It's a slow night here in the clinic (though I've probably just jinxed myself typing that), so theoretically I could spend plenty of time criticizing this post.  But, have you ever taken a deep breath in anticipation of offering advice or critique and then just exhaled because you realized there was no point?  That's how I feel, reading this.

Jamie, the basic thrust of your post is correct.  Obama is obviously recalibrating his rhetoric on Iraq.  Did I suspect he would?  Yup.  Do I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to withdraw in a responsible manner?  Yup.  Do I care one jot about the incompetent, fractious government of Iraq?  Nope.  Was your post immediately recognizable as yours when I got to the last paragraph and could almost see you sneering?  You betcha.  Do I think you give a damn about what people have said regarding the way you write, over and over, ad infinitum?  Nah.

I am curious, though.  You took care to stipulate that the government of Iraq was "democratically elected."  Do you think Hamas now should enjoy similar legitimacy?  

Whenever you rush to get up a "nyah, nyah, nyah" post, you risk ending up looking like a fool. No big effort for this particular writer, I know, but:

<a href=talkingpointsmemo.com/.../obama_says_mccain_camp_mistate.php> Obama says McCain camp [and it's water carriers in the media like Jamie Kirchick) misstates his Iraq policy</a>

Still sticking to that 16-month timetable.

I second that, dr.

Dr. Dan -- a democratically-elected government a U.S. ally does not make. Hamas is on the State Department's official list of terrorist organizations -- and rightfully so -- which makes granting them legitimacy a bit awkward. Also, they don't actually control a sovereign country. Hamas does not have a seat at the UN. Comparing them to the Iraqi government is just apples and oranges.

Surely you would like to imagine Mr. Kirchick that your own right-wing views will soon be common currency.  Not likely.  You are marginal, at least as marginal as the far left that you like to deride as if there were more than a handful of them, and shall remain marginal along with your boss.  

It is inevitable in an election that the candidates both move to cover the position of the other side unless they are certain that a divergent point of view is the clear winner.  Obama is merely rhetorically covering his political as so that there is no room for the likes of you to gain any purchase, a tactical move for the leader who doesn't want to afford opportunity for the so far losing contender.  Once he is elected, I am sure you will have lots and lots and lots to whine and bleat about.  Obama is NOT going to govern remotely as Kirchick would wish.

I should add that my schadenfreud gets a little boost from knowing not only that McCain will lose but that Kirchick will be a loser along with him.  I haven't had this much political fun in years!

This is pathetic. Those links are to politico, not Obama HQ. Troll.

Jamie come on, lazy ideology anyone? Responsible leadership on the Iraq war fundamentally *requires* mental agility and a willingness to evolve responsibly in a fast moving, multi-faceted environment.  The fact that Obama is doing this while running for President  seems akin to performing surgery (pun intended Dr D) while juggling bowling pins and riding a unicycle at the same time.  You know this.  

Instead you chose to snipe from the sidelines about some mythological need for constancy because it's easy. Rigidity of thought is what got us in to this situation in Iraq in the first place, it would be irresponsible to be anything other than willing to be flexible on a dime.  Can we please can the election year jingoism for five minutes and actually cover the war?  

I'm the first to admit I was wrong about the surge, but it doesn't prove much except that Bush is, in fact, capable of pulling his head out his ass once every eight years and hiring the right person for something.  And that is all it proves.  I am pleased with the results, but to try and make it in to some sort of larger referendum on is just dumb.  It's still a huge mess that needs to be dealt with my adults.

rozenson, I concur in general.  I don't think Hamas has any legitimacy, either.  However, the Iraqi government is hardly a model of success by any metric I can think of.  Kirchick's rhetoric equating withdrawal and betrayal is amped up by our implied obligation to the democratically elected government, which I think is specious.

Jamie come on, lazy ideology anyone?

Responsible leadership on the Iraq war fundamentally *requires* agility and a willingness to evolve in a fast moving, multi-faceted environment.  The fact that Obama is doing this while running for President seems akin to performing surgery (pun intended Dr D) while juggling bowling pins and riding a unicycle at the same time.  You know this.  

Instead you chose to snipe from the sidelines in lame campaign-think binary thought because it's easy. Rigidity of thought is what got us in to this situation in Iraq in the first place.  Can we please can the election year jingoism for five minutes and actually cover the war?  

I'm the first to admit I was wrong about the surge, but it doesn't prove much about neocon thought except that Bush is, in fact, capable of pulling his head out his ass once every eight years and hiring the right person for something.  And that is all it proves.  

I am pleased with the results, but to try and make this in to some sort of larger referendum on the perfidity of Democrats in the face of neocon brilliance is just stupid - and a perfect reflection of the problems with the media.  

Iraq is still a huge mess that needs to be dealt with by adults, not ideology.  Either get in the boat and help row this thing or get out and be quiet.

Wrong freaking magazine twit, who are you sneering at? Do you think I give a rats ass about your pissing match with Josh Marshall? DrDan is right. You are by far the worst writer for TNR.

And who the hell are you to decide who is politically marginal anyway? I have a feeling that the far left will be far happier with an Obama Presidency than you ever will be considering issues like Health care, the environment, education, the economy and taxation, and on and on.

I really have to stop reading you, I just wish TNR put a warning label on top of your posts so I could avoid them. I do enjoy a lot of the insults people launch your way though, you obviously are a soulless little creature so I don't even have to worry about feeling sorry for you.

oops, last sentence should read:

I am pleased with the results, but to try and make them in to a larger referendum on neocon thought is just dumb.  It's still a huge mess that needs to be dealt with by adults, not ideolouges.

Wandrey - well said.

The problem with Nyah Nyah punditry about flip flopping is, of course, the danger of another flip, or flop, after the election.  If Jamie is right and Obama is moving, flipping and flopping, now to please the mythical electorate out there who is so gung ho about Maliki, is there not a danger that he would flop back to his anti-War stance once he gets into power?  In that case, who will have been fooled?

And, as Roid has been pointing out, we are in a political process.  Any nuance is considered weakness or uncertain, while macho-meat-eating policies, no matter how idiotic, somehow demonstrate strength.  Well, guess what, Obama appears to be intelligent enough to know that a consistent line is important in the primaries, and that a more nuanced one gets you elected in November.

Where's Tep, by the way?  This is why you should not have too many specifics in your pre-campaign policies.

Kirchick, you are around the bend.  "ZohmyGAWD, Obama said he would 'refine' his timetable for withdrawal!  Take that, Hippies!  I'm right I'm right I'm right!!!!  Woot!"  You're delusional.

It's not fair to accuse Obama of "shifting his position", not that there's anything wrong with that.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who's read any of my posts that I wouldn't have been supporting Obama if I hadn't been confident that he wouldn't betray Iraq's democratically elected government. He's been extremely clear all along that he recognizes both our interests and our responsibilities in Iraq. Moreover, by calling for an increase of 90,000 in our infantry forces and detailing what he thinks we need to be doing in Iraq going forward, he's been unambiguously on record with the same position all along. It's not his fault that desperate lefty surrender monkeys projected their fondest hopes on him.

In an effort to respond rapidly, the McCain squad got stupid, rapidly. RE: Obama, "He has now adopted John McCain's position...."

"...adopted John McCain's position..."?  No, McCain has yet to address withdrawal.

Thanks for highlighting the difference: McCain has no plan for withdrawal. Obama had and still has a plan for withdrawal.

Jamie, I know you secretly want to find fault with every change Obama makes and try to pin the flip flopper on him. I'd just like to say, personally, that I would have loved GWB to flip a few flops, and that any idiot (oops, like the current president) who doesn't adjust his tactics to the actual situation is not qualified to be president. There's still miles between Obamas position of prudent withdrawal with support for the gains made so far, and McCain's of a permanent set of bases and military activities inside Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Oh, and politically, just undercut the Rights claim that Obama would 'precipitously' withdraw. The reason you wingers don't like it is because it is just one more way he's beating your man...

You know Jamie, it bothers me that somebody who was the capability to be a fine journalist (I know you have it in you!) just aims to piss everyone off. I like having a mild ideological counterweight other than Marty on the site, but don't lash out at everyone. Don't pretend to support Obama when what you really want to do is bash liberal bloggers.

Jamie's not just wrong. He's dishonest. I clicked on that Wellstone clip that he threw out there, and Hayes clearly says that he THOUGHT he had found Wellstone in Obama, but that he was disappointed by Obama's centrism. And this was in January, long before Obama could be accused of general-election pandering! This wasn't exactly the core of Jamie's post, but the fact that he smuggles in misrepresentations to make even the most tangential points is really disheartening. It would seem to indicate a willingness to do the same about things that actually matter. What a hack.

Rozenson, I've known the guy.  He really doesn't have it in him: This is all he is, all he has been before, and likely ever will be.

"I really have to stop reading you, I just wish TNR put a warning label on top of your posts so I could avoid them. I do enjoy a lot of the insults people launch your way though, you obviously are a soulless little creature so I don't even have to worry about feeling sorry for you."

Hear hear. No one reads TNR to catch up on the latest in conservative hackery.

Hah.  One of the reasons I, a McCain supporter, generally like Obama is because I figured he'd abandon his get-out-now-come-hell-or-high-water plan once he a) won the primaries or b) won the White House.  And now he has.  That means a person like me who wants the US to get out of Iraq after winning can be happy.  Sure, Obama wants to withdraw one or two combat brigades a month.  Sure, that would get us out in 15-16 months tops even if he does one a month.  But the phrase that he has added - the calibration y'all are missing in your eagerness to beat up on Jamie - is that he would judge whether or not to remove those brigades based on whether or not Iraq is stable.

Hooray!  That's the John McCain approach - withdraw based on victory conditions rather than political conditions.  I'm happy either way now.  Whoever wins, I get my Iraq war policy.

phargle, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but does this mean McCain is no longer looking for korea style "armistice" which might last "100 years"?

sbarr13, thanks for pointing this out. I was going to mention something about people forgetting that Obama has been pretty centrist all along and the "surprise" and "shock" by some is simply disingenuous

Wandre, agreed!