As an Obama supporter - I'm worried about Obamas response on Iraq to McCain

[sloppyjoe25s]

Unfortunately the MSM and general perception is that things are "improving" in Iraq. That is the basic narrative.
It is not unfortunate that violence is down - that is good. It is unfortunate that this is now perceived as "good enough"
and that people now are turning away from it somewhat.

Obamas reponse is good - quite good as always - but he also looked just a TINY bit cute this time.
He had a little smirk when he delivered this line, that is almost like he is too "happy" he has such a "good line."
He need to be careful he does not come across as too flippant about this issue.

The simple fact is that the MSM and alot of people still give substantial credence to the argument:

"Al Qaeda is in Iraq - so we should stay until they are wiped out, or until the Iraqis are ready to take on
most of the job of internal security themselves. Perhaps 2 more years."

People generally hate this war - but alot of people are equally unsure that a pull out - even a "careful" one
is actually the best move right now. Obama gave credence to this as well when he said:

"Once you drive the bus into the ditch, there are only so many ways to get out of the ditch."

He is right to focus on the judgement issue of "who drove into the ditch" - but people still DO care about how
we get out of the ditch. They are weary, and tired - but they are also wary of "flippant" answers - or anyone who
now says that getting out of the ditch will be easy.

Eventually everyone wants out - but there is a feeling that both Democratic candidates
are not being 100% straight about what it means to "keep some troops in Iraq" to:

1. protect the embassy
2. continue strikes against Al Queda
3. ?? other ??

It's just a general feeling that the Dems are not being clear and specific enough. Fact is - any withdrawal is going to be
pretty messy, likely subject to some gruesome IED headlines, very wasteful (massive number of trucks and other heavy equipment
just left in Iraq - and not even usable because the supply chains necessary for parts, fuel, and other things really only exist
by dint of the massive supply chains that have followed the US occupation. Generally withdrawal will be a pretty unglorious affair - and legitimate questions arrise as to how it should proceed, and exactly how our force structure should evolve.

Obama is also quick to say "put more troops in Afghanistan". This is probably needed - but a much deeper analysis of
our mission in Afghanistan is also called for. Obama was genuinely hit - when Clinton pointed out he has not chaired any meetings on the mission in Afghanistan. No senate hearings are not the answer - and most Americans could give a shit. But it is legitimate to want a deeper understading of our policy in Afghanistan - before immediately calling for a major troop committment. A small number of additional troops in Afghanistan is probably a "no brainer" - since multiple NATO commanders have said they simply can't cover the minimum of their mission. But an expanded mission - and a more strategic policy is probably required.

Several commentators (notably ass face Lou Dobbs) - spend their whole broadcasts hammering Obama yesterday for "not doing his job" - not holding any oversight on Afghanistan - while running for Prez. Whatever the fairness - those sorts of charges can hurt Obama. At least in part because they feed a "narrative" that he is not serious or seasoned enough - particularly in foreign policy.

McCain is a fucking ass-hat. The good news is he is starting to drool like a mindless fuck, and thinks Putin is the president of Germany. Every month, his ability to hold an argument slips. Obama gets better and better, and can certainly hold his own.

But all of us should realize that this is an area where Obama needs to improve - as he has in so many others.

This is not something a VP pick can "solve" - because Obama will have to go toe-to-toe with McAss - and nobody in America votes for the VP - it's just a basic fact.

Right away - Obama needs to avoid looking "smug" delivering "lines" - and needs to not look flippant on this issue.
Obamas core strength is that he takes issues head on - and conveys sincerity and seriousness. It is why Clinton's attack on him
have always failed. But he is in some risky new territory - and McCain will not attack in the same way.

Obama will do this. I just hope he does not do any damage before he learns to master this area as well.

Before any Clinton supports take glee in this post - let me be 100% clear. Senator Clinton does NOT IN ANY WAY come accross as
a leader or commader in chief. McCain will out experience her ass 5000 times over. She may be "angry and tough" - but she is a 1000 time worse than Obama as a commander in chief - because she has undermined herself time and again with petty, unpresidential whining. Claiming that "visting 80 countries" as first lady makes you "Ready on Day 1" - does not play with the MSM, or the majority of the American People. Her war vote will also make her utterly unable to make even a judgement argument.

This thread is mainly an attempt to say that the "Judgement" argument - while good for Obama - is not "Enough" - and that he will need to be prepared -- after he wins the nomination - to make a more complete case for himself on foreign policy and as commander in chief. I have 0% doubts he can do it. He is brilliant, and an excellent leader & has overcome every weakness he started with in this race brilliantly.

I am just pointint out that it is unfinished work - and would like people's thoughts on what is the BEST STRATEGY for him to start to conquer this challenge as well.

[blm]

1. Once the primaries are over, he will be better able to spend more time with advisors

who excel in these areas - Kerry, Hart, Biden, Clarke, SusanRice, Zinni, Powers - he's smart and he'll do fine once he gets beyond the wear and tear of primary disputes.

[sloppyjoe25s]

6. I think so - he needs to be careful not to

have a verbal slip up in the primaries - that puts him in a box later.

he's been brilliant at avoiding such slip ups - and there is nobody better to take all this on.

I'm just looking forward to that next level on foreign policy which I know he has in him.

It's been exciting to see him improve and improve and improve in such short time!

(I've supported him since long before he was even in the race)

[Hutzpa]

30. Two names jumped out the hat

Kerry and Biden.

Susan Rice ?

Zinni ?

Powers ?

Clark definitely ????

Clark was in charge during the Serbia war, one of the orchestrator of that war in Europe.

[blm]

42. RICHARD Clarke, Gary Hart, Gen Anthony Zinni, Samantha Powers.

Susan Rice is definitely not Condi Rice - you can easily search her out and she has been acting as a spokesperson for Obama on some news programs.

[jody]

2. BO is a political chameleon and he'll "change" his position, just wait and see. Those who try to be

all things to all people can end up being nothing to anyone.

[FrenchieCat]

4. And McCain is really Neat.....I presume you will say.......

and I'll just add that your opinion is nothing to me. How's that?

[jody]

5. IMO McCain is not qualified to be president. n/t

[sloppyjoe25s]

9. Mrs. Clinton is the ultimate Chameleon

on practically every policy and position in the book.

[emilyg]

25. Agree.

Present.

[Hutzpa]

32. Agreeing on what

that Obama is a chameleon? you falling for this shit...c'mon grow up the lot of ya.

[emilyg]

35. If you don't see it

may I suggest you grow up.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Al Qaeda is not in Iraq in the manner suggested by McCain

that's called Politics of Fear....and I'm afraid that you are falling for it.

Obama's advisors on Iraq are better than BushMcCain Advisors on Iraq.

In Iraq, Iraqis,
Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views.
http://www.martinirevolution.com/2006/09/

Real News: Bush's version of Iraq surge success misleadingFeb 3, 2008 ... Al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated. ... Today, it is 85 percent Shia. Very few Sunnis are left there to be ...
http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=899&thisview=item


The surge has also set the stage for an even more destructive civil war. Because the U.S. has increasingly allied itself with Sunni forces and used them to pressure Shia parties to pass pro-Sunni legislation, such as ending the ban on ex-Baathists serving in government, they have further deepened the schisms between the Arab sects that could produce greater sectarian violence. Even worse, the U.S. has armed the Sunni resistance in Anbar to the teeth, making it more capable of taking on the Shia militias and Shia-dominated government that they despise. Moreover, if the surrounding countries expel greater numbers of Iraqis, the returning refugees will only further spark sectarian tensions. Most cannot return to their homes because families of other sects now occupy them. The sectarian forces will likely use their demands as a rallying point for a renewed civil war.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14655

[K Gardner]

11. I'm just amazed that NO ONE seems to remember that Obama's response was in attempt

to answer a stupid HYPOTHETICAL question by Russert in the debate. He answered the question as presented to him. Even the MSM is reporting like he made the shit up or just said it out of thin air.

[sloppyjoe25s]

14. ya - but don't be amazed - that is the nature of the MSM

they love a "sound bite" and taking something out of context is second nature...

especially if it propells a story... - or fits an existing "narrative"

[sloppyjoe25s]

12. All totally true points

but unfortunately also -- at this stage -- a bit too advanced for the basis MSM narrative.

Many many many voters will never get to the level to understand your last post.

A key challenge for Obama will be to see if he can find the right way to "promote"
one of these themes into a "narrative" that the MSM will be able to propell into the electorate in a way
that McCain cannot counter.

I think he can - but I think it is not an entirely trivial proposition.

[jackson_dem]

7. If he makes it to the general he will be fine on this issue

The reason? He will keep troops in Iraq for this very purpose, although he doesn't mention it when he claims he will end the war. To be fair neither does Hillary.

[griffi94]

13. i agree with you

but i think he'll start mentioning it should he go on to win the nominataion.
he's going to have to move to the middle. that's just a fact. if he hopes to win in november he's going to need the independents and conservative dems, also moderate repubs. he's going to have go to the middle to get these, after all independents are mccains strong point as well. i expect his positions to get as close to mccains as they can without completely alienating his younger more liberal base.
imo it won't just be his iraq position that moves to the center, but most of his positions.

[Cameron27]

8. He gave a stupid answer

in the debate when he said he'd return troops to Iraq if Al Qaeda showed up. McCain taunted him with the fact that Al Qaeda's already there, so how do you think he should respond to that?

[SOS]

17. There are more Al Qaeda sympathizers and members in Indonesia than Iraq

9/11 was planned in Malaysia.
Saudi Arabians fund them.
Pakistan is filled to the rafters with Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Do we invade and occupy all of these countries?

The foreign Al Qaeda elements in Iraq will be wiped out by the Shiite militias the minute the US leaves.
Brutal, but true. It's already happening.

[Cameron27]

21. No, I wouldn't,

but I wasn't the who made the statement about returning US troops to Iraq if Al Qaeda showed up. You'd better ask Obama that question.

[TwilightGardener]

18. AQ in Iraq is NOT the same AQ in Pakistan/Afgh. that attacked us--

these are rag-tag Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters who are LOOSELY affiliated at best with AQ. The threat of AQ has been overblown in Iraq, and the Iraqis are fighting them anyway. We will leave some troops there to combat any serious AQ/terrorist presence--Obama has said so, and so has Hillary. What we're NOT going to do is stay forever to keep fighting the AQ boogeyman with 140,000 troops--they're not going to follow us home, they just want us out and are trying to stir the shit. McCain's AQ argument is all he's got to keep the war going--and it's bogus.

[Avalux]

26. He DID NOT say "if Al Qaeda showed up" - get the facts before you post.

"And if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." - this is the actual text.

We are told by Bushies that Al Qaeda in Iraq is weak and "on the run" and the surge is being successful. There's nothing wrong with what Obama said.

[WVRevy]

10. While you do have a point, it's also important to remember...

...that "Al Queda In Iraq" is NOT the same group that attacked us in 2001, hit the USS Cole, or has really done anything other than carry out attacks in Iraq. It was a group CREATED by our misguided policy in that country. In essence, "Al Queda in Iraq" is nothing more than a name some of the insurgents adopted to show their support for the enemy we claimed to be fighting.

In other words, while I'll agree it's important he not look flippant when answering questions about this issue, I also think it's a higher priority to get out the point that this group was CREATED by Bush, McCain, and everyone else that supported the invasion. Yes, they must be dealt with, but that is a SEPARATE issue, and one that he's better off acknowledging, speaking to, and changing the subject.

[Cameron27]

20. That's true,

but Obama's answer raises questions about his knowledge of the ground war going on over there. Do you know for a fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq has no ties to the global terrorist organization? Obama stepped in it with that answer & he still has to explain how he's going to withdraw troops with Al Qaeda having a presence in Iraq right now, without contradicting the statement he made during the debate.

[sloppyjoe25s]

27. I think you are right about AQ in Iraq

But I think the main stream media is FAR less subtle in it's reporting.

Everything is the same - all muslims - all countries over there -- basically all "terrrrists" to alof of
Americans.

I totally agree with you on the policy issue - I just think Obama needs to be careful about his tone, not get
AT ALL flippant, and come up with (yet another) excellent and well reasoned way to help average americans - and the media
put a whole new light on this.

It's more of a communications issue & I think he's up to it - but i'm curious what people think is the BEST way
to do it - what theme will RESONATE best with average Americans and the MSM?

The argument "we should never have gone in" resonates - but only goes so far.

As Obama said 'We are in the ditch' we need to get out - but most Americans don't have a clear idea of how.

[TwilightGardener]

15. I've never heard a true Hillary supporter start a thread about "I'm concerned about Hillary"--

and then proceed to criticize her using RW talking points. You're trying to reinforce the notion that he's naive, or doesn't understand the challenges of Iraq, or that he's smug or arrogant. I'm pretty confident that Obama understands what lies ahead, and how to frame it--but thanks for your concern.

[sloppyjoe25s]

22. yeah - read next post - I'm a real obama supporter

Shit - i praise him like mad in my thread.

And i rail on Mrs. Clinton. I think she falls short in so many ways it is hard to count.

I've been running a pro-obama web site for 5 months before he was even announced as a candidate!

[displacedtexan]

16. I knew it was just a matter of time before someone accused you

of not being a real Obama supporter.

Heavy sigh.

Your concerns are valid, as they would be for any candidate facing the R slime machine.

[quinnox]

19. McCain's advantages are many

against Obama. McCain will get the white males in big numbers over Obama, because he is "one of them".

"A red blooded true American hero, etc. "

All those republicans voting for Obama in the primary? Most will vanish and go to McCain.

And it is sad but racism and the Muslim thing will also be a big factor. Obama can deny it all he wants, but his name is a heavy anchor on him. Note: I didn't say he is Muslim, and he isn't, but the perception is that he is to many people because of his name and upbringing in a Muslim country and a internet disinformation campaign being waged against him, that is all that is important. The perception. It will be tough to beat that perception.



The experience argument is the biggest weakness of Obama by far, and Hillary didn't exploit it effectively at all.

McCain will, and it will be a much stronger argument because McCain's breadth of experience is wide and deep.

National security will be hammered over and over. McCain "I will keep America safe and strong" "Can we trust a young and inexperienced Obama to do the same?"

I'm fully prepared for a President McCain at this point. Good luck though to Obama, he will need it.

[sloppyjoe25s]

23. you may be right on some points

but i totally disagree on the black or muslim crap.

Obama will gain 5 votes in the middle for every 1 racist ass hat he loses.

SOOO many people in America are really really ready for a black president - it is actually a big advantage.
People here him, and unless they are total bigots - they immediately feel he can REALLY change things in a major way.

Also - I personally think Hillary would fare far worse against McCain - for myriad reasons - but
i accept that we'll probably just have to disagree on that one.

[whosinpower]

24. I'm not so sure of your analysis

Because, the economy, as well as the war will play a significant role in the upcoming elections.
The economy is in the gutter, and the war is universally hated. Just read an article by a nobel laureate explaining that the subprime mortgage crisis is a direct result of America's spending spree on the Iraq war - and that war was estimated to have cost the nation almost 3 TRILLION dollars....once a person includes medical costs of veterans returning, with physical and psychological injuries, rising costs of gas etc. Keep America safe, strong.....and bankrupt.

Obama is being very smart by tying McCain to Bush every time he goes on attack. Every time he puts the two of them together, and Bush' popularity is at historic lows.

[americanstranger]

29. Yep. 'George W. Bush and John McCain invaded Iraq...'

That was a big line in his response, and I'm sure that his advisors are telling him to do that every time he responds to McCain.

After a few months of that, people will be thinking that Bush is running for preznit again - which, by proxy, he is. McCain is promoising to continue the failed policies of Bush.

And if he wants to do that, Obama should tie them around his neck like an anchor.

- as

[Window]

38. I agree, He should absolutely tie McCain to Bush every chance he gets.

Also, McCain has troubles of his own that can be exploited.

[kentuck]

40. Absolutely !

He should make him disavow Bush or make him embrace him. McCain will try to tiptoe around the issue. And that is the issue.

[kristopher]

33. I'm a middle age, gun toting, pickup truck driving, exmilitary white male

and I would never vote McCain. I think Obama has what it takes to be Commander in Chief - sound, sober judgement.

I trust he won't throw away the lives of those who are serving this nation. My Marine Corp daugher and son-in-law feel the same way.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Good post. My husband is a middle-age, pickup truck-driving, red-state,

CURRENT active-duty military white male, who also thinks Obama should be the next CiC.

[blm]

43. Since McCain is completely linked to Bush's strategies on Iraq, PLUS with less

sway over the fundies as Bush had, I don't think it will be as big a problem as you perceive.

[kristopher]

28. Good post but

I think you are underestimating Obama. I think he is going to be at his best when he is "toe to toe" with McCain.

When we see them side by side, no filters to slant or cherry pick, the opportunity to directly rebut, he is going to kick McCain's ass in a way that Hillary simply could not do.

[Window]

39. Spot on analysis

[kentuck]

31. People must be concerned that we are not driven into another ditch...

And that concern is very real with John McCain. He is tied at the hip to George W Bush.

[sloppyjoe25s]

34. That may be one of the best new themes! thank you!

Thank you for actually answering the question.

I think it's possble that Obama could propel the teme that John AssFace McCain actually is War Hungry.

I think it's true - but it has to be done carefully and subtly - or it will backfire.

But there would be a good chance to have Americans understand that:

"If you don't want to end up in every fucking ditch - try driving carefully!"

(it's essentially the judgment argument - but it creates a more serious tone - because it is a direct statement
that we face alot more threats, and it is a statement that why we NEED someone who will deal with those
threats intelligently)

I really wish more people on this thread would answer with ideas for what MAY be a good
additional narrative for Obama to promote on forein policy - thank you for yours.

[kentuck]

36. It is about judgement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4810116

[Window]

37. Obama was right on. McCain was smirking and mocking him,