http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1215893032-ceMOLJ2mKolZnvn8vq7qlQ
The organizers of a televised town hall at a military base have gone public to pressure Obama to accept their invitation. He really has no good options on this one. He can show up to a town hall, McCain’s favorite format, about the war in Iraq, McCain’s favorite subject, full of active duty soldiers and vets, McCain’s strongest demographic, or he can blow off the largest, and perhaps only, military event of the election season during a time of war. Yikes! That is a heck of decision. It would certainly be courageous of him to show up and make the case for withdrawal, or whatever his position will be come August, but boy what a risk, the last thing one needs is to have the whole country watch your candidate get booed by soldiers if his message falls flat.
I bet the polls will have a lot to do with this decision. If he is ahead and comfortable I would expect him to be somewhere else. If his lead keeps slipping, the new Newsweek poll reports he is only up 3 with 85 percent of remaining undecideds being white voters, I think he might take the chance and engage McCain on his home turf.
I hope he shows up, a town hall about the war would be valuable, it would be nice to watch the candidates defend their positions up close and in person rather than through press releases and snide comments as has been the practice so far.
What does everyone else think? Too risky? A can’t miss opportunity? How damaging would it be to not go?
1 response so far ↓
1 eschulwolf10 (eschulwolf10) // Jul 13, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I’m curious as to where Obama will do here, because I agree that ducking a debate on Iraq in front of military personnel would be disastrous from a perception standpoint. I also think that, as the primaries have ended, we’re seeing some more nuance in Obama’s position on the war, as I expected would happen. Now, instead of “let’s get out yesterday,” we’re hearing talk of flexible timetables and consulting the advice of the generals (even, perhaps, General Betray Us). I happen to think that the new, more careful would-be Commander-in-Chief Obama is closer to what we’ll get than the old, bring-’em-back now variety was, which makes me infinitely more comfortable with the possibility of his presidency (for a good article about this, read Gail Collins in the Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html).
But the interesting thing is, if I read Obama right, I think that in a forum about the Iraq War, neither candidate will have anything especially satisfying to say to the American people. McCain can say that the surge has worked, to a large extent, and that some political progress is being made. But I don’t think people will give him too much credit for that, because he can’t say “we’re halfway there,” or “we’re almost there” when he consistently refuses to define where exactly “there” is in Iraq. Also, as Obama can claim correctly, while we’ve poured troops into Iraq, Afghanistan has gone to hell in a handbasket. At the same time, I think what Obama would like to say is “well, the surge has done a good job setting the stage for needed political progress, but now we have to take the next step and begin the endgame.” He can’t do that, though, because he vociferously opposed the surge, while McCain’s been supporting it for years, and to do so would call into question his own judgment. Who would win that debate? Who knows, although I might have to give the edge to McCain, who would have a significant home hall advantage. My sense, though, is that Obama has a lot more to lose by not going than by showing up. How can we trust his policy on the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan if he isn’t even confident enough to discuss it with the people who will have to sacrifice to put it into effect? He has to have the stones to go. If he doesn’t, people might want to start asking Rev. Jackson where he hid them.
You must log in to post a comment.