Campaign Diaries

As the economic crisis is deepening and Fannie and Freddie are spiraling downward, we might expect that the economy would be the focus of the presidential election. But today the two presidential candidates proved once again that they would prefer to duel on the Iraq War, an issue both believe underlies their appeal — judgment for Obama and strength for McCain. But a third attribute, pragmatism, is one that is dear to both candidates and Obama scored points today by showing he had an effective strategy to take the upper-hand in that battle.

Both campaigns are confident that they have the support of public opinion — the GOP is heartened by the building media narrative that the surge is working, while Democrats believe that voters have already made up their mind that the war is a disaster. As a result, Iraq is one issue on which both parties are eager to highlight their differences.

Today, Obama delivered what was billed as a major speech in which he made sure to draw stark contrasts with his opponent. As he did throughout his race against Hillary Clinton, Obama framed the issue as one of judgment, past and present. He blasted McCain for being off the mark back in 2002: “I opposed going to war in Iraq… Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War.”

And he attacked him for displaying similarly poor judgment today: “Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. … George Bush and John McCain don’t have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq.” He contrasted this with his own judgment that the time had come for “ending this war:”

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. (…) That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future.

At the same time, Obama broadened the speech by framing Iraq as a distraction from America’s other problems that have been forgotten because of the cost of the Iraq War. First, Obama focused on Afghanistan and the fact that Al-Qaida’s leaders are still loose. And more generally, Obama explained that

This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

McCain was ready with his response, accusing Obama of committing himself to policies before having seen the situation on the ground and leaving for Iraqi-Afghani trip later this month: “I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left. … In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.”

Translation: McCain is a pragmatist who puts facts before party and who advocated for a new strategy when Rumsfeld was in command, while Obama is an ideologue, Obama is blinded to facts by his commitment to principles, Obama is the creature of his party’s liberal base and cannot do anything but advocate for a timetable. This is exactly the same charge the GOP made recently against Obama on environmental and energy issues. The RNC’s ad that premiered last week contrasted McCain the pragmatist to Obama the ideologue. Given McCain’s predilection for portraying himself as a maverick, this is a story we will hear over and over again in this campaign.

But just as Hillary Clinton remained hammered by her vote in favor of the Iraq War (remember the Feb. 1st CNN debate, for instance, where she had to spend an awfully long time revisiting her old votes), McCain could be forced in a similar predicament: Obama’s strength has long been his ability to use the issue of judgment to create a link between the 2002 debates and current debates.

Obama’s attack will go straight at McCain’s pragmatism claim and the Democrat will portray his original opposition to the war as proof that he is the most in touch with reality. And while the electorate might not yet have decided for or against withdrawal, it long ago made up its mind that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Obama also launched an offensive on broader national security issues today by launching a new ad addressing the need to control nuclear proliferation:

The ad highlights Obama’s cooperation with Republican Senator Dick Lugar and portrays him in a non-partisan role. Note the different strategies employed on the issue of the war in Iraq, on which Obama sounds a combative position, and in this ad, in which he advocates bipartisanship. In both cases, the goal is the same: Demonstrate that Obama is first and foremost concerned with protecting his country, putting the country’s interest before his comfort, his party or his ideological considerations.

This argument strikes at the heart of McCain’s strength. Will it succeed? A similar strategy worked against Clinton in the primary, but McCain is a different candidate with much more national security experience. But the advantage for the Obama campaign is that their candidate does not need to win on national security. The latest Washington Post poll shows Obama is more trusted by 19% on the economy and that his weakness is foreign affairs. Obama needs to pass the commander-in-chief test and convince voters that he is strong enough on these issues, and that’s what he is working on. His European/Middle Eastern trip will indeed be very important.