^ Indeed. It's no wonder you find Obama to be an attractive candidate.

7/6/2008 12:37:15 AM

what if i just find him more attractive than mccain?


like what if i feel as though the country would do better off with obama than mccain, and thats why i like obama? i can understand you not liking him cause he "flip flops" but can you see where I'm coming from at least?

7/6/2008 12:53:55 AM

^ Yes. And taking into account what I know of you, I find that answer more acceptable than any you've given.

7/6/2008 12:57:15 AM

"flip flopping" is redirecting attention from a "conservative" ideology and record that Americans find undemocratic, corrupt and abhorrent

changing ones opinion on something after receiving new information is not flip flopping. ITS FUCKING LEARNING.

7/6/2008 2:18:12 AM

^ LOL! Actually, no, this is the definition of "flip-flop":

Quote :

"Informal. a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flip-flop

7/6/2008 4:28:12 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080708/ts_csm/acentrist;_ylt=At93IE7v0Btc07ZwEtSugwqs0NUE

7/8/2008 2:52:47 PM

The right-wingers aren't the only ones driving the flip-flop talk, people--it's left-wingers, too:

Shrewd moves?

Quote :

"[L]eading left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas accused Obama of 'unnecessary stabbing' of political allies."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/07/inside-politics/

WHO IS THAT MASKED MAN?
LIBERALS BASH HIS FLIP-FLOPS, BUT OBAMA IS MAKING A CALCULATED RUN TO THE CENTER

Quote :

"Arianna Huffington accused [Obama] of making a 'very serious mistake' by agreeing to a new wire-tapping law."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07062008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/who_is_that_masked_man__118611.htm

Obama Fuels Pullout Debate With Remarks

Quote :

"There have been increasing signs of debate among Democrats — and seemingly among some Obama advisers — about what to do in Iraq. A former foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, Samantha Power (who resigned her position in March after she was quoted calling Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a 'monster') gave an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation in which she called the timetable for withdrawal a 'best-case scenario' and suggested that as president in January 2009, Mr. Obama would not be bound by a campaign plan from 2008. The campaign disputed that assertion. And eyebrows were raised this spring when one of Mr. Obama's outside advisers, Colin H. Kahl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, helped to write a paper arguing against withdrawing the troops on a unilateral schedule, calling instead for 'conditional engagement' in Iraq. Campaign officials said that Mr. Kahl had been writing in his outside capacity, and that the paper did not represent their views."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04policy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge

Quote :

"When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said at the first one, you know he knows he has a problem."

Quote :

"Yet Obama needs to be careful not to cede the high ground on Iraq. Because Obama's strongest argument for himself on foreign policy rests on his sound judgment in opposing the war from the beginning, any appearance of waffling on the issue is especially dangerous."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070601765.html

7/9/2008 6:55:23 PM

honestly i get the impression obamas gonna lose in november

7/9/2008 7:01:17 PM

^ Unfortunately, I don't get that impression at all.

7/9/2008 7:15:44 PM

although i become increasingly disappointed by some of Obama's positions, it will be a LONG time before I could even consider McCain being a sane alternative.

7/9/2008 7:21:18 PM

4 months is kind of long

7/9/2008 7:23:50 PM

^^ Meh. I'm a McCain nose-holder--it's simply the lesser of two evils for me.

[Edited on July 9, 2008 at 7:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/9/2008 7:24:05 PM

Quote :

"although i become increasingly disappointed by some of Obama's positions, it will be a LONG time before I could even consider McCain being a sane alternative."

This is kind of what he's betting on. He has you hook, line, and sinker - why does he need to actually appease you now? It's not like you're going to go vote for McCain or anything - the worst you'll do is simply stay home. (Or vote third-party. But right now that seems like a more pressing concern for McCain than Obama.)

7/9/2008 7:32:19 PM

i think some of the former hillary supporters could still be swayed to vote for mccain...doesnt seem like the people who have been with obama would likely switch though unless some serious shit comes out

oh wait i dont plan on voting, i guess i'm forbidden to discuss this

7/9/2008 7:35:56 PM

McCain is the biggest flip-flopper to run for President for either party for quite some time. The lesser evil is Obama in regards to this point.

7/9/2008 7:49:16 PM

well he has had dozens and dozens more years of political experience in which to flip flop

7/9/2008 8:06:17 PM

Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

Quote :

"The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence. 'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province."

