July 07, 2008

7/7: A Question Of Semantics?

The blogosphere is abuzz over Barack Obama's comments about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, in which he said that he will "continue to refine my policies" based on conditions on the ground. Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of walking back his previous promise to bring all troops home within 16 months. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are arguing that Obama's position is entirely consistent and that he has always tried to preserve some flexibility with regard to withdrawing troops from Iraq. Marc Ambinder gives a good run-down of the debate over Obama's comments here. If the press coverage is any indication, it appears that conservative bloggers are winning the argument in the mainstream media (to the Left's consternation).

OBAMA: What Inconsistency?

Liberal bloggers are pushing back hard against accusations that Obama is "softening his Iraq withdrawal time line" and are arguing that Obama's position is entirely consistent:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I must confess to being little short of astounded by the avalanche of press BS I'm reading on Barack Obama's position on Iraq. The [John] McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don't appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. [...] Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy. This is an elementary distinction the current occupant in the White House has continually tried to confuse by claiming that his policies are driven and constrained by the advice he's given by his commanders on the ground. There's nothing odd or contradictory about Obama saying that he'll change the policy to one of withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq with a specific timetable but that he will consult with his military advisors about how best to execute that policy. For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment."
• Marshall continues: "The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it's the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn't some gotcha line. It's a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's role in the world and future in the Middle East. Reporters who can't grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush's game-playing over delegating policy to commanders."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The latest zombie lie [is] that Obama changed his Iraq position. He didn't. [...] Obama's strategy is to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, but he'll listen to commanders' advice about how. That's it. McCain's campaign has been (successfully) pitching reporters on the idea that Obama's strategy on Iraq has somehow shifted fundamentally. It hasn't. Obama wants to end the war; McCain has no plan to. Rinse, repeat."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Basically, unless Obama comes out and says something like 'I'm a totally unreasonable person whose views on Iraq will in no way be influenced by anyone's advice or any possible factual developments' he's now a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, John McCain's views on Iraq receive no scrutiny whatsoever."
• Mark Kleiman: "It seems as if no matter how often Barack Obama repeats his position that we need to get our combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as we safely can the press is committed to making him seem unsure about his position. And of course it's always possible to put him in a fork: 'Are you wishy-washy, or are you such a fanatic that you're impervious to new facts and to expert opinion?'"

OBAMA II: He's Been Saying This The Whole Time!

In denying that Obama has altered his position on troop withdrawal, liberal bloggers are pointing out that Obama has said on previous occasions that it could take as long as 16 months to bring all U.S. troops home:

• Oliver Willis: "So, let me get this straight, Sen. Obama says what he has said for almost two years now -- that he will draw down troops from Iraq in a responsible matter while consulting the generals...and the media sees some kind of change? Are the barbecues on John McCain's palatial ranch that good that they have to resort to this sort of distortion so early?"
• Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman: "Last November, Obama said the U.S. must make sure 'we are not just willy-nilly removing troops' and that it may 'take a little bit longer' in some areas where there is less stability. Last March, Obama said he would listen to military commanders and give their opinions on Iraq great weight. So now, when he says those things again, why are the presstitutes yammering that he's changed his position? [...] And the esteemed members of the press wonder why we hate them."
• Democracy Arsenal's Shawn Brimley: "Senator Obama has not changed his position on Iraq! I really don't understand how the media can get these things so completely wrong. Obama has always stated his intention to end the war in Iraq. His desire has been to withdraw one or two brigades (~3,500 troops each) a month until all combat troops are out. This is his intention. He has always held firm however to the imperative to be as careful leaving Iraq as we were careless getting in. It's amazing to me how even the prospect of taking a little more time leaving Iraq due to the conditions on the ground (it is a war after all, and no plan surives first contact with reality) is somehow taken to be an error or something to be criticized. There is a real, vital, basic difference between the candidates -- one intends to leave, another intends to stay. It's that simple people."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Some are interpreting [Obama's] comments as either a reversal or evidence of a looming reversal. I don't see it that way at all. In fact, if you'd told me that these exact same remarks came from Obama in February, I'd believe you. As the Democratic primary process unfolded, the [Hillary] Clinton campaign tried to get out in front of this issue by saying that she was committed to her withdrawal plan -- no matter what. When Clinton's communications director was pressed on whether Clinton would proceed with a withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground, he said, 'Yes.' Obama was never actually willing to go there, and as far as I can tell, has always given himself some flexibility on troop withdrawal."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "During the primary, agreeing with Clinton would have been the popular thing to do. Obama did not do it. And he was right not to. Preserving some flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances is almost always the right thing to do, and this is especially true when you're talking about your policy for something like Iraq."

OBAMA III: Flip-Flop Alert!

Conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's troop withdrawal comments as a shameless reversal:

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "If I had been a Clinton supporter -- or just a leftist committed to defeat in Iraq -- I'd be pretty bitter about this one. [...] Anyone who's observed politics for any period of time is used to some finessing of positions between the primary and general elections. But the scope and the boldness of Barack's flip-flopping is really breathtaking. This should be a warning to any conservative or Republican who, in a moment of madness, might even contemplate voting for Barack (or not voting for John McCain). Barack said what the left-wing constituency in the Democrat primaries wanted to hear -- and now he hasn't hesitated to crumple them up and throw them away like a dirty Kleenex."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "This is another instance of the phenomenon that I tried to describe in 'Opportunism knocks, part 3'. It would be a mistake to take Obama's articulation of his antiwar position seriously in roughly the same sense that it would be to take his modulation of his antiwar position seriously."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's official. The Obama campaign has entered John Kerry territory when it comes to changing positions on Iraq."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "It is difficult to see how Obama can 'refine policies' concerning a troop withdrawal without potentially refining the 16 month timetable that he set for himself so his claims that he would leave the timetable untouched even though he might 'refine policies' makes no sense and can't even plausibly be offered up as promises."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "[Obama] had declared the war lost and withdrawal an imperative when it was politically expedient. Now it seems that the reality on the ground (both polling in the US and the security in Iraq, in that order) has shifted, and Barack Obama is about to change his position. Where John McCain put the war above his election, Barack Obama puts the election above the war, and everything else. The lesson here is that Barack Obama is willing to sacrifice anything and everything for his political ambitions. No friend is too close, no promise so (seemingly) heartfelt, no principle so great will get in the way of his election. Now there is a contrast with John McCain."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Are Obama and the left really so naive as to think that vague platitudes about being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in register vividly enough with the public as to save him from the perception now that he's tacking right?"

Meanwhile, Power Line's John Hinderaker makes a prediction: "Obama will continue to drift centerward over the next four months. By November, his position on Iraq will be hard to distinguish from John McCain's. Both candidates will say that we want to get our troops out as soon as possible, but should only do so at a pace that does not endanger Iraq's hard-won stability. This, by the way, is why the Democrats are so determined to peddle the myth that McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. That's dumb, obviously. McCain, like President Bush, would like nothing better than to bring our troops home. But the Obama camp needs to distract attention from the fact that Obama's current position on the war represents an admission that McCain was right all along. If the candidates' positions on Iraq not only converge between now and November, but are widely seen as converging, Iraq may be largely taken off the table as an issue, and the election will be won by the candidate who most vigorously advocates drilling for oil and natural gas."

OBAMA IV: How Much Is The McCain Camp Paying You, AP?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven -- and the AP more generally -- for Loven's latest article, in which she wonders whether Obama is going to be "shadowed by giant flip-flops":

• Marshall: "Associated Press officially endorses McCain."
• Willis: "Did McCain invite the entire AP staff over for barbecue?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Jennifer Loven is giving AP's Liz Sidoti a run for her money They're probably fighting for the seat on McCain's plane."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I argued the other day that the Associated Press seemed to be taking sides, rather blatantly, in the presidential election. With each passing day, it appears the wire service is dropping the pretense altogether. At this point, it goes beyond just the AP giving John McCain donuts and McCain giving the AP barbecue. First there was the slam-job on Obama that read like an RNC oppo dump, followed by a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Obama's decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election, filled with errors of fact and judgment. When Obama unveiled his faith-based plan this week, the AP got the story backwards. When Obama talked about his Iraq policy Thursday, the AP said he'd 'opened the door' to reversing course, even though he hadn't. [...] Yesterday, the AP pushed the objectivity envelope a little further with a mind-numbing, 1,100-word piece on Obama 'being shadowed by giant flip-flops.' [...] This AP piece, written by Jennifer Loven, argues that Obama has 'shifted to the center' on Iraq. That, of course, isn't true. In fact, I know this with some certainly in large part because Jennifer Loven went on to tell me that Obama hasn't changed his position on Iraq. How does one shift and not shift at the same time on the same issue? It's apparently a mystery that only the AP knows."
• The Jed Report: "In the wake of Jennifer Loven's excruciatingly awful AP hatchet job on Barack Obama, it's worth noting again that Rupert Murdoch joined the AP Board of Directors in April."

OBAMA V: What Say You, NARAL?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing Obama for telling a Christian magazine that "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "NARAL leaders ought to feel like idiots. [...] As I've said all along about [Obama's] religious outreach, you don't get something for nothing and if he wants the evangelical vote, he's going to have to offer them something. Is this it?"
• The Huffington Post's Erin Kotecki Vest: "NARAL endorsed Obama. They believe 'A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family.' If Obama acts on his position, he'd be going against NARAL and other pro-choice entities."
• Digby: "The pro-choice position on this is well founded in the law. The health of the mother has always been the exception to the prohibitions allowed under Roe vs Wade and that includes mental health. I don't know who Obama thinks is going to decide that a girl or woman isn't 'mentally distressed' enough not to give birth against her will, but I can't see that it can logically be anyone other than the woman herself and the people in her life who know the state of her health. Perhaps we can have a bunch of congressmen, senators and judges taking turns making that decision on a case by case basis? It worked for [ex-TN Sen.] Bill Frist in the Schiavo case."

OBAMA VI: To The Right Of Roe?

Several conservative bloggers are also discussing Obama's abortion comments:

• NRO's Yuval Levin: "To the growing list of Barack Obama's tactical moves to the right on terrorist wiretapping, gun control, trade, Iraq and the like we can now add abortion as well. [...] As with his other recent 'refinements,' his substantive move here would certainly be a welcome one, even an important one from such a prominent Democrat, if there were any reason at all to believe him. But given how quickly and seamlessly he has appeared to switch positions on so many prominent issues in the last few weeks, and how he has tried to present each new position as what he has always believed (rather than, in this case for instance, make a point of having come to disagree with at least the most extreme views of the abortion lobby) it is hard to imagine that either side on any of these issues finds much comfort in these increasingly peculiar neck-snapping reversals."
• RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "Obama's position here is only confined to late-term abortions, and thus only puts him slightly to the right of Bill Clinton on this issue, but in line with the vast majority of Americans who believe that late term abortions ought to be generally illegal. It should also be noted that this is diametrically opposed to everything Obama has ever said and every vote he has ever cast on abortion prior to this point, including his criticism of the Supreme Court's decision which upheld a federal law outlawing partial birth abortion and his refusal to vote to protect children who survive abortions and are born alive, so many conservatives will no doubt strongly suspect (with good reason) that this is mere election-year pandering. [...] But that doesn't mean that Obama should not be lauded for rejecting the extremism and the fanaticism of the worst elements of the Democratic base like NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned Parenthood. It is good to know that whatever Barack personally feels about abortion, he has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Obama's comments on 'mental distress' being an invalid health exception to a late-term abortion ban go against the standard set by Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. It also contradicts Obama's co-sponsorship and continued support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would among other things essentially codify the Roe/Doe regime, including requiring mental-health exceptions that would render most late-term abortion bans essentially meaningless."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's All About Consistency

Ezra Klein:

"In 2004, one of the early indicators of Kerry's eventual loss was that the Democrats never settled on a single line of attack against Bush. They switched jarringly between claims of incompetence, ideology, obstinance, corruption, inexperience, and inattention. The Republicans, by contrast, just called Kerry a flip-flopper, over and again.

By contrast, this year it's the Democrats who settled early on a description for their opponent: McCain is running for Bush's third term. By contrast, in the past month, the McCain campaign has tried deriding Obama's candidacy as 'just words,' attacked him for inexperience, insisted he was untrustworthy, and as of this week, are trotting out 'flip-flopper.' The message changes on days ending in 'y.' Not a good sign for them."

LEST WE FORGET: It's A Texting World

From "Overheard in the Office":

Manager to employee: Amanda, WTF?
Employee: Did you just swear at me in acronym?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 7, 2008 01:30 PM