Did Obama walk into a trap on Iraq?
posted at 9:30 am on July 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Roger Simon at Politico believes Barack Obama allowed himself to walk into a big trap on Iraq by agreeing to tour the country and talk to the commanders on the ground. Why go at all if Obama planned to stick to his policy of withdrawal? Making the trip concedes that he didn’t know what he talking about in the primaries, and it sets up a conundrum for Obama’s future policy:
Today many Americans are asking themselves if their summer driving vacations are really necessary because of the high cost of fuel.
But I am wondering about a trip that has nothing to do with the cost of fuel. I am wondering about Barack Obama’s planned trip to Iraq.
Is it necessary? Why? What is he going to learn from it?
The problem for Obama is that he constructed his policy stand on Iraq based on his one trip in 2006 and the explosion of violence at that time. He has stuck with his withdraw-regardless-of-consequences position ever since entering the race in January 2007. He opposed the surge, arguing that the addition of 20,000 more troops would not improve matters, and even suggested it would make things worse.
Now we know that Obama got it wrong on the surge, but his base of voters still refuse to acknowledge reality. Hillary Clinton tried explaining it in this year’s primaries, and lost the contest to Obama in large measure because of it. MoveOn and Code Pink lifted Obama to victory on the basis of his refusal to recognize the progress being made in Iraq, and they do not want to see Obama shift away from that position.
The trip to Iraq will force Obama to recognize the progress, both in security and in politics. He will have to confront the fruits of a strategy he fought to oppose, and the security brought by American troops that he insisted should have been withdrawn two years ago. And after doing that, Obama will have to explain how American voters should trust his judgment on the war when he got the most critical call of it wrong, and continued to insist on surrender when the opportunity for victory presented itself.
When he does, how will he explain it? Simon already knows:
A few days later, Obama said all the “confusion” over his Iraq statement was not his fault but rather the media’s. “I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured,” Obama said. “I was a little puzzled by the frenzy I set off.”
Bad media. (Asking candidates to say precisely what they mean and mean precisely what they say is ruining this country, if you ask me.)
Obama issues a statement on the biggest foreign-policy issue in this campaign, and he’s “surprised” and “puzzled” that people wanted to figure out exactly what he meant? So much for the superior judgment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Fuque Obama.
My French lesson for the day.
ambuldog on July 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Yep. But what does it really mean? Blue on blue……Whoo hoo!!!!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM
… his base of voters still refuse to acknowledge reality.
The understatement of the year.
Tony737 on July 9, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Regarding the above story, here’s my Spanish lesson for the day.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 9, 2008 at 9:39 AM
The trip to Iraq will force Obama to recognize the progress …
No, because just like his legions of followers, he too will refuse to acknowledge reality.
Lefties never admit when they’re wrong, and that’s because they always are.
Tony737 on July 9, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Seems to me that Obama picked his policy position based on the fact that his anti-war left base was dumping truck loads of cash on his doorstep every day. I don’t think it is a trap necessarily, unless his base stops funding him.
percysunshine on July 9, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Regardless of any pivot, the radical left will still vote for him.
vinman on July 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Puzzled Possum, perplexed that his prose did not produce instantaneous prostration.
Maquis on July 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Obama’s speech upon returning from visiting the military brass in Iraq has already been written. What’s important is not what he sees over there, but how cleverly he can conceal the truths he dare not let his flock be aware of.
fogw on July 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
When are you going to acknowledge Maliki calling for a timetable to withdraw American troops? It’s not about just McCain and Obama any more.
My favorite Mohammed at PJM just covered it in detail.
Beagle on July 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Nah. Perfect opportunity for Barry to validate his decision to leave…
More security……Check
Every political problem solved……No check. There is all the confirmation he needs to say ‘I told you so’.
