Before Barack Obama had said anything about Iraq last week, the McCain campaign was desperate to attack his Iraq position.

At first they criticized Obama for sticking to his plan to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. A day later they accused Obama of reversing that pledge.

What changed? Obama said in South Dakota on Thursday that he would listen to military commanders on the ground when he visited Iraq this summer and tactically revise his Iraq plan afterwards.

"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," Obama said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

That's pretty much what Obama's said all along.

Yet the McCain campaign and its allies in the media had only one aim: to paint Obama as a flip-flopper, circa John Kerry in 2004. Soon virtually every news outlet on the planet, prompted by the McCain campaign's aggressive spin, pounced on Obama's remarks.

So Obama held a follow-up press conference, to reiterate his core message on the war. "Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," Obama said. "Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war--responsibly, deliberately but decisively."

Obama emphasized: "This is the same position I that had four months ago. It's the same position that I had eight months ago. It's the same position that I had 12 months ago."

But it was already too late. A gleeful McCain campaign sent out a flurry of press releases quoting news outlets who claimed that Obama was "struggling" to explain his Iraq position.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin--the epitome of conventional wisdom and horse race journalism in Washington--called Obama's Iraq statements one of "the biggest things that's happened so far in this general election."

If that's the case, then clearly not much has happened. Yet again, the "news" of the day depended on a media manufactured controversy.

Today Josh Marshall eloquently broke down the "Fog of Spin" in a way that even the dumbest of media pundits should be able to understand:

We have two candidates with starkly different positions. Barack Obama is for an orderly and considered withdrawal of all US combat forces in Iraq, a process he says he will begin immediately upon taking office. John McCain supports a permanent garrisoning of US troops on military bases in Iraq -- a long-term 'presence' which he hopes will require a constantly-diminishing amount of actual combat and thus an ever-diminishing toll in American lives.

This is, I believe, a fair and even generous description of each candidate's essential position. And the recital makes the key point clear: McCain's position is squarely on the wrong side of public opinion -- in fact, to an overwhelming degree.

This is why the McCain campaign spends what seems almost literally to be all its time (with tractable reporters in tow) scrutinizing the rhetorical entrails of Obama's every statement trying to find some movement or contradiction or frankly anything that can be talked about to keep everybody's attention (press, commentators, citizens, precocious teenagers) off the fact that McCain's position on Iraq is wildly unpopular and even more what McCain's position actually is.

Comments (25)

1. And yet McCave is being very consistent-- in helping Obama win:

   AS AFGHANISTAN BOILS, MCCAIN KEEPS FOCUS ON IRAQ

   For voters, a resurgent Taliban may challenge McCain's view that Iraq is the center of the war on terror.

   By Ariel Sabar | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2008 edition

   WASHINGTON - John McCain has called Iraq the "central front" of the war on terror, a crucible of America's ability to defeat violent Islamic extremists the world over.

   But with record US casualties in Afghanistan in June, a resurgent Taliban, and new reports of Al Qaeda regrouping in northwest Pakistan, Senator McCain is likely to face new questions about his judgment on the one issue – national security – where voters consistently give him higher marks than they do his Democratic rival.

   McCain has resisted calls for more troops in Afghanistan and has rejected criticism that the Iraq war is detracting from efforts to secure Afghanistan. He labeled Barack Obama "naive" for saying he'd strike terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without the cooperation of President Pervez Musharraf.

   And while McCain vowed more than a year ago to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell," he has offered few details about how his approach to Al Qaeda might differ from that of the Bush administration.

   "I will not describe what I will do in order to get bin Laden, except to say that I'll get him," he said in Iowa last September.

   Aides to the Arizona senator said Wednesday that he continued to view success in Iraq as the best chance for victory in the global war on terror.

   "As on many things, Senator Obama is not listening to our commanders, and Senator McCain is," says Kori Schake, a senior policy adviser to McCain. "General David Petraeus believes Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda has even said it is."

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 12:07pm

2. Spin

   Quantum numbers corresponding to non-Abelian symmetries like rotations require more care in extraction, since they are not additive. In the quark model one builds mesons out of a quark and an antiquark, whereas baryons are built from three quarks. Since mesons are bosons (having integer spins) and baryons are fermions (having half-integer spins), the quark model implies that quarks are fermions. Further, the fact that the lightest baryons have spin-1/2 implies that each quark can have spin S = 1/2. The spins of excited mesons and baryons are completely consistent with this assignment.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 12:14pm

3. And hope nobody notices them contradicting themselves!

   Posted by Maskbeta

   they won't.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 12:15pm

4. But Obama has flipped on public financing for his campaign, the gun ban in D.C., the telephone surveillance program, and free trade deals.

   Posted by abell12ct at 07/07/2008 @ 12:34pm

5. Quantum numbers corresponding to non-Abelian symmetries like rotations require more care in extraction, since they are not additive. In the quark model one builds mesons out of a quark and an antiquark, whereas baryons are built from three quarks. Since mesons are bosons (having integer spins) and baryons are fermions (having half-integer spins), the quark model implies that quarks are fermions. Further, the fact that the lightest baryons have spin-1/2 implies that each quark can have spin S = 1/2. The spins of excited mesons and baryons are completely consistent with this assignment.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 12:14pm

   And you said you were made out of dirt.

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/07/2008 @ 12:49pm

6. Iraq may be working in McCains favor...

   Posted by JOMAMMA

   AQ in iraq only appeared after 2003

   a miniscule force.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 12:59pm

7. dirty quarks.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 1:00pm

8. Talk about media spin:

   Monday, July 07, 2008

   Zogby: Obma Leads in Electoral College 273-158; 105 Undecided

   Barr Badly Hurting McCain

   Zogby reports:

   Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents. McCain's support among conservatives is 74%. On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.

   Obama has the support of 83% of Democrats, while McCain gets 75% of Republicans.

   Independents break 39% for Obama, compared with 31% who support McCain.

   For white voters, race doesn't appear to be playing a significant factor. McCain leads Obama, 43%-39%, with Barr at 6%. Among black voters, Obama wins the vast majority of support."

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 1:20pm

9. hahahahahahahahaha

   Someone tell ABEL it's not 2004 anymore.

   And while you are at it, pull some policy positions from Old McCain and compare them with New McCain.

   hahahahahahahaha

   Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:28pm

10. The plain fact is that after 5 years of fighting, George Bush cannot defeat a rag tag army of bandits with home made weapons, despite having 160,000 troops and the most advanced weaponry in the world.

    By anyone's analysis, IRAQ HAS BEEN A TOTAL FAILURE!, and John McSame McCain wants more of the same Bush strategy of keeping our troops there as long as possible.

    McCain says the Iraq war is going well, but US casualties are the issue...."if we can just keep Americans from getting killed the public will support the Iraq war and the fleecing of generations of US taxpayers to profit a handful of defense and oil related companies."

    Obama says US casualties are not the issue, as this is "a dumb war that should have never been authorized and never been waged."

    How much starker can the difference be, and why can't the mainstream press focus on the clear difference between them on Iraq?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/07/2008 @ 1:29pm

11. Those groups of people standing on the train platform are Abelian. How do we know this?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 1:30pm

12. 'Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements.

    The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer: "I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability." Two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely.

    "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." Another loophole which could allow the war to drag on. ' -- Tom Hayden -- The Nation -- 5 July, 2008

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 1:30pm

13. Iraq may be working in McCains favor... Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/07/2008 @ 12:18pm

    He'd better hope it is because Afghanistan certainly is not. I said it from the beginning. They didn't beat Al Qaeda. All they did was moved them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:56pm

14. But Maliki wants a time table for the US to get out of Iraq-- how does McCave spin that if McCave's plan is to be there for the next 100- 1000 years as it's the front-line to the war on terror? Will McCave say that he'll convince Maliki that war is better than negotiation? Will McCave simply declare victory-- another Mission Accomplished moment? Or does the only issue he's got simply go away and McCave's stuck with just retelling bigger worster lies?

    This could get very interesting...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 1:56pm

15. BTW on a small aside. It seems hsuB could have lower disapproval numbers that congress now:

    Congressional Job Approval

    Poll____________Date______Approve_Disapprove_Spread

    AP-Ipsos___06/12 - 06/16__23______72_____-49.0

    President Bush Job Approval

    LAT/Blmbrg_06/19-06/23__23______73_____-50.0

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

    Does it even matter if McCave can disavow any association with hsuB at this point?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 2:15pm

16. er, ok -- 'higher' disapproval number...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 2:38pm

17. Those groups of people standing on the train platform are Abelian. How do we know this?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/07/2008 @ 1:30pm

    because their glasses are half full.

    and half empty.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 3:32pm

18. The wind is blowing decisively from his back, his coat of teflon is superior to any. He's got EVERYTHIING going his way......but he's running like he's the one behind, defending everything he said 6 months ago as NO CHANGE? Are we supposed to CHANGE in order to allow all his CHANGE to appear to be NON-CHANGE? If Obama is going to win, win decisively....then, I'll allow him the mandate to take this country fundamentally to the Left and let the chips fall where they may. The rate he's going, if he wins comes Nov., our politics will be even more screwed.....but, Demos take all of the blame! Even I. want the original Obama! Now, he's just a chickenshit, 3rd rate pol! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 4:47pm

    Wow copy+paste apparently sucks now.

