At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren writes about Barack Obama’s various position on Iraq over time, but adds this:
Personally, I would prefer that, should Obama clearly pivot on what to do in Iraq, he not be attacked by either the left or the right for flip-flopping, but rather commended for responding to new realities. After all, he is likely to be President, and the earlier he takes a more mature position on the war, the likelier he is to stick with it. Indeed, that Obama has been so slow even to begin changing his position is a worrisome sign. Even if Obama does change his views and decide to stay in Iraq and win a war that is now probably winnable, I wonder whether when he takes office he has the courage to disappoint his supporters, especially when he has to deal with, not only his extravagant promises, but the families of dead soldiers.
Glenn Reynolds comments (only somewhat in jest, I think): “So the biggest problem for Obama is that he hasn’t flip-flopped soon enough!  Thank God I’m not running for President.”
Lindgren is not the first person to have expressed this generous attitude to Obama’s latest shifting on Iraq; for example, Allahpundit expressed a similar sentiment earlier this month.ÂÂ
Although I understand the impulse to avoid being seen as punishing Obama for what Lindgren and Allah (and I, fwiw) see as taking a better position on Iraq, it is a problematic impulse in this instance. The record Lindgren compiles shows that Obama’s positions on Iraq were consistently the politically expedient positions for him to take at the time. Thus, Lindgren’s concern that Obama’s position on Iraq once elected might be driven by his supporters should not be understated.
Indeed, history gives us recent examples of new Presidents tending to be less than resolute when faced with adversity in military matters. Reagan and Lebanon would be one example; Clinton and Somalia would be another. The main consolation on this front is that Obama’s current plan on withdrawing from Iraq is not very workable, suggesting that a panic withdrawal in response to a Tet-esque offensive by al Qaeda in Iraq is nigh-impossible.
Even so, allowing Obama to reap a cost-free political benefit (assuming there is a benefit) from lurching toward Iraq increases the probability of electing someone whose ideology and penchant for taking expedient positions on Iraq pose a not insignificant risk to the ultimate outcome of the current US mission there.  Voters may choose to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the issue, but they should be fully informed of the reasons for the doubt.
Update: In the comments, Allah asks:
How was it politically expedient for him to oppose the war in 2002? It might have helped him in local politics but this is a guy who’s evidently had his eye on national office for a long time, and all indications at the time were that we were going to have an easy time of it in Iraq. If we had, he’d have been painted as a mindless anti-war liberal and therefore totally unqualified to be c-in-c.
First, a local politician looking toward national politics first has to get into national politics. Allah concedes that the antiwar stance was popular locally — which would help in his eventual Senate race. There is not much precedent for running for president from the Illinois Senate. After winning his US Senate seat, Obama was not planning to run for president in 2008. Obama decided to get into the current presidential race in December 2006, once public opinion had already turned sour on Iraq. The party’s prior nominee, John F. Kerry, had voted against the Gulf War resolution in 1991 without it being a significant issue in 2004. Obama’s 2002 speech against the war was not widely covered at the time and may not have been held against him, particularly given that the actual speech was littered with qualifiers about how he supported some wars, just not “dumb wars” like Iraq. And as we have seen, Obama was always prepared to say that he might have voted differently had he had access to all of the intelligence Sens. Kerry and Edwards saw. I think all of the above explains how Obama’s Iraq positions are consistently those that have little political downside for him at the time he takes them, and beyond.
Alternatively, if I accept Allah’s assertion that Obama’s initial position was not driven by political expediency at all, I must accept it as the best indicator of how Obama thinks. It is therefore an excellent reason to suspect that it is suggestive of how Obama would carry out his policy in Iraq and elsewhere should he win. This would be a reason for supporters of the mission to argue that the dovish Obama is the real Obama and that his lurching toward the center now is not merely expedient, but profoundly dishonest.
On the one hand, as Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?†[yeah, yeah, I kyped the quote from a post at Hot Air].
