Does Victory in Iraq Help Obama?
July 23rd, 2008 at 09:25am Mark Noonan
Interesting recent poll from Rasmussen:
Nearly half of Americans (48%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, as opposed to 20% who give the nod to the terrorists, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey. These figures reflect a dramatic improvement from a year ago—in July 2007, only 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. An equal number thought the terrorists held the advantage.
The 28-point difference is the most favorable margin recorded by Rasmussen Reports since tracking began in January 2004 and seems to reflect a growing confidence among adults that the tide is turning in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The previous high was established on September 6, 2004 when 52% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning but 26% thought the terrorists were winning at that time for a 26-point favorable margin.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) now think the situation in Iraq will get better over the coming six months while only 25% expect it to get worse. A year ago, the assessment was far more pessimistic—just 23% said that things would get better while 49% offered the more pessimistic response. Another recent poll showed that 40% now believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the War in Iraq.
The new findings also show 45% now believe the United States is safer today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, while 37% believe otherwise. Those figures are also the most optimistic on record.
The standard line about the end of the Cold War is that by putting the fear of nuclear war to bed, it allowed for a foreign policy lightweight - Bill Clinton- to win the White House. Its a great theory, but it forgets that 57% of the American people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992…hardly a ringing endorsement of Clinton’s policy prescriptions. But, today, the same idea is alive and well - heck, over at NRO’s The Corner some people seem to think that the mis-reported story of Maliki on Obama’s Iraq plan has pretty much wrecked McCain’s chances for November. The word is out - the American people really, really want to vote for a Democrat in November and McCain’s only shot was to convince the American people that with a war going on, placing our bets on the inexperienced Obama was too dangerous. And now that victory is breaking out in Iraq, that line is gone for good.
While there are a couple of third party candidates out there on the left and the right, my view is that for Obama to win he’s going to have to do something that no Democrat has managed in 32 years - score an outright majority of the vote in November. He can do it, but thus far the polling shows him consistently falling short and never showing any movement which would indicate he’s on his way to a majority. McCain seems stuck in the electoral doldrums, too - hardly ever breaking 45% in polling (though Rasmussen has recently showed Obama and McCain tied at 46%). What it seems to me is that while Obama has wowed his base, he’s not doing much with anyone else - meanwhile, McCain is doing remarkably well amongst independent voters, but has yet to enthuse the GOP base for November. Key to victory for McCain is energising the base, key for Obama is appealing outside the left.
In this McCain has an advantage. Obama is pretty much locked in to very leftwing positions - he’s tried to triangulate himself out of them, but he can’t stray too far towards the center lest he alienate too much of his base. McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of chances to make the argument to the GOP base that they’d better get excited about him - on taxes, spending, judges and the war, McCain is just what the GOP doctor ordered. McCain has two ways to do his job - propose conservative ideas, and point out Obama’s ultra liberal ideas, and what they’ll mean for America. In both cases, McCain can make a strong pitch for enthused GOP support.
So, while Obama and his Democrats might be thinking that the victory in Iraq gets them off the hook and they can just say “Afghanistan” from time to time and allow domestic issues to carry them to victory, in my view the victory in Iraq gives McCain the chance to force Obama on the defensive initially on just war issues, but eventually on the worthiness of his whole program. A man who can be so wrong about Iraq can also be wrong about other things - like whether or not he’ll be able to stick it out in Afghanistan; whether or not his health care plan is good for America; whether or not his energy policy has what it takes…on issue after issue, Obama’s manifestly bad judgement on Iraq can be used to question his fitness on other issues. And while doing this, McCain can continually point out his correctness on Iraq and how this courageous and right decision lays the groundwork for him to have the courage and wisdom to tackle judicial issues, Afghanistan, taxation, government waste, etc, etc, etc.
If attitudes about the war are improving as Rasmussen’s survey shows, then there may soon come a time when McCain’s pro-victory stance from 2007 switches from liability to asset, while Obama’s 2007 defeatism (already being shoved down the memory hole as far as Obama can manage it) will show through more and more as the foolhardy opinion of a man who hasn’t the knowledge, guts or wisdom to be President.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
26 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | July 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Wild Bill won due to Ross Perot.
Clinton didn’t get a majority in either election.
2. neocon | July 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Hey I have an idea, let’s leave the handlers, the MSM, and teleprompters behind and have a debate between the two candidates in an open forum where they can field questions from concerned voters.
This way we can see which candidate has a better grasp of the issues absent their scripts.
How, um……….uh…how does uh…………..um…….uh…that……uh……how does that sound?
3. jayhay | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
You guy’s current scam is to start looking at the decisions in 2007 so you can get all surge-y and point at McCain the military genius, instead of going back before this trillion dollar debacle began in Iraq and see who called it right. And as Obama points out, we simply don’t know what would have happened if we’d skipped the surge and just started DELIBERATELY pulling out. (I know you guys know for sure since you are magical seers of truth…)
Neo “I guarantee it” con… which candidate gets it right without a script? McCain is a string of foreign policy gaffes - he’s lucky the press is more interested in Obama’s story or he’d be getting fried. Yesterday’s mixup on which happened first, the Sunni awakening or the surge, was a classic example of his actual foreign policy prowess. And when is he even going to HAVE a foreign policy section at his website for crissakes?
And his statement yesterday that Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign” is the classic GOP slander that you guys think is all fine and dandy. It isn’t. Turn the other cheek my a**. It’s shameless, dishonest, insulting and desperate.
See you in November.
4. navydad | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Here are just a few Obama gaffes jahay can chew on.
“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.” –at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip)
“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?” –after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania
“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” –explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters
“The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
“Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions.” –exasperated by reporters after a news conference
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” –on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people
BTW, don’t ya just love the way Obama is now talking about the unemployment rate in Iraq, when wasn’t it him that said “we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place”. Sounds as if he’s seeking an Iraq victory to use as a marketing tool with the Blue Dog Dems.
5. HeyHey | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
On Sunday, after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki indicated support for a 16-month U.S. withdrawal, the U.S. military distributed a statement from Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh saying Maliki was “misunderstood and mistranslated.” But The New Republic reports that “Maliki actually got a copy of the interview before it was printed and had the option to make any changes.” A writer at Der Spiegel sent TNR the following statement:
The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to “authorize” the interviews before they go to press. It wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama’s plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious.
6. OhioOrrin | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
jayhay & heyhey - it’s true that the invasion was unjustifiable given no nukes & no AQ/Iraq alliance &/or 9/11 collaboration.
it’s also true that the “Rummy light” scenario, which replaced the Powell doctrine used in Gulf 1, lead to the occupation debacle which was corrected by the surge.
the left is trapped by its own arguments that we can’t know what would’ve happened had we pulled out as obama advocated (clearly implying a reduction of violence) vs we were caught in the middle of a civil war.
u can’t have it both ways.
7. Dennis | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Deleted - off topic.
8. \'08ama | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
McSame … “Pakistan borders Iceland”
McSame… “Sunni’s and Shiia’s are the same thing, it’s widely known.”
McSame… “The course is broken therefore, we must STAY THE COURSE!”
is november here yet ?
9. jayhay | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Wow navy, that’s it? “Waffles”? McCain blows it in his “strong suit”, Iraq (which I’ll repeat is his only section on his website regarding foreign policy…) and you have “waffles”? Obviously if Obama had made that inane statement you wouldn’t be able to find a font big enough for your headline.
Now Obama is cruising through the Middle East and Europe, stronger every day, McCain waving gamely from Bush Sr.’s golf cart (where he should stay, by the way), complaining no one is paying attention to him (and then he adds to it by handing out “J.V. Squad” luggage tags to the press following him - THAT must make them happy to be stuck on that assignment…), and next Obama will speak in Berlin and McCain will start scrambling around trying to keep up with Obama’s themes.
And P.S. to “Culture of Death” Noonan, the original story on Maliki’s statements was accurate, as a commenter noted above. Accurate, and they keep repeating for emphasis - they want us out by 2010. Where do you guys get your news anyway? Just curious, cause wherever it is they aren’t doing you guys any favors leaving you out on a limb with debunked info. Seriously, where do you get your news? I’ll check it out.
10. '08ama | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
JayHay:
You’ve never heard of the Fox ‘News’ Channel haven’t you ?
11. Fredrick Schwartz | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
6. OhioOrrin | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
You appear to be the only sane man here Ohio, but none of these Bull Connor, Conservative Citizens Council wannabes are willing to make the leap of reason that when the war is over and stability is satisfactory to the Iraqi government that the United States military HAS to leave Iraq for its own good.
12. test » Blog Archive&hellip | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[...] Abdelilah Boukili wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSo, while Obama and his Democrats might be thinking that the victory in Iraq gets them off the hook and they can just say “Afghanistan” from time to time and allow domestic issues to carry them to victory, in my view the victory in Iraq … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
13. bagni | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
markmaliki:
“mccain is just what the gop doctored ordered”
?????
after reading your past posts
us martian medics think you’d be much healthier with mitt as head m.d.
maybe you can get him as a venutian vp ???
hope so……
14. jayhay | July 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ohio - Agreed. The administration’s insistence on a small force going into Iraq was a disaster. CENTCOM kept trying to get Rumsfeld et al to recognize what had been learned in Kosovo etc. regarding the ratio of forces to population but they’d have none of it. The generals kept getting their TPFDL wisdom thrown back at them insisting on a small force with poor planning. Massive error with tragic consequences. But oh, the GOP are the war geniuses…
Then once we were in, back in 2003/4 Patraeus was trying to get other generals and the administration to follow his ideas about counter-insurgency and it fell on deaf ears - it was all force-protection instead of hearts & minds (which Patraeus was advocating). Now of course it’s all Patraeus Patraeus Patraeus Surge Surge Surge - wish they’d listened to him in the freaking first place…
Not sure about the intent of your “trapped by our arguments” point, but in general I think Obama has shown the right approach - decisions and tactics based on where we are today, not on where we wish we were. Of course he gets harassed for it by fools but at least he’s not a repeat of Bush who “believes the same thing Wednesday he believed on Monday… no matter WHAT happened on Tuesday…” You stick with the strategy, but the tactics may need to evolve.
15. JPL | July 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“And P.S. to ‘Culture of Death’ Noonan, the original story on Maliki’s statements was accurate, …and they keep repeating for emphasis - they want us out by 2010.”
That’s a gross distortion. The official Iraqi position specifically ties withdrawal deadlines to improvements in security:
16. jayhay | July 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
JPL - You’re seeing what you want to see. The very first sentence of the article you link to (from July 8 by the way, before recent statements, clarifications, etc.) says, “Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.”
Of course this all depends on security issues, politics, and the total unpredictability of tribal relations (which is exactly why we should never have gone in there…) but clearly Obama and the Iraqi leadership are speaking in similar terms, and additionally it puts the pressure on them that the reality is (under an Obama administration) that we have our eye on the door. Any intelligent person will have caveats (as Obama always does) but the intention is clear. With McCain? Not so much… He wants to stay until we “win”, which in Iraq is so amorphous and subjective and unstable that it’s pretty much meaningless. The great unwashed love to hear about “winning” though, makes ‘em feel tough.
But McCain’s the serious one, the genius, who said when this started, “I am VERY certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult.” How often does he have to be wrong on this before the scales fall from your eyes?
As I said, you see what you want to see…
17. navydad | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Hey I have an idea, let’s leave the handlers, the MSM, and teleprompters behind and have a debate between the two candidates in an open forum where they can field questions from concerned voters.”
Posted by Neocon
Ain’t gonna happen Neo! Obigears is an empty suit that feasts on the ignorant and weak that in most cases cannot think for themselves.
They flock to people like Obama out of the need for a Messiah-like-figure that will lead them to the holy land. A land of peace, freedom to kill any baby they choose not to bare, surrender to those that they fear, for fear of retribution, re-distribute our wealth, the wealth many of us have worked so hard for, enable pedophiles and murderers rights equal to those of us that obey the law…..and on and on.
It’s truly sad to know that a war such as were in, can actually shelf a person’s moral beliefs purely for political gain…shameless…to say the least.
McCain was correct when he said Obama would rather lose a war, than to lose a political campaign. As is confirmed by his followers here.
Sure, the war went poorly, but why take the chance of leaving behind a bigger mess than we started? A mess that my grandchildren would inherit.
And my question to any of you lefties that believe we should have pulled out of Iraq before the surge: If you were president, would you have pulled out, not knowing if thousands more Iraq’s would be killed by your actions? How could you live with yourself? I certainly couldn’t.
18. neocon | July 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“As I said, you see what you want to see…” - pot, meet kettle
19. Ricorun | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
navydad: Obigears is an empty suit that feasts on the ignorant and weak that in most cases cannot think for themselves.
With all due respect, and with the added hope that what I’m about to say isn’t construed as support for one candidate over another, but…
It is my opinion that the inability to think for oneself is not in any way limited to “Obigeariacs”. IMO, more studied reflection is needed pretty much across the board.
20. navydad | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Rico
Absolutely true! However, you, I and many others on this planet have witnessed the effects of the mindless lemmings that can barely speak for themselves…let alone others. Does the name Hitler ring a bell? Or how about Jim Jones, Charles Manson and others that drove their followers, in some cases, right off the cliffs of death, driven by an excessive zeal. In this case….for political gain.
Let’s put this whole presidential debacle in perspective; ask any McCain supporter if he has reservations about McCain and I’d bet most would offer some critisizm regarding his policies/flip flops etc. Now ask an Obama supporter the same and I’d bet you’ll hear nothing but praise and adulation.
What are your thoughts here??
21. JPL | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Sorry, JayHay, but you’re a political hack and B.S. artist with zero credibility. A year ago Obama expressly preferred genocidal civil war in Iraq over the surge. Although he now admits the surge dramatically reduced violence in Iraq, he claims he STILL would have opposed it even if he knew then what he knows now. What a first-class idiot and danger to national security.
Instead of attacking McCain, try defending Obama’s indefensible position.
22. Ricorun | July 24th, 2008 at 12:40 am
neocon: Let’s put this whole presidential debacle in perspective; ask any McCain supporter if he has reservations about McCain and I’d bet most would offer some critisizm regarding his policies/flip flops etc. Now ask an Obama supporter the same and I’d bet you’ll hear nothing but praise and adulation.
What are your thoughts here??
Well, my first and foremost thought is… don’t expect to hear many doubts on this site that Obama supporters might harbor. This isn’t the forum for it. If you want to hear Obama get hammered, visit DKos, or HufPo or something.
Further, my “impression” is that several of the more thoughtful left-of-center posters that used to comment on this site have been banned. I myself have been banned a couple of times. I’m not complaining, I’m just saying.
But the fact of the matter is, my central message is, was, and always will be this: THINK FOR YOURSELF! Granted, I’m harder in my challenges on the right wing contingent here. But that’s because I care more about the right wing contingent here. I WANT the GOP to rightfully claim the mantle of the party of reason. But that requires being reasonable — not capricious, or superficial, and certainly not downright absurd. It’s a big job, but someone has to do it, lol!
I’m getting more and more disappointed by the general noise on this site, though. In that respect, I’m sure you know how to get in touch with me directly, should you prefer to do so.
23. neocon | July 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Rico,
That wasn’t my post, and I take exception with you when you say that all reasoned left of center posters have been banned. I have only encountered you and possibly Rana who fit that description and both of you are still here.
I think Mark allows many far left loons to continue to post their inane drivel here, so your claim just doesn’t mesh.
I will agree with you that too many GOPers are frauds and charlatans and too concerned about power and position rather than upholding conservative principles and that’s an indictment on man, not on the ideology.
I also believe that conservatives are much more likely to criticize, and take their candidates out to the proverbial woodshed than liberals are, who are usually quick to defend and make excuses for their candidates missteps.
24. LiberalMind | July 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Gore won the majority in 2000, by a solid 500,000 votes
25. Danish Artist | July 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Lostliberalmind…..
WTF does that have to do with Obama and Iraq?
Still hung up on Gore losing?
The popular vote has nothing to do with the Presidential election. You are probably one of those ignorant morons that believe that people have the right to vote in the Presidential election!
Gore could have “won” the popular vote by 1,000,000, but the Electoral College are the votes that count in a Presidential election.
Try researching the Electoral College and for the first time in your life learn something!
26. neocon | July 24th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Bush won the majority in 2004 by a solid 3,500,000 votes.
And it still doesn’t matter.