I came, I saw, I withdrew.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM
He was against it before he was for it.
cntrlfrk on July 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM
the Iraqi’s are giving him some ammo though, with the reports they want us to withdrawal
jp on July 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM
The trip to Iraq will force Obama to recognize the progress…
We needn’t hold our breath waiting for the inevitable announcement from Obama. Because of what Obama said, the world is a better place as can be seen in Iraq’s progress. Pompous lunacy!
maverick muse on July 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM
While we’re at it…
Pig Latin lesson of the day:
Uckfay iblays andhay Emdays!
Dog Latin lesson of the day:
Kilafiss milafi alafass Olafobalafamalafa!
Oink Woof!
Swinehound on July 9, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Obama will recognize some progress, revert back to an argument about it being fragile and the surge not accomplishing everything it needed to, and go forward with his withdraw-regardless argument.
I’d be utterly shocked if it forced even the tiniest alteration of his policy.
amerpundit on July 9, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Hey Doc, you an Obama Zombie ? Or you insulting me just for fun.
ambuldog on July 9, 2008 at 9:51 AM
It’s true that the media overanalyzes statements and plays the “what if” games with each word. But it’s been like this for decades or maybe more. Every time a speech is made by politicians this fact is taken into account. Him being unaware of this really shows naivette.
AlexB on July 9, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Obama has no core so all of his decisions can “change” with the wind. The media will provide cover by the omitting the facts of his true identity. It doesn’t matter if he changes his thoughts about Iraq, abortion, gun control, etc. He can say whatever he likes and let his minions revise it later. There is no trap. You can only get trapped when someone wants to catch you and there is no desire to do that by the press.
woodman on July 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
“Change”
Barry Hussein Obama
Vladymir Iliych Lenin
Adolph Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Chairman Mao
Well, at least Fauxbama is in good company. Not all change is good however…He’s a socialist/Marxist like all the above…Do we really need a sneak preview??? This guy’s candidacy reminds me more and more of how Hitler got in. Maybe it’s just me…I’m wondering if Barry has Albert Speer’s Grandson running the lights at the stadium rally in the Denver Colliseum………..Heil Obama, sieg heil!!!!
adamsmith on July 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
That is the media’s position more then Maliki drawing a line in the sand. The ‘withdrawal’ is a talking point in the SOFA agreement we are trying to hammer out. The eventual departure of foreign troops is an election issue (as it would be in any country). For Maliki it props him up with the nationalists and gives him leverage with the next U.S. President for more guns and ammo.
Limerick on July 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
…huh?
He may sound good, but he don’t tahlk gud.
MadisonConservative on July 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Just a hunch here, but I’m not so sure Obama being wrong about the war is going to matter too much. His so called superior judgment was merely an excuse for his candidacy, and never the justification for it.
Barack may find that the violence ending in Iraq suits his purposes fine, as it removes the issue entirely. Let’s face it, at the moment, energy prices are all that matter. For now, Obama’s on the wrong side of that, but he still has time to maneuver.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Sir, you insult me with your insinuations that I bow and worship at the church of St. Barack. My Spanish lesson was to be directed towards El Senor Mesias de Obama. Didn’t he just say that we should learn another language? I was practicing a future conservation with his Holiness.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Obama’s house of cards is starting to shimmy.
forest on July 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
If there’s a trap in Iraq, he set it.
He’s been arguing – most emphatically during the primaries – that the cause of the strife in Iraq was the presence of US troops. It was, he argued, our deployment there that led to AQ attacking the country and it was our presence that gave the Iraqis an excuse not to address their political differences (he laid this all out here in a major address: Link).
The only way we could “end the war”, Obama argued, was by pulling our troops out. This is why he was so vehemently against the surge. More troops wouldn’t help, so his thinking went, because the presence of our troops was the cause of the violence.
All of this was quite appealing to the left. It’s a variation of ye olde “Blame Bush”. Hey, it worked. It helped get him the nomination.
But now that it’s been shown that he was wrong, that the cause of the violence was more than the stationing of US troops, he’s boxed in.
