McCain Desperate Over Obama Trip

Photo: With Troops in Iraq

Barack on Tour:
Taking Global
Victory Laps

By John Nichols
The Nation blog

July 22, 2008

What was John McCain thinking?

Did the Republican who would be president really think that by goading Democrat Barack Obama into visiting Afghanistan and Iraq -- countries the senator from Illinois was going to have to visit as part of an image-building international tour -- he would somehow trip-up his November rival?

Was McCain under some delusion that international leaders would subtly undermine the Obama tour and thus confirm that the Republican ally of discredited lame- duck President George Bush was the only real choice to lead the United States toward a more realistic role in the world?

If that was the case, then McCain really is too foolish to be president -- not merely of the U.S. but of his stamp club.



Type rest of the post here
As Obama goes from strength to strength -- sinking baskets, drawing cheers from the troops, forging a plan to extract most U.S. forces from Iraq that everyone who matters seems to agree with -- McCain is scrambling.

Of course, it is true that Obama is too open to a wider U.S. commitment in Afghanistan and too closed to a wider U.S. commitment to seeking peace in the Middle East. But, in each case, he appears moderate when compared to the bombastic McCain.

Of course, it is true that Obama may be making commitments that he cannot keep. But the Democrat's overreach does not begin to rival that of the Republican -- a fact that is coming across to the American people who, if tracking polls are correct, are warming to Obama with each passing day of an international journal that looks less like a listening tour than a victory lap.

What's a McCain to do?

The Republican appears to be thinking about trying to trump Obama, not with some foreign-policy masterstroke but with some old-fashioned politics.

McCain has been meeting on an almost daily basis with Republican vice presidential prospects -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was with the candidate Sunday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will be with him Wednesday. There have been lengthy conversations with long-shot Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and with the man whose name many believe is at the top of the list of likely suspects: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak claims that McCain will make a vice presidential pick quickly. "Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip," argues Novak.

Is it really possible that McCain would use a vice presidential designation to grab some cheap headlines away from Obama? Possible, yes. The Republican contender is desperate; he's falling behind in state- by-state surveys and there is every reason to believe Obama will enjoy a big bump from his global positioning.

But the key word here is "possible." McCain's aides are torn about whether making a vice presidential pick now is the best idea. While such a move would counter Obama's surge, picking a running-mate now would require the Republican contender to play the best card he's got early in the game. McCain would own the news cycle, but once the excitement fades -- as it surely would if someone like Romney was the pick -- he has very little with which to compete with Obama for attention.

That could make for a long, hot August for McCain, culminating with Obama's rock-star finish to the Democratic nominating convention in Denver.

Still, July is turning into a miserable month for McCain. And misery loves company.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq End Game Tilting To Barack

Photo: Maliki Greets Ahmadinejad Note: since this was written, 'spokemen' for Maliki tried to spin this as not intended to endorse a candidate.

Maliki Backs
Obama Timeline
For Withdrawal

By Tom Hayden
Huffington Post

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.



But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Pushing 'Buyers Remorse' on Voters

Photo: Fox Smear at Work

Obama
At Risk,
Part 2

By Tom Hayden
Progressives for Obama


"The most that can be expected at this stage are November electoral mandates for peace and a speedy withdrawal from both American and Iraqi voters. This will not be easy, despite the peace majorities entrenched in both countries. In the meantime, Congressional debate over the secret US-Iraq "status of forces" agreement will keep the issues front-and-center.

If Barack Obama goes through with his high-risk plan to visit Iraq [and Afghanistan], he may be confronted by US military commanders and Iraqi leaders questioning his 16-month timetable as naive and threatening to national security. On the other hand, Obama risks demoralization within his electoral base if he wavers on basics.

Meanwhile, in John McCain, the hawks have found the perfect iconic candidate for keeping the Iraq war alive through the present depths of its democratic legitimacy crisis. McCain's election would serve the interests of the Pentagon, revive the neo-conservative era, and further deepen the conflict between democracy and empire."

-- Tom Hayden, The Huffington Post, July 12.

I don’t want to "pile on" along with those already complaining about Obama’s "move to the center." But I am concerned that some people might be in denial about his failure to gain traction in the polls even as McCain seems to flounder on.

There always are explanations – it’s summer, polls fluctuate, etc.


But I think the Obama campaign may be falling into the Rove game plan. Besides the hard-core 40 percent who never will vote for Obama, the Republicans only need to reinforce and deepen the doubt among another ten percent about who Obama is and what he stands for.

There are many ways to move to the center which are consistent with Obama’s promise to change the frozen categories of partisan politics. For example, he could strongly support start-up businesses and individual entrepreneurs in all sorts of ways. But seeming to reverse himself so significantly on the electronic surveillance bill sent a different message, that he’s not the candidate he promised to be.

It’s possible to argue that he’s been slipping ever since the late stages of the Democratic primary campaign, but I won’t go there. Certainly the promise of spending money and campaigning in 50 states may be seen as hubris, once the realities of the fierce two-party competition sink in.

And then there’s Iraq, always Iraq. Taking Sen. Hagel to Baghdad with him is certainly a good move, but the place is not exactly a controlled environment for presidential events. If anyone controls the scene, it’s the Pentagon, White House, and the al-Maliki government, and they’re not going to do him any favors. The same is true of Afghanistan. For that matter, even his plans for Germany have been rattled by partisan politics. It’s hard to see the upside of these high-risk, high-wire events when he could be campaigning in, say, Colorado and New Mexico. Images of Obama as a global "leader" may be of some value, but they don’t connect with Middle Americans who wonder why he says Sioux Falls instead of Sioux Rapids, or why he was surprised that Pittsburg has a nice river and mountains.

It will be hard to avoid criticism of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan from the very "commanders on the ground" he says he wants to listen to. They, the Pentagon, the White House and the mainstream media will tell him the plan is unrealistic and destabilizing. If that happens, will Obama publicly reject what they say, be protected by Hagel, or issue a "refinement" of his policy that stirs up the whole anti-war movement?

As far as I can tell, his three compelling arguments with McCain, in addition to "change", are:

* End the War: ending the Iraq War through diplomacy and troop withdrawals, versus McCain’s policy of winning miitarily and retaining an army of permanent occupation;

* Economic Growth: redirecting Iraq spending and ending Bush’s tax breaks to invest in health care and public works projects, and re-regulating out-0f-control financial markets and war contractors to stabilize and improve the economy, versus McCain’s tax cuts, threats to Social Security, and reluctance to regulate.

* Protect the environment instead of doing favors for the big oil companies, with a massive focus on "green jobs" in conservation and sustainable energy projects, versus McCain’s deference to oil company priorities


To get there requires delivering on two other Obama themes: mobilizing the public to participate creatively and actively more than they ever have, and thwarting the hordes of fossilized lobbyists in Washington.

Isn’t that the substance that brought Obama this far, and that he himself symbolizes in his personal story? That message is backed by the voluntary and fragile faith of millions of Americans. Yes, Americans want a certain level of pragmatism and deal-making, but it that’s all they wanted they would have chosen someone other than Barack Obama, and still may.

The unusual quality of Obama’s campaign is that it rests on a fleeting "audacity of hope", not on the institutional machinery of traditional politics. The Republicans and the media, in different ways and for different reasons, will do everything possible to throw Obama off that focus. They want to instill a sense of buyer’s remorse. It can happen very quickly, hardly noticeable at first, but becomes irreversible when the image solidifies.

Read More...

Summary only...