It's true thatt he's "shifting the accent" of his position on Iraq, he's doing it for a very valid reason. As John indicates here, the surge has produced some results in creating stability. Politicians sometimes change their positions out of political expediency, and this may be a case of that as well. But I am tempted to believe that Obama has noticed the changes on the ground and has adjusted his beliefs (and rhetoric) accordingly. I speak myself as a once-opponent of the Surge, but recent progress is undeniable. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have noticed the progress, too, which is one reason why they are not pushing so hard for a troop withdrawal.

I agree with TNR's assessment and am glad that some media organization is standing up not only for the fact that Obama's plan hasn't really changed, but that having a president who takes note of reality and doesn't stick to years old ideological absolutes is something that America should desire in its leaders.

The Washington Post ran an editorial that got the second half of this idea correct, but completely blew the first half. Even Frank Rich got this one wrong. This entire discussion of Obama moving to the center is factually inaccurate and an example of the press attempting to fit the candidates into old left-right paradigms that ignore the virtues of pragmatism and embracing reality over rigid ideology.

Then why not come right out and admit that the surge is working and instead of "shifting the accent". Could it have anything to do with the fact that McCain has been complaining from day 1 that there were not enough troops in Iraq to do the job.

The proof here is in the way in which Obama's message was _recieved_ by Democratic primary voters, and the _behavior_ of such voters in reliance upon an assumption of good faith behind that message. Parse the fine print/weasel language buried deep inside that message all you like, folks, but the simple relevant fact here is that Obama rose to prominence in the primaries because of his deliberately cultivated image as the one true MoveOnner candidate who would end the Iraq War in short order: 16 months, to be exact.

It was the "out in 16 months" message above all others, and Obama's clear and repeated positioning of himself to the left of everyone except Kucinich, that enabled him to lock up white liberal antiwar activists in Iowa. Without this positioning, he never would have vaulted past Edwards and Hillary. In other words, had he positioned himself int he moderate, hedged, careful way that you, ludicrously, allege he's always done, he never would have broken out of the pack of second- and third-tier Dem aspirants.

Could we please cease with the BS about Obama and what he believes. He's a pol, end of story. A talented one, but really there's nothing new or different about him. He seems like a nice guy, he means well, but this rising tide of BS surrounding his message and candidacy is getting really annoying.

I agree 100% barnacle.  Obama could have gone bodysurfing in Hawaii for the last two weeks and said nothing about anything and the press would have probably rolled out their flip flopper storyline anyway.  It was time.

People will see what they want to see on Obama's Iraq policy.  Along with the TNR editors, I see no substinative change at all and find every word of this accent stuff to be just silly.  Thank God he is working with the gains of the surge and keeping an open mind as this complex situation continues to unfold.  We would have been out of there years ago had Bush and Rumsfeld bothered to think this way.

The bottom line for either side is that Obama's is the right policy and that will always be the most important outcome.

tep,

How about some accuracy in your recollections of Iowa? You're as bad as the press have been.

Obama's stated plan was out in as soon as 16 months, but only if that is possible, and keep residual forces for specific missions. It was criticized by Bill Richardson -- who at one point said all troops out by the end of 2009 and was criticized by John Edwards who said that it should be all troops out, not some residual troops. Sens. Clinton and Obama had virtually identical plans on Iraq and they both refused to take positions that many anti-war voters would have preferred. If anyone could be accused of lurching left on the war for short gain, look at the polling regarding Bill Richardson. In the Summer of 2007 he elevated himself to the top of the second tier with one ridiculous "end the war" statement after another.  Richardson all but called for bringing the troops home over a three day weekend.

Clinton and Obama were pigeonholed into phony ideologies by the press (and then, the voters) more because of their PAST vote/support for the war. And now the press is simply repeating that meme, mixed in with their favorite meme from 2004: "Flip-Flopper!"

