Would Obama Have Voted to Invade Iraq? Probably

During the Democratic primaries, then-Senator Obama made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign. He repeatedly condemned the invasion and even said that the use of military force under those circumstances violated the Constitution. As Jacob Sullum of Reason observes:

In a December 2007 survey of presidential candidates, Obama told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Today, however, President Obama has nuanced his position:

The White House said the president's actions don't contradict his earlier views, noting that the president met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers regarding Libya before any action took place.

A senior administration official said that the 2007 comment envisioned "an invasion like we saw in Iraq. A mission of this kind, which is time-limited, well-defined, and discrete, clearly falls within the President's constitutional authority."

During the Democratic Primaries Bill Clinton said that Obama's antiwar stance was a "fairytale." Many media outlets distorted that comment and suggested that Clinton described Obama's entire campaign as a fairytale. This distortion then sparked accusations that Clinton was a racist. The furor of Clinton's alleged racism deflected attention from the actual substance of the former president's observation -- that Obama is not as dovish as he portrayed himself.

Recently, the New York Times reported that several of Obama's senior staff, namely, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, convinced him to use military force against Libya. When Bush pressed Congress to approve the use of military force against Iraq, 29 Senate Democrats voted to approve the measure. The list of Senators includes many close advisers to Obama, such as Hillary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State; Joe Biden, Obama's Vice President; Tom Daschle, Obama's initial choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services; and John Kerry, an early Obama supporter and adviser. If three of President Obama's advisers could convince him to use military force against Libya in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, it is also likely that influential Senate Democrats could have motivated him to support the use of force against Iraq. Obama has also escalated the war in Afghanistan -- a mission he has always admitted to supporting.

Obama made an astute political calculation to portray himself as an antiwar candidate during the Democratic Primaries. At the time, most of the country -- especially liberal Democrats -- opposed the invasion of Iraq. Because Obama and Clinton had virtually identical positions on most issues, he needed to distinguish himself from her in order to gain attention. His so-called opposition to the invasion of Iraq gave him the perfect narrative to win the nomination. In sum, Obama was a smart politician. Reverend Wright was absolutely correct when he described candidate Obama as a "politician." Nonetheless, Wright was vigorously condemned for this observation. Today, however, his words on this subject are unassailable.

DC Rumor Mill Alert: Hillary Clinton to Become Sec. of Defense

In his latest Politico blog post, Ben Smith suggests that Hillary Clinton might replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was already ironic enough that Obama picked Clinton as Secretary of State, given his campaign stance on her foreign policy. This rumor, if true, would simply add to the irony.

WaPo's E.J. Dionne Says Obama Needs to Learn From Clinton

Washington Post columnist is happy that former President Bill Clinton has received a good prognosis from his doctor. Dionne believes that President Obama needs a healthy Clinton to advise him because, according to Dionne, the two have a lot in common and Obama could use some good advice.

Dionne observes that both men ran as "unifiers" but faced attacks from Republicans. Dionne also contends that both Obama and Clinton believe that they can use logic to convince their adversaries to shift positions.

Dionne argues that Clinton can help Obama navigate the challenges he now faces as president and to produce a winning "script" for his presidency:

I am pleased that after the scary tidings, Bill Clinton is doing well. And it may turn out to be providential that he burst into the news at precisely this point. It's hard to escape the sense that a young and promising Democratic president is too closely replaying the opening act of another young and promising Democratic president -- and that Republicans need only recite the same lines they came up with 16 years ago.
Obama needs to rewrite the script. And as a script doctor, Bill Clinton has no equal.

The substance of Dionne's essay is not groundbreaking. I have long argued that Obama shares a lot with the Clintons (both Hillary and Bill). What makes the essay extraordinary, however, is that many people in the media, including Dionne, parroted Obama's campaign rhetoric and portrayed him as the antithesis of the Clintons. The Clintons were divisive and insincere; Obama was the honest unifier.

Remember too that when Obama said that voters carry guns and cling to religion because they are "bitter," he singled out Bush and Clinton as the causes of voter frustration. Because he was running against Hillary Clinton, Obama avoided saying anything positive about the Clinton-era, and he marketed himself as an anti-Clinton Democrat.

During the presidential campaign, Dionne never challenged this script in his many articles on Obama, and in many ways he affirmed it. As Obama has moved from candidate to president, however, Dionne has begun portraying him in more complicated terms. In other words, he has approached Obama with the distance one would expect from a journalist.

Hey, Democrats: So "Experience" and Willingness to "Fight" Actually Matter in a President

During the Democratic primaries, I often felt that I was on Jupiter. My fellow Democrats rejected qualities in Hillary Clinton that are essential to a successful presidency.

When Clinton claimed she had more experience than Obama, Democrats either denied this reality or said that experience does not matter. They insisted that "ideas matter more" or that "Lincoln did not have experience either." Instead of experience, they preferred a "fresh face."

When Clinton said she was a fighter (explicitly embracing a "Rocky" theme), Democrats turned this into a bad thing, accusing Clinton of negative campaigning. Obama said that Clinton only knew how to fight, but that he would bring together the American people. Democrats wanted a "unifier" rather than a "fighter."

Well, I think it is time for people to evaluate their choices. From where I sit, I believe we could use a healthy dose of fighting and experience in the White House. What do you think?

On issues ranging from healthcare, anti-terrorism tactics, war, and crime, President Obama seems committed to making deals with moderates and conservatives, rather than fighting for the values of the Democratic Party. Or, is the failure to fight an official value of the Democratic Party?

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.

What Will Hillary Clinton Do Next?

Politico reports that during a recent interview with Tavis Smiley, Hillary Clinton indicated that she would probably decline to serve as Secretary of State for a second term:

TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just…

TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don't wanna make any predictions sitting here, I’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it’s a, it’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else.

Clinton also reiterated her lack of interest in running for president in 2012:

TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, I’m taking your answer now to mean that that’s still the same?

HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.

We shall see what the future brings for HRC. I have learned not to make any predictions with the Clintons. They love to surprise us.

What Happened to the Thunderous Liberal Opposition to Free Trade?

According to MSNBC, President Obama has indicated that the United States will seek to join a trade agreement with a small group of nations that would eventually expand into a larger Pacific Rim free trade pact. This development represents a dramatic shift from the rhetoric that colored the Democratic presidential primaries.

During the Democratic primaries, opposition to free trade became a standard line of the Left. The issue became extremely heated as the close political contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton moved into rustbelt states, like Ohio. Obama's campaign blamed Clinton for helping to pass NAFTA, while Clinton rebuked Obama in her infamous "shame on you" speech.

The anti-trade rhetoric reached a fever pitch after a Canadian governmental official said that one of Obama's economic advisers told him during a policy meeting that Obama's dramatic opposition to NAFTA was simply political posturing and that Obama would not disturb the free trade agreement. The Obama campaign cried foul play.

Nevertheless, after he secured the Democratic nomination, Obama began to abandon his anti-trade rhetoric. He said he would not seek to renegotiate NAFTA "unilaterally," and he attributed some of his earlier comments denouncing the agreement to "overheated and amplified" campaigning. The announcement of a new trade agreement -- rather than the reform of existing ones -- suggests that the anti-trade campaign rhetoric among Democrats was indeed political posturing and that they employed it to exploit economic vulnerability among middle-class and poor voters. Finally, the MSNBC article does not mention the recent primaries at all.