Democratic presidential nominee-to-be Barack Obama is no flip-flopper, he's worse.
To be a flip-flopper, you'd have to actually hold a real position on some issue, and the unflattering picture emerging of the Illinois senator is that he has no solid positions other than personal advancement and a kind of general loyalty to far-left ideology. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democrat nominee, was a flip-flopper. He voted for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
What we've received from Obama in recent weeks regarding our armed forces in Iraq is completely different. He turns to Middle America and says he will go to Iraq and listen to what Gen. David Petraeus has to say and adjust his policy accordingly. Then he returns to his base supporters and says he's sticking to his original proposal to immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq to be completed within 16 months.
That's not flip-flopping, that's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too. That's something that won't work in election politics, circa 2008.
The reason why Obama and John McCain won their nominations in the first place is they embraced change while most of the other candidates, except Mike Huckabee, stood around dribbling in their shoes. The "hope" and "change" mantra is brought out every four years, but in 2008 it's a tangible thing that voters crave.
The one thing Obama can't afford in the next couple of months is to come off like a typical politician. In the last third of the Democratic primary season, that's exactly what he appeared to be, and as a result he barely held off a late charge by Hillary Clinton. He's now being re-introduced to an entirely different class of voters, and if they peg him as just another politician trying to win an office, scruples or ideology or platforms be-damned, he'll lose. As it is, in the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Obama's national lead over McCain has slipped from 7 points to 4 points in the past week. Not a good trend at a time when he should have been building his early advantage.
So how should he handle the Iraq issue? There's an easy way to play both sides. He can go to Baghdad and meet Petraeus and come back and say that conditions have improved to such an extent that withdrawal is going to be possible in the near-future no matter the extent of your support for the war. Petraeus' successor can have his troops and Obama can revisit the subject after his inauguration. It might worry his base, but his base won't be voting for McCain in any event.
Plus, the Iraqi government has given Obama a huge lift with its new demand for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It gives him cover, whether he ends up ordering a withdrawal immediately upon assuming office or shortly thereafter. Even McCain said that if Iraq wants us out, we're out. On the other hand, current statements from the Maliki government might be sops to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian backers. A new government formed after the October elections, in which the Sunni population will fully participate, could have an entirely different plan for U.S. troops.
---
All you need to know about Iran's test-firing of nine Shihab missiles capable of striking Israel can be found in the price of a barrel of oil. Prices had dropped dramatically this week on word that demand was slackening and world supply was therefore increasing. As soon as the missile tests were announced, crude oil futures zoomed up more than $2 per barrel over worries of Israel's reaction and a possible move by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle East oil passes. Prices settled later because of those pesky supply numbers.
These missiles have been test-fired before. Israel has been within range of Iranian weapons for several years now and nothing has happened. I suspect that will remain the case, though Tehran loves to be provocative.
In normal circumstances, I would say that Israel will take care of the Iranian problem when Israel is good and ready. However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert strikes me as being a different and lesser sort of Israeli leader who might respond to public pressure by ordering an attack on Iran, whether the military is truly ready or not. We'll see.
For an attack to truly be successful, Israel or a combination Israeli-US force will have to take out all of Iran's missile capability first, including the longer-range Shihabs and the surface-to-ship missiles that threaten commercial shipping. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip will also have to be neutralized. Only then can they bomb and take out the nuclear facilities.
Finally, it will all be for naught if the Iranian leadership is not removed. Not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs in Qom who really rule the country. That's a lot to put together, but Israeli and U.S. officials might find it necessary soon.
---
I see where billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is suggesting establishing a windfarm through the Midwest from West Texas up north to break America's dependence on foreign oil. Hmm? He might be investing in metal commodities which will go up if we decide to build and install millions of wind machines?
Someone needs to pluck Pickens out of his fantasyland -- and any other supporter of wind energy on a mass scale -- and take him to the Cabazon Pass northwest of Palm Springs to see just how ugly 4,000 windmills is. The biggest are 150-feet tall and have blades that span half a football field. They cost $300,000 each. That right there is an investment of $1.2 billion just to provide energy for Palm Springs and nearby towns.
It's just not going to fly. Like solar, wind energy will end up working best as small-scale supplements for existing energy supplies. Small towns, farms, rural communities. Sure. A remedy for America's dependence on foreign oil, no way.
The article can be found at Opinion Journal.