OTOH, O! has developed quite the little repertoire of declaring a position, declaring a new, and reverting to the first or some nuanced mean. Due to nothing more than voter pandering or something that resembles it.
I think you’re correct, Karl.
The record Lindgren compiles shows that Obama’s positions on Iraq were consistently the politically expedient positions for him to take at the time.
How was it politically expedient for him to oppose the war in 2002? It might have helped him in local politics but this is a guy who’s evidently had his eye on national office for a long time, and all indications at the time were that we were going to have an easy time of it in Iraq. If we had, he’d have been painted as a mindless anti-war liberal and therefore totally unqualified to be c-in-c.
Wait a minute, you mean to say he isn’t a mindless anti-war liberal? He’s not totally unqualified to be CnC? Wow, who knew?
All the Republicans would need to do is congratulate Obamba for pulling his head out of his ass and getting up to speed with all the people he has been criticizing. I highly doubt he is going to allow that to happen. Don’t expect any policy reversals from Chocolate Jesus. Its a head fake.
2008 ain’t 2004. And Obama ain’t Kerry.
What’s that? A leader who actually shifts his views to meet changing circumstances on the groud? Well, it’s about time!
Flipping Out
The Editors, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008
So Obama will listen to his generals and consider the facts on the ground before fully withdrawing from Iraq. OMG! WTF? Rick Klein of ABC News exclaimed, “There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.” Time’s Mark Halperin told Anderson Cooper, “This is one of the biggest things that’s happened so far in the general election.”
Yes, it’s stop-the-presses enormous: Barack Obama has affirmed a position that he has held for months. Granted, the press was right to notice that Obama had shifted the accent in his Iraq talk–no doubt marketing himself to a broader audience. But the fine print of his pronouncements and policy papers has always contained nuances and caveats, reasons why he might slow down a pullout and keep troops in Iraq over a longer horizon. In May, Michael Crowley wrote about these provisos in our pages (see “Barack in Iraq,” May 7).
Even when Obama delivered his first major speech calling for withdrawal, in November 2006, he hedged:
“I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid. … The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and offers us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining current troop levels. … In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time.”
What’s more, he has always left open the possibility that his administration would leave a substantial number of troops on the ground to guard our embassy, train the Iraqi army, and combat Al Qaeda. And, even though he didn’t regularly spell out these wrinkles during the primary, he did routinely say, “We should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.” In fact, he never went nearly so far as Hillary Clinton in unconditionally casting his lot with withdrawal. Therefore, it is ludicrous for journalists only now to appreciate these nuances of his position–and even crazier for them to equate his emphasis of these nuances with flip-flopping.
That flip-flopping has become the most damning accusation against a politician speaks to the poverty of the political process. Here’s how the system currently works: As candidates prepare to enter the race, they devise a foreign policy platform. Then, for the next two years, they must resolutely defend that platform. Any deviation from their original position papers will be treated by their opponents–and, in turn, by the press–as a deep character flaw, evidence that a candidate will do whatever it takes to win the presidency.
This is the fate that befell John Kerry, and it’s a particularly mindless dynamic. Foreign affairs, especially ongoing wars, are filled with twists and turns, many of which couldn’t possibly be predicted years out. Consider all the potential shifts that might take place within Iraq in the next six months: The Iraqi government could demand that the United States head for the exits; Iran could exact revenge for an Israeli strike by launching a wave of suicide attacks; the Iraqi sects could construct a new framework that moves the country substantially closer to political reconciliation. Nobody has a perfect record predicting the course of events in Iraq–and it’s absurd that candidates should be rewarded for sticking to stances conceived so long ago.
And, while Obama has clearly reframed his Iraq position with an eye toward November, he also has good substantive reasons for backing away from some of his past rhetoric. The improvements within Iraq are real. Although they may not presage a liberal democracy or justify the permanent presence of our troops, Obama would be a fool if he didn’t take these new trends into account. The dynamic within Iraq has changed since he initially conceived his policy during the bloodiest days of sectarian warfare. And there’s certainly no reason why he should be rewarded for continuing to argue his Iraq stance as if nothing is different.
