As everyone awaited the Iraq War bill vote, sites from DailyKos to the Huffington Post and Obama's own official blog were focused on how the senator would vote. The focus on Obama was much more tangible than that for Clinton highlighting the importance of this issue for Barack.
Many Obama supporters publicly declared they had jumped ship even before the bill got out of the House. They thought the senator should have come out earlier against the bill. Even supporters who had steadfastly defended Barack in hostile territory since his campaign started wavered. Some, even on his own blog, declared they would not contribute to the campaign further if Barack voted yes on the bill.
Not that Barack is a one-issue candidate. There were those also who said they would support Obama no matter how he voted on the Iraq War spending bill.
From my own observations those who publicly stood behind the senator no matter what cited his optimism, his ability as a uniter and his generally favorable, positive image both at home and abroad as reasons for their support.
For die-hard anti-war folk, it was obvious that anxieties were high. Understandably it has been a long haul for those who have opposed the war from the start and many had put their hopes in Obama.
Such was the tension, that when Obama finally did cast his no vote it was something of an event among the netroots crowd.
Had Barack voted yes, his campaign would certainly have undergone a major transformation. Not that his support would have necessarily dropped. Possibly he could have picked up more "blue dog" conservative Democrats than lost "green dog" progressive Dems.
But the perception of Barack as the leader of the opposition against the Iraq War would have changed. I personally think that John Edwards would have moved into that spot had Barack voted yes.
However, as he voted no, there is a resurgent belief in Barack's anti-war cred even if a few lost faith and went elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if his coffers are getting a boost from his actions.
Here are the senator's comments on why he voted no on the Iraq War bill:
“This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”
“We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course.”
“I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today.”
“This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”
“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”
“We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”
“With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”
No comments:
Post a Comment