Isn't it obvious Michael?  Now that Obama has no limit to the amount of money he can fundraise, he's going to carefully scour fences along I-94 between Fargo and Minneapolis to find the money William H Macy and Steve Buschemi "donated" to his campaign.

The best William H. Macy joke I can get you is when Stephen Colbert combined Macy's name with that of his spouse, Felicity Huffman, a la "Bennifer." The result is, "Filliam H. Muffman."

Maybe he's going the opposite direction ... remember his Petraeus questions?

He's been talking to General Powell.  I think Powell said be firm, be deliberate and let the Iraqi's know we'll be out ASAP...but deadlines and timetables will haunt you. Next, we'll see the general jump on board and he'll bring some knock-out names with him.  The bit of shifting by Barack won't compare to how foolish McCain will appear by insisting we must not waver on staying.

So it is only a minor shift and reflects that he's got a good idea of what he'll hear in January. [Also known as The Truth] Now the military won't be nervous & even some retirees who are holding back will fold.

But it's looking like Obama is trying to get the worst 'news' out of the way before September, he'll have shifted as far to the right as he'll go and McCain will be in a box with a good firewall to keep him from shifting. Obama won't have to defend the center-right for eight weeks (Sept-Nov.) and he'll light up his base with these touchy issues (Faith, Military, Family) long past spoken about.

Everyone on the left can rant for a couple months but it will be old news by the time he backs up and lays down the fire from pretty safe ground.  

Plus? Obama will have a cadre of people out to hold the ground he's establishing now & they'll do the talking in those places to those people.

Jeeze, the GOP is still getting people in place so they can establish a message and Barack is securing the ground before they arrive. Ya gotta love this...

Don't panic or I'll have to use sport, military or farming analogies.

Reporter #1: Senator Obama, it sounds like you're reconsidering your earlier promise of a steady reduction in troop levels.

Obama: Ma'am, I answered your question. I answered the darn--I'm cooperating here!

Reporter #2: Senator, while campaigning in Iowa you stated that--

Obama: Well, heck, if you wanna--if you wanna play games here. I'm workin' with ya on this thing, but I...Okay, I'll find the damn Iowa speech!

Reporter #1: Sir? Right now?

[Obama buttons his jacket, steps back from the mic]

Obama: Ya, right now, yer darned tootin'! If it's so damned important to ya!

Reporter #2: Well, I'm sorry sir...

Obama: Ah, what the Christ!

[Obama scurries off the stage into a waiting limo that speeds away]

Reporter #1: Oh for Pete's sake, he's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview!

<http://tinyurl.com/57kcf7>

Newspaper reporter: Of course, you're familiar with the famous painting of 'Thursday's Charge', sir?

Captain Yorke: Yes, I saw it when last I in Washington.

Newspaper reporter: That was a magnificent work.

[to other reporters]

Newspaper reporter: There were these massed columns of Apaches in their warpaint and feather bonnets... and here was Thursday leading his men in that heroic charge!

Captain Yorke: [knowing what really happened] Correct in every detail. [1]

[1] Fort Apache (1948)

I hate you yard, how can anybody compete with that?

We don't even have a SOFA worked out with the Iraqis and are unlikely to get it before the New Year, how the hell can we keep talking like we are going to be there for 50 years if the Iraqis aren't even to work out a short term deal now? The UN resolution will probably just be added for another year and then after that either McCain or Obama will withdraw the troops. I just can't see the Iraqis giving us a status of forces agreement anywhere near what we would be willing to accept.

Jeez, yard, way to clear the field. I'll save my woodchipper joke for another time.

Welcome to the SOFA, blackie. I predict with high confidence that we will have everything we need in the agreement, as will the Iraqi government. The key is the oil deal happening now--the majors guarantee a quick resuscitation of the Iraqi infrastructure so they can cash in on the current inflated prices in exchange for long-term deals to develop the giant new fields everyone knows are there. Before the ink is dry, we'll have "reconciliation" and another step forward in the provincial elections. The war is over.

The latest ABC/BBC polling shows a majority of 55% in Sadr City support the Iraqi government, which is about double the percentage of Americans supporting Bush, who has better numbers than the Democrat Congress. Obama's a smart guy. He's going to board this train and ride it, and if you check his past positions, there's nothing in them that indicates he is committed to a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq. "A stable Iraq" = victory. He's not going to turn it down.

Robert Powell is right as usual.  

The situation in Iraq has turned around.  Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and rough compromises among the competing factions are in the works.  The idea that the Iraqis will want us out of their country is not really plausible.  Who doesn't want somebody else to pay for his defense?  Ask the Europeans.

Obama is no fool, and he smells the coffee.  The closer he gets to power and the responsibility that goes with it the less he will take his cues from the extreme left, say Moveon.org and the Huffington Post, and the more he will become pragmatic and moderate.  Long live flip-flopping, long live opportunism.

Think of Bill Clinton.  As a conservative I would rate him highly on domestic issues.  True, he was weak on defense.  But surely Obama doesn't have the option to be weak on defense.  Another 9-11 on Obama's watch would make him a one-term president and destroy the Democratic Party for a generation.

If Obama wins the hard left will shriek and howl and wet their knickers and accuse him of every sort of betrayal of "progressive" principles.   The “moderate” left will give him a pass because he’s black and well spoken.

The good news is that demographics are against the hard left.  As the baby boomers die off, the Stalinist booboisie, the Barbara Ehrenreichs, the Michael Moores, the Noam Chomskys, the silly totalitarian pipspeaks at The Nation and The Progressive, the Hollywood trash left and all the rest of the detritus of the sixties will fade into oblivion.

