Not so fast, my friend! (4.00 / 3)

This was a brilliant position to take by McCain... he knows he's lost credibility on the issue, so he will steal it and take it for his own.  Within weeks, the BBQ media will give McCain all the credit for withdrawal as if it was his idea all along, then chide Obama for copying McCain's position... The 100 years in Iraq position will be long forgotten.

Republicans are very good at spinning things around like that... we have to make sure they don't get away with it!


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:56:01 AM CDT

What withdrawal? (0.00 / 0)

What timetable?

Chris and everyone else here are ignoring McCain's mot important words in the soundbite quoted:

McCain: ...based on conditions on the ground...But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

"Conditions on the ground". That is something that McCain has been saying all along. Obama has not. It is Obama in recently saying that things depend on 'conditions on the ground' - or that he would "refine" his plan - who is the one moving toward Bush and McCain, not vis versa.

With McCain's position, and and now also Obama's, McCain could pick any number, 3 months, 10 months, 16 months, 24 months, it doesn't matter because those numbers are all dependent on "Conditions on the ground". Same now with any number including 16 months that Obama choses.

I just don't get why bloggers are more interested in spinning things as Obama is clearly trying to do here as if it changes the truth and will will change the election. I don't get it. How can you ignore the words "Conditions on the ground" with a straight face?

---

by: majorityretort2 @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 13:41:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh how the timetables have turned (0.00 / 0)

So McCain is all for Maliki's 16 month timetable for withdrawal, but dead-set against Obama's 16th month timetable for withdrawal.

Huh?????

What happened to McCain's, "timetables are a signal to the enemy", timetables are the buzzword for withdrawal", timetables are surrender", "timetables are waving the white flag which will bring chaos and genocide." ???  I guess those "most important words" no longer apply.

Watch the CNN interview.  Note how McCain first argues that Maliki wont ask for U.S. troops to leave because, he knows Maliki very well.  Then McCain mischaracterizes what Maliki had said, stating that Maliki had said, "it's a pretty good timetable for conditions on the ground."  That's not what Maliki said at all.  What Maliki actually said was, that Obama's plan was "the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

McCain certainly hasn't been saying "Conditions on the ground" all along.  The fact is, McCain hasn't been saying anything all along.  His positions have changed repeatedly, and if you seriously doubt that, then here's a link to refresh your memory on many of McCain's differences stances on the war.  It goes well beyond any charges of flip-flopping, entering the realm of psychosis.  The question is not how bloggers can ignore the words "Conditions on the ground", the question is how can you ignore the McCain's constant position changes on issue after issue?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

Like the issues of focusing more on the war in Afghanistan or holding the Pakistan government accountable or talking with our enemies such as Iran, McCain initially attacked Obama on these policies and questioned Obama's judgement and patriotism only to come around to Obama's way of thinking.

Obama continues to lead. McCain continues to follow.

---

by: Kane @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 15:34:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Iraq is a foreign policy question (0.00 / 0)

All of the July moves to the center were about domestic policy isssues.  And in terms of governing...they should still concern us because on this trip he hasn't changed any of those.  The trip has just allowed him to change the subject.  

We still have serious differences between the progressive view on issues and Obama's post partisan, post ideological view of how to govern.

No matter which of the 3 candidates or the final 2 candiates their opinions on Iraq were identical.  It was on domestic issues that we seem to have chosen the candidate willing to govern less as a progressive than a "centrist".  

So keep wearing those glasses to our detriment.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM CDT

I want a couple of those happy pills, Chris (4.00 / 4)

(Just yanking your chain.)

Seriously, what you're saying makes perfect logical, rational sense in a logical, rational world where voters make logical,  rational assessments of the candidates after careful, considered review of them far away from the commercial media filters. Obama's trip, and McCain's pathetic flip-flops, should seal the deal for Obama's credibility, at least on the Iraq issue.

But unfortunately -- as Daniel De Groot makes plain in his post just below -- we don't live in that logical, rational world.

 So this is where Obama's campaigning skills come in, and this is where the blogosphere's ability to keep the narrative honest comes in. Nothing is guaranteed -- it's all up to us to MAKE this be the next nail in McSame's political coffin. Because the media ain't gonna help one whit.

 I'm not being a defeatist; we CAN win this thing. We just can't assume that Obama's obvious advantages over McCain will come across effectively given the patheticity of our media, and we need to ramp up our efforts accordingly.

 Part of what I'm doing here at home is trying to get people to read blogs more and watch CNN less. I take the best of the blogs for the week and forward it to my local Dem listserv, so that there's at least SOME counterpoint to the constant stream of swill coming out of cable news. You'd be surprised at how many Democrats believe falsehoods about Obama -- and that's the media environment we need to beat if we're going to win this election.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:19:17 AM CDT

Logical Checkmate (4.00 / 1)

Absolutely. Logical checkmate does not equal electoral victory. All the premises in the logical argument over the Obama position vs. the McCain position on Iraq are subject to filtering and distortion by the time they reach the voter.

Bottom line, "checkmate" isn't possible and doesn't exist in presidential electoral politics as long as the control of information flow to the voter is a contested battleground.

McCain Favors Super Rich

---

by: Curt Matlock @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 13:48:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

McCain's successful blurring (4.00 / 3)

Is anyone sure what McCain's policy on Iraq really is?  Is McCain?  If you don't know what his policy is, hasn't he managed to blur the distinctions, leaving the only suriviing image that of McCain as resolute, willing to lose an election but not a war?

I wonder, however, if the media is going to tire of this exercise.  It makes their job harder, as the Blitzer interview showed, because they can't successfully characterize his position--if they do, he just changes it.  They can't hope to follow his illogic.

I don't think any of this will really become clear until they stand on a stage together during the debates, or until the media runs more side-by-sides, like they did with Obama's Minneapolis speech and McCain's green jello speech.  

I think we need to not obsess over every turn.  Obama's going to campaign some more at home, presumably on the economy, energy and other domestic issues, maybe announce his VP, maybe McCain will announce his VP, then we have the Olympics, with Obama's $5Mil national ad buy, then our convention, then theirs, then let's see where we are.   THis election is unique in many ways, and whose ahead in July may or may not presage the eventual victor.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM CDT

Almost! (4.00 / 2)

This trip has removed the central pillar of McCain's argument to be President.

 

The central pillar of McCain's argument to be President is that he's John McCain, and it's his turn, dammit!


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:28:56 PM CDT

And did I mention... (0.00 / 0)

 ...that he was a POW in Vietnam?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or that he's "The Maverick," talking straight, and kicking ass? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: BCdem @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 15:12:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's irrelevant (4.00 / 3)

As was said along another thread, and I agree, the central test of the Obama trip wasn't "Obama v. McCain", it was "Can Obama be Commander and Chief?"

McCain can flip flop until his heart is content. The central problem he faces is now is that I believe people are starting to see Obama as a credible commander and chief so now they are going to make their decision based on the real concerns they have this cycle- the economy.

The other central problem is that McCain has lost credibility amongst the media this week. To me, that was the extra bonus- not only does Obama look Commander and Chief, but some of McCain's media darling status started to wear off due to his own ineptitude. He can recover it. But to do so is to go ligher on Obama which means Obama remains in a good position strategically. Either way, I don't see how McCain's position on the issues matter.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 13:03:45 PM CDT