Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.Come on folks over at P for O! On what stands doesn't Obama leave trails of unasked questions and seeds of doubt?
It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.
What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.
He tells us in The Audacity of Hope he's a blank screen upon whom people of widely different views project their thoughts. Can't say Obama's didn't let you know up front he's awfully malleable stuff on surface. It was Rezko and the Todd Stroger endorsement that revealed the true Obama to me. That's Obama's core of iron.
There are the Obamas you read, the Obamas you hear, and the Obamas you watch vote; and they can be vastly different fellows.
I suspect it's the Obama who dealt with Rezko at the core. That tells us much about the bet Americans will make if we elect this guy.