is that Obama wants to run as a transformational candidate, but doesn't want to throw away the mostly glowing coverage he has been getting from the gang of 500 in the beltway. I think that has more to do with his framing of this than the fact that he had not counted on Edwards being a top-tier candidate.

I don't think Obama is consciously using a Republican frame--I think he is consciously using a mainstream media frame, which the mainstream media happens to have picked up from the GOP.

Obama will start getting trashed among the punditocracy if he does what Jerome suggests. I think he is not ready to risk that yet.

Here's RT's unofficial Democratic cue-card on the Iraq vote:

1) It's Congress' job to decide whether or not we should be at war, and what our war goals and aims are.

2) Congress, in response to the will of the American people, has decided it's time to bring U.S. participation in Iraq's civil war to an end.

3) Congress has appropriated sufficient funds to keep our soldiers as safe as possible as they withdraw over the next year.

4) The President, by vetoing Congress' bill funding the withdrawal, would be substituting his judgment for that of both Congress and the American people to keep us at war.  That's not his decision to make - that's for the people, speaking through their elected representatives, to decide.

5) If he chooses to decide on his own to stay in Iraq, he can figure out on his own how to fund it.

Edwards nailed it when he said to reject funding of the "surge." That would have led to headlines like this: "Polls show public supports Democrats in blocking Iraq funding." That drives the media narrative in a different direction.

Now, it's all about making it clear that Bush is the one vetoing the funding and calling him out on it, rather than suggesting Congress is at fault. Bush is at 30-fricking-percent -- if a candidate doesn't think he or she can beat him on this issue with the American public, then that's not the right candidate.

As the whole veto thing plays out, I think we'll see consensus develop over Obama's strategy to deal with it:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/34034 9,CST-NWS-sweet13.article

Obama is, if all things, a realist.  Defunding might seem popular, and is on these sites, but it is a terrible idea and will hurt Democrats immeasurably if followed through.  To pursue it would be foolhardy and give the Republicans the noose they need to hang us with.  Obama realizes this, and I hope we start to as well.  His approach is the best policy:  short allocations of money that keep the pressure on the Republicans as we try to wittle down the votes to overturn the veto in later votes.

To answer the question:  Democrats have to frame the end of war as to be done in a responsible, organized fashion...separate from how it was conducted.

I saw this at Century of the Common Iowan: Apparently a recent poll of Iowa Republicans shows a majority want to withdraw all troops from Iraq within six months.

John Nichols discusses the poll at Common Dreams here.

Even leaving aside the obvious formal problem that there's no declaration of war, what our military is doing at this point is not a war.  It's a colonialist occupation -- propped-up local puppet government, diffuse guerilla activity, no clear victory condition, no obvious withdrawal point, no clear rationale for staying other than "we're already here and people are shooting at us."

It's an occupation.

Edwards is going to claim the anti-war candidate status among the top three, and the Clinton camp is going to rightly point out that Obama's 'a different type of politics' theme is baloney if he is going to keep using the talking points you mention (re: night vision goggle, etc.) and votes the same as Clinton on war funding.

Obama is going to have to walk his talk at some point or his campaign is going to stall.  The buzz surrounding him now isn't going to last forever.

Sad, really, considering a number of Republicans would rather be rid of this anchor tied around their necks.

I like Obama well enough, but I have the impression that his main strength is to utter lofty-sounding idealisms in the manner of JFK.   Not that it's a bad model, but he can't get by with that schtick forever.  He has to start articulating really clear policy positions.

I wish Dems would stop talking about defunding the troops and start talking about defunding Halliburton and the War Profiteers.

Our troops deserve more than to be pawns of Neo Conservative Theory. We have an adminstration that has shunned the public mandate for withdrawal in order to serve a military industrial complex which thrives off eternal occupation.

The Bush Administration has had 4 years to get it right, and now they are requesting a war czar, showing they haven't a clue as to what they are doing.

