NYT Poll: Obama's "Shiny Halo Of Integrity" Beginning To Fade

Barack Obama "says what he thinks people want to hear" according to a majority in the latest New York Times Poll. Admittedly, John McCain's numbers aren't any better, but then again he hasn't based his entire campaign upon being "new politician" whose honesty and integrity is matched only by Christ himself. And why has the halo of honesty faded? Because of statements like those in his Iraq press conference this morning, in which he was pummeled by Democrats and Republicans alike.

During the primaries, Obama insisted he would have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election. After being cornered by John McCain, who pointed out Barack hasn't even been to Iraq in the last two years since the surge began, Obama agreed to go to Iraq and "refine" his position after his trip. But in his NYT Op-ed, before he has set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan, Barack Obama has again committed himself to the 16 month timeline and is now insisting he will put more troops in Afghanistan. This has left Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Democrats like Michael O'Hanlan "livid" over his op-ed and press conference today on Iraq.

The Times commentary drew a furious response from the McCain campaign, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) calling it “an unbelievably brazen effort by a politician to rewrite history.” He accused Obama of building “a political strategy around losing” the war.

Republicans were not alone in that response. Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”

O'Hanlan continues:

And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.

These types of flip-flops on and completely ill-advised statements on strategies (if they can be called that) for Afghanistan and Iraq are costing Barack Obama that shiny new veneer that has for so long blinded the voters of America and may cost Obama superdelegates at the convention. Keep in mind that Hillary only suspended her campaign and we can all be sure that she would only be more than happy to rescue the party from the embarassment of nominated the least qualified and most inexperienced presidential candidate the country has ever seen.