Your desire to paint Obama as negatively as possible is resulting in a rising tide of BS that is completely enveloping what really happened. The polls from Iowa had a top three established from the beginning. He didn't break out of the second-tier pack.

"Could it have anything to do with the fact that McCain has been complaining from day 1 that there were not enough troops in Iraq to do the job. "

McCain has been saying since day 1 that there were not enough troops, but the surge was not just an increase in troop levels. It's true that that's what the main feature of the surge was, but it only brought troop levels up to their mid-2004 numbers, when their still weren't enough bodies. The surge also brought a new on-the-ground strategy, which is what has made the difference.

His concerns about troop levels makes it even stranger that he would have supported the war in its nascent stages. Obama knew ahead of time that a mission to Iraq was unwise, and yet McCain sat hushed and let it all unfold.

Not so, Barnacle. Obama touted not just withdrawal but also his original vote against war authorization. Which is one reason why he came in, surprisingly, at the very top of the April 2007 online poll  of 42,000 MoveOnners asking their presidential preferences.

Now, it's true that a subset of those polled, who actually showed up for offline MoveOn meetup events, preferred Richardson, and that Richardson on this issue has been a shameless panderer and is in many ways a clown (cf the Lizza takedown piece in TNR), Richardson was never a serious candidat and never got any traction for his withdrawal message. The Iowa race was between Edwards, Obama and Hillary. Within that trio, Obama deliberately differentiated himself by his vote against authorization, which reinforced his withdrawal message among the MoveOnners who, again, preferred him to the other candidates. You can look it up.

Tep, what is this guilt by association? Or maybe it's simply false logic: The MoveOnners voted for him in Iowa, so he must have pandered to them.

As has been documented by TNR many times, the netroots has a complex and not overly intimate relationship with Obama; they're not overly big fans of one another. However, the fact that he would have had the support of a plurality of MoveOnners in April 2007 is not surprising at all. He was considered the main challenger to Hillary Clinton, who is especially anathema to the anti-war crowd. Obama's opposition to the war in 2002, not 2007, is what cast him apart from the other (serious) candidates and is what gave him traction with the netroots.

Tep,

An on-line poll of 42,000 MoveOn members is not exactly a scientific survey of Iowans. I'm glad that you've got something factual there, but to suggest that this poll of MoveOn people is a legitimate foundation for what you said earlier is a little silly. Not Bill Richardson ridiculous, but still, you're completely changing your arguments. Don't worry: I won't call you a flip-flopper.

I attended Sen. Obama's speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on November 20, 2006, which was Barack's pre-official campaign address on the Iraq issue. Here is what he said:

"The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. He should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates. When possible, this should be done in consultation with the Iraqi government – but it should not depend on Iraqi approval.

I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels. Moreover, it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger."

As a candidate, he suggested a time-line of 16 months after he entered office, which would place the final withdrawal date in the summer of 2010. That position already was a shift from his plan of beginning to remove troops by May 2007.

Tep, you and the press can try your best to spin Barack as someone who made a sly, cynical shift in order to prepare himself for the general election: Such an effort would fit nicely into the characterization of his campaign that you both seek to spin. But looking back at his remarks from 2006, I'd argue that Obama's real policy, and consistent policy, is that we leave Iraq and that we do so safely and responsibly. The specific numbers have changed as the situations on the ground have changed. And that kind of rational, reality-based adjustment is exactly what we should hope to receive from our leaders.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

tep, you seem to have taken a step beyond your previous claim regarding how important Obama's position has shifted. It is up to each person to make that judgment but it is a leap for you to interpret the intent of 14 million voters when you write, "The proof here is in the way in which Obama's message was _recieved_ by Democratic primary voters, and the _behavior_ of such voters in reliance upon an assumption of good faith behind that message."

At best, you can speak for yourself and any people who you can "prove" hold your view.  See, "Democratic primary voters" would include me.  I believe that Obama's position has been both clear and consistent and I appreciate the most recent recognition that he may defer to the command in the theater regarding troop movements at the brigade level.  