All in all, the recent flaying of Barack Obama makes for a depressing object lesson in how our press and our political discourse treat nuance. If Obama, as we’ve been told, suddenly has a “problem” on Iraq, it’s only because American politics has a much deeper one.
“Talk’s cheap. The price of action is colossal.” Quote from Marat/Sade by Peter Weiss.
Obama can say anything, only his past actions matter in judging if his words have any value at all and whether to vote for or against him.
“How was it politically expedient for him to oppose the war in 2002?”
In 2002, he hadn’t won the Democratic primary yet. Taking the far-left position is what you do when you want the America-hating contingent of the Democratic Party to get behind your nomination. Moving to the center is something you do once you have the nomination in the bag.
Everyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention knows that he’s a mindless anti-war liberal. This fact doesn’t appear to be hurting him. The McCain campaign needs to figure out how to use this fact to their advantage.
Also, this.
300 fatuous gobs, that’s a lot of Wilhelm screams. If Obama’s bus is like the blob and grows when it gets something under its wheels, though, maybe he could get the whole country under it.
Expedient adoption of new tactics I suppose can show an adaptive mind. My difficulty is that his underlying principles are bad, and his understanding deficient.
The McCain campaign needs to figure out how to use this fact to their advantage.
This may help a bit.
Yes, let us elect another Prez skilled in triangulation. That worked out so well last time regarding foreign policy.
Show me one Dem who was against the war that lost because of it. Being a liberal Dem and against the war wasn’t going to cost you enough votes to lose and kept you in tight with those who are now running the party. He did have his eye on the national scene, the national Democratic Party scene. I remind you he was still calling for withdrawing quickly when he clinched the nomination. It seems obvious to me he held the hard left view to win the nomination and has let his position drift to the center to win over the moderates. He had to know after his early treatment that the press was in his pocket and would make better excuses for him than he could.
The biggest questions I have right now are how does Katie Couric like being a groupie and has she done him yet? I bet Harry Smith is insanely jealous.
Right, and the next step on the ladder was to get elected to the Senate from Illinois. He is a progressive, his base is progressive and progressives don’t vote for people who approve wars. There was no cost to him to be anti-war, and I don’t think he had any idea that his political rise would be so sudden.
How was it politically expedient for him to oppose the war in 2002?
O! wasn’t in the Senate in 2002, so he didn’t have to vote. Who’s to say that he wouldn’t have been politically expedient and voted for the authorization to go to war like Senators Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, etc.?
Everyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention knows that he’s a mindless anti-war liberal.
I dunno… really. I think he’s a panderer. I really truly think that if he wins, he will see another Clinton-esque administration: poll driven.
From the link at 9
“…This McCain commercial tries to paint Obama as inexperienced and anti-military, in part by taking a protest vote out of context. …”
How does “tries to paint” help McCain?
Is Kurtz suggesting that Obama is experienced at wartime decision making? IS pro-military in any meaningful sense other than that Obama wants service personnel not to die or be wounded on a faraway battlefield, he wants them home and well taken care of when they get back? In general, Kurtz appears to me to be running interference for Obama, excusing as he goes.
When a quagmire dries up, it looks like Iraq.
I would be more inclined to give Obamessiah credence on his “shifting to the facts” stance if he does so studiously redact his record where possible … ie his statements on the surge.
O! is for whatever NOW position is to his personal political advantage. As noted above, being against the war in 2002 solidified him with the base that would launch him later. Regardless if the war had gone swimmingly, he could easily have argued his 2002 stance be dismissed because he was representing the concerns of his base and it wasn’t like he had any power at the time to influence any votes.
His 2002 stance was a win/win one.
I really truly think that if he wins, he will see another Clinton-esque administration: poll driven.
jdm, that would be the best we could hope from O!
