Circulating In Republican Oppo Precincts...Obama On Iraq From 2004

Is this video of Sen. Barack Obama from 2004. The context isn't entirely clear, but it appears as if he wants to reassure the host that he has no intention to rapidly withdraw troops and certainly wouldn't set an artificial deadline.

I sent the clip to the Obama campaign and asked his national security senior adviser, Susan Rice, about it. "One year into the war is very different from five years into the war. Those who opposed the war thought it was a massive strategic blunder, but that doesn't mean we didn't want the U.S. to succeed," she said. "It was, in my personal estimation, and I imagine that Sen. Obama had this in his mind too, that it was way too soon [to conclude] that there was no way that a bad situation couldn't be ameliorated, at least partially."

At the time, Rice said, there was no way to know whether a political resolution could be tendered; by 2007, when Obama unveiled his plans for a post-war Iraq, it was clear to Obama that the U.S. strategy was overreaching and underperforming.

A point about consistency: Obama has acknowledged that his policy on Iraq withdrawal has evolved as the conditions on the ground have changed, and so this video doesn't strike me as a smoking gun; it just reminds me that Iraq is an extremely complex issue, and that "stay the course" versus "withdrawal" has never been a good way to think about it. And that Obama's position has not been entirely consistent -- although it's hard to value consistency about a messy, bloody, convoluted war and its equally messy, convoluted, messy aftermath. On this point, during the campaign, Sen. Clinton was not wrong when she pointed out Obama's different directions. (See my National Journal article on the subject from 2007.)

So I guess what I'm getting to... is that Obama hasn't been consistent... but that consistency is not the coin of this realm. The Obama campaign claims that Obama has made an evidenced-based assessment of what to do and will continue to do as president; as the facts on the ground change, he won't stubbornly stick to preconceptions about what to do.

What do you think? Will voters laud Obama for his dexterity? Or do they prefer resilience?

Comments

Marc:

I don't particularly mind you scrutinizing my candidate, as it is important for me/us to understand who he is, BUT, it seems that Obama is the candidate who experiences the vast majority of your scrutiny.

Why is that?

Posted by Mikelx | June 12, 2008 6:24 PM

What do I think?

Given you threw a sissy fit about 'context' when McCain said it didn't matter about troops in Iraq, the fact that you mention the context then don't bother to say any more is pretty damning.

but what does the student chair of Iowa think? that's the realquestion.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 6:25 PM

What I think:
I don't think we should comment without knowing the context.

Posted by context | June 12, 2008 6:28 PM

The war is completely different than it was in 2004. Most people were saying lets see how things pan out and move on from there.

Posted by Dude! | June 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Even in Obama's initial 2002 speech it was clear he was partial to the Powell "you break it, you buy it" perspective.

The last couple of pages of this pdf list a dozen or so quotes showing Obama's consistency on Iraq. I think he has been very consistent on his approach and philosophy towards Iraq, even if the specifics changed over time as Iraq itself changed over time.

Posted by Mark | June 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Is this video of Sen. Barack Obama from 2004. The context isn't entirely clear, but...

- Marc Ambinder, June 12, 2008

It's Not Important? Context Is Always Important

- Marc Ambinder, June 11, 2008

Posted by Darius | June 12, 2008 6:31 PM

Slam dunk, Darius!

Posted by In Texas | June 12, 2008 6:36 PM

Marc,

This will be the last time i am coming to your blog. I have noticed a pattern that i found disgusting - especially your slant towards republican talking point.

Yesterday, you excuse McCain from his stupid comment and today you're parsing Obama's statement from 2004. What is the matter with you? Are you in bed with McCain? I guess you are part of the DC establishment we the people are trying to get rid of. You are a scum bag that doesn't deserve my attention any longer.

Why the 28 seconds clip? Where is the whole interview? Where is the context of the whole interview, asshole?

Posted by Bee | June 12, 2008 6:36 PM

Yes, and my goodness, is there enough bandwidth in the blogosphere for you to post McCain's flip flops? You could at least try. Are you supposed to be real-world fair and balanced or Fox News "fair and balanced"?

Posted by Too much kool aid for you! | June 12, 2008 6:43 PM

I think any conversation about Iraq at the end of the day is a conversation that hurts John McCain. It seems to me, based on their attacks, that the public understands this too. So given a candidate who will end the war (as he says: as carefully as we were careless getting in) and a candidate who will not only stay but wants to create a situation like Saudia Arabia, Korea, or Japan and the answer is clear.

