Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 24, 2008
By: Neil Sinhababu

A FALSE, FALSE SENSE OF NATIONAL SECURITY SECURITY....When you say that your plan is to lull your enemy into a false sense of security, that usually means that you know you're going to lose. Kind of like the Democrats on national security issues for the early part of this decade (not that they ever professed that particular idiotic plan -- they had others.)

But the Democrats' '02-'04 fecklessness and the resulting election losses have led the national GOP into massive overconfidence on foreign policy issues. Even with approval/disapproval numbers for the Iraq War in the 30-65 range, hardly any Congressional Republicans have come out against it. Walter Jones of North Carolina is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

The GOP House leadership remains totally in the dark about their situation. In Tom Davis' 20-page strategy memo after losing the third straight House special election, the Iraq War is mentioned only once -- as "the ultimate cultural issue, fueling and giving oxygen to the cultural left, as well as planting doubts in many swing voters' minds about the direction of the country." While Davis realizes that President Bush is somehow dragging down the GOP brand, he doesn't seem to realize that the Iraq War is a big part of how. While the memo calls for Republicans to put some distance between themselves and Bush, opposing his signature foreign policy initiative is never mentioned as a way to do it.

At long last, we have a Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, and who stands ready to go all in on foreign policy issues. John McCain, meanwhile, is so overconfident on national security that he's criticizing Obama's support for sending veterans to college! That's the kind of cuddly education-oriented Democratic issue that a smart Republican would just duck his head and ignore, waiting for the debate to turn to something else. But McCain really seems to think that he can pull rank on Obama and win this issue.

I'm going to enjoy the next six months.

Neil Sinhababu 8:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

we'll see. the dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before...

Posted by: supersaurus on May 24, 2008 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have been hanging together and they deserve to.

Conservative Bush Republicans...need I say more.

Posted by: MarkH on May 24, 2008 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Sinhababu,

Can you please clarify exactly what you mean when you say that we have a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the start? As I recall, Obama gave one, possibly two, speeches in the period 2002 to 2004 against the Iraq war but thereafter did not actively oppose the war and has, in fact, has supported it in every way possible since being elected to the Senate.

I am not aware that Obama had any leadership role in the anti-Iraq war movement. Can you point to anything which he did (as opposed to said) in regards to this legendary opposition to the war? Indeed, if it was the case that he actively opposed the war, the question must be asked: Why would be want such a clearly ineffectual leader as our party’s nominee for president?

Really, what did he do to entitle him to claim the mantle of being “against the Iraq war from the start”? More specifically, what has he done in the Senate to end the war and bring our troops home? What did he risk? What price was he prepared to pay to take a stand? What legislation has he introduced to end the war? What exactly has he done to end the war? Let’s have some specifics!

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 24, 2008 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

We'll see. the Dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before...

American politics for the foreseeable future is poker, played with the bodies of dead brown people who worship the wrong God.

You can point to polls showing low levels of support for the war in Iraq, or approval for the handling of 'terrorism' or 'national security', but half of the 65%-70% who 'disapprove' are as likely to have wanted more indiscriminate killing, more unilateral adventurism, than less. They're against the war because they're tired of the war, because it has gone on too long, and didn't finish with a bang, like a a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, not because it was illegal, immoral, stupid, pointless and futile.

The GOP is about to nominate as its candidate the candidate who's most up front about more wars, longer wars, deadlier -- to all parties-- wars. McCain can look at the camera and say "I will kill for you, to calm your fears, and stroke your ego'.

The GOP can point to real, extant hecatombs of infidel dead, and the Democrats can only promise.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on May 24, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Can you please clarify exactly what you mean when you say that we have a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the start?

Obama didn't want there to be a war in Iraq.

It's a pretty simple concept, troll.

Posted by: No Car, Too Expensive on May 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Mods, can we get Guthman, an obvious Clintonista the boot? He's bringing in voting records and statements and we've got a message to adhere to.


And Thank you No Car, Too Expensive, if we don't call people we disagree with Trolls, how else will be realize we are progressive liberals?