As I've written before I do not want any President to be so confident of a strategy or tactic that they would ignore advice which affects the control of as few as several thousand troops over a few months.  No, FDR was not directing Ike how many brigades needed to be where and when on 6-6-44. Anyone who believes an exit from Iraq will not be as logistically complicated, dangerous and impossible to plan a year out may have voted for Obama for the wrong reason. I assumed he would not be moving troops and stuff around like a tour director who had a list of college students for their year abroad. No, I did not think he'd present his generals with a list of dates and times with neatly organized units and the gear they need to drag on the plane with them.  

Yes, I'm glad Obama indicated his commitment to a deadline and a time frame did not mean he would ignore the professionals who will be responsible for the first and last person out.  

I would prefer to think other Democrats would also find comfort that their vote on the broad issue is now confirmed as an even wiser choice now that Mr. Obama indicated he'd not interfere and impose political goals which may cost lives even if a snappy slogan of "How many, how soon" is more convincing.

No, I can't speak for all Democrats who voted for Barack. But I'm glad he's speaking and will be acting in our best interest.

John Judis, you are closing ranks with your MSM colleagues on a very flimsy basis. You are guilty of the same oversimplification that the MSM love so they can sensationalize every development in their quest for ratings. Obama's fundamental position on Iraq is and has always been that it was a strategic mistake and it remains a strategic distraction from more critical priorities such as defeating the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and putting effective pressure on Iran.  You are wrong about the surge - in his Times OpEd he does acknowledge that the heroic performance of our troops during the surge, along with improved tactics and the Sunni Tribes rejection of Al Qaeda have helped achieve a tactical improvement but, despite the improvement in execution, Iraq remains a strategic blunder AND a strategic distraction.  Furthermore, you are wrong that he always wanted to withdraw with no regard for the situation in Iraq.  For example,  when he questioned General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during their Senate testimony (well before he had secured the nomination) he did not ask them what's the fastest that we can withdraw our troops.  He questioned them thoughtfully on how we can achieve an outcome that is acceptable in terms of our strategic national interests without an open ended, long term military involvement that may provide some benefits in terms of the tactical situation in Iraq but would prolong the distraction from our more important strategic national interests.  Obama's position is and has been that by taking "victory" in Iraq, or even tactical improvements, as an ends in themselves we cripple our ability to deal with strategic priorities more critical to our security and our national interest such as Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iran's nuclear program.

Barnacle - interesting timeline here. So in November 2006 BHO said, "am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground."

OK, that was Nov 2006. By late 2007 it was obvious to everyone-- and certainly to a US Senator receiving briefings from well-placed military officials on the ground in Iraq-- that the "realities on the ground" were, as a result of the surge, substantially IMPROVED from what they were a year earlier.

Did Obama then remind his audience that he promised to shift and course-correct as necessary to accomodate these new realities?

Based on the logic he himself put forth in the speech you cite, Obama should, had he been at all honest, trimmed his Iraq approach BY LATE 2007, when it became obvious that an increased US presence was beginning to bear fruit. Instead, he continued with a pro-rapid withdrawal line until a few weeks ago, and only then adopted the gradualist position dictated by events on the ground.

Look, there's nothing shocking about or even terribly wrong, in my book, with a politician BS'ing or preening or pandering his way into office-- so long as he doesn't simultaneously tout his superior morality or pretend to be a Mr Smith come to Washington to sweep out the rotten stables. Again, had Obama merely played the game without pretending to be above the game, and above his fellow Dems and everyone else, I wouldn't find him so annoying.

tep,

I reject your argument on its face because Obama's position for a withdrawal of troops by Summer 2010 in fall of 2007, or even spring of 2008, is not inconsistent at all with his position in Nov. 2006 or his re-stated position just a couple weeks ago, or his op-ed in today's New York Times.

