Dear Husband and I were discussing this very question the other day:
Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?
It’s quite glaring, in fact, and I’m glad WaPo has brought the issue into the light of day. Unfortunately, I think this blogger articulates some of the answer:
Obama won because of liberals and progressives. I guarantee that New Hampshire exit polls will show exactly the same thing. Hopefully, once they do, the liberal and progressive core of Obama’s coalition is something people will start to acknowledge.
There’s rather more behind Obama’s astounding popularity and early win than liberal / progressive support, and obviously his campaign sees that (even if the hard left will not). But at the moment, no candidate can afford to alienate “the base”. Nominees are not vying for the presidency yet (no matter how excited people are getting); they’re working toward their respective party nominations.
And if the Democratic “base” does not see improvement in Iraq — or at least is not acknowledging it — then a candidate would have to be willing to risk that support.
The underlying problem, though, goes beyond the unacknowledged relative reduction in violence in Iraq. The reality of Iraq is that whatever the conditions are today, they will be different when the President-elect takes office a year from now, and anything said to placate a base — or any group, for that matter — is likely to be moot.
Myself, I’d be very impressed with any Democratic candidate who had the gumption to admit that.
* * * * *
Added: As pointed out in the comments, the Wall Street Journal has an editorial on this subject today, also. If I were a Democratic candidate, though, I’d be far more worried about WaPo’s criticism.
Also — Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard is exactly right: the media owns a fair share of this problem. Furthermore, the relative silence in recent months has only compounded the situation. If WaPo truly thinks the candidates should come out of denial, they (and other mainstream media outlets) might consider covering the current realities as fully as they did the earlier chaos and horror.
Hi Polimom,
Welcome back to the fray!
Good point about the Democrats’ denial of reality (so as to placate ‘The Base’). The Wall Street Journal also has an editorial out today that explores each of the four leading Democrats’ somewhat different forms of denial. The closing paragraph:
If they are going to start their Presidential runs by insisting on a make believe reality, why should voters take them seriously? Surely the bare minimum we should expect from a candidate is the ability to take a clear eyed look at the world before formulating policy. The Democrats have (rightly, in my opinion) pilloried George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for not recognizing the unpleasant realities on the ground in Iraq.
Pot? Kettle?
Hi TM —
Thanks for the “welcome back”! It’s been kind of hard to verbally sit on the sidelines in the last week or two. What a relief to finally be past this excrutiatingly long build-up, and get to some meat and potatoes!
Thank you also for the link to the WSJ editorial. Much appreciated, and I’ve added to the initial post…. and I agree about the “pot” and “kettle”.
OTOH, the inability to differentiate between today’s reality, and potential policy a year from now, is not limited to the Democrats. We (as in, the electorate), by demanding present-day solutions to evolving situations, are also responsible for this silliness.
I try not to discuss politics, but feel the urge to comment here. “John Q. Public” seems to require (media-driven?) sensationalism in any/every form. Most of the time, it seems to me, it is negative and designed to inflame what is — often present — an ever-smoldering fire. (Probably due to “our” need to feel better about ourselves by putting others down.)
In this day & age of ever-advancing technology & instantaneous “news” (albeit edited), it would be extremely difficult for one person to ascertain the real facts about ANYthing … and, even more difficult for that one person to get others to believe in that “discovered” truth.
Personally, I am having a problem with ALL of the candidates for the coming nomination & subsequent election process.
There is one person who, I believe, might actually be a viable candidate. However, he is not currently in the running, and I am not about to propose his candicacy in this venue.
[…] I wrote over a month ago that I’d be impressed with any Democratic candidate who could admit that the situation is fluid, and that any promises today would likely be moot later. […]
[…] I fully expect the cacophony to be deafening when Obama starts acknowledging (and adjusting his rhetoric to) the changing conditions in Iraq. Like the campaign financing, the situation on the ground necessitates a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. […]