This isn't going to do more than give Obama another peg to talk about Iraq on; and it will at best be a short tactical victory for the RNC. Because at the end: there is one anti-war candidate and his name is not John McCain.

And that is the central problem that John McCain has to over come. It is why this campaign is becoming, as many have blogged, a refferendum on Obama. If he passes the threshold test then he will be the next president of the United States.

JMHO

Posted by Rhoda | June 12, 2008 6:46 PM

The only good bit of Bee's comment is the first sentence. As for the others - Darius etc - honestly, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. If you're stupid enough to think Ambinder is secretly anti or pro-anyone then why on earth are you reading him?

Now, to the post. I have to say, Marc, I don't think this is a big deal at all. If Obama or anyone else says in 2004 that troops should stay, and then three years later says it's time for them to come home now, well...so what? It's a changing situation.

http://marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | June 12, 2008 6:47 PM

Haha. Now I think I understand why Marc shut down comments.

Posted by Abby | June 12, 2008 6:48 PM

By the way if the people who leave these absurd 'You're biased because you dare to question Obama' comments had the slightest capacity for self-reflection, they might find it incongruous that that on the one hand they're supporting a candidate whose whole campaign is about overcoming divisiveness and hate, while with the other they're dropping the most divisive, hate-filled, bullying, abusive comments in the blogosphere...

Posted by marbury | June 12, 2008 6:52 PM

Marc:

Just as I thought the criticism in the previous set of comments on the Iowa post were completely warranted, I think these are completely unwarranted.

Good, interesting post. Personally, I like that his approach to the war will depend on the circumstances. I think it would worry me if his approach was "inconsistent" and the inconsistencies were baseless. But I do think that inconsistency, with or without justification, is generally looked down upon by voters.

Posted by Jason | June 12, 2008 6:57 PM

Marbury,

If you read most of the posts and comments, you might find that what people say is not what you put in quotes (which doesn't exist in the whole of google, so perhaps you're making it up) - it's to do with balance.

John McCain's hundred years of Iraq and it not bothering him if troops stay there got defended by Marc, yet these sort of statements from Obama are then questions about his consistency.

It's not Obama being questioned at all. It's to do with the frequency of the Obama questioning and its ratio compared with McCain's, and then the editoralizing usually in McCain's favor.

If you are judging things purely on the text in front of you, then you are missing quite a lot.

If you see Darius's post, then perhaps you might see what the issue is. I'm assuming, of course, that you have more than 'the slightest capacity for self-reflection'.

And the fact that you put 'secretly' as if its so what. Well, I know standards have slipped in journalism, but if someone claims to be a journalist, then they are meant to be objective, or state otherwise.

MY and AS and RD don't claim to be unbiased.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 7:04 PM

Well, this is consistent with his VOTE AGAINST KERRY-FEINGOLD's amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Posted by framecop | June 12, 2008 7:17 PM

Er, no, James, my point, quite obviously, is that to claim Ambinder is 'secretly' anything is absurd. Perhaps he has unconscious biases, perhaps we all do - I don't know and I don't care. All I'm suggesting is that you respect his blog, his reporting, and his points of view even if you disagree with some of them - and most of all that you take his claim to be objective in good faith. You might have your doubts, but how giving him the benefit of them? As I say, Obama's campaign is meant to be about a spirit of generosity. Show a little.

And once again: if you don't like it here, follow Bee's example and buzz off.

Posted by marbury | June 12, 2008 7:18 PM

This is a big flip flop. Where was this video during the primary? If this had been played over and over in Iowa, Hillary Clinton would be are next president because Obama never would have gotten the loony anti-war vote.

Posted by John | June 12, 2008 7:23 PM

I have to agree with the overall sentiment.

I don't really have a problem with this post of Marc's, which presents a skeptical but reasonably fair assessment of Obama.

I do have a problem with yesterday's post, in which jumped out in front of McCain like a mother bear guarding her cub (and failed to provide any original reporting). Marc should have been on McCain's gaffe like bitter on cling.

I also have a problem with five consecutive posts about some random staffer named Jim Johnson, but I'll let that pass. Just know, Marc, that if you go on the warpath against Obama's director of Southeastern media markets for unpaid parking tickets, we're going to have to revisit this.

