Fair enough. You wrote a lot about "caving," here, though, and implied that Obama wanted to cave. So you are playing into it, too. I did mean "you" in the collective sense, though perhaps I should have used "we." We're all a little too quick to assume Democrats will cave, (who can blame us?) and it sometimes damages our efforts to win the fight on our terms.

The criticism of Kos is directly related to the reaction he had to this article, which Matt agreed with. You made some points that I agree with, above, but I disagree on a couple of fronts.

1. Obama's saying we'll fund the troops. I still don't see him saying we'll cave - that's the AP reporter's words, his own spin. If I see a quote from Obama saying that we will remove the timeline, then, okay, he's predicting that we'll cave.

2. I don't necessarily think providing the funds is caving. Part of the calculation we need to make is whether or not Bush is going to care if the troops are in harm's way without funding. He may just keep them there regardless.

I disagree.  There's a bigger frame here that Obama uses...essentially, it's disappointing that the President is so over the top and hysterical.  Democrats are trying to be reasonable and thoughtful.  It's "disappointing" that the President is so stupid and stubborn, but we'll still try to do things responsibly, even if he won't.

This clearly came out in Pelosi's interview last week..."Mr. President, calm down" etc.  It's a critically important frame.

Also, notice that the next supplemental has been described as "no-strings".  What's critical on the next bill is the 3-month amount of funding, with no timetable.  Force the President to sign that.

If the douchebag who gave me a zero would be kind enough to actually explain the point of peacenik23's comment, I will happily give his comment a "3," provided it makes any sense at all, whether I agree with it or not.

Zero rating anyone for requesting clarification is asinine beyond belief.

Clarification, in one way or another, is what we should always be about.

Now, if it's the snark you don't like, well, you're shit out of luck on that one.

If I can't live in a functioning democracy, snark is the only thing left that makes life worthwhile.

Obama didn't give away any leverage. His quotes said that they would ratchet up pressure if there is a veto. He clearly stated that no one is defunding troops on the ground and that instead they will continue to build support for an end to the war.

Frankly, I just don't see how any of Obama's direct quotes in this article are anything but helpful to our cause. That's all.

My intent was simple. Take out the AP spin and just read his direct quotes - and I think they are 100% in line with what a lot of us here believe.

Rejection of the premise of the question, and answering another question is basically what Fox news does all the time, isn't it.

In fact this is technically referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc and was a mainstay of the political/ partisan approach of the GOP.

Obama , to my mind, answered evenly: his answer was very presidential. As much as the american people would like to believe that the commander in chief of the armed forces can be stopped by some kind of congressional fiat, in the end - Barack answered the question directly and chose not to dance around it with some kind of frame.

I grant you that this is not what we wanted to hear. But it is the truth.

And that truth, is the basis for a new kind of politics. If there are any other maneuvers to try to play chicken with the troops, so be it but a presidential candidate should be aware that the president has the vested authority to send troops anywhere he wants.

And a veto-proof majority can be got - once the president vetos the bill - there is uncertainty in Iraq. McCain went on record today saying that Iraq is stabilizing.

What might happen in Iraq may well determine the course of foreign policy in the few short weeks leading up to the presidential veto.

Remember, Pres. bush collected the GOP into the White house for a press conference about the bill that was passed by both house and senate. All one had to do, was count the senators standing there to ascertain the numbers needed. Will any of the senators be able to convince anyone standing next to bush, and willing to go on National TV doing so?

Chris , you seem to be saying here that you can. Isn't that a little bit naive. Obama is playing a chess game, and what he's shown here is that he's aware of what any sitting president can, and can't do during detente. That to my mind is appropriate for someone who seeks the president.

Those who would rally for someone to play politics with this point, relying on statistics, and making statements for the public - do they really understand senate tradition,and the power of the executive?

My support for Obama is strengthened by his direct answer. Much to the contrary, I see KOS as motivated more by social issues, and his looming support for john edwards - than the issues to which Senator Barack Obama bespeaks

n/t

then why make it about obama?????

   Which insanity?   The Kos post?

If one criticizes Obama on an issue, the charges always seem to fly from his supporters about how he is being persected or swift boated.  I saw one on daily kos today say that Clinton ads influenced the Kos statement.  That's just wrong factually and wrong to say.  Now it is MyDD is an Edwards blog.

The problem is with Obama, not the bloggers.  Kos was leaning toward Obama from all indications.

Obama does this repeatedly.  David Sirota and Big Tent Democrat talked about this in December in multiple diaries.  They were right.  This is how he thinks and frames.  Agree with him or disagree with him, but what you see is whom he is.

Some of his supporters want to support an image of Obama, not the real Obama.  But reality keeps hitting them in the head and threatening to wake them from the dream, to break the spell.

Not sure.

I think Obama should have gone after Bush more. The bill is reasonable etc. Why would Bush veto this bill that supports the troops.

I think someone is doing too much focus polling, but hey what do I know.

I don't find this refreshing at all. Obama is showing that he believes the Democrats will lose this fight. He's directly accepting the argument that cutting off funding for the surge is undercutting the troops. He doesn't recognize that Bush also takes a huge risk if he vetos the bill, that the Democratic position is overwhelmingly popular right now and that, as a political celebrity, he is able to shape the debate more than most.

He should be able to reject a false premise out of hand and reply with a better one.