"Long live flip-flopping, long live opportunism."

kind of says it all.  Great post bulbman1066.

The 60s opened the way to a lot of things we like having today and don't recall how we got them, from expanded options for women to an awareness of dangers to the natural environment.  As it happens, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a couple of good books about the reality of work at the lower end of the economic scale.  Credit where credit is due.

With all due respect, ironyroad, the Sixties also opened the way for a lot of things we don't like, starting with the Nixon Administration and the near-total meltdown of the Democrats. In the last forty years, only two Dems have lived in the White House, and they were both Southern moderates elected largely by a split in the Republican Party.

Women's rights, like civil rights in general, environmental protection, the expansion of entitlements and nearly all the other things Sixties lefties claim credit for were already on the agenda and supported by a growing bi-partisan majority in the public by the end of the Eisenhower Administration. Speaking as a Sixties lefty, what we really produced with our exertions was a classic lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences. Come home, America!

Good for you irony, I agree completely about Barbara Ehrenreich and should have defended her.  She is not a silly, totalitarian pipsqueak (I'm stealing that bulbman).  Her work is almost always important, thoughtful, righteous.  "Nickel and Dimed" should be required reading for every US citizen.

Did anybody really expect that Obama or Clinton (or McCain) was going to pull out of a relatively stable Iraq even if the Iraq government asked us to stay, let a genocide ensue, and have 1) the U.S. be compared to goodness knows what evildoers and 2) let the GOP hang "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" around the Dems for the next thirty years?  The only candidate with a semblance of a chance of winning who was going to get out of Iraq come hell or high water was Edwards.  Obama always left himself a bit of wiggle room -- people can complain, but they shouldn't act shocked.  

Even if I don't agree with the interpretation of his remarks, (Obama Reconsiders Iraq) all voters should recoil from a candidate who seeks to attach respect to inflexibility.

But don't be fooled by the sleight of hand, McCain has yet to provide us with a plan other than he plans on never leaving Iraq.

Yes, McCain "would rather lose the Presidency than lose a war" but that isn't a policy. He's merely announcing a motto. A catchphrase isn't a solution to the unraveling in our military policy.

I've read all of Obama's references to his position and it couldn't be clearer. He wants to leave Iraq, he wants to do it as rapidly as possible and he will demand the uniformed military execute his wishes.

McCain is only clear about his desire to stay in Iraq.

Get it?

One candidate wishes to leave, one candidate is committed to an indeterminate presence. Until one of them repudiates the above I think the choice couldn't be starker.  

If someone wants us to get out of Iraq and fears the Bush plan will continue, take that up with McCain. Unlike Obama, McCain is there for the long haul or if we refer to a morbidity table he'll be dead before we're gone.

"reconsiders" - giggle. So this is what "the _change_ we have been waiting for" referred to.

Funny how the results of the surge became apparent to BHO only with the end of the primaries.

Pity the poor MoveOnners and Kossacks. Talk about suckers. As for this non-sucker, I'm taking bets on which core issue the Artful Dodger will betray his fellow Dems on next. My money's on his health care plan. Not a chance that this slippery, smarmy man will risk any capital or show the guts needed to champion and get passed any serious reform of our kloodge of a health care system.

Tell me again: what does this man stand for? What will he fight for?

Nice try, Michael. If the C-in-C "wants to leave Iraq", then he can order the commander there to ... leave Iraq.

So tell me again why he's now telling us that he's not going to order the chiefs to leave Iraq?

What the f--- does this man believe? Anything? Is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? Or did his conversion to a more "gradual" withdrawal coincide with the end of the primaries?

I can tolerate a certain amount of BS from our professional pols. Tell the wall streeters you're pro-free trade one day, tell the unions you're against it the next-- OK, we all know how that one will turn out once the candidate's in office. (Hint: retired US pols these days never join unions' executive boards; they shill for hedge funds.) I suppose I could even be talked into accepting Obama's ridiculous defense of probably the worst energy.environmental policy move of the last few years, the massive subsidies for the corn lobby that have jacked up food prices around the world while doing f-all to either lower energy prices or carbon emissions. Asinine, outrageous, but hey, we've seen worse. He represents Illinois, his entire campaign depended crucially on breaking out of the pack in Iowa/Cornland: I get it.

But when it comes to Iraq I can respect almost any intelligent positin that's SINCERELY held. I have enormous respect for certain fellow TalkBackers like purcellneil who over the years have taken and adhered to stands opposite to mine. But I'm sorry, Obama is simply a BS artist. His pledge to "end the war" is meaningless.  

You're being played for a sucker, Michael. Don't get angry at me; direct your ire toward the glamour boy who'll say anything to get elected.

Reply to Michael,

McCain isn't committed to keeping troops in Iraq come what may.  If the elected legally elected government of Iraq asks us to remove our troops McCain will comply.   The point McCain was making is that American troops remained in Europe, South Korea and elsewhere during the Cold War not in order to fight, but to prevent fighting from breaking out.  Guess what - it worked.  Deterrence works.  The goo-goo pacifist left denies it, but they are fools and always have been.

There was an interesting interview on CNN the other night with a bunch of Arab pundits.  They were talking about the US presidential election.    One of them said the Israelis are for McCain.  Another one said, well, the Arabs don’t often agree with the Israelis but a lot of Arabs prefer McCain even though they generally don’t like Republicans.   The host, I forget who, said “Huh?”  The Arab replied that McCain was more likely than Obama to stand up to the Iranians.  Get the picture?

Obama’s talk of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is an insult to the Iraqis and Americans who have died fighting to liberate that country and make it part of the civilized world.  It is contrary to decency, to honor and to common sense.  Finally Obama may be understanding what should be obvious.

Whatever liberals think of Bush, they should reflect that an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq is a heavy price to pay just to spite him.

First, tep asked.  "So tell me again why he's now telling us that he's not going to order the chiefs to leave Iraq?"

Obama's words are clear, [7-3-08] "I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.” A few minutes later. “I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month”

You ask, "What the f--- does this man believe? Anything? Is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? Or did his conversion to a more "gradual" withdrawal coincide with the end of the primaries?"

OK, I'll try. I believe he's been told that the uniformed military considers a withdrawal requires he delegate tactical decisions to the theater command. Troop movements & logistics will be more complicated in a withdrawal than an invasion and no President should micromanage either movements .

However, the "new mission" has not changed.  Obama still intends to reduce the force by "one or two brigades a month." Even that amount of detail (how many at what rate) can only be a goal which & shouldn't ignore the safety of the troops in transition or those who remain as the force dwindles.  

I don't believe he did anything more than send a message to the command that he understands they will need to manage the details within his directive to get out as soon as possible. In fact, since his goal includes (as opposed to McCain) no "permanent bases in Iraq" it is even more complicated than moving men and equipment.  

So, I don't see it as a change in policy nor a more nuanced message. This will be a complex military operation. He is indicating that he respects the challenges the command will face on the ground. It's important to note that when he insists, “We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” he is acknowledging the legitimate gripes the military has regarding the execution of the war. This 'message' is broader than Iraq and he wishes to distinguish himself from a Bush or LBJ who treated a combat theater like chess pieces they could move about from the Oval Office.  

Bulbman1066 wrote, "Obama’s talk of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is an insult to the Iraqis and Americans who have died fighting to liberate that country and make it part of the civilized world."

Well, that's big talk but it's bullshit....Asking our troops to continue is more than insulting. Iraq is asking an American soldier to pull a fourth combat tour to a country we liberated five years ago and that should anyone's sensibilities.

Yes, the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American have died and there are hundreds of thousand of American casualties. However, Iraq was liberated over five years ago.

The greatest insult is for Iraq and other nation's who share their best interests to demand that more Americans continue with a 3rd, 4th and 5th tour. No, to continue is not respecting the efforts which were beyond what any nation should demand.

The US cannot "make it part of the civilized world" by sending more troops to put down ethnic or religious or regional insurrection. It is an insult to any American soldier to demand they give their life long after we provided Iraq with the means to govern and provided the opportunity to share in a peaceful future.

The best way to show respect for our effort is to recognize our military completed a mission and remained long after any rational person would ask them to do more.  

Michael - you make your case well.  I often find myself somewhere between you and bulbman and far from being ashamed of that, I don't trust the judgement of anyone who isn't.

I hate to say it, but  its been a long time since Tep was able to view Obama or anything he says or does with anything resembling objectivity or fairness, if ever.  Everything is a personal attack assuming the worst intentions.  Obama gets a fairer hearing on redstate.com than from Tep.

Most people are able to view this issue as the complex, multi-faceted creature that it is and that trying to responsibly address it in the middle of a Presidential campaign is akin to performing surgery while juggling bowling pins while riding a unicycle.  Obama is listening to the country on this as well as doing what every candidate does in the GE and acting accordingly.  He's doing well, especially compared to the clueless, confused McCain who barely makes sense.

But Obama and McCain's postion on this, with all the blather and posturing deleted, seems like it will ultimately be appx the same.

Wandreycer1...

I was too windy and but doubt I swayed Tep.  I think many need the more absolute & unqualified withdrawal because any extra words mean "Oh no, here we go again.".

But I don't believe Barack did anything this week but indicate any military operation of this complexity requires the execution must be managed by commanders in theater.  

That attitude should comfort anyone who recalls Rummy's effort to find someone who would sign on to his minimal and foolish strategy. One can quibble about which tactics the POTUS should manage in the larger policy, but I'm not sure which or how many brigades per month should be up to any president. After six years, the deadline of 16 months is tight enough. We don't want to make it worse for the fewer troops who remain my telegraphing the details a year out.

Since I don't expect the Iraqi's to pitch in and help us with the packing we don't need to give them routes, a calendar and departure times for flights.  The Americans and Iraqis will know enough to be convinced...but not too much.  Or, 'Let the troops try and leave as fast as they can without gettin' shot in the ass..."

Bulbman writes: "Obama’s talk of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is an insult to the Iraqis and Americans who have died . . . . Whatever liberals think of Bush, they should reflect that an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq is a heavy price to pay just to spite him."

That scares me.  Are we back in 2004 or what?  Firstly, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.  This administration bears the responsibility for an invasion that has cost over 4,000 American lives, around 20,000 Americans injured, untold numbers of Iraqi casualities, untold numbers of Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and a currently delicate and ambiguous political situation that may unravel in all sorts of unpredictable ways.

Secondly, this administration is the one that told us that we had achieved victory in Afghanistan six years ago and victory in Iraq five years ago, and all that was left were a few "dead-enders" who didn't see how everything had changed.  Now, the Taliban, who (in contrast to Saddam Hussein) did in fact provide support and succor to Al Qadea, are resurgent in Afghanistan to a worrying degree and we don't seem to have a plan, basically.  In Iraq a 30,000-strong surge of troops has provided a year of extra safety, but the implications of that surge for the medium-to-longer term are uncertain.

This country has been burdened for eight years by a president whose attitude to reality is to ignore it in favor of ideological fantasy and whose notion of a Plan B (in case, you know, anything goes wrong) looks something like "See Plan A!"

Thirdly, invocation is not argument -- if we could never withdraw from a misjudged operation because such a withdrawal would be inescapably an "insult" to those who had died in that context, then strategic policy would be nothing less than a national suicide pact.  In addition, I often think of the insult that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others offered to the American people by lying to them about Iraq.