I believe, though, O! is more like Jhimmi Carter. A feckless “do-gooder” who knows better than all of us how we should live our lives.
“I believe, though, O! is more like Jhimmi Carter.”
He wears cardigans?
How does “tries to paint†help McCain?
I was referring to the content of the commercial, not the (predictable) spin that the WaPo hack tried to put on it.
Ah, I thought something must have been wrong about my take. Thanks, SBP.
I believe, though, O! is more like Jhimmi Carter.
A fair concern and one I’m worried about as well.
My counter argument would be that Carter’s record as governor of GA presaged his eventual presidency; including the factoid that everyone hated him at the end.
O!’s record presages little at all, especially because his lack of any real executive experience (a common problem with legislators, even McCain). O!’s recent antics tho’, when combined with his amazingly empty record, seem to indicate someone who will do whatever what it takes to get ahead and/or win.
I hope the Senator does flip. I’m all about victory over here. Of course, I think it is fair that he get royally smacked around for being a windvane as well…
Hi Major John!!!
Hope all is well with you.
“How was it politically expedient for him to oppose the war in 2002?”
He took that easy position for the Democratic party, for future cultivation of his base: you only have to look to where Mr. Obama gave his famous anti-war 10-2-2002 speech: at an anti-war rally organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq. And at the feed-trough words he threw to his nascent base in attendance there, those correctly placed words the Left always wants to hear: “[We will join]… battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.” But he would have fought in WWII or the Civil War, because those are long over and historians mostly put them in the ‘good wars’ column. Pure expediency.
Did he roll the dice in taking his anti-war position? Yeah, and because there were some mistakes made during the conduct of this war, Barack comes out smelling like a rose. Because no war is ever a certainty, BO rolled the dice, and got lucky.
Now, he’ll capitalize on that toss.
“The main consolation on this front is that Obama’s current plan on withdrawing from Iraq is not very workable, suggesting that a panic withdrawal in response to a Tet-esque offensive by al Qaeda in Iraq is nigh-impossible.”
Bush seems to be shifting to the Obama position;
Unless you can explain the difference between ‘timetable’ and ‘horizon’ without exploding McCain’s withered brain.
perhaps you could explain how “we’ll be out in 16 months.period.” equals, “if certain conditions are met we can withdraw more troops” it’s mainly the IF and conditions in there that makes the difference. I thought you were all about teh nuance
Obama’s position? WTF is Obama’s position. No-one knows. Including Obama. So how could President Bush be shifting to Obama’s position? How could anyone who has a position, shift to Obama’s position?
“I thought you were all about teh nuance”
I don’t think Bush adopting a timetable (no matter what name you give it)
is the sort of flexible subtlety you were looking for.
Semanticleo asserts and the world breathes a sigh of relief. All is well.
what timetable? what date has been set?
It must really suck to be Semen right now.
“what date has been set?”
Ah, there’s that nuance.
O! is not limited by time and space, and therefore, can hold all positions at any given time.
If the anti-war affluent are willing to slit their economically prosperous throats in order to get their Messiah elected, what does it matter whether 0! is for or against victory anywhere?
Oh sure… the anti-war affluent are so smart they’re going to vote for the guy who will seize all their wealth for THE CHILDREN.
I suppose an Obama victory is one sure way to bankrupt Hollywood and its anal rententive useful idiotic theme about the evil American capitalist white guy imperialist empire.
Vote for Obama, put anti-American affluent Hollywood out of its misery.
no syn, the evil American capitalist white guy will always be with us.
so you’ve got nothing as usual.
“no syn, the evil American capitalist white guy will always be with us.”
Only when they are conveniently used as a punching bag by the kwel kidz skateboarding their way through life.
Obama is strictly out for himself. I don’t think he gives a damn about anything other than his career, and he’ll espouse any position that pushes a pawn forward. If you want to vote for a pol who has no character and will crumble like a wet sack at the first hint of a change in the breeze, vote for Obama. He hasn’t finished changing; he’ll never finish changing. Only completely stupid fucking pae-brains will ever believe this guy has any character, and millions will die because of it if he’s elected.
Speaking of sacks: Drop dead, Cleo; you smug, ponderous, fecal-brained fuck.
A data point, maggie.
well, yeah. aren’t they now? sorry if I didn’t explain myself. haven’t finished my first cup o’ the day.
O! is not limited by time and space, and therefore, can hold all positions at any given time.
He’s like the Kwisatz Haderach that way.
Maj. John,
Best wishes to you as always. My point is that welcoming an Obama flip on Iraq now discounts the very real possibility of a future Obama flip on Iraq, because there is not much evidence that he has any fixed position on Iraq. I suppose that in addition to the logistical problems of a panic withdrawal, it can be said that the current momentum is such that Obama would probably be willing to accept credit for it. But I would still be concerned that AQI will pull something to test Obama, and that he would not be up to it.
Even as to Obama’s Iraq positions, the question isn’t finally whether he has one, or two, or three positions and what they are in content, but what thinking does he do to arrive at them, what effort does he make to get at the truth of the matter, what sort of intellectual interest or curiosity about the conditions on the ground in Iraq, the history, the culture, the people, the politics of Iraqis does he feel needful before he makes a judgment? What is he willing to admit he does not know and needs to learn before making an informed judgment?
Does he read deeply on the subject of the war in Iraq? Does he show any evidence of understanding the problems at hand in counterinsurgency warfare? Does he understand the necessary conditions of success in counterinsurgency?
Why would he form the judgment of the surge he did last year, if he had a firm grasp of the conditions and had thought the thing through? I think his conclusion on the ‘surge’ firmly demonstrates he hadn’t and he didn’t, respectively. And that it didn’t matter in the least, as far as he was concerned.
Oh, and still doesn’t, as far as that goes.
Baracky isn’t ever talking about telling the world that the invasion wasn’t a mistake. He’s all about empowering that viewpoint, his election will represent a validation of that. Vietnam. A chastened America. Whatever position he settles on, his mantra will be never again.
It’s so easy to avoid the flip-flop charge……
…all you have to do is convince people you never held the previous opinion.Karl at Protein Wisdom is arguing that Obama’s shifting position on Iraq is a flim-fl ……
He’ll probably apologize even.
I think you are right on point ‘feets. Exactly, you have him.
And the results of such a stance will be, oh!….look!…oh my god, another building is falling on people for what we cannot fathom!
Indeed, that’s because it supports Karl’s position. He’s been slow “changing” his mind” because it’s been a long time clinching the nomination so he can begin drifting rightward.
There’s a lot of anti-war people who didn’t oppose the surge. Rather then wait and see, he took a stand. And now he doesn’t want to pay
Recently he’s used variations on the phrase “brave, hard-working soldiers”. It’s not very convincing.
No problem, though you doubtless “won’t understand.”
When the Congress (illegally) tries to force a timetable for withdrawl, or a candidate promises a timetable that has nothing to do with current conditions, thats a problem. When the people you are helping say that now is the time to start talking about how mcuh more help they need and how long that should go on, it’s not a problem. In fact it’s been the plan from the very start.
Baracky went to Afghanistan and played basketball. I think he thinks it’s like visiting a Boys Club in an inner-city hood.
I think he looks at Afghanistan as his biggest community organizey project ever.
– We started back before the surge with years of constant back stabbing yammering by the Left, as a core part of the “Bush as Satan” propaganda campaign, which peaked, even as the surge plan was being argued in Congress, with Reids “We have lost the war in Iraq, and its time to bring the troops home immediately” speech, Obama echoing those words heatedly, both then and even after the surge was showing signs of success, during his run against Hillery when he declared the day he took office he would “bring all our troops home, and they will all be out of Iraq by summer of 2009”.
