Obama isn't the 'peace' candidate

[NDN]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there for awhile), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

[Alcon]

Because he voted against the War and Democrats are really reaching for internal contrasts.

Obama also does well among certain demographics traditionally aligned with the anti-war factions of the party.

[exopolitician]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

The residual troops in Iraq are to protect the US Embassy in Baghdad....hes stated that numerous times.

[NDN]

Oh I'm not necessarily criticizing that. I agree that we need to leave some troops behind for awhile. But what I don't understand is supposedly educated people on this forum (not the media or RL) acting like there's a huge difference between his policy and pretty much everyone else who isn't John McCain.

[Sam Spade]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

The residual troops in Iraq are to protect the US Embassy in Baghdad....hes stated that numerous times.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam.  Oh well.

Face facts, either the troops stay (at a decreased level and hopefully wihtout casualities - in that case no one will care, except the anti-war loonies), or we draw out and have to do with the consequences.

I expect both sides to choose option 1.

[Torie]

Obama sounded like a Neocon from time to time tonight.

[King]

Because he voted against the War and Democrats are really reaching for internal contrasts.

Well, technically, he didn't vote against the war.  He didn't vote at all, but if he did vote it would've been against the war.  A reach on the reach.

[Alcon]

Because he voted against the War and Democrats are really reaching for internal contrasts.

Well, technically, he didn't vote against the war.  He didn't vote at all, but if he did vote it would've been against the war.  A reach on the reach.

Damn, that was an embarrassing mis-statement.  Yeah.

[tik 🪀✨]

There isn't a peace movement as much as there is an anti-Iraq movement. Democrats generally agree that there is a "real" war against terrorism that is worth fighting.

[opebo]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

The residual troops in Iraq are to protect the US Embassy in Baghdad....hes stated that numerous times.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam.  Oh well.

Face facts, either the troops stay (at a decreased level and hopefully wihtout casualities - in that case no one will care, except the anti-war loonies), or we draw out and have to do with the consequences.

I expect both sides to choose option 1.

Your reasoning is flawed, as usual.  If the troops stay, those who care may not be americans, but I can assure you the people of the middle east will care, and correctly hate america for the imposition and 'injustice'.  The consequences of leaving will be far less serious than this.

Lets take your Vietnam analogy: Are you suggesting we'd be better off if we still had troops there?  What has been the negative consequence of leaving that imperialistic venture behind us?

I know I know, there's no oil in Vietnam...

[Kalimantan]

There's a lot of us who feel that Obama, because of his race, his heritage, his upbringing, will be able to connect with the rest of the world a lot better than someone like, well, Bush for example, and will promote a foreign policy more in agreement with international law, the feelings of the other 200 or so countries in the world, common sense, other stuff like that

[HappyWarrior]

If he was as anti war as someone like Kucinich I definetly would'nt support him, considering personally I'm a more hawkish democrat.

[Sam Spade]

Lets take your Vietnam analogy: Are you suggesting we'd be better off if we still had troops there?  What has been the negative consequence of leaving that imperialistic venture behind us?

Millions of dead people.  But then again, that's not really very important to you, is it?

[Wakie]

Because he voted against the War and Democrats are really reaching for internal contrasts.

Well, technically, he didn't vote against the war.  He didn't vote at all, but if he did vote it would've been against the war.  A reach on the reach.

Damn, that was an embarrassing mis-statement.  Yeah.

Actually it is an interesting view into the psychology which Obama has managed to position in the public mind.  He has regularly said he "didn't vote to send troops".  Of course he didn't have a vote at the time.  But when he had the chance to vote for John Kerry's bill to withdraw troops he voted AGAINST it.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Obama just lucked out because he wasn't in congress in 2002. If he had been, I bet he would've gone along with Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc .. and voted for the war. I have just as much right to make that notion as someone saying he would've voted against it.

The idea that we'd pull them out and then reinvade if that area got unstable is crazy. I can't believe they even brought that up. Stay in to get the job done. Obama needs to stop playing on people's hopes that we can bring peace without bloodshed to a land full of people who glorify death. It simply isn't realistic.

[JSojourner]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there for awhile), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

Good question.  I am not a peace voter, I am an anti-Iraq war voter.  There is a difference.  Obama has talked about MORE troops in Afghanistan, which I like the sound of.  That's why Bush pisses me off so much.  He's not attacking our enemies.  He dropped the ball in Afghanistan.  In the debate, Obama said he reserved the right to attack anywhere there are people who have attacked the United States. 

I sincerely appreciate the peace movement's call for an end to the war in Iraq, which is stupid, immoral and unjust in every sense.  But I part company with peace folks on Afghanistan.  I want Osama bin Laden's head on a pike. Bush never had my support.  But if I had been a Bush supporter, he would have lost me in the 2004 campaign when he said of OBL, "I really don't think about him that much."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why is the anti-war movement deifying Obama so much? I understand that he opposed the Iraq War from the start. But his Iraq policy at this point is basically for gradual withdrawal with 'residual troops' (re: we'll still be there for awhile), in other words almost identical to Hillary's. He's also come out in favor of expanding the military, and possible military actions in Pakistan. So why are so many people acting like he's anything but a moderate (at most) on foreign policy? I just don't get it.

Given the total joke Democrats we have in Washington, it doesn't take much to be the peace candidate.

[NDN]

Obama just lucked out because he wasn't in congress in 2002. If he had been, I bet he would've gone along with Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc .. and voted for the war. I have just as much right to make that notion as someone saying he would've voted against it.

Except he publicly went on record at the time. I'm not going to pretend that I agree with the bulk of his foreign policy, or that he hasn't been politically expedient on a bunch of issues. But he really went out of a limb on this one, because he knew it was retarded.

[NDN]

Good question.  I am not a peace voter, I am an anti-Iraq war voter.  There is a difference.  Obama has talked about MORE troops in Afghanistan, which I like the sound of.  That's why Bush pisses me off so much.  He's not attacking our enemies.  He dropped the ball in Afghanistan.  In the debate, Obama said he reserved the right to attack anywhere there are people who have attacked the United States. 

I sincerely appreciate the peace movement's call for an end to the war in Iraq, which is stupid, immoral and unjust in every sense.  But I part company with peace folks on Afghanistan.  I want Osama bin Laden's head on a pike. Bush never had my support.  But if I had been a Bush supporter, he would have lost me in the 2004 campaign when he said of OBL, "I really don't think about him that much."

I agree to an extent. We should have poured all our resources into Afghanistan from the start. But in the long run, we really need to drawn down troop levels and foreign involvement in most of the world. We also need to cut pork, badly. Bush had it right the first time, no more nation building. The Cold War is over and the financial as well as human costs are too high. Plus we generally fail at it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama must formulate alternative, but credible, policies to McCain that aren't going to have older, blue collar, union Democrats and Independents running into the arms of McCain or sitting it out

The McGovern 'base' is, undoubtedly, a larger slice of the electorate than it was in 1972 but Obama needs more than the Democratic base, at large, let alone the McGovern base, to win

National security, may well be the issue more than any other, which has enabled Republicans to win seven of the last 10 presidential elections

The one good thing about 2008 is that hot-button cultural issues, that Republicans have exploited to great electoral benefit no matter how divisive, may not have the same saliency as four years ago but national security will

Some of you will probably dance up and down with me for suggesting this, but Obama should reach out and seek common ground with evangelicals, not on cultural issues, but on issues like social justice/economic fairness, the environment and healthcare. They do matter

Here is a link to an interesting article I recently read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202386.html?nav=hcmodule

Dave

[NDN]

Unfortunately that's true. Although the Democrats have had multiple golden opportunities since 2006 to seriously change the terms of the debate, with neo-Conservatism largely discredited. But as usual, they blew it.

[tik 🪀✨]

The one good thing about 2008 is that hot-button cultural issues, that Republicans have exploited to great electoral benefit no matter how divisive, may not have the same saliency as four years ago but national security will

Some of you will probably dance up and down with me for suggesting this, but Obama should reach out and seek common ground with evangelicals, not on cultural issues, but on issues like social justice/economic fairness, the environment and healthcare. They do matter

Obama certainly seems to be actively targeting evangelicals already, although perhaps not for specific issues. The time for that would be in the run up to the GE. I have to say though that the economy at home may trump Iraq, but of course the future course of action for Iraq post-Bush will still be important. He's still the anti-Iraq war candidate than the peace candidate though.

I quite enjoyed that article, also. It was extremely frustrating in 2004 being a regular church-goer with a lot of religious friends while heavily favouring Kerry. It's very refreshing to see them approach issues without an "all democrats are satan's minions because of abortion and gay rights" viewpoint nowadays.

[Democratic Hawk]

The one good thing about 2008 is that hot-button cultural issues, that Republicans have exploited to great electoral benefit no matter how divisive, may not have the same saliency as four years ago but national security will

Some of you will probably dance up and down with me for suggesting this, but Obama should reach out and seek common ground with evangelicals, not on cultural issues, but on issues like social justice/economic fairness, the environment and healthcare. They do matter

Obama certainly seems to be actively targeting evangelicals already, although perhaps not for specific issues. The time for that would be in the run up to the GE. I have to say though that the economy at home may trump Iraq, but of course the future course of action for Iraq post-Bush will still be important. He's still the anti-Iraq war candidate than the peace candidate though.

I quite enjoyed that article, also. It was extremely frustrating in 2004 being a regular church-goer with a lot of religious friends while heavily favouring Kerry. It's very refreshing to see them approach issues without an "all democrats are satan's minions because of abortion and gay rights" viewpoint nowadays.

Yes, the economy could , like in 1992, be the issue. The Democratic nominee must hit the Republicans hard on the last eight years and frame the debate in such away that they, not McCain and the Republicans, will be the best guarantor for growth and prosperity. Democrats must argue that McCain presidency would, essentially, mean more of the miserable same

'Quality of life' issues, and how they have diminished for millions of Americans, provide Democrats with an opening to forge a new majority that puts the interests of the middle class and working families, first and foremost

Dave

[politicaltipster]

Obama must formulate alternative, but credible, policies to McCain that aren't going to have older, blue collar, union Democrats and Independents running into the arms of McCain or sitting it out

The McGovern 'base' is, undoubtedly, a larger slice of the electorate than it was in 1972 but Obama needs more than the Democratic base, at large, let alone the McGovern base, to win

National security, may well be the issue more than any other, which has enabled Republicans to win seven of the last 10 presidential elections

The one good thing about 2008 is that hot-button cultural issues, that Republicans have exploited to great electoral benefit no matter how divisive, may not have the same saliency as four years ago but national security will

Some of you will probably dance up and down with me for suggesting this, but Obama should reach out and seek common ground with evangelicals, not on cultural issues, but on issues like social justice/economic fairness, the environment and healthcare. They do matter

Here is a link to an interesting article I recently read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202386.html?nav=hcmodule

Dave

Obama wants to withdraw virtually all troops within a year.
Obama voted for every attempt to de-fund the Iraq war and opposed the surge.
Obama wants to unconditionally negotiate with Iran.
Obama has Jimmy Carter's advisors and Samantha Power guiding him.
Obama is endorsed by MoveOn and Daily Kos

In the words of Jimmy Carville, you can't put lipstick on a caterpillar and claim that it is a butterfly.

[politicaltipster]

Also, even if Obama and Clinton are actually more hawkish that they claim to be their election will lead to a collapse in confidence in the region and be a big boost to AQI - making a withdrawal inevitable.

To be fair I firmly believe that Bush's decision to convene the ISG lead the terrorists to believe that he was consdering a withdrawal and encouraged them to ramp up the violence - a plan which came very close to succeeding. I am also worried that Petraeus will recommend a too hasty troop drawdown which will undo all of the gains of the surge.