By his own policies. By how own statements. By his own views.
Gee, don’tcha hate it when bad things happen to good people?
SteveMG on July 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Yep. Looks to me like a win-win for Obama. He makes the trip then can claim either:
1. New facts given him by Petraeus et al have caused him to modify his stance as any prudent man should when given new information. His “change” won’t really amount to much, but demonstrate his openmindedness and analytical power.
2. Or he can jump on Maliki’s recent comments about a time table for our withdrawal as proof he was right all along.
Right now, Iraq isn’t going to hurt him much and it doesn’t help McCain much. The public has a short memory and may even buy into the canard that the lib’s pressure to leave is responsible for the Iraqi government finally getting down to business.
a capella on July 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Well..Media of Codepink said last night on the Factor that Obama had best change his position because they are mad at him for going to the center.
Maybe Code Pink needs to protest at all Obama’s rallies?
becki51758 on July 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM
He’s just tacking to the right at this point! He’ll tack back left before summer is out because he doesn’t want to loose the liberal left’s (read that communist/socialist) vote before the election.
Nothing to see here, move along…move along!
Vntnrse on July 9, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Sometimes it’s tough to interpret the word of the messiah.
roux on July 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I agree. But, he’s gonna have to come up with something pretty substantial on energy soon.
a capella on July 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Obama has been so wrong for so long, that by the time he gets to visit Iraq, he may actually be right. If Obama visits Maliki and the Prime Minister suggests setting a timetable, he will walk out of the meeting and proclaim that he’s been right since 2006, ignoring the whole Surge/Awakening/JAM destruction thing. Its like Seinfeld. “I wanted to set a timetable for withdrawal in 2006, yadda yadda yadda, Maliki agrees with me.” Republicans will proclaim, “You yadda-ed the best part,” and he will respond, “I mentioned the withdrawal.”
And his cult of personality will eat it up saying, “Lo, Obama has moved the mountain.”
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM
But, IF we withdrawal completely and Obama is behind it. Then Iraq turns into disaster…especially if it effects oil prices. That would hurt the dems politically at home, or should…especially if it turned into a terror sponsor state again. I find it hard to beleive the Dem Establishment wants that scenario in play
funny how no mention of Afghanistan ever comes up when talking about Withdrawal.
jp on July 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Changing the subject… It is the economy stupid, so let’s talk about Iraq. Why? Because Obama is vulnerable on EVERY issue, even with his “base”.
For such a “smart” guy he sure seems dumb about the things that the average American seems to know.
Those other issues are either to nuanced, or cut and dry, and he is ALWAYS on the wrong side, with the wrong opinion.
McCain is like an idiot savant. Batteries. He is on to something. What’s Obama got? (crickets chirping…)
Agrippa2k on July 9, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Obama the existential, elite man of the helpless is walking into a nation that he can’t wait to abandon to interface with a military that he despises and wants to replace with civilian peaceniks, like his own SS.
What could go wrong?
Hening on July 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM
The trap was set when his buddies decided that a great honorable general was a traitor.
Now he can go over and ignore…or accept.
Ignore and McCain will batter him to retreat…accept and he has “betrayed” his base.
He is between “Iraq and a hard place”.
right2bright on July 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Trap? What trap! As long as he has this loyal MSM is with him, if ever he walks on a trap, the media will describe it as he climbed a mountain.
Anita on July 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
You ( all ) are missing the obvious. News yesterday was Maliki wants to negotiate the withdrawal of US forces within the Agreement of Forces thingy. Obama wants to withdraw US forces for political reasons.
President Obama, and President Maliki have the perfect opportunity; all they need is the end of exploding cars in Iraq.
Someone in Iraq has finally gotten it figured out. The US military will leave a peaceful Iraq. We will not leave an Iraq filled with exploding vehicles.
