Campaign Diaries

Longtime readers of this blog might remember that I objected to what I viewed as Obama’s triangulating stance on Iran when the Kyl-Lieberman bill came to a vote in the Senate back in September. Now, the issue of Iran has come back to the table with McCain hitting Obama for being too soft on the issue and with informed speculation that Bush might be preparing to strike increasing. While most of the talk in the past 24 hours has been devoted to yesterday’s FISA vote which Obama supported and Clinton opposed, I would like to concentrate instead on Iran.

Hillary Clinton’s “yes” vote to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment became a key sticking point of the Democratic primaries, as John Edwards hit her repeatedly for what he said was her caving to Bush’s war-mongering plans. Obama’s stance was more complex: He said he was opposed to the bill (he did not take part of the vote) but not for the reason for which Edwards, liberal activists and other prominent Democrats (like Pelosi) were enraged against the bill.

While the provision that many Democrats were vehemently denouncing was the amendment’s labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, Obama was on the wrong side of that issue: He had sponsored a bill back in April 2007 doing just the same thing. But he (1) wanted to give the impression that there was space between him and Clinton on the issue of Iran and (2) he wanted to avoid Edwards out-flanking him on the left. So he announced he opposed the amendment because it tied Iran to the Iraq War — though he spoke about his opposition in vague enough terms to not remind anyone of his stance on the labeling issue.

This maneuver allowed Obama to publicly hit Clinton (including during debates) for voting in favor of the amendment while muting his support for the text’s most controversial provision. Obama thus appeared to be in line with Edwards and substantially better than Clinton on the Iran issue when his stance (labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) was as dangerous an embrace of Bush’s talking points. As I wrote back in October:

Obama’s position is that Iran engages in terrorist activities… just not in Iraq. But was not Saddam Hussein also accused of “sponsoring terrorism far beyond Iraq’s borders” in an explicit linkage with Al-Qaeda? Obama’s rhetoric on Iran dangerously parallels the connections that were drawn five years ago. His argument that tying Iran with Iraqi insurgents gives the administration a war rationale whereas linking it to non-Iraqi terrorists does not is an arbitrary fault line: Bush would have little problem arguing the need for strikes on the basis of the larger War on Terror. He has done so before, and Democrats conceding that the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist group will allow him to do it again.

As Seymour Hersh is warning us repeatedly in the New Yorker, war in Iran is a very distinct possibility in the months ahead and the Administration is stepping up its plans to attack before Bush leaves office. I am still at a loss as to how Democrats who agree that the Iranian army is a terrorist organization will be able to oppose Bush bombing Iran.

It is in this context that Senator McCain is now hitting Obama for his opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment: “”This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Sen. Obama refused to vote. He called it provocative, a provocative step.” (By the way, does McCain really want to have a debate about who has ben missing the most vote in 2007-2008?)

In its response, the Obama campaign suddenly emphasized Obama’s stance that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist group, something they had made sure to not talk about too much throughout the fall. And just like that, the illusion of any space between Obama and Clinton on Iran deflated and the space with Edwards reappeared. The campaign issued a statement saying: “That’s why he cosponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and authored a bill that would direct divestment from Iran.”

This is certainly not a shift to the center, and while the Right and the McCain campaign is accusing Obama of flip-flopping on the issue, that charge is laughable: Obama has been remarkably consistent on the issue. But it is undoubtedly a change in emphasis.

And that gets us to the broader question of Obama’s positioning in the general election, about which I have already written. A frustrating article published today by the LA Times starts with:

As Barack Obama moves to broaden his appeal beyond loyal Democrats, a chorus of anger and disappointment has arisen from the left. But those voices are a distinct minority because the party has a more pressing concern: winning in November.

This is a silly opposition between not angering the left and concerns of winning. Sure, Obama might not be able to win if he goes around campaigning against the death penalty. But I have very clearly faulted Obama for emphasizing centrist themes as a strategic mistake. The 2000 elections showed what happens when differences between the parties are muddied, and when it comes to an issue as important as bombing Iran differences are even more important to articulate. Obama likes to say that he will win by drawing stark contrasts and no longer being afraid of the GOP’s fear-mongering.

And as I have been pointing out for weeks (before this whole issue of Obama’s positioning even emerged), the election is paying itself among Democratic voters: Given the huge swing towards Democrats in the past four years, Obama securing the Democratic base and keeping them enthused would go as far towards putting the election away as anything, making Obama’s moves on issues like FISA and his acceptance of Bush’s talking points on Iran unnecessary and risky.