Will this Ad be playing in the 11 states that most of McCain’s ad’s are now running in? Thanks. Also do you remember what the states were b/c i forgot? Thanks!
This is already being portrayed as a “negative ad” because it points out factual inconsistencies in Obama’s positions. #2, changing your mind is fine - having one set of views for the primary and a whole new set of views 3 months later for the general is not, especially when it comes to something as important as national security. Compare that to McCain’s consistent rhetoric of “I would rather lose an election than lose a war” and this is an area on which he needs to pounce. What will people remember about this ad? 1) Obama is all over the place on the war 2) McCain - Country First
I do not like the production quality of this ad, both visuals and narration. The argument is fine, “attack ad” or not.
The narration is a weak young voice and undermines McCain’s message of strength. The “he hasn’t been to Iraq in years” line sounds stupid. I haven’t been to Iraq since 1991.
Visually, the cutouts are fine for Obama, they make him look dorky. But, the cutouts of McCain make him look just as dorky.
It is the message not the quality. You guys should know that, remember Kerry as a windsurfer? It had Bad quality, and people did not pay much attention until the polls moved.
“This is not going to be a one time meeting. I can tell you what the State Department will say the day after the meeting: ‘It went really well, we made a lot of progress, now we’ve got a process going, surely we should go to the next meeting.’
In any event it’s the Bush administration legitimizing the Obama presidency’s policy. It’s like Senator Obama already has a transition office in the West Wing. And, I think, it will make it very difficult for congressional Republicans and Sen. McCain to continue their critique of the weaknesses of the existing administration policy.
The problem is that the negotiations with Iran have already been underway for 5 years. This is not a new idea. It’s not a new idea when Sen. Obama proposes it, it’s not a new idea for the us to sit at the table. After 5 years of negotiation, the only consequence is that Iran is 5 years closer to nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to give up its pursuit of those weapons voluntarily, the diplomatic options have been tried and failed and our real options are now, unfortunately, quite limited.
I think the State Department is doing its best to ensure a smooth transition toward the Obama administration. So, I have little doubt that an interest section is highly likely before the end of the Bush Administration. Once again, Tehran will read that as a weakening of the administration’s resolve and will use it to their advantage.”
The White House announced Friday that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed that troop reductions should be “based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”
When asked in an interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
“Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business,” he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain’s more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Iraq, Maliki went on to say, “would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations.” He also emphasized though that the security agreement between the two countries should only “remain in effect in the short term.”
“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”
He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. “It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population,” Maliki said.
This is after Maliki agreed with President Bush in a conference call earlier in the week on a “time horizon” for meeting “aspirational goals” for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.
So what gives? What’s Maliki’s game?
Maliki is running for office. With elections scheduled for October, there is little doubt that he wishes to forestall any move by his rival, Moqtada al-Sadr, to make hay out of Maliki’s close association with the occupation. In short, he is moving to shore up his right (nationalistic) flank by being seen as eager for the Americans to leave.
As the need for American troops to stay in Iraq lessens, the Iraqi people will be more anxious for us to go. Candidates who recognize that political reality will probably do well in the elections.
Maliki’s Shia brethren are split on the issue of the occupation with a large segment supporting al-Sadr’s call for our immediate withdrawal and a slightly larger faction who recognize the reality of the occupation but want most of us out as soon as it is safe to go. It is these voters that Maliki is appealing to. The bitter enders who support al-Sadr will never win a majority unless they can convince many of the realists that we will never go and that politicians like Maliki are encouraging us to stay.
Hence, Maliki’s two step on withdrawal; being obtuse with Bush while pronouncing Obama’s specific proposal acceptable. He doesn’t want to offend Bush/McCain but for political reasons finds it desirable to pander to those Shias who are worried about the US overstaying its welcome.
The coalition of Shia parties that currently govern Iraq will no doubt win a majority again in October, although it will probably be reduced due to increased Sunni participation in the electoral process as well as a hopefully better showing by the non-sectarian, secular parties. This makes it all the more important for Maliki to be seen as standing up to the Americans among his co-religionists. Eliminating al-Sadr as a rival - especially in the south - will help him consolidate his position and in the end, be the best we can hope for as far as a political outcome in Iraq.
25. . . Wait, you mean American politicians aren’t the only ones who pander to supporters of both sides of an issue? I’m shocked. And here I thought it was just us.
“His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.”
“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Aron,
Will this Ad be playing in the 11 states that most of McCain’s ad’s are now running in? Thanks. Also do you remember what the states were b/c i forgot? Thanks!
July 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Bad commercial.
Plus, I think anyone who has never changed their mind is a moron. So… attacking that is getting a little cliched.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
This is already being portrayed as a “negative ad” because it points out factual inconsistencies in Obama’s positions. #2, changing your mind is fine - having one set of views for the primary and a whole new set of views 3 months later for the general is not, especially when it comes to something as important as national security. Compare that to McCain’s consistent rhetoric of “I would rather lose an election than lose a war” and this is an area on which he needs to pounce. What will people remember about this ad? 1) Obama is all over the place on the war 2) McCain - Country First
July 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I do not like the production quality of this ad, both visuals and narration. The argument is fine, “attack ad” or not.
The narration is a weak young voice and undermines McCain’s message of strength. The “he hasn’t been to Iraq in years” line sounds stupid. I haven’t been to Iraq since 1991.