They have broken the commitment they made to the armed services of the nation by invoking endless tours of duty, tearing men and women away from their families for years on end, removing our best and brightest from higher paying jobs which are leaving their families back home in dire financial straits. They have left our brave injured veterans to fend for themselves in rat infested hospitals.

This president has put his pride above the well being of the nation. The 2006 election sent a message to the President. He rejected it. It's time to stop asking, and start withdrawing.

I am a big Obama supporter, and I have faith in his abilities as a leader. But his actions of late reek of a consultant advised general election strategy, which will be the road to nowhere.

I agree that Obama needs to do a better job of rejecting the premise that any democrats will cut off funding for the troops.  Obviously a fully funded withdrawal is very different than denying any soldier necessary resources.  That said, I think the strategy he's advocating is preferable to cutting off funds for the mission.  

First, although a funded withdrawal is clearly distinct from "cutting off funding for the troops," that's exactly how the media and the GOP are going to spin it.  And that WILL hurt democrats in 2008.  In contrast, if we simply keep sending back versions of the current supplamental, which I think is what he's advocating in favor of at this point, I think we can break the GOP without our own caucus imploding.  Keep in mind, anti-war guys like Jim Webb are very much against cutting off funds for the war too.

Second, taking that kind of an action now doesn't preclude actually cutting off funding in 3 or 4 months.  Stopping a war from the legislature takes time, in large measure b/c the Senate allows a minority to really slow things down.  That was true during Vietnam and its still true today.  I want everyone home yesterday as well, but I think that will probably take a few steps.  

That poll question refers to the President's veto, and the Democrats plan to insert withdrawal language into the funding. Its not a clear-cut question asking whether Congressional Democrats should cut funding.

Such a poll was taken in late March:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/table s/live/2007-03-26-poll.htm

"8. Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?

Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq:
Support 36  Oppose 61  "

heck out now.  He's voted for President all over the place, but mostly Republican. (Loved Jimmy Carter, though).  He's been pretty conservative since 2000, but he called last nite to tell me that he knew who he was fighting in WW II. But we don't know who or what we are fighting for in Iraq.  The corporate establishment has had their run.  It's time for the people to have a shot at being at the front of the line.

Look, I completely agree with the criticism that Obama has been contributing to some unhelpful framing on this issue (then again, that particular framing was pretty well-established before he said anything and doesn't seem very likely to be changed no matter what we do).

I think Obama is right on the substance, though.  I don't think the Reid/Feingold route is the right one to take right now.  It won't play well politically, even with the overwhelming disatisfaction with the war in this country.  People underestimate how powerful the GOP message machine can be when it is working in unison and when the mainstream media accepts their framing of an issue.  The debate will instantly be about endangering troops and if the eventual Democratic nominee supported that measure, he or she will be hammered for it in the general election.

Remember, Clinton/Obama/Edwards will not be running against Bush in '08.  The GOP nominee will have more room to maneuvre on the Iraq issue than Bush does and will have the universal, unflinching support of every Republican (something Bush does not have now).  

If Bush vetos the resolution, the much smarter response at this point is to pass the funding in very small increments so that he has to keep coming back to Congress every month for more money.  That way the headlines will constantly focus on the lack of progress in Iraq and not the supposed Democratic desire cut off supplies to the troops.  

From the article linked above in Jerome's post:

Edwards, who is generally seen to be in third place in the campaign, made it clear with a subsequent comment that he was referring to Obama.

"This is not a game of Chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death," he added.

Edwards' reference to "playing chicken" pointed back to an AP interview that Obama gave on April 1 while campaigning in Iowa.

"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," he said, according to the Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

been interested in cutting funding of the war for a long time.  

I wanted the Kerry-Feingold bill to pass last year.  Obama and Clinton voted no.

To me, opposition to the war at the beginning, annd I opposed it, means ending it ASAP, cutting the funding.  I wanted this war over in 2003, 2004, etc.  We supported Dean for that reason in 2003 and 2004.

In his pursuit of the presidency, Obama is harming the antiwar movement,  It likely is unintentional, but it's happening.  

I've been leaning Obama but now the pendulum is swinging towards Edwards. I love Obama's personality and charisma, and I am sure that he would be a great president, but Edwards is more bold and honest. He knows what is at stake in America today: the people vs giant corporations and a lunatic right wing. Obama should have learned from Kerry: don't be too cautious, don't be wishy washy, don't appease the Republicans. Obama has the right values but he is too green and makes the same mistakes as Kerry did in 2004 and Gore in 2000. Edwards has learned from 2004 and is exactly right on the issues and on the messaging. Even though he is pushing an agenda well to the left of any Democratic candidate in recent memory he is still the most popular Democrat in the field.

But let me also say: Hillary must be defeated. That is number one. She will destroy the Democratic party if she wins the nomination. She will lose us 100+ house seats. If Obama is closer to beating Hillary in January 2008 then I will switch back to Obama again.

He takes questions on his site, and deserves the heat on this one,  so that he knows who he undercuts with his latest rhetoric.

http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/sug gestquestion

This is what I wrote -

Senator Obama -

I have admired your opposition to the war, yet I find your current position to be bereft of leadership. This president has made clear that he will not end this war, that he will not accept timetable for the war, no matter what the American people say. Thus we are given the choice between continuing the war (Congress acquiesing to a lawless President) or ending the war (cutting off funds). Cutting off funds does not endanger the troops, it benefits the troops. It honors their service and dignity by showing that we as people believe they deserve more than to be pawns in neo conservative theory. This President, VP Cheney, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Lieberman are filled with the sin of pride, putting their egos before the welfare of this country. This endless occupation is destroying the armed services, as well as the families of the brave, noble, patriotic, and self sacrificing men and women who serve. What message does it send that while they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect us, we will not do the same to protect them? Framing the issue of Congress doing it's duty to serve the will of the American people as "defunding the troops" is wrong. We are defunding war profiteers and an lawless administration which has no plan (i.e. looking for a war czar 4 years in). Be a leader. Stop asking. Start acting.

Are we still taking Obama to the woodshed with a remark that he made over a a week ago...?

Also, my understanding he wasn't referring to Democrats in general - like us -- but the supposed Democrats that 'he' plays with in the Senate.  The ones' that behind the scenes, have a strategy to drag the war out until 2009, coz it's good for the election, the ones' the Senators that wring their hands in public about the war, but WILL not vote to stop funding?

I dunno it's seemed pretty obvious to me what Obama was alluding to.

turns out the report was true and has been confirmed by the Obama campaign.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/apr/13/yes_obama_di d_an_interview_with_fox_0

not going to make a diary on this like yesterday, Obama seems to be having a hard time here enough as it is.

Barrack Obama is the new Joe Liebermann; pursuing a cynical course of appealing to the netroots and the vast majority of citizens who want out of Iraq while assuring his backstage backers that nothing will change on the ground in The MeatGrinder through carefully measured comments which he 'explains away' by standing on 'principle'. What's that when it's at home Barrack?

His equivocation and Janus like approach has made my decision for me.

It's Edwards all the way.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out Senator Liebermann Obama.
.

I saw the democrats in the wilderness for many years after defunding a war that was unpopular because the people who could not think in reality demanded it.  When  they did what the demanding ones wanted they paid the price for decades.  

The armchair generals on the left think this is the only way to end it.  Sorry but, what will happen is you will kill more soliders who Bush will take his anger out on.

Edwards is thinking pie in the sky and his followers are not seeing that all he is doing is pandering and throwing red meat.  This is the same guy who wants the death penality and voted for this damn mess that people like Obama are now trying to find a responsible way out without the troops suffering more.

