How the Pelosi/Obama Iraq feud benefits them both

[babylonsister]

Chess, anyone?

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/28/how-the-pelosiobama-iraq-feud-benefits-them-both/

How the Pelosi/Obama Iraq feud benefits them both
@ 10:37 am by Jeremy P. Jacobs

While everyone appears to be talking about how House Speaker's tepid endorsement and even criticism of President Obama's plan to leave 35,000 to 50,000 troop in Iraq after the combat mission is completed, no one seems to be stating the obvious: It benefits both of them politically.

For Obama, by breaking with Pelosi he doesn't appear beholden to a "San Francisco liberal," as the right calls her. It makes him look like he is governing from the middle and, more importantly, relying on military commanders on the ground to form his decisions, not a liberal orthodoxy. Plus, look at Obama's polling numbers, does he really need to worry about losing the support of Democrats right now? We think not.

For Pelosi, this boosts her anti-war bona fides. Pelosi has drawn criticism in her district and from the left for a perception that she has ruled over the House from the middle. Anyone remember Cindy Sheehan and her primary challenge of Pelosi?

[biopowertoday]

1. And it is the troops and the families who suffer (or die)

[omega minimo]

2. anyone remember "off the table"?

I don't see a leader when I look at Pelosi, I see a Player

[babylonsister]

4. Yes, and that begs the question of why she's now so

anxious to bring the BFEE to trial. What took her so long?

[omega minimo]

5. strategery

"What took her so long?"


:thumbsdown:

[ThomWV]

3. Since when is a "tepid endorsement" called a feud?

Jesus Christ, all they want to do is stir up trouble where there is none. Why don't these asswipes try covering news now and then and leave their fucking opinions and misleading language to themselves.

[babylonsister]

6. You're right, good point. (Making mountains out of) Molehill politics. nt