Why is Clinton so quiet? (0.00 / 0)

Interesting, is it not, that only one of the Democratic Party candidates for President has deemed the Iraq War a suitable topic of debate with Sen. McCain?

Wonder why Clinton has not spoken up?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 18:30:39 PM UTC

Holy hell. (0.00 / 0)

All I can say:

SHITSHITSHITSHIT

Isn't it possible, though, to de-blur something like this, and blur an issue of our choice?
Or is that against our morals?

---

by: BradODonnell @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 18:38:51 PM UTC

This is why we need a presumptive nominee soon... (0.00 / 0)

The longer the Democratic campaign continues, the longer McCain will be able to blur the lines without much of a counter-attack.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 18:48:20 PM UTC

McCain's empty promises and worthless words (4.00 / 1)

Obama can also point out that McCain will mean more of the same old Bush policies, that all his promises about "ending with honor" probably don't amount to a hill of beans, that the likely outcome is four more years of the same old endless war in Iraq and deteriorating U.S. relations in the Middle East. Or eight more years of all that, if the elderly Mr. McCain manages to live that long.

Really, a wonky discussion about troop levels is completely beside the point. The point is that McCain can't be trusted to end the war, he'll spin and mislead with impunity, and his record of the past eight years proves it.

---

by: T Maysle @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 18:55:41 PM UTC

I have known since at least the "surge," and have said repeatedly: (0.00 / 0)

USer troops are OT going to leave Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future, the next 15 years, at least, and probably longer.

Even if Congress somehow succeeds in passing impediments to spending on 'permanent' bases, it is no big trick in nomenclature to designate something as 'temporary', no matter the scope, size or duration.

Iraq, or rather the installation of 'temporary' bases in Iraq, is a crucial part of USer global strategy for exerting 'influence' in the trans-Caspian and trans-Caucasus. Zbig Brzezinsky laid the whole thing out, plain as day, in about 1989, iirc. Brzezinsky's on the Obama team, nest paw?  

---

by: konopelli @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 18:56:03 PM UTC

I thought McCain was gonna be a pushover.... (0.00 / 0)

Of course this is what he is going to do and he'll have the entire corporatist media singing the theme song behind him.

The 'Democrat' Party "LeaderSheep' have handed a Republican Presidential candidate who should have no chance a golden opportunity to whip ass in the GE. Miss Nancy and 'SellOut' Reid are the worst politicians in recent memory insisting on painting their party into a corner from which it has no obvious exit.

Stupid. Arrogant. Incompetent....all these words come to mind. For our part we need to make it clear that both of these bleating 'LeaderSheep' need to go.

Pelosi will face Sheehan and I believe the netroots must support Cindy if only to shake 'Versaiiles' arrogance and....

Sheehan might have a shot. She'll get plenty of press coverage.

Perhaps now some will understand the depth of the moral and political rot which has eaten into both parties in the gilded haze of 'Versailles'. Perhaps now some will understand that the 'Democrat' Party is just as incapable of putting forth and implementing an agenda that addresses our problems as the Republican. Perhaps now some will understand how I can say that we might very well be looking at four years of McCain and.....

Why.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:03:04 PM UTC

If McCain wants to engage in a blurring strategy (0.00 / 0)

and make this election about the economy, he can be my guest.

Good luck running on Bush's economic legacy.

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:12:25 PM UTC

Obama's defense should be the same as against Clinton (0.00 / 0)

It's a pretty clear line here.  Someone who voted to authorize the use of force, someone who has supported the war all along has a clear character flaw of bad judgment.  

It's not about wonky policy details.  Getting bogged down in the details and thinking that being able to reel off a bunch of numbers is the key ability has been a mistake of Democrats for years.

The argument should be that McCain, who might actually be dumber than George W. Bush, is so deficient in his moral and military judgment that he couldn't be trusted to prosecute a war effort in Iraq if it were necessary, which it isn't anyways.

Democrats shouldn't let Republicans set the debate.  Democrats should press the issue that McCain lacks the character and judgment necessary to be commander-in-chief and president.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:13:58 PM UTC

McCain's biggest vulnerability IMO (4.00 / 2)

is the fact that he was tortured by the Vietnamese for 5 years, and all it took in his mind was one terror attack on American soil to justify torturing others.  If there is anyone on the planet that should be unequivocally against torture, and should know that torture doesn't work anyway, it's McCain.  This should play neatly into the 2000 GOP primary narrative that he's an unpredictable loose cannon.  "What would our country be like if another terrorist attack occurred on President McCain's watch" should be on the minds of every voter.

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:29:49 PM UTC

Great point. (0.00 / 0)

McCain claims torture didn't make him do anything harmful to the US, so why would he think it's both OK and useful on other people?

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:40:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's all McCain has. (4.00 / 1)

So of course that's what he's going to push. He's got no cred on the economy, environment/climate, healthcare, or even, now, electoral reform or anything else that has become an Iraq-beating issue. He's got a phony image of straight-talking and an image of being "tough" on Iraq and terrorism. He has to straddle a thin line between his GOP bully-boy base and the independents and Reagan Dems he would need to have a prayer of winning. He has to avoid attacking Bush's folly while appearing to offer something new and different. He's trying the only strategy available to him, and it's not one with a lot of long-term potential.

He has bet everything on still being able to sell the "surge" 'til November, which is going to remain an uphill battle all the way. Obama's reply was right on target and McCain's is obviously weak and will get weaker as Obama (OK, or Clinton) and the Dems keep pushing back. We are losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan, largely because of the insane Iraq occupation engineered by Bush and McCain. Calling the Lies of War history does not take them off the table. Iraq has cost America its economic status, its ability to combat terrorism, its reputation in the world, its domestic tranquility, and the lives of its people and other people around the world -- with no payoff in sight.

It's a pretty easy argument for Obama to make, and he shows every sign of being more than capable of doing so effectively. The only thing we have to fear is consultant-inspired fear that leads the Dems to try and out-hawk McCain instead of standing against the Bush-McCain Doctrine. It might take some courage to insist that Bush-McCain's recklessness in Iraq has crippled our fight against terrorism, but the argument has to be made, and made without reservation. Americans have made it clear that they want change. Bush-McCain represents everything we want to change. As long as Obama and the Dems show that they know that, and are prepared to usher in real change, this year will mark the beginning of a generation of exile for the GOP.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:37:19 PM UTC

Obama's Downing street memo (0.00 / 0)

Just checking in to see if you are going to discuss or ignore the Canadian news that Obama called them to tell them I don't mean what I am going to say about NAFTA, so don't worry.  He lied to the people of Ohio about opting out of NAFTA.  
Looks like you are opting to ignore, when it all the stuff you have to ignore going to get to you?  When it is too late for all of us?  

---

by: samsgrandma @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:45:36 PM UTC

"News"? (0.00 / 0)

You mean the news that both the Obama campaign and the Canadian Embassy deny?

---

by: mcc @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:48:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did the 'Obama Campaign' deny this.... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

And if the 'Obama campaign' denies something does that mean it didn't happen? No matter if there is evidence to the contrary?

Just trying to get the ground rules straight.....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 20:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm (4.00 / 1)

"...we will be able to withdraw and come home. But we will come home with honor." This goes beyond even Joe Lieberman... and enters Nixonian territory of "peace with honor."

Do you think there is merit in starting a trend of referring to McCain's approach as "the Nixon plan" or somesuch?

Or has it been demonstrated that making people think about Vietnam is not a winning strategy for the Democrats on Iraq?

---

by: mcc @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:50:40 PM UTC

I would say the latter. (0.00 / 0)

Anyway, we need to keep him tied to Bush, not Nixon, who looks almost like a mensch in comparison.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 19:54:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like it (0.00 / 0)

And the two aren't mutually exclusive.  When he's saying we'll be there a hundred years he's bush, when he's claiming we'll come home after we win he's Nixon.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:53:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right you are (4.00 / 1)

Obama needs to make his differences with McCain on future plans for Iraq crystal clear, to the point where he starts talking about the different troops estimates for Iraq under an Obama administration and under a McCain administration. The argument can still be won as long as it is clear...

This is a test for Obama -- and an opportunity for those of us who are not only Democrats, but also activists against US imperial adventures. Obama needs to unblur his opposition to this war -- and we need to be prepared to hold him to it.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 20:07:36 PM UTC

Link Iraq to domestic issues (0.00 / 0)

With the economy going down the tubes, its important to keep reminding the American people how the huge (and destructive and failed) cost of the Iraq occupation is keeping the country from investing in things we really need at home--like healthcare, education, the economy, infrastructure, broadband, etc.  

This provides an understandable link between domestic issues (where McCain is weak) and the war (where he is stubbornly and expensively wrong).  And it puts the Iraq issue into a fundamentally different and broader frame than what McCain will be presenting.  And I think its a frame the American people are ready to embrace.

Obama has already been doing this in some of his comments and I think it fits with the core message and positioning of his campaign (right on Iraq war from the start and focused on solutions to domestic problems). It also underscores that McCain is both wrong and out-of-touch on both the Iraq situation and a wide range of domestic issues, and that these are intimately related to each other and need to be considered as such.  

This linkage also fits with Obama's message of "change," including a change in priorities from blind and very costly militarism (which McCain embodies) and ignoring domestic problems, to an era of investing in our nation's people and infrastructure and working in a more cooperative way with the rest of the world.  It is also a change from fear and a vision of the future marked by an endless "war on terror," to one of hope and improvement and renewal in the lives of American citizens (from "fear and insecurity for all" to "dignity and security for all.")

I think if Obama can communicate this clearly and consistently--which he seems inclined to and capable of doing--he can help achieve a political realignment favoring progressive Democrats.  Having an old and angry McCain--who claims we could and should have won the Vietnam War and that we may need to occupy Iraq for 100 years--as his opponent has the potential to make the distinction even clearer.  It also underscores how much easier it will be to achieve this if Obama rather than Clinton is our nominee.

But it will be key to get the "framing" right and to anchor it in voters' minds.  I think Obama understands that and has been building a foundation for this already.

---

by: mitchipd @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 20:48:29 PM UTC

Obama's Response (0.00 / 0)

Yesterday Senator John McCain mocked Senator Obama because of his position that he would re-enter Iraq if Al Qaeda returned, suggesting that Senator Obama was uninformed on the Iraq debate.  Senator Obama retort was that it was Senator McCain's vote for the was  that paved the way for Al Qaeda to be in Iraq in the first place.  

I believe that Senator Obama missed a golden opportunity to back Senator McCain into a corner.  The question was "if you left Iraq and Al Queda returned, would you go back in?" (paraphrase)  He should have simplly asked Senator McCain how he would have answered the question. The senator only has three available answers:

A) Say he wouldn't consider going back in (weak on terror, bad answer)

B) Say he would consider going back in (He just mocked Senator Obama for that answer).

C) Say he would never leave in the first place.  He doesn't want to there either, but he would be stuck.  He in recent days has backed away from his 100 year comment (guess not polling well), and doesn't want to re-enforce it.

Am I wrong???

---

by: jmorph9 @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:07:51 PM UTC

Too smart by half (0.00 / 0)

Yes, because Republicans don't care about logic and three-part questions. That's too smart and subtle and they'll mock it at pointy headed intellectualism. They only thing they recognize is a bludgeoning with a blunt object.

---

by: T Maysle @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:59:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Elections are about the future (0.00 / 0)

Obama would be better off not even mentioning his alleged prescience in 2002.  Especially since most Americans initially supported the war.  He'd basically be telling them that they were too stupid to listen to him.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:08:06 PM UTC

That's just not true (0.00 / 0)

Most Americans were pretty ambivalent, most Americans are pretty pissed that Bush went there regardless of what they thought, and many who supported it at the time now think that they didn't (cognitive dissonance and all). I think a campaign based on good judgment would be a really strong narrative.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 21:57:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's stll got a problem (0.00 / 0)

The truth is that most Americans don't want to think about Iraq at all.  It's just not on their radar screens.  They're sick of it. Obama's self-proclaimed "superior judgment" may win him the Democratic nomination, but it gives him zero national security credentials and says nothing about how he'll get us out of a the quagmire he foretold.  He's going to have to totally retool his message for the general election, and that won't be easy.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 22:22:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

100 Year Blur (0.00 / 0)

I think McCain's 100-year comment (and didn't he say 10,000 years at one point) will kill any attempt at blurring. Obama will have a lot of money. How many times do you think we will hear "McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years."

The best thing is if you pepper him with it enough and get it so everyone sees the youtube video of it, if he tries to back off, it will tarnish his character credentials and look like a "I voted against it before I voted for it" sort of moment.

It was an absolutely disastrous thing to say. Bush's campaign would have been a lot more disciplined.  

---

by: alchemi @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:45:06 AM UTC