Rah rah for Edwards.  It is his fault he voted for it but, people like mydd think he is wonderful and the people left holding the bag are to blame.

My position with some of your posts wasn't what you were saying, it was how you were saying it.  When people call him a traitor or an empty suit (and not you didn't use these exact words) and that sort of labeling, thats going to inflame any strong supporter of a candidate.  Imagine your (or anyone elses) reaction if someone called Warner that when you were working for him, or if they called Dean or called Edwards an Empty Smile (all Smile and No Brains) as I heard some GOPers call him in 2004.  That's the kind of crap that sets me off and comes off as attacking.  I'm not going to call anyone out here now, but there are several very vehement supporters of CLinton and Edwards who constantly do this on a regular basis... and as an Obama supporter when they do, it pretty much feels like a direct insult to myself and the many other Obama supporters on here.  The really hypocritical part is when they then rail against anyone who says the same thing about their candidates (such as an Obama supporter using the Pretty Boy statement on Edwards)... of course there are Obama fans just as guilty, myself included although I am trying.

I am fine with critical posts on my candidate and really anyone should be.  THere are people on MyDD who give rational critiques... and if they jump the gun on the story, they will apologize and admit being wrong.  I try to do this (and I have gotten some Edwards facts wrong like misreading the article with the Feminist who I thought said Edwards would be the equivalent of the first female president, but unfortunately I misread it and was wrong... she didn't say it; much like the reporter with the Elizabeth Edwards AP story, the reporter on that story took a LOT of liberties... and I misread it as well. and when shown I was wrong, I apologized and admitted it), people like Okamichigan13 and Jallen try to do this too.  Tarheel is decently good with it too.  Those people have earned my respect for offering valid criticisms in a respectful way and not hurling insults at the candidates like Teenagers or school children.  For the most part they realize that with emotions running high, people take insults toward their candidate personally and try not to do so.  Are they perfect (and am I)?  No, but we all do try.  Others could learn that lesson well.

As to your post, I thought it was excellent and respectful to the candidate and to his supporters.  You said you think he is hurting himself and you disagree with him and that to me is a very respectful, courteous position.  Your writing reflects that well in this post, and as a passionate Obama supporter who has been an active regular on MyDD for 3 years now, I appreciate that more than words can describe.  I hope others will see this as model of discourse when discussing progressive and Democratic candidates and stop creating diaries either pulling a faux news and trying to spin a particular comment in a different way than the candidate meant (which I have seen supporters on all 3 sides do) or just vehemently insulting the candidate.  Hopefully they will work to propel the debate so that when criticisms arrise, those people, like myself and other passionate supporters of candidates can bring their prospective to the candidate specific blogs and their supporters, as I did with Obama and the Fox News and CBC debate.  I'm not foolish enough to say I was responsible, but on his official HQ blog when I said it needed to happen, A LOT of debate popped up and I think if the candidate doesn't read it, some advisors are.  

I personally think some of the netroots attacking of Obama has more to do with pouting because Edwards is  mired in 3rd and so, they hope to turn people against Obama.

The poll presents two opposite choices, neither of which is Obama's position.  

I'm willing to wager that if it was a 3 choice poll (adding in an option such as short term funding, or a revised proposal) that something between these two options WOULD be supported by the vast majority of people.  

Let's see what the Edwards camp said about the war: TOTAL WITHDRAWAL except for "preventing sectarian violence fro spilling over into other countries," "protecting Americans doing humanitarian work," and "protecting embassies."

Did you ever bother honestly parsing that statement?

I hate to break it to you, but "Preventing sectarian violence from spilling over," at the very least, means making Kurdistan an American protectorate. Because eastern Turkey is majority Kurdish and wants to become part of Kurdistan, and the Turks' chief general, who is now attacking PKK forces in Turkey, wants to move into Kurdistan proper, "to root out Kurds giving sustenance to Kurdish insurgency in Turkey." Sound familiar? And Iranian Kurds have been waging guerrilla warfare against the Iranian government for years. Furthermore, since there are pro-American Sunni tribes fighting sectarian war against generally anti-American Shiites and anti-American Sunnis (many Sunnis are coming from Saudi Arabia and Syria), that leaves the door wide open for permanent American involvement with the Sunnis as well.

As for the humanitarian work, that can mean anything anybody wants it to mean -- including protecting the US troops, which are doing a hell of a lot more humanitarian work than any NGO -- so I won't even bother parsing it.

And as for the embassy thing, that could mean different things too. But fundamentally Edwards isn't offering a different recipe from Hillary even if he is couching it in pandertastic language.

Richardson is simply pandering, period. You can believe him all you want, but that's the way it is. Whichever Democrat gets inaugurated will be a prisoner of a lot of Bush's choices, and although lots of Democrats and more than a few Republicans wish that were not the case, it is the case.

As far as withholding money is concerned, you had better game that one out so you know exactly what you're doing. Fundamentally, this bill is shot through with pork, so Bush will be able to veto it and sustain the veto. Bush -- and more importantly the Army itself -- have the guns, and Edwards and Richardson can play a great semantic game but in the end, the Pentagon can shift funds from other government agencies and cause a non-Pentagon shutdown over war funding. In that event, Republicans and conservative independents will rally to Bush.

Obama is being honest. He may have "given the game away," but actually defunding the war and micromanaging it would be suicidal. Democrats have built up no little sympathy within the Pentagon, but the Pentagon would bash the hell out of the Democrats if this came to pass.

The public blames the GOP for national security problems now. It does not blame the generals. Given a choice between the generals and Pelosi/Reid on the national security crucible, who do you think will win?

Considering Obama's ever-changing position I find it frightening that he won the MoveOn debate.

Your entire premise is flawed. Obama is right that the vast majority of Democrats don't want to cut-off funding of the war, in the sense of depriving the troops of support while they're in the field. That doesn't mean that we don't also want Bush to sign the supplemental (with funding), as long as there are strings attached, especially a timeline.

I, for one, would have answered the poll in the way most Dems did: I want to withhold funding UNTIL BUSH SIGNS a supplemental with strings attached. I don't want to cut off support for our troops. Does that make sense? Can you see now what Obama is saying?

Obama's position is realistic...Anyone that thinks that we can defund the war anytimne soon, are just dreaming....How can you defund the war when you have troops on the scene??....Sometimes, it boggles my mind when i hear people on the blogs writes very extreme stuff like this.

Obama is just speaking plain truth....The Liberal base might go along with leaving Iraq tomorrow, but if things goes chaotic in Iraq, the Dems will be blame for that, and dont tell me you will be able to point your finger at push.

We were careless getting in, now we cant recklessy leave and have another darfur in our hands.

As long as Bush is President, this war will keep going...

Obama is for a deadline..Give Bush untill the end of his presidency to end this war, and once a new democratic president is elected, he/she will do whatever she/he has to do to end the war.

Bush will not withdraw troops out of Iraq and i hope some people would stop being unrealistic about leaving tomorrow.

jforshaw: I agree about Edwards Iraq plan.

Edwards position about withdrawing but staying near gives the impression that the troops will be out of harms way.  The only way American troops will not be engaged in the region is to be out of the region.  You can't prevent genocide and spillover as bystanders.  It's also not going to take just a few troops to do all the things he wants to do under his plan. Unless Richardson clarifies his ,"no residual troops in Iraq" to include AND THE REGION, then his plan is also no different than Edwards, which I don't think is all that different than Hillary's or Obama's.  All of their plans will mean troops in and/or around Iraq, but still engaged with Iraq militarily.

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I am not here to sell her plan.  You know what it is and you may agree or disagree.  I am really trying to point out what I think is big thing that is often overlooked in the discussion about the Edwards plan.