And stop reading Mickey Kaus, he's a bad influence.

Posted by southpaw | June 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Marc,

I'm all for fair criticism of both candidates, but on this issue, you are inconsistent in your reporting (and that too while complaining of Obama's inconsistency!). Clearly, you are contradicting yourself as Darius so aptly pointed out.

Another point I'd like to make: If Obama's VP vetter is getting so much of coverage, shouldn't equal, if not, MORE coverage be given to the fact that McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis was undermining US efforts in Ukraine as a LOBBYIST and McCain knew about it and didn't do anything? Why do I not see or hear any of the same outrageous reaction that was there for Jim Johnson?

If I'm not mistaken, you have not posted a SINGLE item on this topic, despite today's NY Times article.

Just wondering why that is....

Posted by AM | June 12, 2008 7:26 PM

Bee - chill out or leave. No need for attacks like yours. Yes, Marc's post leaves a whole lot to be desired (starting with "context"), but there's no need for anonymous commenters to stoop to your level of discourse.

I'm an Obama fan, and I don't think this blog -- or most other MSM ones are biased. Sure some posts (the Iowa student one, for example) are weak, but that's a product of the medium's need for constant postings.

That being said, it would've been more helpful if Marc had pushed his sources for some context, rather than posting the scaps that the GOP are pushing.

I highly doubt that Halperin would've posted this half piece of information, Marc. If the context was damning, too, then the GOP would've included the context ... and maybe given it to Halerpin, instead?

Posted by dem. | June 12, 2008 7:27 PM

Back during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, not even Howard Dean, who was anti-war from the start, was advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. IIRC, only Dennis Kucinich suggested pulling out troops right away.

Posted by Atlantic Canadian | June 12, 2008 7:29 PM

Marbury,

if you don't know and you don't care if he is biased or not, then perhaps your opinion is not that important, especially given the vast majority of the commments on this specific post are on that issue.

If you look at my original post (did you?) it is not about the content at all, but the double standard over 'context'. Incidentally, his context on McCain got him essentially called a water carrier by the McCain website.

'Trust, but verify' I think is the response to 'good faith'. I could list a lot more examples, which may be anecdotal, but since Marc is able to divine a possible female exodus from Obama based on one woman in Iowa, I think the 20 or so posts I could get pretty easily might be worth considering.

that's not counting that there hasn't been a single post about Ron Paul for example for two weeks, despite the fact he could easily be the Republican's Nader, even if he only endorses Barr, let alone run as an independent. Barr himself seems to have mentioned last on 19th May.

But since you seem to be saying that he isn't biased, everyone who says he is biased is stupid, and I don't care anyway, it's not like you would actually bother to look.

If I don't like it here, then I am able to say so, that's sort of the point of having comments on a blog, or do you delete the ones you get you don't like on your blog?

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 7:32 PM

Where was this video during the primary? If this had been played over and over in Iowa, Hillary Clinton would be are next president because Obama never would have gotten the loony anti-war vote.

Actually something quite similar came up during the primary; that different-sounding Iraq position is what Bill Clinton's "fairytale" line supposedly referred to. The reason Obama took a different tone in 2004, I'd guess, is that John Kerry was running for president with the message--basically--that he would be a better manager of the Iraq war. Obama was trying to be a good Democrat and reflected the position of the party's nominee.

Also, I don't think it's inconsistent to advocate one plan in 2004, given the known facts, in 2004 and to suggest a different plan in 2008, when the facts have changed.

Posted by southpaw | June 12, 2008 7:36 PM

I wish there were more details. Which month of 2004? Which day of the month in 2004? Just so we know what Obama's veiws were on that particular day. Which way was the wind blowing? What did his polls say? Fast forward a week or two and his ATTITUDE MAY HAVE CHANGED COMPLETELY. Then another week or two and he would have YET ANOTHER NUANCED POSITION.

Don't judge the man on what he said at that particular morning of that particular day. It may have seemed expedient at the moment, but GOODNESS GRACIOUS DON'T JUDGE THE MAN BY WHAT HE SAYS.

You must be a racist or something to do that.

