Shift on war hits Obama's liberal base

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Joseph Curl

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic presidential rival of flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, as a pair of new polls showed the Republican's strategy of painting Sen. Barack Obama as politically expedient is beginning to take hold with voters.

As Mr. Obama repositions himself for the general election after exclusively targeting the Democratic base of committed liberals, it leaves some voters on the left feeling he is abandoning them on their top issue - Iraq - and has independents questioning his veracity.

"If a perception takes hold that a candidate is flip-flopping on core convictions, that will hurt," pollster Scott Rasmussen said, noting that nearly a third of voters are "up for grabs" this fall.

A Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll shows 19 percent of voters classified as "other" - neither Republican nor Democrat - think that on the Iraq war, Mr. Obama is "abandoning voters that got him nominated." (Eleven percent of Democrats agree.) About 20 percent of independents think Mr. Obama is "not really going to change his opinion" on a U.S. withdrawal within 16 months of taking office, a pledge he has made repeatedly.

A Newsweek poll found similar dissatisfaction among voters over Mr. Obama's shifts in policy positions. In the survey, 53 percent of voters said he recalibrated his stances on key issues such as the war and President Bush's new electronic surveillance law in order to gain political advantage.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Another thread:

Obama's 'civilian national security force'

**************************EXCERPT Intro************************

Worldnetdaily ^ | July 15, 2008 | Joseph Farah

Posted on Tue 15 Jul 2008 05:19:39 AM PDT by SJackson

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

H/T to Flopping Aces Blog for this:

Exclusive: Obama Supports Troops…...( …if they're anti war.)

*********************EXCERPT INTRO***********************

A lot of mainstream press was given to Presidential hopeful Barack Obama when he spoke to veterans in Colorado earlier this month. On July 2nd, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs before a group of veterans. The context of his speech was to contrast his military experience and agenda with that of his main opponent, John McCain.

At the rally, Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as “a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points.” Really? Is that why Barack stocked the audience behind him with members of "Colorado Veterans", an anti-war group based in the area? After all, it was an invitation only event.

"Colorado Veterans" is another one of those kook organizations calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and also prominently display the death totals on their website, highlighting a supposed toll of poor, Iraqi children killed "in cold blood" by the murderous United States troops. They are an anti-war group along the lines of IVAW, only more localized.

In an interview with Military Times, Barack admitted that due to his lack of military experience he would have to work twice as hard to earn our respect and trust. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform.” Since Obama's event was an invitation only event and the only ones on stage with him were anti-war veterans, how exactly is that going to earn the trust of men and women who are fighting and support their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The answer is that Obama just wanted to LOOK like he supported the troops by having a bunch of "veterans" behind him that made him look good. He was even introduced by the wife of an Army Sergeant at the event who got all veclempt at the opportunity. I guess when you're thinking about all the innocent children our Soldiers are "terrorizing" in the "dead of night", but the tears sure wowed the press and those in attendance. The Military Times writer said that "Corinne Gadzia’s voice choked as she looked out over the audience."

But, in all the press about this event, did anyone explain who these "Colorado Veterans" are? No. All we get is this:

As Obama spoke, a handful of men with “Colorado Veterans” on their shirts were seated behind the stage. And after the event, an Air Force captain wearing a flight suit worked his way through the crowd to shake Obama’s hand.

“Thank you for your service,” Obama told the captain. As people filed out of the gymnasium, the captain covered his name tag with his hand.

He probably didn't want to be outed by me!! When it comes to military issues, Obama is the candidate of change. He will change (read: repeal) the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He will change whether people are bound to contracts they legally sign by getting rid of the stop loss policy (he better get to work on the enlistment contract). Basically, he'll change the whole concept of accountability. He will change how the Commander in Chief listens to the troops on the ground. His policy can be summed up in his "I'm a pretty persuasive guy" philosophy. ie: They'll do what I tell them to do, right or wrong!!

The media may not care that Obama is the consummate illusionist when it comes to military issues, but I'm not letting him off the hook.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Strata Sphere Blog:

Brookings Institute Expert See Danger In Obama’s Iraq Plans

*******************************EXCERPT INTRO****************************

Obama wants to surrender Iraq at all costs, no matter what the cost. And this has even some Democrats wondering “WTF”?

[Alia]

This cite, from your excerpt, just about slew me with chuckles:

The answer is that Obama just wanted to LOOK like he supported the troops by having a bunch of "veterans" behind him that made him look good. He was even introduced by the wife of an Army Sergeant at the event who got all veclempt at the opportunity.

All... "veclempt". ROFL. The word just captures it perfectly.

[Southack]

The word is actually: "verklempt" which is Yiddish for being "overcome with emotion."

[Alia]

That’s IT! You are exactly right. And I always associate the word with Madeleine Kahn’s performance in “Blazing Saddles”. She was verklempt in being “So twiwed.”

[Marine_Uncle]

In posting #7, are you suggestint the DNC would at the last minute choose HIldabeast over Body Oder for the candidate for POTUS?
Do they have the legal powers to do this? Or am I missing something here.

[Southack]

Yes, the Electoral College reps write in their President/VP votes onto slips of paper.

So no matter who “Won” a given state, the Electors could write in a different name.

I doubt that such a thing happens here, though...so lets not get sidetracked arguing the possibilities of EC shenanigans.

But...Hillary hasn’t released her delegates and the super-delegates aren’t committed to Obama no matter how they claim that they “lean” today.

She’ll win the Dems’ convention vote...

[Southack]

This blog claims 8 Democratic super-delegates want to flip their Obama vote over to Hillary: http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=120752BE862DE4FAB90ECE2DDF0460BB?diaryId=259

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest (this is the third one).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now that is very interesting....

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks South. I totally forgot that the super delegates decide the final outcome.

[Marine_Uncle]

From your #21 posting, per Joseph Farah at WorldNetToday:
"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Whooooo nelly. This guy is stepping completely over the boundaries. McCain had better make sure this type of stuff stays on the chopping block.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yes,...that raises the hair on the back of your neck.

[Marine_Uncle]

Brown shirts come to mind, to do his bidding. Friggen guy is a closet Nazi!