So, all the Islamist fundamentalists need to do is wait. The cars stop exploding, the US Military leaves, and then the followers of Muhammad (MHBIH) can party like it’s the 7th century again.
rockhauler on July 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Obama, il gronde les journalistes pour son erreur. Quelle surprise.
Bon voyage!
BigD on July 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Trap or strategy? I don’t think Obama is going to pull out of Iraq. We already know the anti-war rhetoric was just to get Dem votes in ‘06, why would that be different in ‘08?
Our boys are getting it done, so Obama has to re-align his public position.
Spirit of 1776 on July 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I watched the History Channel special called “Crude” yesterday. It was a global warming propaganda film, but it was very well done and quite compelling. There is no doubt the world is completely dependent on oil, and the supply will run out. The world has only been dependent on oil for about 100 years, and most experts seem to agree that the world production and supply has about peaked, with almost half the world supply used up. Usage continues to climb each year.
When you think about WWII, and how oil ran the tanks, ships , planes, etc., that war would have been completely different without oil. The point of the 2 hour film was that global warming events created the geological events that created the oil. The theory is that massive carbon dioxide buildups from volcanos spewed lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that caused the heating that melted the polar ice that caused the ocean currents to slow down which starved oxygen and caused mass die offs of plankton which ultimately turned into oil.
They charectarized plankton as organisms that collected and stored sunlight, and the earth fixed itself by stripping the carbon dioxide out of the air over time, and converting it to carbon oil underground. They say the burning of that oil re-introduces the carbon dioxide molecules back into the atmosphere and begins to create the carbon dioxide event cycle that created the oil in the first place. They back it up with geologic evidence in rock that appears world wide durring the Cretacious period.
The system comes full circle.
It sounds a little too simple to me, but it made me think about what the world would be like without oil.
saiga on July 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
That’s why I think he’ll modify his position if they can’t force the beginning of a withdrawal while Bush is in office. They are afraid of the fall out.
a capella on July 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Nothing doing on this one. This is about looking presidential, not about policy. What will kill him is any photos of him looking like Urkel in body armor and a helmet a la Dukakis.
Obama has no policies. He has ambition.
spmat on July 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
That’s why he will hopefully take along the sassy next first lady to charm the Muslim world with her Tina Turner wardrobe, and dripping sense of entitlement.
Hening on July 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I agree. He hasn’t. And he has almost no time left. This time, much of the Democrat congressional establishment, media, “public interest groups” etc. stand in his way of another flip-flop.
He is backed into a corner by his own progresstards, much as Hillary was when a woman dared to challenge a black man.
It’s another democrat self-destruct operation in progress. Pelsoi vs. Obama. Sweet.
JiangxiDad on July 9, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Doc, my apologies. My Spanish is not as good as my French.
ambuldog on July 9, 2008 at 10:13 AM
How much of the Oil futures speculation do you think is connected to fears of a weaker US role(i.e. Obama) in dealing with this, Iran, etc?
We have a base and embassy in Iraq we’ve spent $1 Billion on, its an ideal strategic location to confront Iran from….so do we just abandon it if the Iraqi government formally request it?
jp on July 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I don’t think so. They’ll try, of course, but, the Iraqi security system is a lot tighter than before,..and they should be able to sniff out the perps. The key is to not let the sectarian carnage start up again, and that’s where Maliki has to show his strength.
a capella on July 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I’ll channel some of my Italian heritage (but that doesn’t make me one of those annoying hyphenated American types, mind you):
Vaffanculo, Signor Obama!
ynot4tony2 on July 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Not a chance. It’ll be the fault of GWB and those that voted to depose Saddam, no matter what.
Swinehound on July 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I’ve always felt that was the main reason we went in to start with. Iraq doesn’t want the U.S. gone while Iran does it’s science project. Neither do the other Arab countries.
a capella on July 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
All the media hype about this so called time table, to prove Obama the smarter candidate is making me sick. It seems they didn’t read or don’t want to report on this part of it.
This doesn’t sound like a timetable that Obama has been asking for.
x-wing on July 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Obama is like the old saying about laws and lawbreakers (when it comes to issues sticking to him):
“Laws are like spiderwebs… the small flies get caught in them, but the big bugs break right on through.”
His true believers don’t care about ANYTHING but his winning.
He could reverse every position DAILY and they would just considered it superior cunning.
Iraq is immaterial to the Obamatrons.
Iraq was always only a tool to attack Bush, because if Gore or Kerry had been in the EXACT same situation and had done the EXACT same things as GWB, there would have been no serious outcry, as the Yugoslavian mis-adventure showed with Clinton.
Obama- reality doesn’t matter.
profitsbeard on July 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Uh, he’s not very, uh, smart, and is, uh, further handicapped by his, uh, being a liberal.
Akzed on July 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
There is no doubt that oil will become increasingly important moving forward. Without a relyable supply of oil, our military machine is hamstrung. Iran knows this, and their strategic plan is to choke off our oil because they know the Middle East supply is pivitol.
Our economy drives our military, and our thirst for oil is huge. We may be able to afford oil when the price goes way up when China and India can’t afford it, But monkey business in the Middle East could really hurt.
I look for this strategic senario to unfold in the next 20 years.
saiga on July 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Gee, where have I read that before? Oh yes, right here over a month ago when I wrote it.
TheBigOldDog on July 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Obama will have his reduced military running on hemp oil, didn’cha know?
And hybrid Hummers.
profitsbeard on July 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Sorry, Ed, but I think you are on the wrong track here.
The ONLY reason Obama is going to Iraq is for the pictures.
Obama’s campaign thinks he already has this election won, he just needs to make voters comfortable with the image of him as Commander-In-Chief. That’s where the ham-handed effort with the fake Presidential Seal came from. We’ll see carefully staged photos of the Messiah with General Petraeus, Prime Minister Maliki, some obligatory female members of the Iraqi parliament, Michelle in a head scarf, adoring children in the streets surrounding the beautiful First Couple, etc. etc. ad nauseam. And the Obama cheerleading corps, a/k/a the U.S. media, will lap it up and proclaim how very presidential he looks. His policy on Iraq will not matter. At all.
If anyone hasn’t figured it out by now, the Obama campaign is ALL about image. It’s the most blatantly cynical, superficial campaign in the history of this country.
rockmom on July 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
fixed
urbancenturion on July 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Dittos. The media isn’t covering Iraq any more, so to the extent that Obama can’t remove the issue, he’ll be allowed to distract and deflect without much scrutiny.
petefrt on July 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Pinche puto culero coño, Obama .. just practicing my Spanish as Hussein requests .
redrock on July 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM
He couldn’t not go. He was being needled by McCain and the GOP on his failure to visit Iraq to see what the facts on the ground were. He could hardly say, “I don’t need to go. I know we’re losing.” OK, there are probably plenty of Dems who feel that way, but the Dem nominee couldn’t get away with it.
Wethal on July 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Clarity and conviction are the sine qua non of a good foreign policy, and Obama doesn’t seem to have either. Compare and contrast to McCain.
Paul-Cincy on July 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Send Obama to the Brandenberg Gate with the teleprompter reading “Ich bin ein Dummkopf!”
Seriously, Mr. Slick will go to Iraq, say that everything is hunky-dorio and since our troops are no longer needed there, he can pull them out in 16 months just as he has said all along.
It will be up to the McCain campaign (or the RNC) to put ads together showing Obama’s promise that the surge couldn’t work, Harry Reid’s April 2007 statement that “the war is lost”, McCain’s advocacy of the surge back in 2007, and the current successes, then show images of McCain and Obama and ask the voters “Which of these candidates had the judgment to lead when Iraq was going badly?”