Visually, the cutouts are fine for Obama, they make him look dorky. But, the cutouts of McCain make him look just as dorky.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Looks like Phil Gramm is stepping down from McCain’s campaign. fyi.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
McCain’s earlier ads are so much better. This is so week.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ajay,
That is correct.
Gramm steps down from McCain campaign
July 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Bryan,
McCain’s spokesman, Brian Rogers, said this ad will air in the same 11 states they’re already up on the air and on national cable.
They are Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin…that’s 10…not sure about the 11th.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
U.S. cracks down on smuggling into Iraq
Military wants to destroy Iranian weapons pipeline
July 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
It is the message not the quality. You guys should know that, remember Kerry as a windsurfer? It had Bad quality, and people did not pay much attention until the polls moved.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Bolton: Bush Paving Way for Obama Administration
“This is not going to be a one time meeting. I can tell you what the State Department will say the day after the meeting: ‘It went really well, we made a lot of progress, now we’ve got a process going, surely we should go to the next meeting.’
In any event it’s the Bush administration legitimizing the Obama presidency’s policy. It’s like Senator Obama already has a transition office in the West Wing. And, I think, it will make it very difficult for congressional Republicans and Sen. McCain to continue their critique of the weaknesses of the existing administration policy.
The problem is that the negotiations with Iran have already been underway for 5 years. This is not a new idea. It’s not a new idea when Sen. Obama proposes it, it’s not a new idea for the us to sit at the table. After 5 years of negotiation, the only consequence is that Iran is 5 years closer to nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to give up its pursuit of those weapons voluntarily, the diplomatic options have been tried and failed and our real options are now, unfortunately, quite limited.
I think the State Department is doing its best to ensure a smooth transition toward the Obama administration. So, I have little doubt that an interest section is highly likely before the end of the Bush Administration. Once again, Tehran will read that as a weakening of the administration’s resolve and will use it to their advantage.”
July 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“Country First” Not many can say that with a straight face.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
LA Times blog states; “although Obama raised $52 million last month, he has been spending $40 million per month to run his campaign.”
This would explain why McCain is keeping pace, and in some states, is running more ad’s than Obama?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Obama, Democrats, and the Surge
They were against it before it worked.
by Peter Wehner
July 18th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Foreign Policy: Is Obama a Puppet?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Military will tell Obama Iraq pullout is possible but risks security reversals
July 18th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Bush, Maliki agree on not setting withdrawal timeline
The White House announced Friday that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed that troop reductions should be “based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”
July 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Victory in Iraq
July 19th, 2008 at 12:27 am
AP Shocker: Iraqis Think Obama’s Plans Stink
July 19th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Aron,
These are interesting articles. This is one of the benefits of having a sitting President behind you.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:52 am
MSNBC is reporting that Maliki gave an interview to a German paper endorsing Obama’s withdrawal plan.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Here is a link for #21.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL1980090
July 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
When asked in an interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
“Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business,” he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain’s more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Iraq, Maliki went on to say, “would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations.” He also emphasized though that the security agreement between the two countries should only “remain in effect in the short term.”
“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”
He also bemoaned the fact that Baghdad has little control over the US troops in Iraq. “It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population,” Maliki said.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-566841,00.html
July 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Maliki Embraces Obama Timetable for Withdrawal
by Rick Moran
This is after Maliki agreed with President Bush in a conference call earlier in the week on a “time horizon” for meeting “aspirational goals” for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.
So what gives? What’s Maliki’s game?
Maliki is running for office. With elections scheduled for October, there is little doubt that he wishes to forestall any move by his rival, Moqtada al-Sadr, to make hay out of Maliki’s close association with the occupation. In short, he is moving to shore up his right (nationalistic) flank by being seen as eager for the Americans to leave.
As the need for American troops to stay in Iraq lessens, the Iraqi people will be more anxious for us to go. Candidates who recognize that political reality will probably do well in the elections.
Maliki’s Shia brethren are split on the issue of the occupation with a large segment supporting al-Sadr’s call for our immediate withdrawal and a slightly larger faction who recognize the reality of the occupation but want most of us out as soon as it is safe to go. It is these voters that Maliki is appealing to. The bitter enders who support al-Sadr will never win a majority unless they can convince many of the realists that we will never go and that politicians like Maliki are encouraging us to stay.
Hence, Maliki’s two step on withdrawal; being obtuse with Bush while pronouncing Obama’s specific proposal acceptable. He doesn’t want to offend Bush/McCain but for political reasons finds it desirable to pander to those Shias who are worried about the US overstaying its welcome.
The coalition of Shia parties that currently govern Iraq will no doubt win a majority again in October, although it will probably be reduced due to increased Sunni participation in the electoral process as well as a hopefully better showing by the non-sectarian, secular parties. This makes it all the more important for Maliki to be seen as standing up to the Americans among his co-religionists. Eliminating al-Sadr as a rival - especially in the south - will help him consolidate his position and in the end, be the best we can hope for as far as a political outcome in Iraq.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
John McCain’s Weekly Radio Address
July 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
25. . . Wait, you mean American politicians aren’t the only ones who pander to supporters of both sides of an issue? I’m shocked. And here I thought it was just us.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
AL QAEDA’S MARKET CRASH
by Ralph Peters
July 19th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/al_qaedas_market_crash_120538.htm?page=0
July 19th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
U.S. to Iran: Cooperate or face isolation
Talks that include U.S. end with demand for ‘clear answer’ in two weeks
July 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The McCain campaign’s response to al-Maliki:
“His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out,” said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.”
“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.