Obama Declines to Jump on the Immediate Withdrawal Bandwagon
Give the man credit, he’s talking sense here:
Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that the Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq, conceding: “The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly.”
As Democrats work to win control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Obama (D-Ill.) said a cacophony of views over the Iraq war threatens to divide the party once again.
“It is arguable that the best politics going into ’06 would be a clear succinct message: `Let’s bring our troops home,’ ” Obama said. “It’s certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now, but whether that’s the best policy right now, I don’t feel comfortable saying it is.”
In an interview with the Tribune’s editorial board, Obama renewed his opposition to immediately pulling troops from Iraq. A growing number of Democrats and liberal groups have called for a troop withdrawal, while party leaders such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have dismissed such efforts as dangerously misguided.
“It’s a little too early to tell how coherent the Democratic message is,” Obama said. If quick progress isn’t made in Iraq, he added, “you’re probably going to see strong differences within the party leadership about how to proceed.”
The senator also said the U.S. must accept the outcome of next week’s Iraqi parliamentary elections, even if the results are not precisely what President Bush may hope for in the administration’s quest to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East.
“Not only would it be disastrous from a public relations point of view,” Obama said, “but I think it would be morally objectionable for us to backtrack on the notion that the Iraqi people should make decisions about their own lives.”
In a wide-ranging discussion as his first year in office draws to a close, Obama said, “there could have been more honesty” as the president argued his case for war. But he stopped short of saying that Bush lied to the American people.
“At one town meeting someone said: `Shouldn’t the president be impeached for lying?’ ” Obama recalled. “And I said, `Well, FDR, JFK, LBJ — we have a pretty long list of presidents who maybe were not entirely forthcoming with intelligence information before they went to war, so I’d be cautious against making legal cases against the administration.’ “
I have a great deal of respect for politicians who are willing to speak plainly, regardless of whether we share the same viewpoint on a particular, or even any, issue. Obama shows that quality here, and once again reminds us of why he will be a formidable national candidate someday.
Indeed, Ryan Lizza says that day is upon us:
By my count, twelve United States senators are considering a run for president in 2008: six Democrats (Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry) and six Republicans (George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and Rick Santorum). For Biden, Kerry, and McCain it would be their second presidential campaign.
Elsewhere in that august body, another eight senators have already run for president, failing to reach the White House but contributing mightily to the craft of colorful campaign coverage. Four Republicans who have run left behind campaign innovations such as iconic outerwear (Lamar Alexander), daring speech choreography (Elizabeth Dole), the chiropractor vote (Orrin Hatch), and the idea that voters should care about foreign policy (Richard Lugar), but they never won a primary. On the Democratic side, Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman have left us with two versions of the “favorite son” strategy, as well as Bob Shrum and Joementum, but they didn’t become president.
Several other current senators have at some point been mentioned seriously as potential presidential candidates, and just about every senator at least considers running. In short, the Senate operates as both America’s incubator of presidential ambitions and the retirement home of its failed candidates. The well-known curse of the Senate is that it both elevates politicians to within striking distance of the White House and burdens them with the baggage of a complicated voting record and the stench of the Beltway.
This is why Barack Obama must run for president in 2008.
Lizza, while acknowledging Obama’s relative lack of experience in national security, says that the young senator can’t afford to wait:
The kind of political star power Obama has doesn’t last. My favorite law of American politics is that candidates have only 14 years to become president. That is their expiration date. The idea was conceived by a very smart political junkie who happens to be a senior aide to Vice President Cheney (don’t hold that against him), and the law was popularized in a column by Jonathan Rauch of National Journal. As Rauch put it, “With only one exception [Lyndon Johnson] since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.” As Rauch showed, the majority of presidents since 1900 have fallen on the low end of this zero-to-fourteen-year spectrum: zero (Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft), two years (Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt), four years (Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge), and six years (George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding). The lesson is that Obama must strike while he is hot or risk fading into obscurity.
That’s interesting, provocative stuff, but it’s not enough. There is one Senator already running who falls into that 14-year window, and on the low side to boot, who also is resisting opportunistic but harmful stances on the war, and she’s got a bit of star power herself; Hillary’s candidacy will doom Obama’s…but 2012 is another story entirely…
(hat tip to Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics)…
I don’t think he should run quite yet. Let him at least get a full term under his belt. I mean, look at John Edwards. Popped his cork too soon, so to speak, and screwed his career.
When was the last time a sitting Democratic Senator from a northern state won the Presidency? Or a sitting Democratic Senator, period? Or a sitting Senator from a northern state, period? Or, frankly, a sitting Senator, period? You have to go all the way back to JFK. The Senate is no longer the breeding ground for the Presidency. A smart national party would nominate a Governor from a Southern or Western state that fits that zero to fourteen year profile.
Oh, I forgot to add “Or a Democrat from a northern state, period?” and “Or anyone from a northern state, period?”
Indeed, Chris, I agree one hundred percent that the Southern governor route seems to be the best route…I’m just saying that Obama’s best shot will be 2012, not that he will win…though I do consider him formidable…
If he is going to as honest as this, why does he need to wait a few years?
He’s definitely a positive Veep on any ticket. (Interesting that these statements come out after HRC faces a group of limp war protestors)
He’s worth 4-6 pts in the general election, more than enough for either Bayh or Clinton to realize that they need him on the ticket.
After reading his quotes, I dare say he is entering Lieberman quality in legitimacy of FP. This is not to say they share the same view, but his understanding of what a President must deal with is apparent. His statement weren’t even so much directed at Iraq, as it was the independent voters. That a dem actually cares what independents think is refreshing…
The Democrats seem to be fixated on the Senate as a path to the White House, one of the many, many ways in which they still haven’t gotten over JFK. A while back I put together a list of the various jobs people had had before becoming President (no, I don’t have a life, thanks for asking!) and it breaks down as follows:
Thirteen were governors before they ran for President. Nine were vice-presidents, six were in the Cabinet, and five were generals. Only four men ever went directly from the Senate to the White House—out of 43 presidents, not a very impressive percentage. Interestingly, five of the veeps who later became president had been serving in the Senate when they accepted the vice-presidential nomination.
I haven’t done a comparison between the two parties, but I really do think this path is more popular with Democrats than Republicans. Certainly, I seem to recall more Democratic presidential wannabes in the Senate than Republicans—the six of each that Ryan lists is a little unusual, and some of those candidates are, to put it charitably, not very plausible.
Obama’s got some attractive qualities as a candidate, but he may not have picked the best route to the top. His best bet might be accepting a spot as Number Two for whoever heads the Democratic ticket in 2008. Even that’s no guarantee—the last first-term Democratic senator who struck me as having real national potential was John Edwards…
I second what MTL wrote: He’s definitely an asset to most possible presidential nominees (Clinton… Warner… Huckabee…) though he’d be an odd pick for Bayh — no geographical diversity.
This sentence from the Trib. struck me as odd: A growing number of Democrats and liberal groups have called for a troop withdrawal, while party leaders such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have dismissed such efforts as dangerously misguided.
So… Senators Lieberman and Clinton are party leaders and Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are just some random Democrats??
The press needs conflict, and if they can’t find it they create it. There is not a legitimate anti-war movement, you need leaders…sorry Dean, Sheehan, and Pelosi don’t cut it.
“though he’d be an odd pick for Bayh — no geographical diversity.”
Worked for Clinton/Gore.
Of course, they were coming from a few states further south …
I have been wondering if the Dems are playing good cop-bad cop here to help out their more serious candidate Sir Hillary. Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, and whomever make absurd asinine comments about the WOT and Iraq and then HRC comes back with a more even measured comment that is much more towards the middle. She has made with a few exceptions, mostly positive comments on Iraq. I’m still not going to vote for her.
You just win Kerry’s states, and Ohio.
Indiana and Illinois are a lot closer to that state, than Arizona…
The southern strategy is now the midwest strategy.(You don’t have to campaign hard in florida, as it is no longer needed.)
Would it shock me if Bayh and Obama haven’t figured this out? His recent statements of an ‘adult’ view play better in Ohio than Illinois. A very strong ticket, that might even declare their plan prior to the actual nomination, preempting HRC. There should be little need for secrecy and the two can start practicing for office.
No guarantees on a victory for that ticket, but I’m hard pressed to see a GOP combo that beats them.
MTL-
The big question is whether the left-wing of the party can stomach supporting a relatively moderate candidate on the premise that he can actually win the election, especially just four years after they did exactly that (or at least told themselves that was what they were doing) with JF Kerry.
They swallowed a lot to have Kerry get the nod.
As I remember, the far left was fully against the war. Dean didn’t crack 30%, and it wasn’t becuase Kucinich pulled 20% away.
Looking back at the primaries, there seemed to be only a minority, even within the democratic party.
Then there is the rt poll-which shows a majority of democrats(!) believe that challenging the case for war is demoralizing to the troops in the field.(Obama is giving some creedence to that poll) No dem is going to win unless he can peel away the independents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/RT_Topline_2005-11-20_Final_PtP.pdf
The RT poll.
(Media (doesn’t) Matters is having a fit over it…but judging by the responses of congessional dems, it has legs.)
There are several GOP tickets that could beat Bayh and Obama, but the most prominent more than likely won’t be formed. I havn’t heard or even seen anyone approach the idea of a Haley Barbour/ J.C. Watts ticket. A grouping that could consolidate a Southern/Midwest voting block and one that would possibly play well in states like Ohio, and Pennsylvania. However, Barbour would have to begin paying visits to New Hampshire and Iowa to strengthen his name recognition if he hopes to get the nod over more recognizable people within the party.
Sorry, but losing Indiana and Ohio are a recipe for destruction in 08.
Barbour and Watts, both extremely likable chaps, would struggle to secure anything out of the midwest, especially if they face a moderate ticket from that region.
Have no fear, the dems will be sure to put a burning stick in their own eye, and either drive Bayh/Obama leftward, or more likely not even nominate them.
Youth and vitality are something you can’t advertise, but play a factor. One photo of Haley at the Shoney’s food bar and its over for him.
The gop nominee will be whoever can get Rove to work the magic…McCain was in talks with Rove, prior to the Wilson/Plame affair, and if the dust settles, will be resuming the conversation.
Love to hear a ticket that would beat Bayh/Obama…you got one, other than Barbour/Watts?
At the Shoney’s food bar…now there’s an image…
The food he is stuffing into his pants is for uh…er…
Katrina refugees.
I’m cracking on Barbour, but he is well credentialed and a great tactician…94 results were as much his baby, as Newt’s. He wouldn’t need campaign advice and is smart enough to think on his feet.
Still, they’d have to add an engine to air force one, just to get him off the ground…
The press would stalk him, not for nude photos, but for barbaque on his face.
I’m a Rudy guy all the way, and I voted for Obama based on his potential, not his record at the time. So far, he’s exceeded my expectations in his moderate stances on most subjects. He really is reflecting the majority of his constituents here, especially in Chicago.
Also, the GOP in my home state here is a complete joke, corrupt as hell (like the Dems, but actually worse) – I mean, they actually ran Alan Keyes against Obama out of desperation. That kind of thinking has made them an intellectually bankrupt entity here, with no better times on the near horizon as of present.