13 Responses to “It Depends On What The Meaning Of “Fixed” Is”

1. Adam01, on July 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm Said:

   The more I see of Obama and his ability to finesse these issues, the more I am impressed with the sheer brazen audacity of his campaign. Democrats are in the exact same position in 2008 that they were in 1992, desperate for victory, they will be willing to look over a great many transgressions and flip flops, and Obama knows it.
   How positively…Clintonian.

   Cheers to all, and happy Independence Day.

   -Adam

2. This is how it begins « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler, on July 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm Said:

   [...] P.S. As I write this, I see that Larison offers some similar thoughts on Obama’s panderrific backsliding politically astute pragmatism. [...]

3. John, on July 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm Said:

   How positively…Clintonian.

   Exactly. I am proud to say that I made that exact comparison in a comments thread a couple of months ago, and indeed did so a day before Ezra Klein wrote a post worrying about precisely those potential parallels. Hmm …

4. DaveA, on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm Said:

   Adam01 goes a bit further than I would, but I think the thrust is basically correct. At least to me, the Obama campaign appears to have decided that the Democrats’ edge in voter registration, voter ID, and the corresponding trough in GOP voter enthusiasm for this election represent crushing advantages, and that the key now is — to paraphrase “The Price is Right” — to get as close to McCain as they can without going over. McCain’s for the FISA deal? So (mumblewithreservationsmumble) is Obama? McCain won’t pull the troops out? Neither will Obama (mumblewithreservationsmumble).

   The idea is to give McCain no way to draw any clear lines of differentiation, and let the theoretical “natural Democratic wave” simply wash him away. Will it work? Well, it hasn’t attracted this Paul supporter’s vote, but on another forum I commented on Obama’s flip-flop on FISA, only to by told by a Bush/Limbaugh/McCain Republican that said flip-flop was the first thing he liked about Obama, and that it demonstrated a growing awareness of world affairs! I’m going to bet he’ll feel the same way about the Iraq walkback.

5. Daniel Larison, on July 3rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm Said:

   In other words, the plan is to imitate the opposing party on its worst policies in order to bring about change. That would be clever, if it were credible.

6. kitstolz, on July 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm Said:

   Obama has been saying on the campaign trail for over a year that on the first day in office, he would call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ask them to change the mission in Iraq. He said that again today. Because he used the word “refine” at some point people seem to be flipping out, but surely any President save one utterly “fixed” in his views and unable to face facts would evolve his views on a situation as complex as Iraq, don’t you think?

   Charles Krauthammer and the McCain campaign, both of whom are inalterably committed to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are trying to stampede the credulous into thinking that a change in our policy on Iraq would be dangerous. The real danger is that we make no change, and continue our occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

7. Daniel Larison, on July 4th, 2008 at 12:11 am Said:

   He is articulating a different position now than the one he has maintained in the past, and he is setting standards that ensure that withdrawal of combat forces will be delayed for a very long time. This is not a small thing.

8. James_Nostack, on July 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am Said:

   What was Obama’s earlier position? And by “earlier” I mean, say, a year ago? The impression I get is that during this election season he was always in favor of a conditional draw-down.

9. Roach, on July 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am Said:

   Obama’s embrace of the anti-war position was always opportunistic. It was an outgrowth of his early 1980s view that we should not be spending money on bombs and aircraft carriers while schools have bake sales and black people don’t have jobs. His passions, beyond his own ambition, are tribal and domestic. So is it any surprise that he is malleable on this for reasons of expediency. He doesn’t care about foreign policy. Most black politicians in the US do not and neither does their constituency. He wants that money at home, though I imagine he would support Darfur type operations because it’s humanitarian and an extension of his manifest tribalism.

   The guy is a complete fraud. It’s funny so many anti-war Democrats and Paleoconservatives have fallen for him, as they have.

10. DaveA, on July 4th, 2008 at 10:48 am Said:

    “In other words, the plan is to imitate the opposing party on its worst policies in order to bring about change. That would be clever, if it were credible.”

    “Its worst policies” to guys like you and me. But to many others, these policies are very good things. There is, sadly, plenty of support out there for giving the government vast eavesdropping capabilities, and for staying in Iraq — especially now that the “the surge is working meme has propagated so successfully.

11. Ratufa, on July 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am Said:

    Obama is trying to win the election. This means broadening his support outside of his Democratic primary voters and pre-empting charges from the Republicans that he’d be reckless in Iraq (as if they should be talking, but that’s another story). Hence the caveats about what he’d do in Iraq. Hence the TV ads that I’m being bombarded with (I’m in Pennsylvania) that talk about how Obama is a regular guy with heartland values who believes in hard work, dislikes welfare, likes tax cuts for the working class, and loves America. For example, I saw this last night:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVTBiGh00c

    If this sort of positioning makes you uncomfortable, well that’s politics. If you think it’s Clintonian, remember that Bill Clinton won two presidential elections. If you think that this positioning necessarily means a big change in what Obama would actually do if he is elected, think again. He’s left himself plenty of wiggle room. If you’re shocked, shocked, to find out that Obama is actually a politician instead of Chauncey Gardiner, I have some surprising news about the Tooth Fairy as well. And if you’re an Obama supporter and would rather he lose than win by engaging in this sort of politics, keep that thought in mind next year as you read about President McCain’s foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments.

    Do Obama’s political maneuverings contradict his “no politics as usual” talk? To some extent, yes. To the extent that he’s adopting personal attacks like the “The Democrats want the terrorists win” talk that comes from certain quarters, no. Up to a point, which hasn’t been crossed yet, I’ll take what I can get. Of more concern, at least to someone who supports him, is whether this stuff helps Obama. I can see arguments either way, but the big question right now for him is how to win larger, less classicly liberal, battleground states like Pennsylvania. Hence TV ads like the one linked to above.

    And, lest we forget, the person he’s running against has basically said whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, in order to win over the various factions of the Republican party.

12. Daniel Larison, on July 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm Said:

    I understand that politics requires hedging and maneuvering. I am so sick of this attitude from his defenders that everyone who objects to his unscrupulous opportunism is a naive idealist. I have never expected anything else from Obama, and I have been insistent for months that antiwar conservatives who believe Obama’s promises are likely to be disappointed. What would shock me is if Obama ever took a stand that required real political risk.

13. Eunomia » Practical Problems, on July 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Said:

    [...] It Depends On What The Meaning Of “Fixed” Is  11 Daniel Larison, Ratufa, DaveA [...] [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.