Mr. Weasel Words has an escape clause for every self-contradiction. Like the master of a puppy that pooped on the rug, it’s up to his critics to rub his nose in it.
Steve Z on July 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Your conclusion is more probable than mine, but I suspect that one reason for the appearance of the tyrant government in the middle east is the cultural inclination for revenge, and tribal loyalties. When one tribe has control of the apparatus of government, and uses the power of government to advantage, the out of power tribes resort to violence.
In other words, the people get the government they require. Until they learn to go along, to get along, democracy will be a weak method of governance.
Meanwhile, in the US, the democrats will keep doing what they do until it doesn’t work for them any longer.
President Obama, President McCain, President Maliki, time passes, and here we go again, nothing changes.
rockhauler on July 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Rove you magnificent bastard, i read your book Rommel
custer on July 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
This direct quote in Barack Hussein Obama`s own words, from his book Audacity of Hope is why this man should be eliminated from the US Government, not elected to run it.
” I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”
I guess this is the “change” he is talking about!
HAGGS99 on July 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
LOL well said.
fossten on July 9, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Can we all stop kidding ourselves. People don’t give a snot what he says. His followers don’t give a rats behind about his qualifications or abilities. If he gets elected in, conservative America is going to have to work hard to ensure the Constitution makes it through the immediate future without someone taking a magic marker to it so it better fits their vision of a “better tomorrow”. This naive jr. senator is going to get led around by the nose, doing whatever is the popular thing to do at the moment.
Rogue Traveler on July 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
This is a strategy, not a trap. Unless Obama is a complete idiot, he knows that the stance on Iraq that got him through the Moonbat primary is not the one he’ll need to win the general election in November. He needs to flip-flop on this issue, and he knows it. What better way to sell the inevitable flip, than to meet with the top brass, who will just “happen” to provide him with all the “new” information he needs to justify it?
Xrlq on July 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Face it, an Obama Presidency might not be the best thing for the country, but it will certainly boost the right-pundocracy (including the right-blogsphere) since every statement he says contains a kernel of truth, and the words necessary to make it seem like he said whatever we imagine him saying.
So, we can always look at a statement and translate it one way, while he can look back and say, no, I really meant this, not that. He’ll take Clintonesque speech to new heights. We wont be wondering what ‘is’ is, the nature of our souls will be suspect for even questioning him about what it means.
Yeah! fun times.
Keith_Indy on July 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
This is by far the most likely scenario. Obama the lightworker saw the future and now his prophecy has come to pass.
Doesn’t have to be true or anything like that. Cults of personality are not sustained by facts.
Gilda on July 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM
He’ll be standing against the same wall with them.
Viper1 on July 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I’m sure he would love to have public demonstrations by Code Pink. Then he could be a victim. And some normal people might conclude that he has more centrist policies. Since McCain won’t give him anything but respect, I expect many of his campaign’s tactics cannot be deployed.
snaggletoothie on July 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Obama was wrong on Iraq and the surge but it only matters if the Republicans have a guy who will fight it out in the ring. I don’t know if McCain is that guy.
The Republicans need to start slamming Democrats on the war and on oil exploration/drilling. Start now and hit hard and maybe they can cut their losses in the fall. Fail to sharpen their message to something approaching a point and they are toast.
Obama’s new campaign message “Obama. Because 143 days in the Senate is enough experience to lead”
moxie_neanderthal on July 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Iraq Obama’s Tar baby.
Chakra Hammer on July 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Raaaaaaaaaacist!!!
urbancenturion on July 9, 2008 at 6:13 PM
It’s obvious we can beat Obama on the facts, but I wonder if the facts matter to voters on the Left. Does it really matter if everything Obama says is wrong and he reverses course on every position he takes if the liberals regard Obama as a sort of ink blot test where they see whatever they want to see? Hey, that splotch looks like Change!
Tantor on July 10, 2008 at 2:40 AM
Comment pages: