Obama returns Clinton’s lob
Email
Reporter’s Notebook: Sen Barack Obama, D-Illinois, just gave a speech on the Senate floor about Iraq legislation he hopes to introduce in the next day or two. Someof the points he discussed were * capping troop levels as to where they were on January 10, 2007, * beginning the redeployment of US troops from Iraq in the next 2-4 months * calling for diplomatic efforts between the US and countries in the region. The bill has not been drafted and is still a work in progress. Obama also spoke again against the president’s proposed surge/escalation in troops to Iraq, which he said would only prevent "the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own future." As Obama pointed he has "always been a consistent and strong opponent of this war." He didn’t mention this — he didn’t have to — but this distinguishes him from other possible presidential contenders with the surnames Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Kerry. While Obama last week said he was exploring what legislative options existed to stop the surge, it wasn’t until Clinton yesterday proposed capping troop levels — which Obama mentioned today — that Obama announced a similar step. – jt
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter 
John Edwards Trial: Jury Deadlocked?
Amazing how great minds think alike, especially when political stakes are involved, isn’t it?
Posted by: chuck | January 18, 2007, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
The recent actions of Clinton and Obama look contrived and calculated and, as a result, both appear to be following, not leading. While most would argue that it’s better to have arrived at a noble conclusion for the wrong reason than not to have arrived there at all, I prefer the (apparently) genuine outrage, passion, and yes leadership of Chuck Hagel and Ted Kennedy to the measured, honey-coated(and long delayed, particularly in Clinton’s case) responses of Clinton and Obama. Sometimes something is just wrong and it must be called wrong, early and often and with conviction.
Posted by: DKNY | January 18, 2007, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
I’m less cynical about the proposals. Yes the timing coincides with the pre-Election 2008 run up. But it also shortly follows election 2006, in which the people sent Washington a message. Public support for the war has shifted perceptably. Yes it would be better if the democrats would lead public opinion rather than follow it, but in the post 9/11 climate of fear, in opposing the war, a democrat risks being labeled “weak” or “pacifist” – the kiss of death. Obama and Clinton timed it right.
Anyway, wonder what the constitutional impications are of congress legislating to cap troops.
Posted by: cordelia525 | January 18, 2007, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
I don’t think being “a consistent and strong opponent of this war” counts unless you voted one way or another in the Senate (in 2002). That’s like me declaring my candidacy and stating that I have always been a strong supporter of mail-carrier rights. Whose to say that I haven’t?
Posted by: reyonthehill | January 19, 2007, 10:40 am 10:40 am
I still believe Gov.Howard Dean is the b est man for the job.
Put him back on the list of candidates. And take Sen. Kerry off.
He is not a candidate.
Posted by: Jerome H.Diamond | January 19, 2007, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm