a run toward the middle in 2008, as his advisors are telling him, is where this is coming from. unfortunately , forgetting the realities of the war, they are also just plain wrong politically as it puts them way behind where the public is on the issue. I cant even think of any moderate Republican I know who doesn't think we should leave and leave sooner rather than later so I am not exactly sure what reality he lives in

This is absurd. Almost every single Democratic office holder has taken this exact same position and Matt Stoller singles out Barack Obama. This post has a lot less to do with Sen. Obama than it does with this site's bias against him.

Add this to the reasons I will not get on the Obama bandwagon:  he is engaging in the same old Beltway-centric political calcuations. It is bad for the candidate, bad for the party and bad for the country.  It is the opposite of leadership.

It is evidence that Democratic officials' contempt for the Democratic base is still deeply entrenched.

I have no way of proving this, but I believe that this would be less of a problem if we had been able to take Lieberman out.  The insiders are still living in the same world, the one where McCain and Lieberman are 'serious' and the people who have been right about everything are dangerous, dirty hippies.

Isnt there anybody in MYDD or DKOS who can snag an interview with Obama? How is it that right wing politicians are smarter at engaging with their right wing talk radio creating synergy.

Obama despite the criticism on blogs, still gets plenty of support from blog readers. He could defuse some of the criticism if he bothered to reach out and explain his thinking. While blog readers are not going to be the bulk of voters, he will regret it if he ends up losing a narrow election because the blogs do have the power of influencing a decent number of voters, even if they are in the minority.

Calling for escalation accomplishes two things.  It rechannels the debate away from whether we should leave -- now we're all discussing whether to escalate or not rather than whether to get out or not.  And it places "stay the course" as the reasonable compromise between leave or escalate.

Of all the wrong things you spotlighted, this is the worst:

Obama validates the false frame that cutting off funding for escalation equals not supporting the troops that are there.

Explaining budget issues to the public is a herculean task, but the Dems have to try to do it especially in this case.  If Obama is going to give up without even trying - well, I'm with Englishlefty: a leader should lead.

This is why I never got behind Obama.  

Pelosi said almost the exact same thing as Obama in terms of funding troops that are already in Iraq and Afghanistan:

``We will always support the troops who are there,'' Pelosi said in an interview today on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' program. ``If the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States.''

Matt wrote that "Obama validates the false frame that cutting off funding for escalation equals not supporting the troops that are there." But Pelosi too frames the debate as funding = supporting the troops who are there.

Given that statement, how do construe Obama's comments as attacking her? Matt, can you clear this up please? I feel like you start with a small beef and took it off a logical cliff.

Judging by how the interview reads, it seems that Obama wasn't asked to discuss funding as two separate parts, current force vs. any additional troops. Maybe in subsequent interviews he will get the chance to address that, but until then does it really make sense to savage him to the point of saying that basically he's ruining the Democratic brand??

Matt, you recently wrote:

"Anyway, we're going to have to get used to a House caucus full of powerful liberal leaders who can do stuff. This means not obsessing on every word, as well as understanding legislation and governance.  'Message' isn't the only battlefield anymore, so our strategies and conversations are going to have to change and become smarter and more three dimensional."

Good advice that you didn't take.

People may not expect that Democrats will be able to stop Bush on every move, but people expect Democrats to openly oppose expansion of the war and to vote accordingly.  Two months ago, at least one CD (NJ-7) re-elected a Republican because 3,176 voters chose the "Withdraw Troops Now" party rather than Democrat Linda Stender.  Going for the non-existent middle only tends to create more Naders.

1. Obama was right on Iraq. Only mainstream presidential contender to oppose the war and win two elections based on opposing Iraq war.

2. Obama has called for a firm timetable of US withdrawal from Iraq by 2008.

We always have to start with these hard core bottom line facts

When we do that we see the convoluted critiques don't really make much sense.

That they are distilled from a single Obama comment makes it seem more than a bit strained.

Obama is, of course, correct (again) in stating that Congress is not going to end the war in Iraq by cutting off funds for the military. That's not a viable withdrawal plan. It simply adds to the mess.