Posted by: hey mods on May 24, 2008 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is not a fan of this war last I checked, and he's a 'republican' (don't worry, I'm a 100% ardent dem and voted for Obama)

Posted by: Steve L on May 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Guthman,

This is what Obama said prior to the Iraq War.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

You may not like that he did not actually tackle George Bush and physically stop him from waging the war but this is all he was allowed to do. So he was against it from day -1.

He was not only against it, he was against it for the correct reasons - everything he predicted has been realized. That's called knowing your shit and taking a stand when it counts.

Clinton and McCain, among many others could have been leaders but they chose to get in line behind George W Bush like the political push overs that they have always been. So if you want complain about Obama's stance and actions on the war, I suggest you start somewhere else.

Posted by: glutz78 on May 24, 2008 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

You can point to polls showing low levels of support for the war in Iraq, or approval for the handling of 'terrorism' or 'national security', but half of the 65%-70% who 'disapprove' are as likely to have wanted more indiscriminate killing, more unilateral adventurism, than less.- Davis X. Machina

It's ugly true, GWB failed because he didn't provide the cheap oil we expected. That's the criterion, IMO (for those folks). I remember watching WGN video shots of Chicago residents going through gas stations in late 2003 and pointing out that gas was MORE expensive not LESS, "so what's the point of going into Iraq if gas gets more expensive!?" Dubya wanted the cred for bringing the bacon back home to the USA and he fucked up big time. So he cries now; Saudi doesn't give a shit; World leaders avoid him.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on May 24, 2008 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

IMPEACHMENT WOULD INSURE A DEM WIN--1-202-225-0100- and it looks like they'll need all the help they can get.

Posted by: Mike Meyer on May 24, 2008 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

I would say also that the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Those that are still standing and that have a chance of re-election have to back the war, and Bush, because that's the preference of the (so far) winning coalition in their districts.

Republicans -- especially Congressmen -- are on their own this cycle, and they know it better than anyone. That a majority of their caucus is stuck with this rump position is better evidence than almost any that the party has -- very deliberately, if not with very much thought to more than the short term -- put themselves in the position of an unpopular minority.

Couldn't happen to a nastier bunch of SOBs. :)

Posted by: bleh on May 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

...the Iraq War is mentioned only once...

To be fair, the "[Iraq] war" is mentioned several times. GWOT also receives prominent mention. If you believe that Iraq is the central front in the GWOT, and you claim to be the party best capable of protecting America, then it's going to be difficult to distance yourself from Iraq without tacitly admitting the GWOT is a cartoon Chimera.

But the best line is about funding:

Members need to be inspired to give. "One-on-ones" with the Leader and Whip are an essential part of this. We know who can give and how much. This cannot be delegated. Also, the system of rewards for generosity has not been observed and members know it. That's why one-on-ones need to be utilized. [emphasis added]
Somebody should be making hay with that line.

Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2008 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get it. If ever there was a candidate who could be legitimately 'swiftboated' it's John McCain. War hero? Why? Before being shot down on his 23rd mission he was no more valiant than any other pilot flying missions over North Vietnam. After being shot down he displayed no more courage than any other POW. There are no witnesses to his validate that he was any more heroic under interrogation than anyone else and some evidence to the contrary. How much of his claims concerning his treatment as a POW have been backed up by other POWs. As an admiral's son he was in a position to exploit his POW time to the max. Seems to me that he was nor more heroic than any of the other POWs; he just had a better PR team.

Posted by: sparky on May 25, 2008 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Go Neil!

Posted by: Petey on May 25, 2008 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

No Car, Too Expensive,

In the first place, it isn’t enough to just say “he didn’t want the war in the first place” and leave it at that. Lots of people didn’t want the war. Not a single one of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination “wanted” the Iraq war. The specific point of disagreement here in this thread seems to be whether Obama is entitled to claim some sort of moral superiority based upon his early opposition to the war. I dispute the claim that his opposition was unequivocal. I dispute that his is entitled to wear the mantle of leadership in the antiwar movement. I deny that he is entitled to claim any sort of moral superiority based upon his 2002 speech.