Posted by robert ethan | June 12, 2008 7:39 PM

I don't know why so many people are complaining. You should have known that marc is not going to be FAIR to Obama when you read this Title:
"Obama On The Attack."
which was used by the Clinton campaign in a clinton attack AD. Furthermore, you should have got that point also when Mccain;s blog made this statement
"I'll let Ambinder do the heavy lifting:"
when he(marc) defended Mccains "context" about the statement, "No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq."

So, if you are bitter about marc's unfairness, head over to the daily dish for fairness. And if think that is not enough, please head over matthew blog for the DNC talking points. However, That being said, I think one should come here to listen to the strongest RNC talking points and for the best defense of the mccains gaffes.

Posted by suggestive | June 12, 2008 7:40 PM

Thank God you're just the racist to do it.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 7:41 PM

Another Mass. resident, RW Emerson, said it best: "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Posted by ireneinmass | June 12, 2008 7:41 PM

Marc, please "report" to me when context is important and when it isn't.

Let me guess: when it's Hillary or McCain, context matters. When it's Obama, meh.

Posted by neil | June 12, 2008 7:42 PM

Wow Marc, with the level of scrutiny that you're giving Obama you would think he was LOSING rather than winning against a guy who ran unopposed for three solid months.

How about hammering The Straight Talker for his innumerable flip-flops in recent years?

Posted by Jim Crozier | June 12, 2008 7:46 PM

Robert Ethan:

Absolutely! The mark of the strength of a man is his ability to cling to a previous point of view no matter how much the facts change. This is why the Bush presidency has been so very successful. No matter how much the facts change, President Bush's views do not.

If the surge ends up being a tremendous, glowing success, Obama must still demand rapid drawdown of troops. If the surge ends up being a dismal failure, Obama MUST demand a rapid drawdown in troops.

Otherwise, obviously, he's not a real man.

Sheesh. If you really want to talk about a candidate who changes his views every time the wind blows different take a moment and look at the difference from McCain Version 2000 and McCain Version 2008.

Posted by Jim Crozier | June 12, 2008 7:54 PM

Someone above wrote: "I don't particularly mind you scrutinizing my candidate, as it is important for me/us to understand who he is, BUT, it seems that Obama is the candidate who experiences the vast majority of your scrutiny."

Please scrutinize Obama! I'm probably going to vote for the guy, though I'm not that excited about it. With Andrew Sullivan and the rest of the media love fest, I'm glad Mr. Ambinder is actually critiquing Obama. An independent study showed he received 77% positive coverage before Jermiah Wright broke, and then 69% positive coverage AFTER Wright (!). The media let the Iraq war slide through without looking at it closely. Let's investigate both of these candidates very closely and negatively. We know about McCain as he's run for president before, but we know very, very little about Obama. Thank you Marc for pointing out this very fair critique (on issues, I might add, not scurrilous rumors or character complaints).

Posted by Chris | June 12, 2008 7:58 PM

No, you don't know about McCain, not least because he didn't run for President, but for the nomination to be President.

If he had got the nomination, then lots more would have come out, and perhaps you would have had 'cuntgate' or something similar in 2000.

And even if you did know everything about him in 2000, perhaps what he's done in the past eight years might be relevant to him being president.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 8:11 PM

Susan Rice said:

"Those who opposed the war thought it was a massive strategic blunder, but that doesn't mean we didn't want the U.S. to succeed."

"It was, in my personal estimation, and I imagine that Sen. Obama had this in his mind too, that it was way too soon [to conclude] that there was no way that a bad situation couldn't be ameliorated, at least partially."

Ironically, Rice, herself, in that statement, just committed a massive strategic blunder by using the word "didn't", conceding that Obama no longer wants the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, despite all the irrefutable current progress, both military and political, resulting from the surge. Denying success in Iraq will be an untenable position for Obama to maintain entering the general election. To conclude that the situation in Iraq cannot be 'partially ameliorated', especially when American casualties have come down to the lowest levels since 2004, exposes a profound willful ignorance that will undoubtedly raise further questions about the first term Illinois senator's judgment.

If Obama is truly interested in becoming this nation's Commander in Chief, it is imperative that he travel to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and acknowledge that a positive outcome is presently being achieved, and understand, seeing with his own eyes that the transfer of sovereignty is nearing completion. Another irony is that it could well be a President Obama who could proudly run for reelection in 2012, with a genuine Mission Accomplished banner behind him.