The US end game in Iraq can add to the Bush Jr disaster in Iraq if not done with some thought.

that is full of flowery talk and that's it.

This guy cannot walk the talk.

Hope that helps....

"We all know that Democrats and the growing ranks of war-weary Republicans can pass whatever legislation they want, Bush will just thumb their nose at them and the public. And short of pulling funding -- which would get more people killed -- there's little that Congress can actually do.

....

So don't fret that Congressional Dems can't unilaterally get us out of that mess. That power is vested in the president."

It wasn't Barack Obama.  And I assume it wasn't someone "weakening the Brand Democrat."

Or maybe it was.

"that is full of flowery talk and that's it. This guy cannot walk the talk. Hope that helps...."

explain why your message is what you describe...eyup ;).

As for Obama...here's some walking for you...specific to New Orleans sweetheart no bid contracts in New Orleans to KBR Halliburton and other Bush Jr financial backers.

But it applies equally to the same sweetheart, no bid contracts in Iraq.

Walking the walk we call it...really doing something.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

"Every American has the right to know how their government spends their money, and then to hold elected officials accountable for those decisions. I applaud my colleagues for unanimously supporting a bill that will aid the American people in that effort," Dr. Coburn said. "This bill is a small but significant step toward changing the culture in Washington. Only by fostering a culture of openness, transparency and accountability will Congress come together to address the mounting fiscal challenges that threaten our future prosperity."

Senator Obama doesn't appear to understand how the Defense Department is funded:  "I cannot in good conscience, cut off funding for our troops that are already there."

The Defense Department is funded through five accounts:  Operations and Maintenance, Personnel, Research and Development, Procurement, and Military Construction.  The Defense Appropriations Bill funds the first four accounts; Military Construction is funded by a separate appropriations measure.  

It is possible to fund the Personnel account (pay, benefits, etc.) through a separate appropriations measure if Congress wants to.  Separating Personnel funding from the other Pentagon accounts will insulate Congress from charges that it is not funding the troops.  It just takes backbone.

I like Obama.
However ...

The man's gotta throw some weight if he wants to be President.  And what's more important right now than Iraq?  

Now, Obama's in a very unusual position.  He's junior to many other Democrats.  He hasn't stepped up and over the line that puts him behind and beneath his elders such as Reid, Pelosi, Levin, Kennedy, Feingold, etc.  He's deferential to them, it seems.

He needs to step up.  Out front and center.
What better way to announce his run for President.

Stand up.  Draw some real clear lines for Bush.  Stand up to the thugs.  Maybe acknowledge that it's not easy for a mere Senator to step in when the President is fucking up on foreign policy but ...

It's got to be done and I'm gonna do it.  Fight the good fight.  Who knows if he'd win the showdown but lay it on the line and at least stand up to our own neighborhood bully.

If he does that, maybe people will stop complaining about him not doing much.
_____

Now.  What are his tools?  Someone mentioned the Bolan ammendment.  Maybe the threat of prosecution will make some of Bush's gang think harder.  

Speech.  Make it a Lincoln-Douglas debate on slavery.  Who would win that debate?  Bush?  I doubt it.

He's a smart guy.  He can come up with other ideas.

IMO.

but we do get some uninformed folks who don't and suggest things like "cutting off the money" for troops in Iraq.

It just doesn't work that way during a war. It's logistically impossible and political suicide if it was possible, allowing Republicans to then blame Democrats for the end game disaster of Iraq.

Obama's original statement was correct and Democrats can't prevent Bush Jr from continuing another two years of disaster in Iraq by defunding the military.

They can limit his actions, stopping the current "surge" for example if they can get 10 Republicans to go along.

The decision on this is Reid's and Pelosi's.  Suggesting that Obama or any other Senator break Democratic unity of action on Iraq is as foolish as suggesting Democrats "cut off our boys in Iraq".

Wow, another "anti-Obama" diary from Stoller.

Next time, at least note that in the title so that I can completely ignore it.  That is time in my life I won't get back

Obama is called out upthread for using "could" and "would" interchangably.  Fair criticism.  But the real position Democrats find themselves in is something like: "we would if we could".  Presidents decide.  Some do it carefully and only after open-minded listening; some (like Bush) do it because of some gut-level and poorly-reasoned conclusion that it's the "right" thing to do.

Reality:  Presidents get elected, and by so doing become commander-in-chief.  Commanders-in-chief get wide latitude in carrying out that role.

Opinion:  That overaching power of of the Presidency in war/peace matters is necessary, for many reasons. The most compelling, perhaps, is that going to war, or not, should not be decided on political grounds.  Nor on the grounds of what "the man in the street" thinks, any more than the employees or shareholders in a corporation have some kind of influential say over corporate strategy.  In government, there is no board of directors, except as we all vote in scheduled elections about who is to become CEO.  

Remedy:  Change the commander-in-chief so that someone else gets to make those decisions.  Impeachment?  Well, if anyone thinks the THREAT of impeachment will prevail here, I disagree.  Bush is on some kind of divine mission (in his mind) and unlike most of us, I think he is willing to take the risk of going down with the ship rather than abandoning it.  

Comment:  Do not offer to voters a candidate they will have difficulty seeing in the C-I-C role.  In 2000, we had 2 such, one from each party, and one of them won.  In 2004, ditto.  In 2008, if Dems are to win the White House, given the Iraq war and countering a terrorist movement as the most vivid objects in the election backdrop, the party MUST advance a candidate the electorate sees as well-suited to the C-I-C role.  Positions on other issues are very important as well, but I think in 2008 this will be a VERY primary factor for voters.

The preferred candidate should not (must not, actually) be dismissive of using creative diplomacy and strategic conversation, as this one seems to be).  But, to get elected he/she must be viewed as ready, willing, and able to be a wartime leader should that become necessary.  

The alternative is to nominate someone who is a "stretch" for filling the role of Commander-in-Chief and hope the Republicans do the same.  I wouldn't count on that, though it is a possible scenario.  

Some leaders talk tough but can't back it up by delivering the votes. Some describe 'how it is' to avoid raising expectations that can't be met.

Which should we prefer? The guy levelling with us?

Even though a majority prefers withdrawal in about 48 of 50 states, there will be a few defections, especially in the Senate, on defunding. The best Dems can do is let Pelosi and Reid threaten cutoff, to compel Bush to make a convincing case, to set firm time limits, to be lectured to, etc.

You and I may see it different. We believe it's time to dig in the heels and not budge. But we're not inside and haven't counted the votes, while the leaders have.

Bush will argue that he has a more effective management team in place, a new strategy, that the Iraq government will crumble if the added support doesn't happen, etc. There's likely a few conservative Dems prepared to grant him one last chance, so long as he understands the limits Congress is setting.

My thoughts on Obama: he should defer from responding either way, so as not to lead in the wrong direction.

But he is who he is. I've seen many good candidates through the years make mistakes that make me shudder. Haven't seen the perfect candidate, ever.

In the upcoming presidential race, Kucinich and Edwards seem to be the most 'left' towards the War on Iraq. Still, at this point, only overt hawkishness is likely to diminish any White House contender. Clinton and Obama are playing cautious, not hawkish.

To me, that means more will die, and I'll vote accordingly.  It IS time for leadership, but I'm not going to bemoan those, who at this point, make the wrong choices that cost lives.

I don't have to 'get' why they make their choices: they're politicians after all. I do feel compelled to utilize every effort to change their minds and hold them responsible for their errors.

Most people aren't going to pay close attention to presidential politics till after Labor Day, so I expect some wafflers will suddenly get tough next summer. Like Obama.

Some of us Vietnam generation folks won't be voting for Obama in the primary because we grew sick of wasted lives and blank check Congresses a long time ago.

Where is John Edwards on the post?  Putting a tag otherwise is disengenious.

Not in the post otherwise.

Ridiculous.