I strongly suspect that both McCain and Obama will try to work with the reality on the ground.  Obama, however, did not create or nurture this reality -- McCain did -- so I don't see how his trying to work out what the hell is going on and how we solve this mess makes him unfit to be president.  Quite the opposite.

I'm with Teplukhin's take on Obama.  The man has a very short resume and moves (rhetorically, but that's all he has so far) with extreme speed from one position to something quite different, and such moves have a strong smell of political expediency.

One day Rev. Wright is somebody he can't "disown",   a couple(?) of weeks later, he's dumped by Obama unconditionally, with all due indignation.  20 years of Obama's association with Wright couldn't open his eyes, but a single performance by Wright at the NPC just did.

When people say, "Obama will do this, Obama will do that",  what exactly are these predictions based on?

As Teplukhin pointed out on another thread, making people like Wright (or Khalidi) and MPeretz simulteneously feel that Obama is on their side, both takes  big political talent and tells you that you nothing about Obama's real views.

And, as Krauthammer  wrote in his latest WaPo column, perhaps even Obama himself doesn't really know what he believes in.

This discussion is getting a bit surreal.  Given that McCain reversed himself on the immigration issue -- the one major thing he seemed both passionate about and on which he was willing to buck the ideological inertia of the Republican party -- how is it that Obama of all people is being held to a consistency test?  To the best of my knowledge, Obama has not reversed himself on any single substantive issue to that extent (yet, at least), and I would regard Iraq as such a complex problem that I have no criticism of radical rethinking on anyone's part.

The problem with Iraq is, from how Obama's probably looking at it these days, not a simple one.  He disagreed with the decision to invade.  He is now looking to take over the helm more than five years down the line in an unclear situation in which we can't really win (the surge is a temporary respite) and we can't afford to lose.  The amount of troops we have locked into Iraq deployment (preparing, deploying, returning) is not sustainable over the longer term, and all we need is another major crisis requiring ground forces and the stretch marks on our military will really show.

The reason Obama can't always find the right button is that he thinks more about the relationships between things than McCain does.  We're not used to that from presidential candidates.  His problem is, how do you square the circle of (a) getting out of a hole, (b) doing it in such a way as to not endanger the people coming out, (c) getting people whose country is more or less the hole to start filling it in themsleves, and (d) trying to rebuild a set of global leadership assets that have been compromised by the Iraq adventure?  It's not going to be easy, but I think that Obama understands the deeper nature of the problem rather more than McCain.

In fact, we are all often unsure what we believe, when confronted with contradictory evidence.  It's not a sign of weakness.

"The reason Obama can't always find the right button is that he thinks more about the relationships between things than McCain does"

Ah, the Hamlet defense. I don't want a literary master of irony for POTUS. I want a leader. Rough hew it how you like, leadership demands a solid core. Obama's still searching for his.

Obviously, Obama is pulling another Wright: tack hard left to gain cred with the hard-left audience, then turn 180 degrees-- ah, but with such nuance, such eloquence, such _deep thoughts_!-- when it comes time to win over the non-hipster centrists in the general.

Seriously, folks, nothing against Obama here: isn't this a ridiculous way to select a president?

I iknow we don't have a parliamentary and party-based system, but this little game of tacking to the extremes for 6 months and then artfully, kabuki-style disowning those same positions for the next months is only exacerbating this core problem of our national debate: it is as meaningless as performance art. A series of fibs and fairy tales calculated not to persuade but to assemble market share by preening for selected demographics with artfully constructed catch phrases and code words..

If we weren't facing massive and massively complicated national challenges on so many fronts, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But there's no way on earth that this absurd kabuki exercise is going to lead the nation toward a sensible policy on Iraq Energy/Environment Schools Immigration/Mexico RiseofAsia EntitlementsHealthCareTaxesSavingSpending etc etc.

That's complete bs, tep.  I'm talking about thinking before leading instead of leading with your chin.

That's BS, tep.  I'm talking about thinking before leading instead of leading with your chin.

Two questions for teplukhin:

(1) Who do you support in the General: Obama or McCain?

(2) Why do you support the one over the other?

Two questions for teplukhin:

(1) Who do you support in the General: Obama or McCain?

(2) Why do you support the one over the other?

Michael and ironyroad:

With all due respect I think General Petraeus is more qualified than you to recommend what troop levels are need for the US to complete its mission in Iraq.  Our Iraqi allies have a perspective and a knowledge of local conditions which you lack, so their opinion on the matter should be respected.   If the elected government of Iraq asks us to leave then we will.  But I suspect we will have some forces in that country for many years, just as we did in Europe after WWII.

The idea that Afghanistan is more important strategically than Afghanistan is silly, as is the idea that victory in Afghanistan is easier to attain than victory in Iraq.  Afghanistan has never been completely controlled by any government, and maybe never will be.   It is much poorer than Iraq and has a much less educated population.  Probably the best we can do is to kill as many Taliban as possible and bribe their enemies to help us do so.

It would help if the Europeans would help us in Afghanistan instead of standing around pretending

I'm happy to defer to General Petraeus's experience and qualifications in that area, but when it comes to trying to understand the general political framework in which the invasion, the insurgency, the ethnic cleansing etc all took place, I think all intelligent and reasonably aware contributions (from different camps) should be welcome.  Wars aren't just about troop levels, they are -- especially in a democracy -- about the legitimacy, scope, and purposes of the wars themselves.

I don't think I said that Afghanistan is more important strategically than Iraq, and one can argue that issue in different ways -- but it's not unimportant, as it's role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of the Taliban, the growth of Al Qaeda safe havens, and the terrorist attacks on the U.S. all showed.

Yard - I would support the candidate who can plausibly deliver on our once-in-30-years opportunity to get UHC done. Obviously, that's not McCain. But I have little confidence in Obama's desire or willingness to spend the political capital necessary to get UHC passed. I'd peg the chances of this at not higher than 10%.

Which is to say I wouldn't be crying if we once again had divided government, as we did in 1994-96. Worked out well enough then, wouldn't be all bad now.

Ironyroad, you’re right, both Afghanistan and Iraq are important.  The war against Islamofascism (or whatever you want to call it) is worldwide and knows no boundaries.   (Iraq is more important because of a three letter word.)

It is certainly appropriate to debate history and politics.    Intelligent people of good will disagree not only about the war in Iraq but about America’s past wars.  But it is important to put honesty over partisanship.  Those of us who have supported the intervention in Iraq are aware that the administration made huge political and military blunders before finally finding the right strategy.   Many of us, including John McCain, criticized those mistakes while they were happening.

But the fact is that the “surge” is working.   The strategy now is to emphasize the protection of the civilian population from the terrorist insurgents.  Before we would take a town, then leave to fight elsewhere.  The insurgents would torture and murder those whom they considered collaborators along with their wives and children.   With additional troops, we can protect the population and thereby win their support.

The Sunni tribes who opposed the liberation of Iraq for sectarian reasons were horrified by the atrocities that Al Qaeda committed and were ready to switch sides.  The surge strategy has made it possible for them to do so.

The pro-Iranian Shiite extremists led by Al-Sadr have suffered a major defeat.   The fractious political factions in Iraq are finally working out an accommodation.  They are tired of fighting and ready to start sharing the billions in oil revenue that will start flowing once things settle down.

Rather than trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory liberals should rejoice in the prospect that Iraq is on the verge of becoming a relatively stable country and that the long suffering Iraqi people will have a better life, or a least a good chance of making one for themselves.  The Iraqi people are human beings who deserve our sympathy and support, not sticks to beat George Bush with.

What’s wrong with admitting that one was wrong?  There must be a name for people who admit that they are wrong when the evidence shows that they are.   “Intelligent” comes to mind.  As John Maynard Keynes said to a critic, “I change my opinion when confronted with new evidence.  Don’t you, sir?”

Let me put in a word for Barack Obama.  He is moving closer to McCain on Iraq not because he is a “flip-flopper” (let’s retire that stupid word) but because he is intelligent enough to realize that we are finally succeeding in Iraq and decent enough to be glad that we are.  (And pragmatic enough to move on to other issues now that Iraq is near to being settled.)

He just lost my vote right here, right now. This is the last straw after FISA.

Not in my name: I'm voting for Bob Barr.

tep, you might have noticed that we have divided government now, and it is indeed all that bad.

Bob Barr gives libertarianism a bad name.  He believes that terrorists deserve an even break.   Those of us in the pro-civilization camp beg to differ.

A word for divided government--it's working a lot better than single-party government of the kind we had in Clinton's first term, and most of both of Bush's two.  When a party controls both Congress and the White House, they invariably over-reach, causing the opposition to dig in its heels, and nothing useful gets accomplished. I'm enough of a libertarian to recognize that nothing getting accomplished is better than bad things getting accomplished, but at this point it seems we really need to get some things done. I agree with tep that UHC is at the top of the list as long as we also agree that avoiding a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq is crucial.

I don't think there's much to add to Bulbman's thoughtful synopsis of where we are today. I agree with ironyroad that having the strength of your convictions is not an asset when your convictions are wrong, as they were in the case of Bush and Rumsfeld's conviction that all we had to do in Iraq was get rid of Saddam (along with the entire organizational infrastructure of the state), put a bunch of FEMA-like College Republican hacks in charge, and ride off into the neo-Reagan sunset. But since we agree that the Administration was acting on the basis of firmly-held and sincere convictions, even if in some respects mistaken ones, isn't it past time that we retire the factually-unsupportable meme of "Bush lies sent us to war"?

Robert. You and I agree on much. I also think that this is one of those bifurcated collective conversations that actually helps the intended goal.

The implicit message behind lack of time limit has the effect of conviction to principles. The dissatisfactions expressed by desire to vacate motivates the ownership of choice.

It wasn't difficult to see how this issue was going to take shape even in the earliest days of the political campaigns. One of the main reasons that has allowed me to be supportive of Obama is that I was certain reality would dictate any movements on this front. As well I would like to see some movement in the medical provision department through creative destruction. The first step being provision at the expense of emergency room inefficiencies.

I know that this is a disappointment to all of us who would like to be affirmed at the expense of others moral and intellectual insufficiencies but that's tough. At least as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not the only person who believes much of the left if falling prey to a desperate tactic of the McCain team.  They have people like me on the defensive, trying to persuade people who oppose most of what Bush has done and likely to be disappointed if McCain prevails. The right couldn't be happier to see Obama supporters debating how much he may or may not have shifted.

The reason for their joy is obvious, McCain's policies are not only unpopular they were repudiated because the electorate saw them fail. He won't offer solutions, he's a conservative and he only can claim a mantel of maverick because he moved to the left on a few issues in his own party. McCain can't discuss what he will not do, he won't engage Obama on the issues and the best way to stay in the headlines is to appear as an objective critic of Barack. Yeah, that is weird at best....But McCain attacks and because that's all he offers it becomes 'fair' to discuss his complaint. Hey, its news!

I sampled Fux News yesterday and it appeared everyone was an expert on what Democrats want as they demeaned our choice of a candidate. If I didn't know better I would think the right preferred Obama (until he faced McCain). According to them, Obama was 'their guy'...and he changed in the last few weeks.

Why isn't the right talking about 'their guy'?  Hmmm

Democrats shouldn't abandon their ideals and it is fair to hold our candidate to task. But I'm going to be cautious so I don't provide McCain with talking points &  suspicions about Barack  It's the only issue with which he is comfortable.  

I don't want to portray McCain's opponent as flawed, I will regret helping the right.  

I've only been reading TNR since Nixon but I'm pretty sure the staff and readers don't want four years of McCain. Each person will have to conclude how much scrutiny of Barack is necessary and if our discussions have the potential to be counter productive.

I'll be blunt:  At this point in the cycle I believe attacking Obama is bad for Democrats.

I don't want to sound off with the old left-moralist "meme" of "Bush's lies etc."  That serves no purpose.  But I believe that we would be very ill-advised to forget how a mixture of innuendo, fear-mongering, cherry-picked intelligence, and moralistic invocation helped to get us into a situation where there are very, very few good options.

One might hope for a higher level of skepticism in the future.  Especially when what one needs to be skeptical about comes down the street waving the flag and insisting one gets in line.

Michael - I'm not attacking Obama, I'm laughing at him. And keeping my expectations at rock bottom.

Fari enough, irony. Would you then agree that we should also maintain a high level of *skepticism* about the promises of today's version of the "uniter, not divider" candidate?

It's hard to make a case that we can ever have too much skepticism. Let's all be skeptical!

Frankly, guys, skepticism is the new secular religion, and has been growing ever more so since "A Farewell to Arms" and "All Quiet on the Western Front" got reaffirmed in "Dispatches" and the rest of our collective Boomer experiences. This has some positive aspects. I for one am glad that I won't be in a minority in the future when pointing out that the "intelligence community" has been largely clueless for a couple of generations, and that no politician should bet too heavily on anything they "guarantee".

If there is one change I want to believe in, it's that Obama will be appropriately skeptical. He hasn't yet made any promises that I think he can't keep, and in most important respects the events that will determine the success or failure of his presidency will respond better to the kind of supple intelligence he brings to the table than the dogmatic approach we've had recently.

teplukhin2you, I can provoke when I'm conceding so I've had a rule in groups and forums to not single people out to accuse. Plus, I'm bad with names so it's tough to maintain a grudge. And I don't usually wag my finger ("At this point in the cycle I believe attacking Obama is bad for Democrats.") but I do think McCain and the right is so bereft they will magnify any weakness and ram it in the echo chamber. They have no momentum so their hope is to Obama down or look over his shoulder or blink.

I should be clearer. I'm so superstitious, my expectations don't go beyond November.  I doubt Barack will be influenced by his base and he does have to gamble we're locked. Securing everyone to the right of us won't be easy without distraction from Dems. I realize that is more problematic for you as I don't think the past couple of weeks were a repudiation of what he's stood for.

I'm more than impressed how he's staying on the offense and I do understand that some of his plans alienate. I don't believe he should be above reproach though it could be argued that he did earn the right to finish this under the assumption that his final push won't be managed by everyone who voted for him.

That could change and I'd be up on my hind legs too, Till then, he'll receive all the optimism I can muster because I dread the alternative.  

Michael - that's a civil and intelligent reply, thanks. You make some good points, but the main reason I'm down on BHO is that I just don't see why our candidate, with all the gale-force winds at his back this year, is not loudly, aggressively and forcefully making the case for UHC. Not his lite proposal but the real deal. And boldly and vigorously taking that case right into the GOP's heartland, to the millions of working families and small businessmen in the red states who, I believe, would support UHC if given an intelligent and forceful explanation of why it is vastly preferable to the status quo or to the lite approach that BHO, timidly, supports.

Jumping in late, but I disagree with Robert: Clinton's first term produced a great budget and one of his better domestic initiatives (the 100,000 cops on the street, which wasn't and the following drop in crime was far more due to demographic trends, but it still deserves credit).  Divided government has its merits, but like 1992, the budget requires a unified Dem government and even then it may be hard to restore sanity.  

Well Tep, you've been five alarm wrong about big things before (the manifest danger of Guiliani and immigration to hapless Dems are two doozers that come to mind) but you didn't seem unhinged like you have this time, when you are also five alarm wrong.  

Your personalized attacks based almost entirely on name calling, manipulations and misrepresentations of almost everything the man says and does, not to mention a Bush-like rock head refusal to admit he has ever done anything well - makes you look hopelessly biased and downright weird, not him.  

I finally figured out that you are one of those "Democrats" who spends most of their time bashing Democrats (especially the talented ones who may have the misfortune of being inspiring as well) and strenuously taking the side of wingers as often as possible - presumably to show how open minded and untouchable you are, unlike your feeble minded brethren.  

Somewhere between Kaus and Lieberman, you found your take on things.  Well Tep, you continue to stick up for the honor of Wolfowitz, the failure of Barack Obama, etc.  We'll keep watching those windmills tilt and you can keep claiming you'll show us all.

Well Tep, you've been five alarm wrong about big things before (the manifest danger of Guiliani and immigration to hapless Dems are two doozers that come to mind) but you didn't seem unhinged like you have this time, when you are also five alarm wrong.  

Your personalized attacks based almost entirely on name calling, manipulations and misrepresentations of almost everything the man says and does, not to mention a Bush-like rock head refusal to admit he has ever done anything well - makes you look hopelessly biased and downright weird, not him.  

I finally figured out that you are one of those "Democrats" who spends most of their time bashing Democrats (especially the talented ones who may have the misfortune of being inspiring as well) and strenuously taking the side of wingers as often as possible - presumably to show how open minded and untouchable you are, unlike your feeble minded brethren.  

Somewhere between Kaus and Lieberman, you found your take on things.  Well Tep, you continue to stick up for the honor of Wolfowitz, the failure of Barack Obama, etc.  We'll keep watching those windmills tilt and you can keep claiming you'll show us all.

I think Barack guessed he'd catch McCain off guard in June and he did. It appeared Obama would be mending for the month but he was up defining himself in ways that would force McCain to react. McCain's 5 day week, his lack of any framework and heading south of the border shows they were caught napping.

So, BHO unveils 'out there' ideas (faith, public service, listen to the generals) knowing they can be stuck back on the shelf if they sink. Or he keeps them in the mix if they test well.  Obama isn't stuck with any on-way ideas like off shore drilling, most of his notions were dreamy and open to interpretation.

But, UHC, foreign policy and detailed energy, economic or change of direction concepts will need surrogates (Hillary and some of her people need to be integrated). We will know when he deploys his forces and there won't be enough media to fan out N-E-S-W for those events.  

So June was a bonus month that BHO could exploit because he was prepared, wasn't fatigued and had a bunch o' money. Hey, McCain reorganized his staff so they didn't act as if they got the best of it.

At worst, BHO has a good idea how far he can push his base and at best he knows how far he can push his base. A focus group with lots o' people and the vote was five months away?  Not much of a risk...

And there is still four months to go?  BHO has time to run one campaign for two months and another one after in Sept. - Oct.

You'll be amazed...

Sorry for the double post.

Also, I agree with your post 100% lymon.  

Tep, on UHC, I completely agree that Obama should be pushing it more aggressively.  At the same time, he's pretty much cast his lot with his "lite" version.  It would be weird if he suddenly started supporting individual mandates, given that he specifically argued against them during the primaries (and he raised some valid objections, although after looking into it, I think that having mandates would be better policy).  His version's a much easier sell politically, and once he's in office, he's not going to be the one writing the legislation.  He's certainly not going to veto a UHC plan because it has mandates in it.  As long as Obama doesn't repeat Clinton's mistake of preemptively alienating the people whose support he needs, I'm optimistic that it will get done.

lymon--

we probably don't disagree all that much. The 1992 budget was damned important, but like the law-and-order "100,000 cops on the street" was  a classic case of Clinton stealing a page from the Republican playbook, in that case fiscal responsibility.  He was able to bring enough Dem support to basically Republican ideas to make them work. You must recall that in 1992 Republicans hadn't yet seized control of the government and reverted to the classic "tax-and-spend" statist approach of after the 2000 election that's far more characteristic of single-party government than to any party in particular.

What Clinton got for "support" from the Democrat-controlled Congress of his first term was "gays in the military" as an issue while genocide was reappearing in Europe a day's drive away from NATO forces which could have, and belatedly did end the killing overnight; and a total sabotage job on UHC.

I agree with AlanSP. Obama is far too clever to lay his UHC strategy out in detail before the election as this would only allow Republicans more time to undercut it. He can win without exposing himself overmuch, so why not do so? What's going to count is how effectively he can negotiate the post-election Congress.

Robt P - what evidence is there to believe that Obama would push for UHC once in office? I'm trying but I  just can't see this happening, given how he's already backed off from strong advocacy of the issue that more than any other vaulted him to prominence. What am I missing?

Robt P - one more thought on UHC tactics: you can't make a sea-change like this in our national politics by doing it on the sly. The deal has to be sold to and embraced by the American people in broad daylight, not snuck in through the back door at midnight.

IOW it needs a popular _mandate_ which can only be won by a candidate who openly and forcefully places it at the center of his platform. When I championed Bill Clinton to my friends and acquaintances in 1991-92, it was in large measure because he was the candidate who pledged to provide "health insurance that no one can take away from you." A vote for the young unknown guy from AR in 1992 was a vote for forthrightly and boldly fixing our healthcare mess.

Now that BHO has backed off from his candidacy's only bold, signature policy stand, it's not clear to me which one or two big policies I'm voting for when I vote for him. Videotaped confessions, maybe?

Wandrey - one slight flaw in your comparison btn me and those two worthies. AFAIK yuppie Mickey Kaus doesn't have kids, let alone kids in the public schools, let alone a close family member with poor health. As to Lieberman, like every other federal employee he has first-rate, dirt-cheap, government-provided health insurance. Also, I'd bet good money he sent his kids to unaffordable-to-the-rest of us private schools, just as Bill and Hillary and Ted and Joan did.

Is the UHC issue personal for me and mine? Yeah, it is. As it is for many tens of millions of other American families.

We could have done better than this milquetoast warrior. I believe that your enthusiasm's misplaced.

t

Why is he in Fargo? My beautiful home town? Because, pinheads, North Dakota has two of the most powerful, popular Democratic Senators (and our lone rep is also a fine, highly-regarded Dem), North Dakota could actually turn blue in November, it is next door to Montana which is also poised to turn blue along with the entire northern tier of the US, and because North Dakota is the richest frontier for alternative energy (the #1 state for wind power potential, not to mention rich oil reserves in the Bakken area of northwestern ND). At the beginning of his speech, Barack Obama cracked a joke about the movie, noting, "Fargo doesn't look anything like the movie" which got some polite laughter (boy, we've never heard THAT one before), but much more of a laugh when he gave kudos to a little boy in a Chicago Bears cap and then asked the crowd, "Who are you all for? I suppose the Vikings. I think you all need to be re-educated!"

I love it; another discussion about Iraq as if the Iraqis don't have a say in any of these decisions. The utter lack of humility of Americans is simply jaw dropping.