The position has been the same: To be careful getting out, to listen to the generals, and to not leave so fast as to endanger the troops or objectives. It's all in the 2006 speech and it's all in the 2007 position.

To call his plan to remove troops by June 2010 a "rapid withdrawal" is nothing short of ridiculous. You're parroting a Republican talking point. Your insistent characterization is not only dishonest, but it ignores that at several times in Obama's 2007 speeches he said that the quickest that redeployment could happen was 16 months. Again, this was in stark contrast to what was being offered by people who did support "rapid" withdrawal -- the Kucinich and Richardson wings of the party.  But 16 months was the goal, not a promise. And in all of those speeches, Obama said he would consult with the generals and assess the situation when he was president.

There are clearly two problems here: First, there is the problem of the media and others who refused to read Obama's actual words and instead used an easy mischaracterization that made for easy copy. Hillary is more pro-war, so Obama is the anti-war lefty! McCain is allegedly consistent; so Obama must be changing positions! They're both completely false statements, but the press and many people love simple characterizations, so they stick, even when false.

The other problem is that some people are playing fast and loose with the facts and arguing disingenuously when they are forced to confront that they've latched on to a tired and completely inapplicable meme.

John Judis, thank you for speaking truth to Obama B.S.

Yes, of course, he's changed his position.  And quite markedly.

billyYard, I always love your writing.  but, this is not a matter of inconsistency.  Obama pandered and lied to the Left to win the nomination.

Now he is pandering and lying to the Swing Votes to win the presidency.  My guess is that what Obama will do if he does win, is calculate what is best for his popularity.  If he sees that a 16 month pullout will create a disaster in Iraq and make him a one-termer, he'll stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

Barnacle - again, as soon often happens with this man's supporters, you hear what you want to hear. Here's what Obama's own campaign announced on Sept 13, 2007 (link to .pdf: www.nytimes.com/.../20070912obama_iraq.pdf

This is an unambiguous anti-Iraq War message that goes out of its way to call the surge a failure and oppose anything but a rapid withdrawal-- by 2009 at the latest-- of "all US combat troops in Iraq."

Cherry-pick it all you like, but the clear import-- repeated again and again, and with a timeline indicating Obama's statements going back to 2005-- is that a) the war was wrong from the beginning, b) the surge is not working and cannot work; c)  every other attempt to win the war is similiarly misguided and therefore Obama urges, as he did throughout 2005 and 2006, withdrawal of our troops; c) such withdrawal should be completed (aside from a skeleton force to "defend our embassy"), per the Obama plan, by 2009.

In fact, the 2009 timeline was so important that the campaign calls this out in a separate rubric: "A SUBSTANTIAL, IMMEDIATE REDEPLOYMENT OF AMERICAN TROOPS", the first sub-header of which is "All combat troops redeployed by the END OF 2009".

Obviously, when Obama says redeployment, some people hear "withdrawal", others hear "end the war", and others hear whatever they want to hear.

This document is . opposed to the surge and to any escalation dictated by events on the ground.

Of course from Sept. 2007 to the end of 2009 would be sixteen months... and that would be again, not a rapid withdrawal. You choose to call it "rapid" or "immediate" because that is the talking point buzzword that backs up your position -- I'm glad that you're able to regurgitate McCain talking points.

Nothing in Obama's op-ed today contradicts that was the war was wrong from the beginning -- that has been his consistent position. As for the rest of your talking points: the goal of the surge has been frequently restated, to the point that determining if it is "working"has really just been a matter of moving the goalposts. In Sept. 2007, there was certainly not consensus about as to whether the surge was successful or not.

And even though that document is opposed to the surge, it is certainly not opposed to any changes based on events that happen on the ground -- you're putting words in the Senator's mouth. Again, that policy was reflective of Sept. 2007. Nearly a year has passed since it was written. It's a plan for a specific time; that time has passed. It would be ahistorical and a waste of time to debate what would have happened had things been different (and merely a debate of opinionated, partisan conjecture at that).

