O'Reilly states that the reasons Obama defeated Clinton were that he was more eloquent than rehearsed as she was and his direct opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning. Bill says that Barack automatically claimed the far-left Americans, whereas Clinton slowly gained the moderate-- meaning when it comes to the general election he is going to have some problems getting the vote of the "middle-of-the-roaders".
His statement for being against the war from the onset has given him great traction in the liberal and mainstream camps, but it could be detrimental if the news continues to become more favorable about the war--as shown by the fact that in May, the casualties of Americans were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003, and that the oil production in Iraq has now reached its highest since Saddam fell. Stability in Iraq and a decrease in posturing by Iran would not be good for Barack's candidacy. At some point the media will be forced to admit these circumstances, not matter how reluctant they are. In my opinion, throughout the situation in Iraq we have learned too quickly of our failures and too slowly or not at all of our successes.
In numerous interviews given last year, Democratic candidate, Obama, stated that the surge would not help the situation in Iraq and probably would make it worse. This is obviously not true. These statements do not seem to be brought up in any of the discussions lately. My observation in this is that it has to be an odd situation that Mr. Obama finds himself in--being more concerned with being right than he is about a possible good outcome of a difficult war.
Already for the upcoming general election, Senator John McCain "is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq," as O'Reilly puts it. If John McCain is able to voice these conflicts to the American people it could prove costly to Senator Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment