Scott, I agree totally that Markos Moulitas and Arianna Huffington are leftnuts and that they will be disappointed with the way that Obama governs. But they will not abandon Obama, as they have nowhere else to go. They’ll just grumble about it. – LW/HB

Funny… that’s what was said about we conservatives that were less than thrilled with McCain. Turns out that “nowhere else to go” is a “stay home”, or “teach ‘em a lesson by voting for the other guy” voting experiment. And with both the 2006 and 2008 elections, I think we know the results of that.

For now, your “govern from the center” analogy is correct. However Obama would be a fool to do anything but this early in the game. And remember, he’s not even POTUS, fer heaven’s sake…. technically, he’s named names that haven’t been confirmed. So far that “governing” is premature as he hasn’t “governed”… just promised. He’s done virtually nothing but hold the media spotlight so far.

As for promises? Considering his choices, you can’t take Obama’s promises for much either. For my side… that makes me happy. I doubt a MoveOn.org… or CodePink member would agree.

The defining moment will be a year or two from now. Will he cut Hillary loose because he planned all along to thwart her elective career in the Senate, and leave her strapped with huge debt for any competitive 2012 run? How many of the “centrists” will he cut loose mid term?

How about the progressive/socialist spending? Bush/Bernanke/Paulson – with the unholy alliance with the progressive Dems in Congress – have done a heck of a job already with the bailout mentality. Will Obama thrust the costs of universal health care and re’design our energy system on the backs of the US citizen mid term?

“Obama told reporters in Chicago that he still thinks 16 months is the “right time frame” for removing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

He said the top priority is making sure troops are safe during that transition, and that the Iraqi people are well served as their government takes on more security responsibilities.

He also said the U.S. needs to “remain vigilant” in making sure terrorist elements in Iraq don’t become strengthened by a U.S. pullout.”

I don’t see what the LIE is…

What he has never seemed to grasp is that in senior positions, inaction has as many results as action; even bad actions.

Excellent point Scott. We learned that to be true under Clinton.
Look folks, Conservatives are actually hoping that we are wrong about obama and that he will prove to be a centrist, but considering his past, considering his associations and current cabinet picks, we don’t think we are. Time will tell.

Make no mistake about it, opposition to the war in Iraq was fueled by Democratic Party leaders for the benefit of the Democratic Party at the expense of supporting the Commander in Chief and the efforts of troops in battle. I’ve worded that carefully, so before anyone goes off…please re-read and make sure you see clearly what I’ve just said before wigging out.

btw, I’m not sold on the idea that Obama’s a crusading socialist in league with a cabal of Reid/Pelosi etc. I believe-perhaps more strongly than Larry-that he’s just a politician who will say and do anything to get power which includes NOT saying and NOT doing anything to hold on to power. His interest is not progressive as the left likes to dream, but rather just to get power, play Martin Sheen in The West Wing, and not screw anything up. What he has never seemed to grasp is that in senior positions, inaction has as many results as action; even bad actions.

Obama campaigned on a 16 month withdrawal timetable, at a time when President Bush opposed any timetable at all, and when John McCain also opposed a timetable and spoke of maintaining bases indefinitely, as we have in Germany and South Korea.

Near the very end of the campaign, the Bush administration capitulated to demands by the Iraqis that we get out, lock, stock, and barrel, with a firm timetable. They haggled over the dates: finally the end of 2011 was agreed upon, but with the important proviso that the US be out of the Iraqi metropolitan areas by June, 2009.

Now, faced with these facts, Obama could have repudiated the agreements before he was even sworn in. But, realistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of US casualties have come from missions within the cities or in supply missions to support troops within the cities. Also, Obama wanted to keep Gates on board for a prolonged transition period, which most people consider to be a wise move. So he says, look, getting out of the cities in 6 months is a pretty good deal for us, and, hopefully we can get out entirely well before the end of 2011, and we are definitely NOT going to have permanent bases there, which was an original dream of the neoconservative strategists who conceived the idea of the Iraq War and which was also central to McCain’s thinking. So he had a choice between rigid ideology or pragmatic wisdom, and he chose the latter.

Obama’s approval ratings have gone up substantially since his election, precisely because people think that he’s doing the right things.

My main “theme” in discussing Obama hasn’t been so much to defend him (which I am, however, happy to do, based on his performance to date) as it has been to challenge the preconceived notion that Obama is some sort of crusading socialist ideologue who is going to partner with Pelosi and Reid to destroy capitalism as we know it and hand over the keys to Washington DC to Islamic Jihad. These are not his goals. His goals are to make pragmatic decisions in the national interest and to co-opt the political center and to push the Republicans into an extreme right corner, where the only reliable Republicans left will be the social conservatives and the anti-immigrants and the racists, who collectively make up the core of the most loyal GOP base.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

You said, “…withdrawal from combat zones by June, 2009 and out completely by 2011….”

“Combat zones”? The world is a “combat zone”! Mumbai, Madrid, London, NYC, Bali, etc. Where did you get the “combat zones” qualifier for the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq?

The bottom line is that we are at war with violent Islamic fundamentalists (have been for decades) and we can choose to fight them on our terms, as we have been doing in Iraq, or be subjected to them in the places previously listed above. What you cannot do is think you’ve ended the war by running from it.

Better luck next time Larry. Keep trying-you’re allllllllmost there!

However, that applies to what you have said about obama in your attempts to defend him. He made promises he had no intention of keeping. He said only what people wanted to hear which is part of the reason he won.
Obama moving to the right. Ha! You must smoke to good stuff to believe that.

Obama is a very shrewd, pragmatic politician.

Okay, yeah. Chicago politicians like the Mafioso bosses that originally kept them in office and paid them to look the other way were very shrewd throughout the last 80 years, as are their progeny of today. So… I’m waiting on pins & needles, yet with no sensations up either leg, to hear about how Obama’s shrewdness and pragmatism made any iota of difference in this SOFA decision which was pretty much the same thing we were looking at from the Bush admin BEFORE Obama won the general election. Please tell, what were his essential contributions to this that is making it work? 2011 is not an immediate end, nor does it fall within his 16 months scenario. Yet he is perfectly fine with this “Bush policy” now. When it was untenable and outrageous before.

I hope you don’t mind if, we hold off conceding to give him credit until he has actually done something to earn it. Meanwhile, we’re waiting to be impressed and astounded.