AFTERNOON UPDATE:  JULY 5,  2008

Posted at 3:18 p.m. ET

SHOCKED, SHOCKED

Mr. Obama professes anguish, confusion and dismay at the reaction to his comments on Iraq.  The pain and agony are obvious:

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Barack Obama said Saturday that he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and denied that he intends to anything but end the war if he is elected.

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening.

In two news conferences on Thursday, Obama said any refinement of his position on Iraq wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but rather to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida. But he also acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.

Oh please.  The man has been all over the map trying to expand his voter base, and he got caught at it.  He's a professional Chicago politician, and you may be sure he's not at all surprised by the reaction.  He probably welcomes it.  He wants that great middle range of voters, and this is his way of getting to them.  He can take some risks with his base because the crowd that may threaten to stay home unless he remains ideologically rigid is far smaller than the middle group he plans to win.

Call it cynical.  No change we can believe in.

July 5, 2008.      Permalink          

SATURDAY:  JULY 5,  2008

Posted at 8:14 a.m. ET

IN THE REAL WORLD

The centrifuges in Iran keep spinning.  Americans, caught up in our election campaign and in the cost of gasoline, are distracted. But Iran has now given its response to the latest Western proposal - some benefits in exchange for dropping its uranium-enrichment program.  After weeks of speculation that something new was in the wind, it appears to be the same old, same old.  The New York Times:

PARIS — Iran formally responded Friday to an international proposal of incentives aimed at resolving the impasse over the country’s nuclear program, but failed to address the central issue of whether it would halt its uranium enrichment activities, according to officials involved in the diplomatic effort.

Instead, the response, in a letter by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said Iran would be willing to open a comprehensive negotiation with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, and the six world powers involved in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It did not specifically address any of the proposals they presented to it last month.

“The time for negotiating from the condescending position of inequality has come to an end,” the Iranian response said, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

It also criticized the United Nations Security Council sanctions against it as “illegal” and spoke of a “lack of trust” because of the “duplicitous behavior of certain big powers,” the officials said.

There is nothing new here.  In fact, it's highly unlikely that any serious moves will be made by the Iranians until they get a greater sense of the American political campaign.  Why should they make concessions if an Obama administration is coming, one that may - repeat may - make few demands on them? 

So there's no progress.  But there are the stories about a possible Israeli strike on Iran between our election day and inauguration day.  But we don't know whether these stories are accurate, or part of a disinformation plan to rattle the Iranians into some movement.  They don't appear easily rattled. 

And, of course, our own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, hardly helped matters when he publicly expressed his opposition to military action against Iran, essentially taking off some heat. 

This story is going to be with us.  Iran is probably no more than a year or two away from having the means to put together a "crude" nuclear weapon.  The blast effect of a crude nuclear weapon, smuggled into a harbor by ship, is exactly the same as that of a sophisticated weapon, delivered by missile.  But don't tell that to the Pollyannas.

July 5, 2008.      Permalink          

FLIPPING AND FLOPPING

Is there any end to the flip-flopping by Senator Obama?  Lost in the holiday celebrations was his latest, a change in his position on abortion that is likely to get him in hot water with NARAL and its allies:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.

For now, NARAL is giving Obama a kind of pass.  But an abortion opponent notes the obvious contradiction:

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

I don't think I've seen a candidate in my lifetime who has changed his position as often on so many things as has Senator Obama.  I guess this is the "change" we've been waiting for.  I'd love to see a journalist present these changes to a focus group of Obama's young supporters and ask what they think.

July 5, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SERVICE RECORD

Will John McCain's military record make a serious difference in the final vote? Margaret Talev of the McClatchy papers has a thoughtful piece, pointing out the contradiction between people's gut attitudes and the way they cast their ballots.  This is well worth reading:

History shows that whether a candidate has military experience rarely determines who'll win election to the nation's highest office. Still, there's enough evidence that Americans respect military service and connect it to patriotism that Obama has been making a concerted effort, especially as Independence Day approached, to talk about his love of country and respect for an institution he never joined.

And...

Consider some findings from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center:

Americans' low esteem for the federal government doesn't extend to the military. A May survey found support for the federal government the lowest in at least a decade — 37 percent — with President Bush's favorability at only 27 percent. But the survey indicated a favorability rating of 84 percent for the military.

Military service topped a list of presidential-candidate traits that would make Americans more likely to support someone in a February 2007 survey. Some 48 percent said they'd be more likely to support a candidate with military service; only 3 percent said they'd be less likely to do so.

Respondents to an April survey were asked which traits described various candidates. Ninety percent thought the word "patriotic" described McCain, while 61 percent thought it fit Obama. Seventy-one percent said "tough" fit McCain but only 49 percent applied it to Obama. Obama did better with "inspiring": 66 percent, to 39 percent for McCain.

But how do people actually cast their votes?  In recent times, Talev reports, military service has had diminished impact:

Bill Clinton didn't serve, and he defeated Republican combat veterans in 1992 and 1996. Both his victories came in peacetime, however.

President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, served in World War II; Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and the current President Bush had varying degrees of military service but saw no combat.

Bush's 2004 challenger, Democrat John Kerry, was a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, but Americans then generally supported the invasion of Iraq and were uneasy about switching the commander in chief a year and half into the war.

Obama has sought to make the election about judgment - his versus John McCain's.  McCain should take him up on that.  At the start of the campaign, Obama could boast that he'd been opposed to the Iraq War from the start, whereas McCain had supported it.  In the time since, McCain's judgments about the value of the surge have proved correct, whereas Obama's have seemed muddled, and, now, famously, contradictory.  If it's about judgment, McCain can best Obama, but only if McCain runs a vigorous exciting campaign, which we're still to see.

July 5, 2008.      Permalink