– When that position became untenable it morphed into “12 months”, and then later to “16 months”, and now its “as conditions on the ground dictate”.
– The Left continues to morph the message, subtly abandoning all the heated anti-war rhetoric, and shifting attention to Afghanistan, where apparently they’ve done a 180 there too.
– You see it with twits like SemiClueless already starting to say things like “Bush is now agreeing with Obama”.
– Thats a not so clever attenpt to put the cart before the horse, and its total bullshit, but with the swooning press to prop them up, and no one in the media interested in asking any real questions, they just might pull it off.
– By the time of the convention, they’ll be talking about how Obama led us out of the quagmire and showed the kind of leadership America needs, based on his visionary positions on that war.
– The truth is Bush has done exactly what he wanted to in Iraq from beginning to end, has not changed anything once he choose to go with the surge, and Obama has been hoping back and forth all along playing follow the leader. Hes doing it right now with this trip, designed to give him cover when he calls for a “careful withdrawal, based on the advice of the commanders on the ground”.
– Its exactly what Bush intended all along, but Obama will try to get in front of the realities, while at the same time denying he was ever against the whole process as it has evolved.
– What a fucking joke.
Going to Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the unhappy middle-east first, getting the ugly drudgery out of the way, so the hopey changey partying in Europe is left for last, leaving a joyful vision in the (short) memories of his acolytes back here at home.
– :Nothing the liars can say will ever erase all those video taped comments and anti-War votes in Congress, or the nationwide coverage of the statements Obama and all the other Dem leaders have made in front of the cameras. Nothing.
If we had, he’d have been painted as a mindless anti-war liberal and therefore totally unqualified to be c-in-c.
Who’d have thunk it ?
All in all, the recent flaying of Barack Obama makes for a depressing object lesson in how our press and our political discourse treat nuance.
Nuance. When a Leftist says nuance, they generally mean that their candidate has abandoned a prior position, or that they know their candidate it pandering to the middle, and lying to avoid having to discuss their actual position.
In the Philadelphia debate where Baracky stuttered and stammered his way through captial gains, civilian control of the military, Rev. Wrong, etc … he specifically, along with Hillary, stated that he would withdraw regardless of the positions that the Generals had, which led into his tortured response about civilian control of the military. He is getting all nuancey now that MoveOn and the whack-jobs are no longer the majority of the potential voters.
– What is not being said, pointedly absent, is Obama has had no hand in anything concerning the WOT, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not anything, since all hes been until he wins the office is just another contrary Leftist junior Senator.
– Had he been in a position of power, and acted according to his stated ideas, we could now be in a position of planning a third campaign in Iraq.
– Anybody want to bet THAT point will never be made by any of the three network anchors during the “Great traveling circus and sideshow tour”?.
“Obama has had no hand in anything concerning the WOT, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not anything,”
It is hard to accomplish anything when you’ve only worked around 143 days out of almost four years.
[…] 16 timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq, I would note that Allahpundit (with whom I diagreed elsewhere this morning) catches all the nuance, saving us all the time. Maliki’s comments are based […]
Here’s an indication of the ‘conversation’ the political left would like to have when they take the reigns of power in both the congress and presidency this winter (they hope). It’s about TRUTH and maybe about reconciliation, so long as you see reconciliation as buying into their scheme of national defense. Goes to New America Foundation Blog: http://tinyurl.com/6ylqxs
Bam! Sdferr is on the case.
denazification
#66 –
– Such an end run on the 3 branches of government would be typical of the Marxist based community, serving to silence disent on the one hand, and distract from any embarrassing situations on the other.
– Of course after much ballyhoo and hype, it would never get off the ground, since aside from completely ignoring the Constitution, the first order of business, should such a body ever actually exist, would be Clintons malfeasance in creating the conditions for 9/11 through inaction when he had the chance to stop Bin Laden.
– A little birdie tells me even the birdbrains on the Left would see the potential for foot shooting.
I dunno BBH. It was as much the 9-11 Public Discourse Project as the original commission that elided Clinton Administration responsibility from the record, and that was privately funded. There’s been an explosion really of privately-funded commission thingers that Baracky’s media has happily treated as bona fide, NPR especially. Can anyone point to an overview of how this developed? They’ll keep doing it until it doesn’t work I figure.
I’ve begun to think the word ‘commission’ ought to be restricted to the use seen in the phrase ‘commission of a crime’ and the like.
Let’s do it for the children, whadda ya say?
“They’ll keep doing it until it doesn’t work I figure.”
– Thats why you only see it on PBS or NPR, because the audiences are largely limited to the Left.
– And it basically is simply preaching to the Chior, because anything too outlandish gets picked up and covered in an unflatering way by FOX.
– What I’m more interested in is this seeming unbalanced Liberal talking heads situation I see developing on FOX. More than that, they are not being challenged, but simply allowed to spew the talking points memos for the Obama campaign, with no tough questions being asked. They’ve added a number of new faces that seem to lean to the left, obvious from the sort of cream-puff questions they’re asking that only offer up chances for self serving hype-speechs by the Obama campaigners.
– Then again, O’Reilly has done everything but offer to give Obama a blow job to get him on his show, so maybe thats whats behind it.
I may be suffering from a memory problem but I don’t recall candidates, especially ones not even nominated yet, going overseas to make political speeches to crowds in other nations. It seems unseemly to me.
At the Volkh site, Lindgren comments:
Why is he getting so much attention today? So a Democrat thinks critics should give his candidate the benefit of the doubt. That’s news?
Maybee, did you get the feeling from Lindgren piece on Civilian National Security Forces that Obama suffers some form of ‘corps obsession’? I mean PeaceCorps, AmeriCorps, HealthCorps, EnergyCorps, ClassroomCorps, VeteransCorps, SeniorCorps, not to mention the possibility of another stand-alone CivilianNationalSecurityCorps?
This way everyone can be a part. Where’s your badge?
Oh, I guess I wasn’t supposed to eat that then, huh? My bad.
Obama has shown that his speeches consistently panders to the crowd. His 2002 speech was no different. That speech was more of an anti-Bush early BDS speech for the Chicago far lefties. He hit the neocon button with Wolfowitz, he hit the evil Rove and he repeatedly chided Bush, used the word “dumb” in a way that hit at Bush’s intelligence (or lack of).
Not a real brave performance if you look at the audience and his constituency that he was counting on to reelect him and funnel him the gravy money campaign contributons represent when running his slam dunk campaign for State.
The part of his speech saying all wars are not wrong would have been brave, but I think this theme along with the affirmation of the patriotism of his audience was crafted to make his core constituency look better than they were.
“They are reasonable… there have been good wars for good causes”
“They are patriots for opposing a dumb war”
Then Obama makes sure he stands big and bad against the enemy bin Laden who everyone knows is gonna hide in Pakistan where we can’t lay a glove on him without the whole country going nuts. I’ve had guys do this to me before… you know, all the yelling and threats are done from behind mom’s dress. Wow. Scary. Big brave guy Obama makes a threat that he knows he’ll never have to make good on.
Sdferr – Oh my God! It’s like you read my mind! Yes, I actually started laughing out loud with every new Corps.
No, no, no. It’s not the first position or the last position that you should focus on. It’s the worst position. Because that gives you a better barometer of how low someone is willing to go. All of the other criteria are based on hope: hope that his ideas have evolved, hope that he’s “only” pandering, hope that he’ll choose the right thing once he’s in power. If you peg your general estimation of all your politicians on the most atrocious position, then you at least know that he can’t fool you, disappoint you, turn on you.
[…] Barry doubt the wisdom of the surge on the merits, did he take the position he did because it was politically expedient, or is he just a dime-store lefty defeatist who assumes failure at every turn? The answer, per […]