Has it ever occured to anyone talking about "victory" in Iraq and "surrender," in Iraq - as if they could define victory or say to whom we would surrender - that the decision to remove American troops from Iraq will be at the request of the Iraqis? All indications over the past year have pointed to this inevitability.

From the leadership in Iraq:

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.

www.reuters.com/.../idUSL0353522920080707

It's called democracy.

A person in the candidate&#39;s orbit assures me that Obama has long talked about &quot;stability&quot;

Why wouldn't he push for UHC, tep? It's a great issue whose time has come. NO one is going to stop this item from topping the agenda as long as we're on a glide-path to success in Iraq, which in my view we are.

We don't have "permanent" bases anywhere in the world. Growing Iraqi stability, democracy and autonomy is a plus for US interests, and by extension for Obama, who's perfectly positioned, Clinton-like, to take advantage of the costly efforts of his predecessor.

Sorry to be late to the party...  I'm with tep on Obama's lack of beliefs.  However, one thing he does seem to believe in is Barack Obama's election.  Nothing wrong with that, as long as we all chuck the "post-partisan" crap out there about him.  He has changed his position since he won the nomination on:  FISA, NAFTA, Wright, welfare reform, Iraq withdrawal and public financing.  Jaw-dropping is too weak a term.

This performance would be bad enough in someone who had a long record of national service (and McCain has his own policy changes), but how does someone with as thin a resume as Obama pull this off?  A favorable media, to be sure, and his own considerable political skills.  Eventually, more and more people may start asking the question tep raises - what does he truly believe in?  Once the question is asked, he's in trouble.

As for IRAQ, watch the SOFA agreement.  I suspect we'll be there a good long while.  And rp is right - Iraq has a very good chance of being a successful country.

butchie,  you repeated my earlier post on this thread almost verbatim.

I also asked Obama's supporters who confidently predict that President Obama will do this or that -- what makes you think so, given his almost total lack of record/experience and extreme swings during the campaign (which is yet to begin in earnest)?

No takers so far, but I remain hopeful.

Mcpatrickhendri is right on target.   The Iraqis will know when they are ready to stand on their own.  I suspect they will want to for some US forces to remain in Iraq, but it's up to them.

All the leftist blather about US imperialism and stealing the Iraqi's oil has turned out to be just that.  The war in Iraq, despite all the mistakes made in its early years, is looking to end in victory for the US, and most of all for the Iraq people.

Take a look at this thoughtful article from the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, a magazine that has never been a fan of President Bush and his policies.

Der Spiegel (Germany), 7/2/08

www.spiegel.de/.../0,1518,563471,00.html

Optimism Grows in Iraq as Daily Life Improves

Robert Powell is one of my gurus, but he is wrong about UHC.

UHC is not a good idea.  Health care systems like that in Cansda are nothing to aspire to.  How many medical discoveries have been made in Canada, or in Europe for that matter?  The fact is that the rest of the world looks to the the US for advances in pharmacology and medicine.

Government is a poor provider of goods and services.  The price tends to be high and the quality low.  The majority of governent employees are people who can't succeed in the private sector.  The exceptions are the brave men and women in the armed services, but even the military is notoriously wastelful and inefficent.  Nobody has figured out a way to introduce competition in that sphere.  But maybe we should.

Most Americans have health insurance.  The majority of those who don't either choose not to or are illegal immigrants or single mothers with illegitimate children.   Is is really our responsiblity to make

society over to subsidize anti-social behavior?

Yes, health insurance is expensive.  That's because of government regulations such as those that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines.  It doesn't help that there is a huge

class of parasites known as trial lawyers preying upon the medical profession.

It is  a cold-out  empirical fact that socialism doesn't work.  (I refer the reader to the history of the twentieth century.)   Let's acknowledge that fact and take it from there.

*The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned the law forbidding private medical care on the grounds that the government of Canada doesn't provide adequate medical care.

Far be it from me to reject guru status, bulb--when do I get the Bently and the nubile personal assistants?

But equating UHC with socialism is off the mark. We have extremely durable institutions in the medical profession, Big Pharm, Big Insurance-- the whole medical/industrial complex. No plan with a chance of passage is going to nationalize healthcare. What we're talking about is a rational way to pay. Currently we pay more for healthcare than any major nation, and we're not getting our money's worth.  Single mothers with illegitimate children and illegal immigrants get healthcare, we just have to pay inflated rates for it. Ditto for workers handicapped with the lack of flexibility in the current system, and others. There's nothing socialistic about putting in place incentives for preventive medicine, healthy life-style choices, good access to pre-natal and  pediatric care, economies of scale, rational use of information technology, etc. which WILL be a part of a plan with a chance of passage. Obama will certainly focus on this issue because it's a winner. Anyone with his political skills is going to go for the win when it's available, whether in Iraq or Washington.

I can understand the skepticism of tep, butchie, sabaka, et al. But since when has a resume and track record told us anything useful? George Bush had a record indicating he'd make good on his promises to be a "uniter, not a divider"; to focus on Mexico; to have a "humble" foreign policy; to work towards the reduction of government; etc, etc.  How's that working out?

The one thing we can be sure of is that the next president will be confronted with crisis and potential disaster from somewhere no one is currently expecting it to come. Obama has demonstrated the kind of supple intellect that's needed to react sensibly to unexpected problems, and is not particularly beholding to any particular interest groups which will significantly limit his room for maneuver. That's about as much as we're going to get in terms of predictability from any candidate ever.

Well, rp, with as many changes of position as your boy has evinced so far, supple intellect is one way to sum him up!  :-)

That's right, butchie. I want a president who can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.