    This is all true. I hope don't end up with a centrist. The problem is I think the fears happening to him what happened to Kerry. I think he knows McCain is going to run that same basic campaign and he fears it enough that he is making the same mistakes. I think he needs to calm down. Take a breath and stop all this dancing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:53pm

19. ...why is HusseinO running so scared?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 4:47pm

    er, HELLO:

    "On "This Week," McCain Attacks Obama on Ayers Connection - April 20, 2008 12:52 PM - On the subject of whether McCain would attempt to attack Obama on patriotism, the presumptive GOP nominee said, "I'm sure he's very patriotic. But his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question. ... if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished they had bombed more."

    "McCain campaign baits Obama on Clinton slurs It's hard to believe the faux outrage at sexism after McCain chuckled at the B-word,..." Joan Walsh [2008-05-12]

    "Every word will be twisted to make it about race," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a McCain friend and adviser.

    "Shortly before North Carolina's May 6 primary, the state Republican Party aired a TV ad linking Democratic candidates to Obama, who was described as "too extreme" because of his ties to the retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.... The state party ignored McCain's repeated calls to kill the ad."

    "In South Dakota, a TV station briefly aired an ad that was edited to show Obama saying, "we are no longer a Christian nation, we are also a Muslim nation." It omitted his saying, in the same speech, that the United States is not solely a Christian nation. The ad, which included a photo of Obama wearing a turban as part of a traditional outfit given to him in Africa, concluded with a man saying: "It's time for people of faith to stand against Barack Hussein Obama." A group called the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric paid for the ad, ..."

    "The Texas Republican Party recently cut ties with a vendor whose political buttons at a party convention included one saying: "If Obama is president ... will we still call it The White House?"

    "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" By Kevin Merida, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page A01

    "On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Thursday, March 2, 2000, By KATIE HONG, SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER

    MCCAIN: "Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas." by E.A. Blayre III, (Libertarian), Friday, January 11, 2008

    "McCain, O'Reilly: The White, Christian, Male Power Structure": http://urbanuprising.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/mccain-oreilly-the-white-c hristian-male-power-structure/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23957755#23952104

    Enough?

    However, I do not think it can be defined as fear though, but rather 'preparedness'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2008 @ 5:34pm

20. He is going to ask the advice of his commanders on the ground and will remove the troops when the time is right to do so. DUH!!! This is what president Bush is doing and what any other president would do. The 16months was the lie. He said that and he pledged to take public financing because he was pandering to the Democratic vote. Now that he has the nomination he is switching so that he may pander to another group of voters. He is an American politician, the same as all the rest. He ain't special.

    Posted by wredner at 07/07/2008 @ 6:40pm

21. Sure thing HAPP. Good thing a guy who never changes positions like McCain is running, huh?

    Rock solid. Steadfast in his beliefs.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 11:46am

22. I am "happy" to discuss the issues with 'ya, HAPP.

    Are you?

    Or are you more comfortable sticking with Rev. Wright or Wes Clark?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/08/2008 @ 12:28pm

23. Blog, blog, blog. Face the fact folks...he's a flip-flopper...or maybe he "just disagrees with you!"

    He's shallow, no-talent, loser. Get used to it. You chose him, you must vote for him and he knows it.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah......more fun than most.

    Posted by pansycritter at 07/08/2008 @ 6:52pm

24. I gotta wonder about all the haters here. I really believe Sen. Obama has his convictions and if he makes it to the Whitehouse he will stand by them as much as possible. It's just not even realistic to expect either candidate to promise specific fixes without being there as President and knowing all there is to know about any situation. Simply put; the right promise to make during an election process is the promise to look at all of the aspects of a thing first and then make a decision based on moral and practical considerations. Besides, Sen. McCain hired our current President's campaign manager to fulfill basically the same duties for him recently. THINK!! Has Bush lived up to the promises he made during his candicacy; (you know: restoring honor and dignity to the White House, humble foreign policy w/ specifically no "nation building" so on ad nauseum ??)

    Posted by oracleatdelphi at 07/08/2008 @ 9:31pm

25. ‘I gotta wonder about all the haters here.' -- oracleatdelphi -- 8 July, 2008

    'Michelle Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we're a divided country, we're a country that is "just downright mean," we are "guided by fear," we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents....' -- New Yorker Magazine -- 3 July, 2008

    ' ..''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''...He writes that he participated in the bombings ... of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.... ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,''...So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said....' -- New York Times -- 11 September, 2001 -- Dinitia Smith

    ‘God damn America' -- Jeremiah Wright -- 2003

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/09/2008 @ 10:15am