Last Dem debate before 3/4 primaries, McCain blasts Obama
The final Democrat debate before the 3/4 primaries in Ohio and Texas occurred last night on MSNBC. Thus far, the numbers show Clinton ahead in Ohio and a dead heat in Texas. Should Clinton lose both states, a growing drumbeat calling for her to bow out will be heard in the Democratic party. Should she win both, we could have a race again.
McCain made Obama sound somewhat foolish in an exchange of harsh criticisms between the two candidates. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html for the story. Obama was caught saying that he would retain the option to go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda had a base there. McCain stated that al Qaeda is already there, which Obama then had to defend by saying he already knows that but it was Bush and McCain's fault that we are there now. Now, regardless of how folks feel about the heavily politicized issue of whether we should stay in Iraq or pullout, there are three reasons this exchange benefits McCain.
First, although McCain has a slightly more unpopular position in wanting us to stay in Iraq until the job gets done than Obama's call to get out of what amounts to another country's mess, McCain is at no risk in these types of exchanges of coming off as inconsistent. Obama, by contrast, was reminiscent of John Kerry's flip flopper label of 4 years ago. He states consistently he is the only candidate who will pull out of Iraq immediately, outflanking Clinton's left where she only would advocate phased withdrawal. Then he says he would go back into Iraq if al Qaeda has a base there. It sounds inconsistent, even if one were to acknowledge his position that it was error for the United States to go there in the first place. This will continue to be a problem for Obama. Obama can win the debate as to whether we should have gone there in the first place, a majority of the country believes Bush either lied or made a bad decision. What is unclear is what exactly Obama's philosophy is on the war on terror, an issue focused on what to do from here on out. McCain is polling ahead of Obama by about 10 points on this issue, and exchanges like this show McCain knows how to frame the debate on the latter question. Obama will have a hard time pinning McCain to the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, as almost every Senator voted in favor of it at that time. Bush may have lied, but McCain simply was not in charge of that decision.
Second, Obama has a difficult line to walk in maintaining the support he has every time he engages on this issue. If he states he would never use military force, he isolates a vast majority of the population and looks timid. If he commits to the possibility he would use force, he loses the "dove" vote, those who support him because they believe him to be a candidate for peace. Its not an impossible line to walk, but very difficult. As yet, he has not clearly defined himself on this score. Expect McCain to continue to press him on this. Obama will need to articulate a clear philosophy to avoid the label of a flip-flopper, a naive or weak foreign policy stance, or a liar if he commits to keeping troops in Iraq. Also, besides the danger of having a negative label attached to himself, exchanges like these could endanger his positive ones. Obama did not seem the positive, no negative personal attack primary candidate we have seen in the past. He seemed to come down to a sarcastic tone here and somewhat negative. McCain coined a turn on Obama's "audacity of hope" to the "timidity of despair."
Third, Obama still has to put away Clinton. Right now, any new positions or nuanced stances are made more difficult by the possibility that he can be attacked not only by McCain, but by Clinton. His key to defeating Clinton is to not rock the boat that is coasting his campaign toward a primary victory. The last thing he wants is to create an opening for Clinton to show she can better take on McCain with her more developed foreign policy stance on Iraq, talking about a responsible and lasting withdrawal. If Clinton is smart, she could use this as one of the wedge issues I mentioned she needed a few posts back.
To those with strong opinions on what we should do about Iraq, this exchange will mean rather little for now. They will not be persuaded by either opposing candidate, they already know what they believe on this issue. It is the undecided middle, those whose votes can be swayed who are leaning one way or the other that are touched by this exchange. The first round goes to McCain.
McCain made Obama sound somewhat foolish in an exchange of harsh criticisms between the two candidates. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html for the story. Obama was caught saying that he would retain the option to go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda had a base there. McCain stated that al Qaeda is already there, which Obama then had to defend by saying he already knows that but it was Bush and McCain's fault that we are there now. Now, regardless of how folks feel about the heavily politicized issue of whether we should stay in Iraq or pullout, there are three reasons this exchange benefits McCain.
First, although McCain has a slightly more unpopular position in wanting us to stay in Iraq until the job gets done than Obama's call to get out of what amounts to another country's mess, McCain is at no risk in these types of exchanges of coming off as inconsistent. Obama, by contrast, was reminiscent of John Kerry's flip flopper label of 4 years ago. He states consistently he is the only candidate who will pull out of Iraq immediately, outflanking Clinton's left where she only would advocate phased withdrawal. Then he says he would go back into Iraq if al Qaeda has a base there. It sounds inconsistent, even if one were to acknowledge his position that it was error for the United States to go there in the first place. This will continue to be a problem for Obama. Obama can win the debate as to whether we should have gone there in the first place, a majority of the country believes Bush either lied or made a bad decision. What is unclear is what exactly Obama's philosophy is on the war on terror, an issue focused on what to do from here on out. McCain is polling ahead of Obama by about 10 points on this issue, and exchanges like this show McCain knows how to frame the debate on the latter question. Obama will have a hard time pinning McCain to the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, as almost every Senator voted in favor of it at that time. Bush may have lied, but McCain simply was not in charge of that decision.
Second, Obama has a difficult line to walk in maintaining the support he has every time he engages on this issue. If he states he would never use military force, he isolates a vast majority of the population and looks timid. If he commits to the possibility he would use force, he loses the "dove" vote, those who support him because they believe him to be a candidate for peace. Its not an impossible line to walk, but very difficult. As yet, he has not clearly defined himself on this score. Expect McCain to continue to press him on this. Obama will need to articulate a clear philosophy to avoid the label of a flip-flopper, a naive or weak foreign policy stance, or a liar if he commits to keeping troops in Iraq. Also, besides the danger of having a negative label attached to himself, exchanges like these could endanger his positive ones. Obama did not seem the positive, no negative personal attack primary candidate we have seen in the past. He seemed to come down to a sarcastic tone here and somewhat negative. McCain coined a turn on Obama's "audacity of hope" to the "timidity of despair."
Third, Obama still has to put away Clinton. Right now, any new positions or nuanced stances are made more difficult by the possibility that he can be attacked not only by McCain, but by Clinton. His key to defeating Clinton is to not rock the boat that is coasting his campaign toward a primary victory. The last thing he wants is to create an opening for Clinton to show she can better take on McCain with her more developed foreign policy stance on Iraq, talking about a responsible and lasting withdrawal. If Clinton is smart, she could use this as one of the wedge issues I mentioned she needed a few posts back.
To those with strong opinions on what we should do about Iraq, this exchange will mean rather little for now. They will not be persuaded by either opposing candidate, they already know what they believe on this issue. It is the undecided middle, those whose votes can be swayed who are leaning one way or the other that are touched by this exchange. The first round goes to McCain.