Your position on this issue is clearly born out of your distaste for Obama more than any rational fact. You would have us believe that Obama and the America he may be president of in 2009 would be better off if he stuck to plans written many months prior and that he ignore how things change between his candidacy and the start of his presidency. That is absurd and would be a sign of unforgivably bad leadership.*

I still think that Obama has been consistent with his speech in Nov. 2006 and since then. The policy needs to be reflective of what is happening on the ground and we need to begin the transition of troops out of Iraq. He has suggested timelines consistent with what was happening at the time they were suggested. He hasn't been in control of the policy since then and it would be lousy leadership if he refused to listen or modify those timelines as he ran for president and once he is president.

* Unless it is by a Republican, then refusing to change policy based on changed conditions is not only forgivable, but a sign of moral and political strength.

John, this is really disingenuous to the point of being outrageous.

I don't think you have actually read Obama's op-ed piece.  It articulates a strategy for Iraq that is substantially identical, in both tone substance, to what he has articulated throughout the primary and before.  It is an echo of his long-stated position.  Your suggestions that he refuses to acknowledge that the surge has done anything good is absurd.  He says that it has, but that the factors leading him to oppose the surge hold true, and that it hasn't resulted in the political accommodations which were its stated purpose -- i.e., political stability.  He did not say that the surge has produced political stability, as you suggest.  He repeats, as he has done for months, his intent to begin a phased troop withdrawal and reiterates his commitment to the timeline approach for doing so.  He hasn't even changed the details of that timeline approach.

The MSM is not merely pointing out what you regard to be the significant use of the word "stability."  Indeed, *nobody* in the MSM is making that point.  Nowhere have I seen it presented as evidence for the flip-flop charge except by you.  Never mind that Obama long ago said that "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 any event, in its coverage of the supposed shift on Iraq, the only evidence I see presented are that he said something in a recent press conference very similar to what he said throughout the primary, which is that he would "assess and reassess" as the withdrawal proceeded and that, according to reporters, Obama has shifted tone.  But a tone-shift is not a flip-flop, and it's not even clear to me that he has substantially shifted tone.  His comments about Iraq in the debates contained very similar caveats.  His op-ed piece today strikes me as identical to his pronouncements about Iraq throughout the primary.  I can't click the Fargo link, but I believe that what he had in mind there was that the withdrawal would proceed initially from more stable areas -- that stability would, obviously, be a factor in how the withdrawal proceeded.  This is not new or different.  Nobody in the MSM making the flip-flop charge, including in ostensibly objective news copy, has supported that charge with a detailed analysis of Obama's past statements that I have seen in the numerous times I've seen the charge made.

You mention his supposed commitment to an "absolute timeline."  This is b.s. unless you can point to evidence that he ever advocated an "absolute" timeline.  I don't recall his ever doing so, and an "absolute" anything on something as volatile as Iraq policy, years out, strikes me as idiotic.

You say that Obama's obvious flip-floppery -- which you haven't come close to demonstrating -- is to be expected because this is what candidates do.  But this little nugget of journalists' folk wisdom is precisely the problem.  Because you regard this is as the typical pattern, you process the facts in a way that makes them fit that pattern, even if they don't really.  I have seen countless stories stating as a matter of incontestable fact that Obama has moved to the center, and yet these stories typically contain very little evidence and very thin evidence for that charge.  It's as though the primary never happened.  Who was talking about Obama pandering to the left during the primary?  What I remember is that he got in trouble on the left, for saying nice things about Reagan, for not advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq, for being a hard-ass about Pakistan, for being a hard-ass about Israel, for not advocating mandatory health coverage, and on and on.  Remember:  *He didn't run to the left* in the primary.  He *did* emphasize, to make the contrast with Hillary, that he, unlike she, opposed the war from the start and believed it to be a strategic blunder from the start.  This was meant to blunt the experience claim with the judgment claim.  Remember?  It wasn't about being more urgent about withdrawal than the other candidates.  It's as though that huge, long primary campaign never happened.  The candidates were never that far on policy, which is why it was about "judgment" and "experience" and so forth.  Do not pretend that the primary was about choosing between sharply contrasting policy orientations or visions.  That's simply not supported by the facts.

