Monday, July 7, 2008

Flip Floppin' Through the Summer

The predictable cries of “flip-flop” were heard last week when Obama backtracked from his (absurd) primary promises to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq on his pre-determined timeline, whatever the consequences. He used these earlier promises to draw a contrast between himself and Hillary, who did not have the luxury of claiming to have always opposed the war in Iraq. Now Obama is having to deal with the publicity fallout of his “refinement” of his timetable for troop withdrawal, convening hastily planned follow-up press conferences and then blaming the media for not understanding his nuanced positions in the first place regarding “the mission”, “tactical decisions” and so forth. In one sense it is nice to see Obama squirm a little bit, since he has generally been confronted with nothing short of a fawning press corps up to now (the Rev. Wright couple of weeks notwithstanding).

I get increasingly frustrated with the “flip-flop” charge in political campaigns. On the one side, perhaps it indicates indecisiveness and lack of knowledge or experience. That is certainly what McCain’s people will claim (and should claim, strategically speaking). On the other hand, the shrill cries of “flip-flopper” seem to deny that a candidate can develop his own views over time and rightfully change his mind as circumstances demand. Put it in the context of the business world. What would a corporate Board do to an executive who stuck to certain policies and principles no matter how the markets shifted or developed? They’d fire his ass for being inflexible and not being cognizant enough of his ever changing environment. Now, I know that this comparison is not completely valid. You do need a set of core values and principles to define yourself when dealing with domestic policy and with other nations. But with Obama here, this does not seem to be a case of changing core values. This is a case of him finally speaking to military commanders and getting the scoop on the entire situation.

McCain is right in the sense that Obama should have been seeking these military perspectives a hell of a lot earlier than now. McCain has visited Iraq multiple times to see for himself. Obama should have been doing the same. McCain can rightly counter that this has been the situation all along (at least through the primary season up to now), so a wiser statesman would have realized it sooner than last week.


ABOVE: Perhaps Obama finally understands the situation in Iraq

I will tell you this. I have been looking for excuses to support Obama. I really like him and respect him, and in many ways I feel that his election would be a positive seismic event for our country. But one of the main things that hold me back is his (now previous?) position on Iraq.

McCain’s folks will hurl accusations of “flip-flopper” at him (and I don’t blame them, they have to) and liberal bloggers and other leftists will wring their hands and cry in their lattes that he may not be the Great Left Hope that they had imagined. BUT, for that huge and crucial number of voters who hover around the great Middle (either slightly left of it or slightly right)…Obama’s “refinements” might just win him the election. Before last week there was no way I would vote for Obama. After last week, there is now a small chance that I will. I have always supported and respected John McCain, but his time was 2000. He got screwed by the Rove machine in South Carolina. And honestly I think McCain can be more effective as the “maverick” Senator than as President. No knock on McCain, he is one of the most significant American politicians of the last decade.

But I am ready for some Obama magic. The deal breaker for me is if he screws up our crucial successes in Iraq because of some asinine pre-determined withdrawal date. I’ll say it again: your views on whether Bush should have gone in to Iraq in the first place are largely irrelevant as to what should be done now. Perhaps Obama himself now sees the stupidity of his primary-era statements after finally speaking to the commanders and men and women on the ground. I believe that I have stated this before, but I’ve got a couple of good friends who have served over there. One friend, who has served two tours and will probably go back for a third, insists that our progress in Iraq is real and positive. He says that amongst the people who are on the ground, the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of finishing the job. He says within the last year there has been an incredible change in the population’s attitudes and feelings about the future. There is an optimism in Iraq that was not present a year ago, and many of the citizens acknowledge that the U.S. forces are largely responsible. John McCain has understood that all along. Maybe Obama is starting to understand that as well. Keep “refining”, Barry. I’ll be watching intently.

5 comments:

pockyjack said...

You are seriously overthinking this. You do not honestly believe that he has changed his opinion from the primaries till now just by talking to certain generals. This is no different than his position change on NAFTA. He took the extreme liberal position to defeat Hillary, now he is taking the moderate position to defeat McCain. He is simply shifting policies to defeat the next opponent. The funny thing is that he not even that good at it. At least Kerry could explain away the differences using the vagaries of language and technical vs actual differences. Obama, on the other hand has been much more articulate on his positions. The problem is that he is too clear for his own good. I am ashamed that you are comparing this to a CEO who can't shift as the circumstances change. It has nothing to do with that. It is pure politics. Plain and simple.

JMW said...

You say there's a small chance you'll vote for Obama. But you've "been looking for excuses to support Obama." You say "his election would be a positive seismic event for our country." You believe that "McCain can be more effective as the 'maverick' Senator than as President." Best of all, you're "ready for some Obama magic."

You sound like an Obama voter to me, my friend. I, too, respect McCain, though not as much as in 2000. Everybody makes political maneuvers, the kind that pockyjack decries above. But who's moved more than McCain, who had great integrity in 2000 when he was railroaded by the disgusting tactics of Rove, spoke up against them, and then embraced Bush over the next eight years.

Given how campaigning works in this country, the fact is that we won't know for sure what any candidate will do about Iraq until at least January 2009. You say that the dealbreaker would be screwing up "our crucial successes in Iraq." But those successes are only relative to the great non-success of Bush/Rumsfeld's original tactics and understanding of the task.

pockyjack said...

I don't get the fascination with this guy. Let me change that.I COMPLETELY get the fascination with this guy, but it makes no sense. At the end of the day, people want to elect a king that will make them feel good about themselves. Like Kennedy - Great statesman but mediocre to horrible president. Shure he made a great speech, but he expanded the welfare state and led to many of the problems we have today.

That is why this guy scares me so much. Not that he is necessarily liberal - which I think he probably is - but the guy seems either horrifically naive - which I think he probably is, though very intelligent - or too unprincipled.

His foreign policy sound awful, his economic policies are a joke (complete political pandering and fiscally unsound), and his cultural policies scare me.

But damn! he makes us feel good about ourselves when we hear him talk. So much more than Bush. Yeh. we should vote for the guy.

Le Chat said...

I find this post interesting, because Obama's campaigning - his flip-flopping - absolutely reinforces my desire NOT to vote for him in November. Yes, all presidential contenders ultimately tack center. But, Obama's maneuvers trouble me more because, when coupled with the embarrassing paucity of a legislative record, one is left wondering, what exactly, if anything, does he believe in?? What stand would he take as President of the United States? In 2007 he was bound and determined to have a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, now he espouses a more nuanced approach. NAFTA, FISA, gun control, death penalty - these are all positions that he has shifted on in the last MONTH. We're not even talking about evolving over time. I would say we could turn to positions he took during his time as a senator, and in the Illinois state government, but oh wait, he voted "present," or wasn't even at, many significant votes. Taking all this into account, it seems pretty hard to guess which Obama might actually show up in the West Wing, should he be elected. I guess he'll decide based on some Zogby polls.

By the way, if you didn't see it, the Boston Globe had a very interesting piece last week on Obama's dealings with privatization of public housing projects back in Chicago. It doesn't come off as awe-inspiring leadership or decision-making.

Dezmond said...

Le Chat - yes, he has shifted on all of those positions (Iraq, FISA, gun control, NAFTA)...but in the right (as in, correct) direction on all of them!

So, I guess the question is whether he was saying what he needed to say in order to succeed in the primaries (and not really mean it)...or is he saying what he needs to say now to succeed in the general election (and not really mean it). Who knows.

JMW was making a little too much of the fact that I said there was now a "slight" chance I would vote for Obama. Right now my vote is still for McCain. But Obama did open the door for my vote, at least, when he started tacking center. Not that it really matters, as I live in Texas. Texas will go McCain.