Posted by argo | June 12, 2008 8:12 PM

I believe that Obama will get us out of Iraq, and McBush won't. End of Story. Also, McBush is the same as Bush on giving tax windfalls to big oil, and will continue to give tax breaks to the top 1% of americans who are so rich that they will just buy a second mansion with their McBush tax breaks. If Marc wants more of the same than McBush is his man.

Posted by Rosie | June 12, 2008 8:49 PM

James, you are right. We have more to learn about McCain. I'm ready for it--more stories about negative or positive things he might do, not his age, please. We figured out he is 72.

I'm also waiting for some serious Obama scrutiny. There are ridiculously weak articles being written about him now. I read Newsweek's article about Obama and the "myth" that he has a problem with Jewish voters. The story was simply Obama campaign talking points, with no actual data. There are some polls of Jewish voters. There was AIPAC, where he completely flipped on previous positions. I want real reporting, not fawning coverage.

Posted by Chris | June 12, 2008 8:49 PM

Might I add regarding Andrew Sullivan's ridiculously fawning coverage of Obama. His Clinton Derangement Syndrome is so bad that I can't read his stuff anymore. The Atlantic needs to hire someone to counterweight his lack of facts. The article in late 2007 that Sullivan wrote on Obama went on for nearly 4 or 5 pages before he actually discussed anything substantive about Obama. It was all about symbolism and all about Sullivan. Please hire someone else at this magazine to counterweight Sullivan. I used to trust your magazine (and I do trust Ambinder still).

Posted by Chris | June 12, 2008 8:55 PM

I think 7 years of having a hard-headed, stubborn, arrogant commander-in-chief that cannot and will not change his position or listen to the perspectives of others is quite enough.

"Dexterity", and the ability to adapt to changing conditions, is a key prerequisite for any chief executive, in the corporate world or politics.

Posted by TH | June 12, 2008 9:51 PM

Good thing for his poor old grandmother that Biracial Barry, the "Bomber" from prep school doesn't mean what he says. Otherwise she would be "disowned" presumably. Not that she would know or care, by all indications. Still it would seem like scant gratitude for keeping the slacker in school until he was 32 years old. At Harvard no less. That can't be cheap.

I wonder if he will drag out some more 40 year old photos of her now that the black voters are no longer so crucial to his ambition? Probably, it seems expedient to morph back into his old race neutral self, since the black voters who kept him afloat in the Primary wouldn't cross over to John McCain at gunpoint.

Posted by robert ethan | June 12, 2008 10:15 PM

I believe Professor Keynes has relevant words here:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Marc?

Posted by Andrew | June 12, 2008 10:36 PM

I am not going to apologize for calling Marc out on his hypocrisy. I am a little bit mad at him because i expect fair coverage from him.

I am tired of corporate media attacking Democratic candidate while giving the Republican candidate a pass. The right wing nut and some journalists were all over Michelle Obama’s comment, and misconstruing every of her words. Why can’t the same journalists apply the same standard to McCain? They were all over Obama’s bitter comment , yet, McCain’s gaffe on the military family was excused.

I have notice this pattern from Marc and it is time someone call him out on it. Even Rachael Maddow's comment on MSNBC tonight confirms my suspicions regarding journalists that are in tank for McCain. We've seen this movie before in 2000 & 2004 - and i am not going to let it slide anymore, period.

Posted by Bee | June 12, 2008 10:43 PM

Marc,

I would love to know some things from your video:
>What was the preceeding question
>What "engagement" is he actually speaking of
>What is the date of this video

Now for a video with these questions answered:

From The Charlie Rose Show, 11/23/2004

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0zO8ScBhtI

This seems much more clear to me than your example.

Posted by Ed S | June 12, 2008 10:58 PM

Bee, are you seriously saying that Rachel Maddow is "in the tank" for McCain?!?

Marc is not being hypocritical. He is reporting. Obama has had a free ride save a pastor pothole for months.

Posted by John | June 12, 2008 11:01 PM

Chris above @ 7:58 -

If you are going to use a resource and even reference statistics, please provide a link to your source, because I doubt you are able to pull those numbers from your head. Otherwise, your "stats" are useless without a source.

Posted by Ed S | June 12, 2008 11:07 PM

Ed S

You may want to have a look at:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/obama_and_a_racial_premium.php

I need to be taught because I can't read, so maybe you can help.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 11:19 PM

That said, I think those figures may be correct actually - can't remember the source though.

