Friday, January 04, 2008

Iowa Shows How Iraq War Support Remains Toxic For Candidates


To hear George W. Bush and the right-wing noise machine tell it, one might be under the impression that the Iraq War has turned from a disaster to a major success story in the past few months.

But make no mistake: the American people aren't buying this spin---and support for the Iraq War remains toxic for any candidate seeking the White House.

Barack Obama, one of the few candidates who has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses. (Note that polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country).

Obama's success shows that the American public simply isn't buying the White House's recent desperate spin of the Iraq War as a "success story." And it shows that candidates who don't distance themselves from the Iraq fiasco severely diminish their hopes for the White House.

It's this toxic association with the war which continues to haunt former Dem front-runner Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the invasion and has never apologized for doing so.

In recent months, the mainstream media, including The New York Times, has worked overtime, trying to depict a turn-around in the Iraq War.

But the American people clearly aren't buying it. Bush's approval ratings remain in the toilet. And although one can find plenty of fault with Obama's anti-war credentials, they were clearly enough to power his victory in Iowa over Clinton's mighty, well-funded campaign machine.

On the GOP side, the public's weariness with the Iraq fiasco is apparent as well. Ron Paul is clearly picking up steam and his campaign earnings this quarter amounted to an incredible $19.5 million, possibly the largest haul among GOP candidates. It's quite remarkable for for a candidate who is more sharply critical of the Iraq War than any other White House hopeful.


Anonymous said...

I must say, Ron Paul is appealing to me on many levels. He makes it clear that he'll promptly end the Iraq War and get the U.S. involved in no other overseas military adventures. That alone makes him intriguing as a candidate.
And as for his wacky ideas on abolishing Social Security, the FDA, the EPA, etc.---well, there's no need to fear, as he'd never get very far along those lines. Hell, ALL the GOP hopefuls would abolish, or privatize, Social Security if they could get away with it.

Manifesto Joe said...

I have reservations about Obama, but am impressed that he has opposed the war from the start. Hillary and John Edwards can't make that claim. I was smelling a rat from the very first back in 2002, and couldn't imagine why more people didn't do the same. I was astonished when the Congress gave Bush a blank check by such a wide margin. Hil and JE will always carry a stain for that. Maybe it's time for somebody who hasn't been so much part of the Beltway BS to lead the Democratic Party.

Anonymous said...

I agree that it's tough to figure out where Obama specifically stands on many issues. One thing that troubles me is what his specific stand is on abuses like the Patriot Act. Still, I will be happy with ANY Dem in the White House, even Hillary, come next year.

Anonymous said...

I think too much is being read by the media into the Iowa results. There's still a long road to go before Obama gets the nomination.