Quote :

"Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.' Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' "

http://tinyurl.com/59otvg

Yeah, the "change" is that the surge has been and is working. One would think Mr. Change could recognize this.

7/17/2008 7:52:22 AM

^ ha! nice.

7/17/2008 10:56:27 AM

I find it funny that they claim the surge is over, yet troop levels in Iraq are still higher now then they were before the surge. If the surge was truly over, wouldn't that mean troop levels would drop to pre-surge levels?

Let's call a spade a spade. It was not a surge, it was an escalation.

7/17/2008 10:57:48 AM

NEWSFLASH: Obama changes position based on newer and better information! What an idiot!
Clearly he should maintain the same position from a year ago, no matter what has happened in the meantime. This is what Bush has done for 8 years, and it's worked so well for us!
Like Colbert says: "George W. Bush will believe the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday"




here is a before-and-after comparison
http://versionista.com/diff/fRT7DSg2rdYtwaXAk1ZNaQ/
you can read the whole thing and see that he is simply updating his positions based on the latest news. would you rather him leave it the same?
oh, right - you'd rather him delete everything on the page and replace it with "OMG, I was so wrong. The war has been a success from the beginning and I will make Bush my Secretary of Defense and my Secretary of State so he can do whatever he wants. LOL"

7/17/2008 11:20:40 AM

^ No, Obama should just admit that he was wrong about the surge.

7/17/2008 11:24:07 AM

Even still, his plan hasn't really changed.

Phased-withdrawal with a timetable. It was good policy then and it's probably a better policy now.

BUT OMG, he adjusted the message. What a flip-flopper

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

7/17/2008 11:25:49 AM

Quote :

"Obama should just admit that he was wrong about the surge."

The military or political aspect? I think he was pretty accurate about both, but I'd like to see what you mean when you say he was wrong about the surge.

7/17/2008 11:26:08 AM

and his webpage is the right place to say that?
if you're lucky, maybe he'll say it in a debate where they discuss the past, but on him platform-oriented and forward-looking website he doesn't need to keep a catalog of all his previous positions.

7/17/2008 11:26:52 AM

Obama is not a 'flip flopper'...he is a professional campaigner and will say whatever he needs to say to get elected.

(for the record, I completely stole that from Sean Hannity but I completely agree with it)

7/17/2008 11:30:15 AM

Quote :

"will say whatever he needs to say to get elected."

That doesn't jive very well with the gas tax debate.

7/17/2008 11:31:39 AM

The surge has brought the violence level down, but the political aspect of the surge has failed. The surge was to allow the Iraqis to meet certain political benchmarks (oil profits, ect.). The Iraqis have only made progress and have not met the benchmarks. So in that essence it has failed. The surge has no provided for a politically stable Iraq at all.

7/17/2008 11:33:46 AM

^^^ what does that mean though?

You don't think John McCain is a "professional campaigner"? You aren't involved in politics for 26 years without being a "professional campaigner."

^ In general you can only really say Iraq is a success if you really lower your expectations. We shouldn't have gone in to Iraq in the first place the way we did. It was not where the "war on terrorism" should have gone, and being in Iraq has allowed terrorist aspects to be renewed in Afghanistan.

But, the best thing we can do in Iraq now is to set more "manageable" goals, and if that means 50 people dying a day instead of 200, then so be it.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 11:34:24 AM

Obama claims to be different, change things, keep hope alive etc...McCain is what he is - a known commodity.

my point is that Obama is not. he is no less a politician than John McCain, no matter how badly his supporters want to believe that he is. he will say and do whatever he needs to to get elected.

when he was campaigning against Hillary, he went as far left of her as possible to make sure he got the moveon vote. he knows that the far left part of the Democratic party would be essential to him winning the primary over Hill and her base. now, he is supposedly moving right to appeal to the fly-over states to beat McCain...this is what is making those same far left people nervous.

7/17/2008 3:06:25 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't jive [sic] very well with the gas tax debate."

Boone-Tard, revisionist historian

The word you should be seeking but aren't is "jibe" ("to be in harmony or accord; agree; correspond")--"jive" is slang for "deceptive, exaggerated, or meaningless talk," which is strangely appropriate as it relates to your post. You know, some of you should probably run a reality check on yourselves before telling us all how smart you are.

7/17/2008 3:07:22 PM

Boone,

You mean the gas tax Obama opposed that the majority of Americans opposed as well?
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/MAY08A-Politics.pdf

It really takes guts to agree with the majority.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 3:17:27 PM

^That poll was obviously taken after Obama declared his stance.

But he is a man of the people, so who knows, he might have channeled the collective will of America while making that decision.


^^ That's all that jibe you're talkin'?

7/17/2008 3:24:23 PM

^ But I don't think you can give him points for taking an "unpopular" stance if it wasn't unpopular.

7/17/2008 3:33:11 PM

You'll recall that most people assumed it was unpopular at the time.

I can't help it if the majority of Americans always agree with Obama. It's a burden he has to bear.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 3:35:16 PM

^ I recall the punditry thinking that the majority of Americans is a nation of idiots but what's new?

And let's not over emphasize this issue like Obama supporters tend to do. This tax holiday would have had very small revenue and welfare impacts. Even if he was taking a chance that people may not like him opposing the tax, he wasn't taking a large one.

Instead, Obama's positions on big issues shift with who he's trying to persuade. In 2004, when most people were generally in favor of the war in Iraq and he was running for Senate, he said that his position on the war was not very far from President Bush's. As poll numbers slid in opposition, so did Obama's position. You can say he changed his mind based on "new information" (he never said that, he says he's been 100% consistent), but what changed? Casualties are lower now than they were then. What's different?

And about NAFTA? When he's trying to win the nomination he's against, when he's trying to win the general elections, he said he was rhetoric was over heated. What changed?

These are big issues. And he has shown zero back bone on any of them. He will indeed say anything to get elected.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 3:43:36 PM

Yeah, his tone's totally changed on NAFTA. I frequently forget about it since the change was for the better.

He joined the chorus against NAFTA while campaigning in the rust belt. That's a mark against him.


But I have to assume that you're working on the impression that he's somehow worse than his competition. The contortions McCain has undergone in the name of appealing to his crazy base is pretty astonishing.

7/17/2008 3:50:50 PM

^ Boone, yes they are. And I have mentioned my distaste for McCain's major flip-flop (extending Bush Tax Cuts), but that one is really a non-issue. The Democratic congress will never vote to extend the tax cuts so it will never reach McCain's desk.

He modified his position on immigration to secure the border before implementing reforms like those he and Senator Kennedy proposed. But that's not what i'd call a true flip-flop.

On all the other major issues McCain has been consistant (even more so than Obama on the same issues): Global Warming, the War in Iraq, Expanding Trade Agreements, etc. etc.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 3:57:23 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BckykC3NrHw

(If you don't want to watch the whole 7:17, just go to 2:34 and 4:39.)

7/17/2008 4:01:47 PM

Well if you want to dismiss flaws based on impracticality, then that's the crux of my argument concerning Obama's overly-ambitious spending plans.

But McCain's flopped on more than just tax cuts-- and the flips have sometimes concerned fundamental belief type issues-- not just measly semantics. His abandonment of campaign finance reform? His overall distaste for Falwell-like creatures? This shift from moderate to right in regards to abortion?

Those are core issues-- nuances over the surge do not compare to these.

7/17/2008 4:06:09 PM

I can't believe I let this thread go without my list of Obama's Iraq Flip-Flops. Here we go.

Obama's 6 Positions on Iraq
(this is just so I can have all my links in one post)

1) We should Stay In Iraq.
2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

2) We Should Leave Iraq Immediatley.
2008: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

3) Congress should not set time-tables for withdrawal.
2006: "But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy".
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

4) Congress should set time-tables for withdrawal.
2007: "That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics


5) If we have to set timetables for withdrawal, they should be flexible.
2006: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Under the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, "withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

6) We have to set deadlines for withdrawal, and they are inflexible.
2008:

Quote :

""MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie...Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 4:08:49 PM

I can't believe someone like you doesn't see the merit in adjusting policy to jive ( hooksaw ) with reality.

7/17/2008 4:14:11 PM

^ You keep asserting that Obama changed his positions based on "reality". So I keep asking: *What changed!?* What piece of reality changed to cause Obama to shift his position on iraq and withdrawal timetables? Exactly which one?

The only thing I see changing is which office he's running for. Maybe you can think of a better reason. If you can, please speak up. Because Obama isn't. He still seems to think he's been 100% consistent since 2002.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 4:17:24 PM

Quote :

"What piece of reality changed to cause Obama to shift his position on iraq and withdrawal timetables?"

Are you arguing that the situation in Iraq didn't fundamentally change over the years?

7/17/2008 4:23:27 PM

Boone,

I'm arguing that Obama's position changes based on what office he's running for. Trying to mesh his positions with reality doesn't work well. But if you don't want to back up your assertion, I'll give it a shot.

Q: Why has Obama stopped supporting the Iraq War?

Maybe it's the rising number of US casualties. I mean, the monthly casualty rate must be double what it was when Obama supported the war in July of 2004. Hmmm. No. Looks like it's less than half. This was after the surge that Obama predicted would increase violence in Iraq. He must have left his "great judgment" at home that day.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Maybe it's because a majority of Iraqi's want us to withdraw immediately? Hmm no. According to the most recent BBC poll, only 38% of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Apparently the majority of Iraqi's DON'T agree with Obama's position.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299569.stm

I'm stumped. What Changed?

POST EDIT

Here's something that does seem to line up with Obama's positions.


In mid 2004, when Obama supported staying in Iraq, 54% of people said the Iraq War not a mistake.

in mid 2006, when Obama said that we must eventually withdrawal but that congressional timelines were not the answer, only 44% said the war was not a mistake.

In mid 2007, when Obama began his campaign for president and introduced a bill calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, only 36% of people thought the war was not a mistake.

Wow. What a strong correlation.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 4:33:39 PM

Quote :

"Maybe it's because a majority of Iraqi's want us to withdraw immediately? Hmm no. According to the most recent BBC poll, only 38% of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Apparently the majority of Iraqi's DON'T agree with Obama's position. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299569.stm I'm stumped. What Changed? ... In mid 2004, when Obama supported staying in Iraq, 54% of people said the Iraq War not a mistake. in mid 2006, when Obama said that we must eventually withdrawal but that congressional timelines were not the answer, only 44% said the war was not a mistake. In mid 2007, when Obama began his campaign for president and introduced a bill calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, only 36% of people thought the war was not a mistake. "

So what you're saying is that it's okay for our gov. to listen to the Iraqi people, but not Americans?

Quote :

" BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the continuing divisions make it "pretty meaningless to talk about 'Iraqi' opinion." POLL IN MORE DETAIL Selection of questions and answers [504KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here Flicker of optimism "What counts is how the individual groupings, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish, feel - and especially the Sunnis, since much of the violence is from that quarter," he says. While 55% of all Iraqis believe that their lives are good, only 33% of Sunnis are happy with their lives, compared with 62% of Shias and 73% of Kurds. "In spite of all the improvements, the Sunni population of Iraq clearly remains deeply alienated, and deeply hostile," our correspondent says. "

That sounds like the perfect conditions for democracy to flourish though, having the largest minority group feeling so alienated. We'd have to really screw up for Iraq not end up being at least as stable as it was under Saddam, but it's foolish to think that invading Iraq the way we did was anything but wrong. Also, It's generally believed that unhappiness in polls like that are underreported because it's often westerners conducting the polls and some Iraqis think they're spies, and among Iraqi politicians at least, they feel things would be better if we withdrew.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 4:50:30 PM

Point-by-point time.

First, let's put them in chronological order so as to avoid any obfuscation (I'm sure any existing obfuscation was 100% unintentional), then sift through your BS interpretations of them.

Quote :

"1) We should Stay In Iraq. 2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002"

I'll let the heading of your own link over this one:

"On Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz claimed that in a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, Sen. Barack Obama "said there wasn't much difference between his position and George Bush's position on the [Iraq] war." But Kurtz left out three key words from Obama's quote in the Tribune -- "at this stage""

Quote :

"3) Congress should not set time-tables for withdrawal. 2006: "But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy". http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/ 5) If we have to set timetables for withdrawal, they should be flexible. 2006: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy." http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/"

These two aren't inconsistent. So, not even the slightest shift so far, in the first three of Socks'' 's OMG FLIP-FLOPS

Quote :

"4) Congress should set time-tables for withdrawal. 2007: "That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008." http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics"

This is the first policy shift that could be considered a flip-flop, by any measure. This also happens to be the time when Bush also looked for new policies (the surge). This is the time when everyone was looking for new policies, because the current policy was failing miserably. Simply because Bush/McCain's new policy was slightly more inline with their stay-the-course (although out of line with their anto-escalation rhetoric, mind you) doesn't mean it wasn't a significant shift similar to Obama's.

