Political Buzz

So what’s the deal on the Iraq hearings today? Do they help the Dems make a case against McCain, or does the added attention play into JMac’s Iraq-centric platform? And what’s the scorecard for the Clinton/Obama fight? Well…

For McCain, both his performance at the hearings and the hearings themselves are a mixed bag. He’s been touting Iraq (and his surge strategy) as a success for months, certainly since he became the Republican nominee. This was the day that those words could get some substance behind them and allow McCain to mold the Iraq debate to his liking.

His game plan includes voters buying into the “all-is-well” line peddled by Petraeus and Co. on the war and, seeing Petraeus in Washington again, get reminded just how successful McCain’s surge has been. But the war is heading south again - casualties are up, stability is evaporating - and the Petraues report is sounding eerily similar - both to last year’s findings and the Bush administration spin. Might this backfire right in McCain’s face and lead to a rise in concern over his unusually sunny view of the situation in Iraq? That’s a safe bet.

Further problems may arise from yet another Sunni/Shiite goof from JMac. During the Senate hearings, McCain asked a question that mixed-up the two Muslim sects - again.

McCain: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
Petraeus: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
McCain: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?
Petraeus: No, no sir.
McCain: Or Sunnis or anybody else then? Al Qaeda continues to try to assert themselves in Mosul, is that correct?
Petraeus: It is senator, as you saw on the chart. The area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas they controlled as little as a year and a half.

But, all in all, McCain did a relatively solid job of hammering home his one and only position on Iraq: It is “irresponsible” to withdraw now or basically any time in the future. And that’s where the “hundred-year war” stuff comes in. JMac doesn’t want to face withdrawal, so where does that leave voters? They’ll be able to buy into the Dem (especially Obama) criticism of him as a man with no plan other than a continuation of an unpopular war. Not safe footing for November, although irresponsibility could be tweaked a bit by the GOP spin doctors.

Hillary and Obama used the same “irresponsible” argument against McCain and Petraeus. They broke out the usual anti-war cry that we need to get out “responsibly”, not stay indefinitely and be “irresponsible.” It’s all a word game.

But today was a day tailor made for Hillary - and she rose to the challenge. She loves the Senate, and the Senate loves her and she wasn’t about to waste a chance where she could use her polished senatorial skills to slam the war in much better language and with much better angles than a flailing Obama did at the hearing. Both Clinton and Obama had a chance to grill Petraeus and hurl veiled assaults McCain’s way. But HRC was a clear winner on this, if for no other reason than she was able to get a consistent anti-war message into the media and out to voters.

She looked at the present and the need to get out of Iraq…

“It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again,” she said, noting a “lack of political progress over the past six months” in Iraq.

…While Obama utilized his familiar message that he has been against the war from the beginning, talking of the mistake that was made to go into Iraq in the first place.

He called the invasion of Iraq a “massive strategic blunder” that enabled al Qaeda and Iran to spread their influence into Iraq, and he said the United States should pressure Iraqi officials to settle the war by threatening to leave.

Off the cuff, Obama’s language seems like something out of the Bush-bashing days when the benefit of the war was an open question. Most sane voters realize the fact that going in was a “blunder” - as Obama loves to point out - and that something in the policy needs to change. But Hillary, in her own way of fighting for political survival, has the answer that all but the most rabid anti-war Dem wants to hear.

The Dem race has gone beyond playing to the party base and fighting to see who can move the furthest left. It has become a quasi-general contest, with the specter of McCain waiting in the wings and moderates and swing voters across the country lining up their choices for November. Might a Hillary plan for Iraq look more appealing than Obama’s constant debate on the past - or McCain’s sunshine and sing-a-long’s, for that matter?

See below for video of each candidate at today’s hearings.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: John McCain, Iraq, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, The Blog, Uncategorized