on foreign policy and making it the centerpiece of your strategy is obviously the thing to do!

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | January 30, 2008 3:57 PM

RadicalModerate, you're right. I don't understand why Democrats aren't willing to embrace the stunning political successes of the past eight years, especially in Iraq, Palestine, and Pakistan.

Posted by Persia | January 30, 2008 4:08 PM

needs editing,
It is not inconsistent or a flipflop to oppose an invasion at its outset but then determine that the forces unleashed by that invasion are not adequately dealt with by having the U.S. military vanish from Iraq. Obama quite clearly would not have invaded Iraq had he been president, but he is not so stupid that that wise stance means he must now and forever after oppose all funding for the occupation or turn a deaf ear to reality. Clinton and others were the dopes who gave Bush's lunatic war a green light; Obama didn't. It was not merely Monday morning quarterbacking to say the war was dumb; he did so BEFORE the war.

Posted by tinisoli | January 30, 2008 4:11 PM

What seems a bit new in today's Obama statement is the suggestion that Clinton's wrongness on national security is not just due to poor judgement - they have been saying that for weeks - but also due to a lack of political courage and clear foresight.

Right on!

I swear, if Obama doesn't win the nomination, it will not be because he didn't run a good campaign. He has been slowly making his argument, adding layer upon layer of complexity and helping us understand his very nuanced but ultimately correct rationale. Hillary just dumps "experience" on us like an empty safe and expects us to submit. Obama's trying to convince us by explaining who he is and why he's running. He wants us to understand why we're voting FOR him, and not against some straw man. He trusts us enough to talk to us like adults. He's the opposite of the Clintons. Hopefully enough people will wake up to the possibilities he brings before it's too late.

Posted by Jules | January 30, 2008 4:11 PM

Obama hasn't stood up to Bush on Iraq either.
In 2003, he would have hypothetically stood up to Bush on timelines and funding but by 2006 his position had "evolved."

It doesn't matter to me too much what Obama's position has been about funding and withdrawal timelines after he became senator. Opposition to the war BEFORE it happened and AFTER it happened are totally different things. The big mistake was the initial invasion of Iraq, not deciding to stay there a little longer once that big mistake was made. People who voted for the big mistake should be held accountable. Obama was against it publicly, and I believe that he would have voted against it if he had been in the Senate. There are plenty of other Democrats who did vote against it, after all.

I think it's a wonderful idea to make yourself sound as naive as possible on foreign policy

Well, we all know now that the neocons are the naive ones, thinking we would be greeted with flowers, the war would pay for itself, etc.

Posted by Jim W | January 30, 2008 4:11 PM

There really isn't even a tincture of isolationism in Obama. He is a fairly classic liberal internationalist. For one thing, we are likely to see stepped up US engagement in Africa across a whole range of issues. We will also get a vigorous return to the internationalist approach to nuclear non-proliferation and away from the more unilateral Bush emphasis on the build-up of US nuclear capability along with aggressive counter-proliferation efforts. There is also no question we will see much more vigorous participation in global climate change efforts than we saw with Bush, who has been truly isolated from most of the world on this issue.

We will see a turn away from the dominant War on Terror paradigm, which is built on a one-dimensional practice of support around the world for whichever leader seems to be the most anti-Islamist hardass in any given country. Obama will reorient US policy to support more socially progressive, democratically popular leaders, even if that means in some cases those leaders are more friendly with non-militant Islamist groups.

I also expect to see much more imagination in adjusting to the shifting balance of power in the Middle East, including stepped up diplomatic engagement with states in the region to help stabilize Iraq and forge a new regional security framework. I don't think we will get a continuation of the futile and woefully misguided Bush policy of attempting to build a sort of Israeli and Sunni Arab axis against Iran and its friends in the region.

Obama also places a lot of emphasis in his foreign policy on repairing and rebuilding tattered alliances, and also strengthening NATO - again the very opposite of the isolationist and unilateralist tendencies characterizing Bush and parts of the right.

Personally, as an old-timey, lefty one-worlder, I would like to see a much more anti-imperialist policy, which deliberately aims to transfer many current US global responsibilities and commitments to reformed and beefed-up institutions for international and transnational governance. Unfortunately, we're not going to get that with Obama or anyone else with a chance of getting elected. What we will probably get is a liberal internationalist foreign policy a lot more like Bill Clinton's and less like both George Bush's and Hillary Clinton's

I also expect Obama will travel abroad much more frequently than Bush, to great effect. This will also help to pull us out of our current isolation.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 30, 2008 4:22 PM

Obama was against it publicly, and I believe that he would have voted against it if he had been in the Senate.

Please, please, could the folks who keep repeating this common knowledge give some linkage to Obama speaking out against the war pre-invasion?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 30, 2008 4:28 PM

Epicurean Quaker, here you go:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 30, 2008 4:39 PM

EpicureanQuaker...don't they have Google there in Pennsylvania Dutch country?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 4:39 PM

Please, please, could the folks who keep repeating this common knowledge give some linkage to Obama speaking out against the war pre-invasion?

Your wish is my command.

Posted by Tractarian | January 30, 2008 4:40 PM

Way to snub me and avoid my experience examining the candidates' records you ignorant Obamabot.

Yes, you caught me. I am hiding from your enormous experience. It is truly terrifying.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 4:44 PM

McCain is OLD. It will be Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole all over again. Ask George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John Kerry about how we automatically support vets who run.

Here's Obama's 2002 speech, EpicureanQuaker:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid901176778/bclid900482168/bctid1213872219

Barack Obama's Plan

Judgment You Can Trust

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Posted by bob | January 30, 2008 4:45 PM

Damn, THREE guys beat me to it.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 4:57 PM

Isolationism and hints of isolationism (the actual words I used) are contextual.

I'm not saying Obama is the same thing as Ron Paul and idealizes the the lost world of 1939.

But I'm not sure he doesn't idealize the lost world of 1999.

All threats are not created equal.

I want to hear that from Obama.

Posted by Linus | January 30, 2008 4:58 PM

Thanks for the elucidation -- however, his voting record re: tying war funding to timetables isn't as stellar as his rhetoric. Its not as if strongarming the prez via the purse was being tied to immediate withdrawals -- if he cast his votes based on the idiotic belief that we'd have some sort of Iraq-wide Fall of Saigon on our hands, or if he did it due to political calculation, I guess I'll never know. I dunno, something about that sort of politics played by a candidate claiming to be above the fray leaves me cold.

Either way, better than the (remaining) alternative.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

You mean, apart from his repeated statements that he might have voted for the war if he'd been in the Senate at the time, and his repeated votes for additional funding for the war since he's been in the Senate. Other than that, sure.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 6:04 PM

You mean, apart from his repeated statements that he might have voted for the war if he'd been in the Senate at the time...

Wasn't the statement that he might have voted for it had he been in the Senate and had been presented with different information, but that from his position the case absolutely hadn't been made and that's why he opposed it? It wasn't nearly as ambiguous as you make it out to be.

He's never unconditionally ruled out war as a valid option, but his point was that the public case wasn't made and that's why he opposed it. It wasn't a popular position to take when he did it, but there it is. And now with the benefit of hindsight we can all look back and see that hey, he was right -- the reasons made in the public case for the war didn't hold up.

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 6:15 PM

He's never unconditionally ruled out war as a valid option, but his point was that the public case wasn't made and that's why he opposed it.

Yes, that's my understanding of what he said. Not "No war, period" but "The case for war hasn't been made yet." Big difference.

It wasn't a popular position to take when he did it, but there it is. And now with the benefit of hindsight we can all look back and see that hey, he was right -- the reasons made in the public case for the war didn't hold up.

Speak for yourself. We most certainly do not all agree that he was right.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 6:36 PM

Yes, you caught me. I am hiding from your enormous experience. It is truly terrifying.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 4:44 PM

Thanks for a good laugh, Grand Moff! I like your humor and your superior judgement in political candidates.

Posted by Vaughan | January 30, 2008 6:39 PM

Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate to, until just last year, support torture.
(See the Politico.com story "Hillary backs off support for torture" [www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html ])

Bill Clinton still supports the abominable practice–and I am not referring here to his campaign style.

That is one reason, among many, that as a long-time human rights advocate*, I am supporting Barack Obama.

* I served as Freedom House's senior analyst for Latin America (1997-2005) and as a member of the professional staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee was staff author of the amendment (the Cranston Amendment) that made the State Department include indigenous rights in its annual country reports.

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 30, 2008 7:29 PM

Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate to, until just last year, support torture.
(See the Politico.com story "Hillary backs off support for torture" [www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html ])

Bill Clinton still supports the abominable practice–and I am not referring here to his campaign style.

That is one reason, among many, that as a long-time human rights advocate*, I am supporting Barack Obama.

* I served as Freedom House's senior analyst for Latin America (1997-2005) and as a member of the professional staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee was staff author of the amendment (the Cranston Amendment) that made the State Department include indigenous rights in its annual country reports.

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 30, 2008 7:29 PM

Yes, that's my understanding of what he said. Not "No war, period" but "The case for war hasn't been made yet." Big difference.

Er... no. He said the case hadn't been made, and as such, he forcefully opposed the war. He called it a dumb war. The fact that he opposed it at the outset really isn't something that a rational person should call into question.

He posited a hypothetical in which he might have done something differently ("maybe if there had been other information then maybe I would've") and you're attempting to use that to discredit his opposition, but that doesn't work when his very next sentence was to the effect of "but those maybes were just maybes and so I didn't support the war."

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 7:36 PM

Obama is the only person who has united my household in two decades. The only people Hillary Clinton is going to unite, is the Republicans.

Posted by Naomi Hart | January 30, 2008 7:57 PM

Er... no. He said the case hadn't been made, and as such, he forcefully opposed the war. He called it a dumb war.

No he didn't. Read the speech. It's very carefully worded, full of qualifications ("clear rationale," "strong international support") that he could have cited later to justify a flip-flop. His subsequent statements to the effect that he might have voted for the war if he had had access to classified intelligence, and his voting record in the Senate in support of continued funding for the war and against any short-term withdrawal of troops also betray a carefully calibrated position.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 8:43 PM

I'm a Californian who backed Edwards and trying to make up my mind on whom to support now, who to vote for next Tuesday. Don't like the fact that HRC never read the NIE brief made available to Senators which was less than neutral on invading, and that she still backed the invasion a year later. Don't like money guys like McAuliffe and the corporate guys like Mark Penn. Don't like the policies enthusiastically supporting the military-industrial complex. Don't favor Obama for the same reasons Krugman lists plus I just don't know that much where he would lead the USA, how tough he is, and how hard he will fight for universal health care given that his wife works for U of C hospital.

Posted by jim | January 30, 2008 9:11 PM

OK, but can't McCain just reply "Well, you weren't in the Senate when the AUMF was voted on. And I believe you also voted on funding the war the last four years, and for the Patriot Act II as well."

And turn Obama's "judgement" meme into empty rhetoric?

Mixner said it very well.

Posted by Volum | January 30, 2008 9:12 PM

Hillary is tough...until you really need her: on Iraq, on Iran...on anything that takes moral courage; then she folds like a cheap suit. Her followers confuse style with substance. Her expensive campaign has repeated the lie that she is tough so often that multitudes take it as God's writ.
A second lie is Hillary the hard worker. A twelve year old could tell you there's a difference between working harder and working smarter. Confrontational doesn't cut it. Being a busywork policy wonk and a little bulldog of a grade grind is not the same as possessing wisdom. If it's true that she's such a hard worker where it really counts, why didn't she bother to read the reports leading up to the vote to go hell bent for leather in Iraq? If she's so brilliant, why didn't she know there had already been a presidential election in Pakistan? If she is even FROM the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, ask her why she sponsored the bill to criminalize flag burning. Go for it, Barak!

Posted by twinfern | January 30, 2008 10:09 PM

Only problem with Obama is - he's NOT right on foreign policy.

He will screw up on Iran - he will screw up on Pakistan. His concepts and attitudes on both are completely wrong.

And he still hasn't convinced anybody that he will get US troops out of Iraq before 2013. Not that it matters - the Iraqis will see to it that the US is out long before then.

That said, the OTHER problem is - Hillary is in exactly the same position and possibly worse due to her more advanced pandering to the AIPAC crowd who don't trust Obama to be enough of a fanatical Israel backer.

If either one of these people get elected, we're going to be at war with Iran and/or Pakistan within the time frame of their administrations - and probably STILL stuck in Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 10:40 PM

Jim W

I am going to assume we are all in agreement then since the very first sentence I wrote was "That is a good line of attack but I would nix using courage and stick to judgment."

tinisoli

I neither stated nor implied Obama was a flip flopper or monday morning quarterback. I merely pointed out that "courage" was an overstatement.
Obama has not taken a single "courageous" stand on Iraq since he joined the Senate. I was against the Iraq War from the beginning as well but consider this a sign of healthy skepticism, good judgment, and small bit of wisdom gained from education and experience not courage.

Posted by needs editing | January 30, 2008 10:46 PM

"You need to be able to step a couple of paces back from your opponent and really wind up and throw a solid punch."

As opposed, in Hillary's case, to looking more like that mirror scene Lucy did with Harpo Marx.

Posted by Kevin Carson | January 31, 2008 2:56 AM

MY, come on - Obama claiming superior wisdom because he opposed the Iraqi invasion 6 years ago hasn't flattened his opponent in the Democratic Primaries, where the vast majority of the voters oppose the war and think it was a mistake. I see being even less of a selling point in the general election. People are much more interested in what you are going to do than what you did 6 years ago. As far as what Obama is going to do about Iraq, it is pretty much the same as Hillary.

Posted by Dennis_D | January 31, 2008 1:22 PM