Posted by James | June 12, 2008 11:22 PM

Obama is entirely consistent. You don't solve the problem by saying, "Fuck the hajjis we're going home". It's not just the war, it's the mindset that started the war - as Obama has said again and again.

Nobody knows how the situation in Iraq will be if and when a US president orders Blackwater out of the country, and commands the military to stop acting like an all-powerful but never accountable occupying force, and to behave as one would want guests to behave in one's own country. And then maybe, even if this sounds radical, actually ask the Iraqis what they want.

In short the first thing to do is to change the US's shameful behavior, and then work it from there.

Posted by Hans B | June 13, 2008 4:26 AM

Ambinder yesterday: The differences between McCain and Obama are clear enough; Obama wants a bare-bones U.S. presence in Iraq, and McCain is willing to tolerate a much larger one; Obama believes that the presence of U.S. troops exacerbates the tension and gives Iraqis a crutch to delay political reconcilliation. McCain does not. One would think that those differences are a sufficient basis upon which to launch a political attack.

One would think. But apparently it depends on who is launching the attack.

On its "merits," this is really, really weak tea.

Posted by Led | June 13, 2008 5:00 AM

I think voters are perhaps not to enamoured of presidents that faile to adapt policies to evidence.

The issue is one of judgement: given Obama understood the strategic disaster of the Iraq invasion was he showing good or bad judgement here. It doesn't seem unreasonable considering there have never been any good options since we went in, just bad ones.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 13, 2008 5:45 AM

Does Marc say that he his simply an objective reporter with no anti-obama/pro-mccain biases? I haven't seen Marc say he doesn't harbor these biases

I think it is fairly obvious, and it is starting to look like quite a few folks are catching on, that Marc has issues with Obama (5 straight Johnson posts?!?) and likes McCain (context, context, McCain really meant x even though he said Y). This is all fine, but he should quit pretending. I think his reporting would become a bit more truthful if he acknowledged his biases. He wouldn't have to couch his defenses of McCain in "objective" style "reporting".

Posted by jjmckim | June 13, 2008 9:29 AM

No one seriously thinks that maintaining the same tactical position over a 3-year period in wartime displays some sort of virtuous consistency; therefore, any political attack made on the basis of this or a similar clip would be typical empty hypocritical electioneering (yawn).

The question (perhaps the one Mr. Ambinder is exploring?) is whether it would be an effective one for the Republicans to use, as it appears to be "circulating" among their election braintrust.

But it does seem to me that a reporter's job during an election includes facilitating a more legitimate (information-based) democratic process. To be clear, it is to (1) primarily disseminate accurate and relevant information (and counter dis/mis-information), (2) provide meaningful context for that information, and (3) when appropriate, use the building blocks of (1) and (2) to construct thoughtful opinions and conclusions to emphasize real distinctions between or insights into the candidates and their positions.

I suppose there's room to cover the horserace and campaign tactics as well, but when doing so, the informational chaff that comprises so much of the meat of this discussion should be called out for what it is. It is reckless for journalists to turn a blind eye to the power of the echo chamber.

Posted by bab23 | June 13, 2008 10:00 AM

Is "bab" short for babble?

Sheesh!

That was as twisted,pretentious, and overwrought, a road of rambling rhetoric as I've been led down in a long while.

Posted by robert ethan | June 13, 2008 10:54 AM

MA:So I guess what I'm getting to... is that Obama hasn't been consistent... but that consistency is not the coin of this realm. The Obama campaign claims that Obama has made an evidenced-based assessment of what to do and will continue to do as president; as the facts on the ground change, he won't stubbornly stick to preconceptions about what to do.

What do you think? Will voters laud Obama for his dexterity? Or do they prefer resilience?

I suppose it depends how dexterous he becomes, and in which direction.
Many conservatives I know are planning to vote for Obama with the belief that he will not really and significantly reduce troop levels once he talks to Petraeus.
Many left-leaning people are voting for Obama because they think he is going to pull our troops out of Iraq. Code Pink, for example, has one of it's founders bundling for him.

He can't please both groups. He can run on the premise that he makes no promise about what he will do (which Susan Rice always says behind the scenes)- he may leave troops, he may bring them home- but that is not the position he publicly takes.

