The Democratic Incredibles

One can hope that the species will at some future date attain a sustainable level of wisdom, and at that point, explanations will perhaps be available for the formation and resilience of cults. Until then however, we shall remain nonplussed by such anomalies as the blind faith, found in some segments of the liberati, in a politician like Barack Obama. Markos quotes (Daily Kos: No traction for anti-war Democrats? Hogwash) Des Moines Register's David Yepsen:

[E]verybody wants out of Iraq and bashes the war. The question is finding a credible way to do it, and Democrats are having trouble agreeing on a plan.

And responds:

Does Yepsen really think that Obama's Iraq message is materially different than Vilsack's used to be? The difference being that Obama has credibility on Iraq. Vilsack had none.

The question that is begged is: Obama's credibility in the eyes of whom? Certainly not those interested in the record and historical analysis. Writing for the Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford gives ample evidence of the weathercock that is Obama (Barack Obama and the Winds of War):

One year after his bland and idea-less speech on Iraq to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (see Obama Mouths Mush on War, December 1, 2005), Obama returned to mush more of the same to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The U.S. should begin to move towards a phased redeployment of American troops from Iraqi soil, he told the business-oriented crowd. Since the objective reality on the ground in Iraq and in U.S. public opinion had changed dramatically in the intervening year resulting in Democratic capture of the House and Senate Obamas failure to substantively revise his previous, timid prescriptions actually amounts to a turn to the right.

In contrast to Sen. Feingold’s proposal that U.S. troops “redeploy from Iraq” by mid-summer, and Congressman Jack Murtha’s proposal that Washington “immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces,” Sen. Obama calls for “a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months…. Such a timetable may not need to begin in 2007, but begin it must.”

It gets worse! Apparently in an attempt to go mano-a-mano with Hillary (The responsibility of ineffectuals) on the macho lecturing front, Obama, as Ford notes, scolds the Iraqis:

“To reach such a solution, we must communicate clearly and effectively to the factions in Iraq that the days of asking, urging, and waiting for them to take control of their own country are coming to an end. No more coddling, no more equivocation."

One way to measure his credibility is to see how well Obama's triangulation corresponds to the wishes of his constituents, and fortunately, Ford gives us the answer:

Just two weeks before Obama delivered his pablum-filled Iraq speech, his constituents across the Illinois voted overwhelmingly to stop the war and “immediately begin an orderly and rapid withdrawal.” In Chicago, the ballot measure passed by a whopping 80-to-20 percent. Similar results were tallied in suburban Cook County, Evanston and Oak Park – wherever the measure was on the ballot.

The voters, from both political parties, are way ahead of Obama and his fellow senatorial shufflers. Nationwide, more than 70 percent of Democrats – the people who nominate the party’s presidential candidates – favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. To lead, Obama would have to run to catch up.

It should come as no surprise to us then that Obama voted NO on the Kerry troop deployment amendment (Senator Obama on Troop Redeployment Amendment). Here is Project Vote Smart's synopsis of the amendment:

Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the President to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007 and states that some forces shall remain in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.

Leave alone attempts at credibility, Obama appears to have underestimated the public in what is edible on the matter of Iraq. Perhaps in 2008, the public shall return the favour and mark their ballot: Eat me!