Quote :

"2) We Should Leave Iraq Immediatley. 2008: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/"

How is this a shift? Immediately... over 16 months! This is what we like to call a "timetable."

Quote :

"6) We have to set deadlines for withdrawal, and they are inflexible. 2008: "Quotes""

Could you help me out, here? Where does he state that the timetable absolutely cannot be adjusted? He says he's not going to take any back talk from the brass, but where does he promise that the timetable is inflexible?


in summation, out of 6 supposed flip-flops, you've really only provided one by any stretch of the imagination, and as I've already said, it's the good type of "flop"



As far as your opinion poll goes, the opinion polls reflected the reality in Iraq. Bush/McCain adjusted just like Obama did. As far as teh flip to immediate withdrawal goes, it doesn't exist.



[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 4:56:31 PM

moron, Hey, i'm just trying to rationalize Obama's change in position. Are you saying he shouldn't care about the Iraqi people? Pretty cold hearted considering we wrecked their country (something tells me saying you voted against Bush in '00 and '04 won't make them fill better).

And saying that these polls under report support for immediate withdrawal is not the same as saying by how much and backing that up with evidence.

But in any case, of all the data I've looked at, polls of American citizen support for the war are the best predictor of Obama's position. Like I said, it takes real guts and integrity to agree with the majority.

---

Boone did not read the links. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss his attempt to rationalize them. For example, if he read the whole article he would see why Kurtz was taking Obama out of context and I am not. So how can I argue with someone who refuses to read the links I provide?

I will only say that one can read Obama's 2006 comments to not be so much against time-tables in general, but specifically against hard time tables as those in the Kerry Amendment. But even if one read his 2006 speech that way, it doesn't change the fact that he has once again changed his position and suggested that his 16 month deadline is hard (we will be out of Iraq in 16 months period). This interpretation (which is debatable) brings the list of Obama Iraq flip flops down to four. Not exactly "victory".


[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 4:59:44 PM

Quote :

"But in any case, of all the data I've looked at, polls of American citizen support for the war are the best predictor of Obama's position. Like I said, it takes real guts and integrity to agree with the majority. "

Except for that time when he was one of 2 or 3 politicians to vote against the war. And you'd be hard pressed to find a single person who hasn't changed their view on the war. I know I have (it's well documented here), and really, i'm still not sure I know what the best action is. And no one does, really (and Obama knows this). You've been harping on the Obama-Iraq position since this race began, not taking consideration for what his reasonings for the position he had was, and not realizing that especially on something like the Iraq war, it's easy to change your position as you get new information. This is not something mostly ideological like whether or not you think torture is justified.

Obama's ideology is that we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq because there was no benefit, now that we're there, we need to do what's best for America, which is minimizing our cost and causalities while enabling a stable Iraq for the future. It could be argued that staying for 100 years or leaving in 2 years is the best course of action, but it would take a very in-depth knowledge of internal Iraqi politics and society that not a single person here has, and neither McCain or Obama has. But, if Obama is going to look for ways to leaves considering the opinion of the experts, and McCain is going to look for ways to stay regardless, i'd prefer Obama's ideology.

7/17/2008 5:09:26 PM

Quote :

"Except for that time when he was one of 2 or 3 politicians to vote against the war. "

-moron

Wow.

PS*

Quote :

"You've been harping on the Obama-Iraq position since this race began, not taking consideration for what his reasonings for the position he had was, and not realizing that especially on something like the Iraq war, it's easy to change your position as you get new information."

Isn't that the question I'm asking though? For someone to explain to me what new information found its way to Obama to make him change his mind so dramatically and so many times? I gave some potential pieces of data that didn't pan out. If you have more, I'd love to see it.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ``]

7/17/2008 5:11:30 PM

Quote :

"Isn't that the question I'm asking though? For someone to explain to me what new information found its way to Obama to make him change his mind so dramatically and so many times? I gave some potential pieces of data that didn't pan out. If you have more, I'd love to see it. "

His position changes have never been dramatic. You're asking a very detailed question though that would depend on the individual. I can tell you what changed my position, but that's pretty irrelevant.

And yeah, Obama didn't vote against the war (but I bet he would have... ), but he was one of very few people voicing opposition to it at a time when it took some guts to do so. "That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." -http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 5:23:24 PM