You make it sound as though the innocent MSM was meekly "pointing out" a few facts that support the flip-flop story.  That's not what happened.  The flip-flop story was *the* dominant narrative for a week, and it hasn't run out of gas.  It was the big story.  The media is responsible for how it points things out, and for deciding the relative importance of what it points out.  It doesn't merely "point out" anything.  It tells a story.  The story was Obama's flip-floppery, never mind McCain's far more egregious reinvention of himself to the point that he opposes his own legislation and has done a 180 on fundamental issues of domestic policy, never mind the thin evidence for the flip-flop charge, never mind that it actually got many things very, very wrong (e.g., that the faith-based initiative thing was something new for Obama), and never mind that policy differences which have been the subject of some recent discussion -- such as John McCain's disastrous health care plan -- are far more worthy of coverage and far more important and barely get mentioned.

Now, I'm not saying Obama is perfectly consistent on everything he has ever said, or that I agree with all his views, or that he's above political maneuvering, or that he's as pure as a little kitten.  I don't think any of those things.  I wouldn't even particularly desire them.  But the MSM's coverage of this supposed story -- which it made up -- is an example of the sort of vapid, lazy, misdirected, and misleading coverage we have come to expect from it.

Judis - this post of yours is so meaningless as to be insulting.  The hypocrisy is infuriating.

Would it kill you to cover McCains ridiculous campaign in any way?  Maybe you can clarify for us what he actually beieves this week, if it bothers to make sense or follows any sort of logic  - usually it doesn't.  Or maybe you can focus on another accent change of Obama's, that'll show those hormonal dolts who support him.

Get a clue!

Earth to Obama: Iraq will become unstable when we withdraw. Durrrr......

I can't @$#%@# believe people think Obama will end the war. I guess because he's handsome and has a nice voice we have to give into the hypnosis...

This fundamental point of the TNR editorial - that Obama changed his tone but hardly his position with respect to Iraq - is absolutely correct.

Did Obama try to woo the anti-war voters by emphasisizing the rapidity with which he hoped to withdraw?  Of course.   Does the fact that he's emphasizing caution now, mean that he has "flip-flopped?"   Of course not.  He has always expressed caution and has always maintained that he would leave sufficient troops to battle Al-Qaida as necessary.

Tep's contention that Obama won Iowa only because he had the backing of the anti-war Left is a bit of a stretch.  Let's not forget that Moveon.org did not see fit to back Obama until a month later - after Edwards had bowed out of the race and it was down to Obama and Hillary.

tep says (for the umpteenth time):

"He's a pol, end of story."

Can we please concede, once for all, that Obama is a pol(itician), so that tep may stop repeating to satiety, "he's a pol" as though it was a revelation or something?

Is that too much to ask?

"When is a pol not a pol?"

"When he's George McGovern."

hildner claims that Obama's line of attack re the war was all about emphasizing his superior "judgment" in opposing the war authorization. This would be the same Obama who insisted repeatedly that the surge was failing and could not succeed. In other words, his judgment failed him when it came time to assess the actual situation on the ground in 2007, which is to say his appeal to the base was always grounded in his opposition to the war rather than his oh-so-superior intellect, flexibility, judgment etc

You all are missing the point.  Obama is not  a flip-flopper.

He never takes a clear position on any subject. He always has a fine print  hidden in a drawer   to be produced at the later time.  

For example, Obama wrote:

"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."

This residual force  could be 400000 people fighting in Iraq for another 4 years or 1000 people .

I'm sure he has a fine print hidden in a drawer to justify both cases.