Posted by kaybeel | June 13, 2008 11:17 AM

UTube and video are going to force the population to split, fracture even, into two groups:
- on one hand, those who value consistency and ideological purity above all else.
- on the other, those, like Andrew at 10:36, who expect that positions will be based of reality -- which can and does change over time.

Decide which group someone is in, and you will have a firm handle on how they will react to an old video of a candidate. And how to persuade them for or against something.

Figure out which way a majority of the population leans, and you will know what kind of candidate will win an election. On the evidence, it is going to take the politicians a long, long time to figure out that they can't just ignore what they might have said in the past because nobody will remember. Videos are just so much more compelling than words on paper.

Posted by wj | June 13, 2008 11:21 AM

EdS, here's the data. Obama had the most positive coverage throughout the primary season, 69% positive stories. The authors also note "The year 2008 started off extremely well for Obama. Positive assertions commanded 77% of the narrative studied about him from January 1 -13."

Note that Clinton got positive coverage as well, but more near the end when it was too little, too late in terms of helping her. Obama had fawning coverage during Iowas and leading up to Super Tuesday, which helped him a lot.

McCain has had http://journalism.org/node/11266

Posted by Chris | June 13, 2008 11:59 AM

"That was as twisted,pretentious, and overwrought, a road of rambling rhetoric as I've been led down in a long while."

Hey, I tried really hard to keep it from rambling.

Posted by bab23 | June 13, 2008 12:14 PM

Bee, are you seriously saying that Rachel Maddow is "in the tank" for McCain?!?

Marc is not being hypocritical. He is reporting. Obama has had a free ride save a pastor pothole for months.

Posted by John | June 12, 2008 11:01 PM
-------------------------------------------------

If you watch what Rachael Maddow said on countdown last night you will be skeptical of the print media. She basically said "McCain has hired some lobbyist to lobby the press." That statement alone should scare all Americans that trust the press to do the right thing. I am beginning to think journalists are part of the problem. Ever since the inception of Fox news, the media has become a joke.

Why can't Marc report on McCain's flip flop on social security? Of course he can't because he is waiting to put it into context. You wonder why most print media are loosing money...America have seen through their BS and they will continue to bleed money until they go back to practicing through journalism.

Posted by Bee | June 13, 2008 12:43 PM

To Bee: Obama already has many, many people lobbying the media. His campaign emails reporters immediately if the headline comes off bad for the candidate and asks for changes to the articles.

McCain is only now catching up to what Obama has been doing. The media coverage, print and TV, have wildly favored Obama relative to McCain. You don't have to be a supporter of any candidate to realize this as objective fact.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 2:14 PM

Obama "lobbying the media"? He doesn't have to, he hired Matt Pudge, the Fat Faced Smirking Sleazeball that big media takes it's lead from.

The Boor in the Jaunty Boater has been on the payroll since well before the Primary Campaign began. Not that I'm questioning his scruples, since he never had any to begin with.

Posted by robert ethan | June 13, 2008 2:45 PM

Thanks Chris for the source, I will check it out.

Posted by Ed S | June 13, 2008 3:46 PM

Ambinder has apparently migrated over to the cesspool
of McBush talking points. If you as a "journalist" cannot appreciate the simple difference between 1 year after the war vs 5 years after then we're in some serious trouble.

I suppose to oppose the war with "absolute purity" you need no have advocated withdrawal from Iraq within 24 hrs after the invasion?? Bahhhhhh. This goes into your ever-increasing pile of disappointing posts.

Posted by Coltrane | June 13, 2008 4:32 PM

Jesus, does every frigging post have to be an endless debate about this?

Ambinder should create one post for people to bitch about his evenhandedness and then delete everything else that is off topic in the other posts. This is utterly pathetic.

In answer to the question, of course the inconsistency matters. But he's always said whatever he thinks his crowd wants him to say.

Posted by Cal | June 13, 2008 8:35 PM

HEY MARC, where's the post on MCCAIN'S REAL flip flops??

this is BS. obama has ALWAYS been consistent on iraq. he's not far left like richardson where u just come home. he voted to fund the war to get the best possible result out of a crappy decision.

LEARN SOME CONTEXT. GEEZUZ...you would think after getting your panties bunched up over "not too important" u would learn to be objective.

the thing u don't understand is that john mccain REALLY believes that it's ok to leave troops there. why are being so dense?

Posted by jello | June 14, 2008 11:10 AM