Obama was a national political figure in 2003 and he is a senator now. Unlike most of us, he occupied a position of national prominence during that critical time and could have been an important leader in the antiwar movement had he been willing to take even the slightest risk to stop the war. But he never did. Talk is cheap, especially when there is no responsibility to actually vote and no possibility of ever paying a price for that vote. How would Obama have decided on Iraq in the fall of 2002 if he'd been in the U.S. Senate? I think he would have voted with Clinton, Edwards and Kerry.

Ask yourself this: If Obama was truly, passionately opposed to the Iraq war from the start, then surely he would have worked hard to prevent the war from starting. Surely he would have made a name for himself as a leader of the antiwar movement? He didn’t. Tell me this: What concrete actions did Obama take between that speech and his election to the Senate to try to prevent the war? And after he became a senator, what did he actually do to end the war? What legislation did he introduce to end the war? Can you point to one single thing except speechifying and still more speechifying? I challenge you to do so.

I, on the other hand, can point to many things which Obama has said and done which contradict his claims of being a great principled, crusader against the Iraq war:

I would remind you that Obama has consistently used his “rock star” status and fund raising prowess to support pro-war Democrats against antiwar liberals in several Congressional primaries. Most notable and unforgivable was his strong support for pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war hawk Joe Lieberman against the liberal antiwar candidate Ned Lamont. I supported Lamont because I believed in his message and because I knew he would be a reliable crusader to end the war. Yet, Obama supported Liberman knowing full well that a Liberman victory would be a devastating blow against the anti-war movement.

And consider how he voted to confirm the war criminal Condi Rice even though she played a critical role in advocating for the invasion by spreading lies and making what she knew were preposterous claims about WMD (“mushroom clouds”, anyone?). By the way, these absurd claims about WMD were the same ridiculous claims Obama later admitted he might have accepted as valid if only he'd had Hillary Clinton's access to classified "intelligence".

Then, too, consider that once Obama reached the Senate he was notable in playing it safe while others like Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd and John Murtha spoke out and worked against the war. The greatest, most powerful orator against the war in Congress was Robert Byrd, not Barrack Obama. How is it that this electrifying speaker did not give a single memorable floor speech against the war until it was clear that public opinion had sufficiently shifted to opposing the war?

Yes, it true that that Obama gave one arguably antiwar speech in 2002 and others since then. But its clear that he has repudiated those speeches again and again by repeatedly voting to continue funding the war. What’s more, if I understand what Samantha Power and others in the Obama campaign have said (when they thought they were off the record), that repudiation is near total and amounts to a pledge to keep troops and mercenaries in Iraq to protect the permanent bases which Obama refuses to renounce.

Speaking of the famous 2002 speech, I recently reread it. I would urge you to read that speech and try to have an objective look at it. There is nothing in the speech that says “I am fully against this war.” Obama gave some very generic reasons for being against foolish wars and costly wars and inexpertly waged wars. And he says it might be a foreign policy mistake to invade Iraq. But then again, maybe not. I don’t see how this rather tepid speech allows him to lay claim to anything. It is not an unequivocal statement of opposition to the invasion of Iraq. It is not a call to action. If someone can point to such language in the speech, please do so. My impression on a closer reading is that the speech was carefully crafted to sound good but provide plenty of wiggle room depending on which way the political winds were blowing in 2004.

I am left with questions and doubts: Who is Obama? What does he believe in? What principle or cause will he sacrifice for? Others in the Congress took risks in opposing the war. They cast politically dangerous votes; they made speeches on the floor which they knew might cost them votes at home. They did what they thought was best for the country. Obama waited to see which way the wind was blowing and then did what was best for Obama. He believes in nothing greater then himself. He risks nothing for anyone else. He follows his star.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

clinton is irrelevant, so all that remains is whether obama can be better positioned as the anti-war candidate compared to mccain, who should have zero credibility left by november, and who never had moral authority to begin with.

it always amuses me when people are impressed by the supposed value in a politician sticking by their morally repugnant and consistently wrong position, simply because it shows some sort of "principle." foxnews counts on such rubes.

Posted by: on May 25, 2008 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK


First, I am familiar with the language which you cite but obviously I don’t agree with you about its significance. Yes, he seems to be opposed to invading Iraq (at that moment, anyway) but I feel this antiwar sentiment is undercut by its juxtaposition with other very hawkish language. This creates the effect of being “antiwar” without explicitly opposing the invasion or calling on the audience to oppose the war. My suspicion, as is clear in my other posts, is that this ambiguity was deliberate. I believe that the speech was carefully crafted so that he could claim to have been “right” regardless of the actual outcome of the war. To my way of thinking, this is duplicitous and should count against Obama.

Second, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that Obama was “first” and that all that has happened was foreseen in his prescient speech. Having foreseen the greatest foreign policy disaster in our country’s history and quite possibly the most serious military debacle in perhaps a thousand years, Obama did what with this knowledge, exactly?

He pulled this wonderful speech from his website and went off to campaign for his senate seat. He didn’t revisit the issue at all until 2003 when he appears to have delivered another artfully crafted speech “opposing” the war (or maybe not) and then did nothing until 2004 when he basically said that his position on Iraq was the same as George Bush’s. When he was asked about that statement (and others which seemed equally equivocal) on Meet the Press he again equivocated and said”I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know”. He also said that 2003-2004 was probably “the wrong time to speak out on the war” [In fairness, the quote is ambiguous but in context it might be limited to the convention and not the entire 2003-2004 period]. There was a “wrong time to oppose this war”? What happened to all this great insight and moral clarity---why didn’t he want to share his insights with the American people at a time when it might have counted for something? When he could have put his speechifying to work on this side of right?

So, yes, maybe Obama should get points for being “first”. But shouldn’t he lose points for lacking the political courage to fight against a war which he himself claimed would be ruinous? Shouldn't he lose points for vacillating on Iraq as he waited to see where public opinion settled before becoming unabashedly the candidate whose “good judgment trumps experience”

Basically, good speech but really, if he meant it and believed it, his follow through was deplorable. Worse, when he got to the senate he didn't go to the floor to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months, which is to say until he knew which way the wind was blowing. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines. Hardly a profile in courage.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

obama doesn't need to be perfect on iraq ... just better than mccain and bush.

Posted by: on May 25, 2008 at 4:38 AM | PERMALINK


While I concede that Obama has not gone the path that someone like Ralph Nader would have on the war, he is by far the highest hope we have for withdrawal - which I assume is what you're looking for.

At the very least his little speech in 2002 confirmed he has depth of knowledge of the Middle East and the foresight the connect the dots. Compared to Bush, Clinton, McCain this is significant for me.

My argument is that nothing he was going to do in the Senate would have ended the war anyway. At least not prior to 2007 and probably not now either. So perhaps you can appreciate his 1 year campaign to be President running on, guess what, a platform to withdraw from Iraq. That's called taking action. And it's more effective than bitching from the podium in the Senate.

Do you think Clinton would have withdrawn if she won? I don't. Will Obama? I think he will but he does have to prove it. For now, he's the best hope. But feel free to vote for Nader.

Posted by: on May 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible."
--Sinclair Lewis

Posted by: Quotation Man on May 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

How can Obama claim to be against the war if Obama didn't physically tackle Bush to stop him from issuing the orders?

And why didn't Obama personally sink all the ships going to Iraq to invade?

Obama could have told the 85% of Americans who supported the invasion they were delusional and stupid, that would have stopped the invasion, I'm sure of it!!!

Obama can't claim to be against the war unless he did everything I can imagine!

Posted by: Pitch Guff Man. on May 25, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Mitch Guthman:

There was of course a Democratic candidate for the 2008 -- and 2004 -- presidential nomination who was all of the things you observe that Obama has not been: a candidate who spoke out forcefully against the Iraq war from the fall of 2002 forward, and who has not only continued to speak out against the war, but has consistently opposed and voted against all war funding, has been a leader of the Congressional opposition to the war, has called for immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and has made opposition to the war the central organizing principle of not one but two campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That person is Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

In the last televised candidate debate in which Kucinich was permitted to participate by the corporate-owned media, he was asked questions about UFOs.

The fact is that America's Ultra-Rich Corporate Ruling Class, Inc. will not permit any presidential candidate who espouses antiwar positions and undertakes antiwar actions such as Rep. Kucinich has done, and which you suggest Senator Obama ought to have done, anywhere near the presidency.

Had Obama taken the positions and actions you suggest, then like Kucinich he would have been ridiculed and marginalized and excluded by the corporate-owned media, and would certainly not be on the verge of becoming the Democratic nominee.

I am a supporter of Rep. Kucinich, and frankly I don't see a whole lot of substantive difference between Obama and Clinton with regard to the war, health care, environmental issues, or anything else. And as to opinions about which one would make a better candidate or a better president, who knows? Such opinions seem mostly informed by wishful thinking about one's preferred candidate.

Neither Obama nor Clinton comes close to being what I really would like to see in terms of substantive policy proposals, e.g. the sorts of policies that Kucinich or the Green Party would put forward.

And either one of them is clearly preferable to John McCain.

Their supporters should chill out, stop tearing each other up, and get ready to campaign against McCain. It's going to be very difficult given that the corporate-owned mass media will be heavily propagandizing on behalf of corporate America's preferred candiate, McCain, while working in concert with the Republican, right-wing extremist propaganda machine to churn out an onslaught of character assassination against the Democratic candidate. That's how the Republicans got close enough to steal the elections of 2000 and 2004 and they have every chance of doing so again this year.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 25, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Considering that Obama is running for a leadership position, I do not think it unfair to examine his record to see whether he has demonstrated the qualities of leadership and good judgment in the past. I submit that he has not, as I believe his record on the Iraq war demonstrates.

I would also note that not a single Obama supporter has actually been willing or able to engage on these substantive points. The notion that any scrutiny of Obama’s record is equivalent to demanding that he should have “wrestled Bush to the ground” and singlehandedly prevented the war is an absurd straw-man. My point has always been that, had his supposed opposition had been genuine one would naturally have expected to see evidence of his sustained commitment to anti-war advocacy, even at a political or personal cost. In fact, he never lifted a finger to try and stop the war.

Moreover, once elected and in a position of power, he said and did nothing about the war until it was clear that he could exploit the strong anti-war feeling in the Democratic party to further his new, presidential ambition. Until it was to his advantage, he could not be bothered to express any strong opposition to the war. In fact, he did not stir himself one bit until he found that he could exploit his 2002 speech to suit his own purposes.

Obama’s record on the Iraq war is clear: He has done less, far less than any other supposedly anti-war member of Congress to work toward ending the war and withdrawing from Iraq. He has left it to others to speak out and take political risks, while he himself shirks all responsibility for opposing the war and advocating for withdrawal. Let me be clear about it: Given his lackluster record of actually opposing the war, I do not believe that running for president as an “anti-war” candidate demonstrates leadership. Rather, I believe that it demonstrates little more than rank opportunism and a degree of disingenuous which is very disturbing.

I do not think that Obama was ever a genuine opponent of the war. I do not believe he is a genuine opponent now. And the failure to engage on this point is a tacit admission by his supporters that, in fact, Obama was always a fair-weather friend of the anti-war movement. Right now, today, his position on Iraq is basically the same as McCain’s. As I pointed out in my earlier posts, Obama’s people have made it very clear in a series of “off the record” comments that his position is basically that he will not withdraw from Iraq unless and until the military agrees to give him the political cover which he feels is necessary. This is not the way a true leader behaves. Is this really “change we can believe in”?

To SecularAnimist, I would say that while I agree with much of what you say, it is also true that a leader leads and takes risks for what he believes in. Yes, Dennis Kucinich fought against the war and paid a price. But that is my point exactly: He said what he truly thought and tried to lead others along the right path. That's what leaders do. Those who hang back until "the time is right" are not leaders, they are opportunists.

I believe it is premature to give up the fight against Obama. I do not want him to be the nominee of my party and will continue to oppose him right up to the point at which the party confirms him as our candidate. He is not a liberal and I don’t think he will deliver on any of the issues that are important to us, especially withdrawing from Iraq. He is a rank opportunist and will gladly betray us if there is anything in it for him. I would hope that we could do better and I believe that we Democrats should try to explore other options while we still can.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

So Mitch,
What has Hillary done? I'm asking, not telling. You suggest Obama isn't truly against the war in Iraq by pointing out that he's done basically what all of the other nominally anti-war politicians have done...nothing of real substance. What has your candidate done that should inspire me to think of her as truly anti-war? What anti-war movement is Hillary heading up? What risk has she taken in her bold stance against this war?

Posted by: adelena on May 25, 2008 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK


I do not believe that she has demonstrated any real leadership or that she has taken any concrete action to end the war. She took no risks or any kind, as far as I can see. On the other hand, she does not pretend to be what she is not.

To my mind, Clinton is marginally preferable to Obama but really what I would like is for the convention to deadlock after two or three ballots and turn to someone like Gore or Edwards. Even Biden or Dodd would be an improvement.

Frankly, I was an Edwards supporter and both Obama and Clinton were way at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates. I was also impressed by Dodd because of his role in fighting telecom immunity and because he was prepared to lead by example. Even Biden grew on me (somewhat)after a few of the debates.

As I have learned more about Obama as an individual, I have come to be less and less impressed with him. I found the recent article in the NY Times about his rise to be very troubling. The way he treated his former mentor was despicable. Only a fool would trust Obama or believe in him.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

To my mind, Clinton is marginally preferable to Obama but really what I would like is for the convention to deadlock after two or three ballots and turn to someone like Gore or Edwards. Even Biden or Dodd would be an improvement.
Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 6:59 PM

This alone should allow subsequent readers to disregard your commentary for the ignorant, childish drivel that it is.

Posted by: on May 25, 2008 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

He is not a liberal and I don’t think he will deliver on any of the issues that are important to us, especially withdrawing from Iraq. He is a rank opportunist and will gladly betray us if there is anything in it for him.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Change genders in that and the above paragraph describes Hillary Clinton to a T -- and her track record is far more visible for the world to see.

I too would have preferred Edwards to Obama, who at times seems too Ivy League corporate, but of the two candidates left I'll take the devil I don't know (Obama) over the devil I do (Clinton).

Posted by: Vincent on May 25, 2008 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

He's running for President to end the war. What more can one do? That is his platform. To take over the country's executive branch and end the war. That's a pretty serious step.

And he won't do it in 2 weeks but he will. You can doubt him if you'd like, but you can't say he was never genuinely anti-war. You have no right to make that comment. Read the whole speech. He called every single second of the war. He knew. And he spoke out. And you don't have the right to take that away from him.

And after all this you prefer the 2 candidates who voted for the war and you doubt the candidate who was against it before it began. That's backwards thinking. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Posted by: glutz78 on May 25, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

You've a right to your opinion but let's watch the name calling. Actually, after reading both of Obama's books I'm even more impressed with him personally. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding his "mentor" but, as the old saying goes, s*^% happens. The more I learn about politics the more I realize what a brutish game it can be.
I don't see the scenario you paint playing out in the convention but it could happen. Thank you for your comments.

Posted by: adelena on May 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

guys, Mitch is a troll, with inexhaustible doubts and thoughtful concerns that magically benefit other parties he's not mentioning. Don't respond; he can't be persuaded. Just because he's not Al with short, crazy posts doesn't mean he's not a troll with an agenda.

back to the post, I read the GOP strategy memo with an increasing sense of delight. After a dispassionate and accurate review of the polls and money, he then gets off into sure-loser policy proposals, each more slap-dash and stream-of-consciousness than the next. I hope they stick closely to Tom Davis's plan!

Posted by: travis on May 26, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking in my capacity of “troll”, “Al’s replacement” and as the author of “ignorant, childish drivel”, I would like to profoundly apologize for lowering the level of discourse here.

Posted by: Mitch Guthman on May 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment

Remember personal info?



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly