Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll

[dude1394]

This is a poll I like. No matter how hard the Obamastar tries, he's not going to be able to continue talking like a knucklehead and win. No matter how hard Nancy Pelosi and Obamastar try to make up/down and right/left...sooner or later those nasty facts have a way of bubbling up.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109165/Ne...raq-Surge.aspx

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You're right that the polls mean nothing, at least as far as this election goes. For one thing, the #1 reason Obama was able to defeat Hillary was that he was able to get new voters registered. I imagine that there are a whole lot of people still unregistered who will yet register and cast votes for Obama in this election. The views of those people are not included in polls like these.

There is also the issue, as I understand it, of how these polls are executed when it comes to telephone numbers. I understand that those without a land line are not included in the polls. Older people are more likely to have a land line than younger people are, and there are other distinctions that can be drawn as well.

Bottom line is that Obama support seems to be underrepresented in polls.

My opinion is that if you don't get the sense that Obama is starting to run away from McCain like McCain is tied to a post, then your political senses are not at all well tuned.

Oh, I certainly agree Obama is running away with it. I have said before, and I'll say it again... this election is Obama's to lose. He most likely will win, and if he doesn't it will be a huge shock, imo. I only quoted the poll, because of the previous discussions on this thread.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Good points, Janett. The biggest disappointment of all in this campaign is the lack of gumption McCain has shown. He's so willing to change his principles from day to day, as the wind blows, that one wonders what principles he even started from. If any.

It's almost sad to watch a man unravel so.

I agree with you. If he had stood on his principal and talked in what he believed, he could have won. Maybe he still has a shot but with so many close states, it has to break really good for him to win and if it breaks wrong, he could get beat by 10 points or more.

Obama beat Hillary by standing up to her, speaking on what he believed in and he did what many didn't think he could do. Long ago, McCain stood for alot of the same and spoke on what he believed. It looks as if he is going to try to beat him on smear, negative and trying to turn it ugly. This is not the McCain we once knew. In the end, i feel principal will win out.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is a poll I like. No matter how hard the Obamastar tries, he's not going to be able to continue talking like a knucklehead and win. No matter how hard Nancy Pelosi and Obamastar try to make up/down and right/left...sooner or later those nasty facts have a way of bubbling up.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109165/Ne...raq-Surge.aspx

I'll assume that you are going on a model that says the impact of the surge in Iraq is good for McCain and bad for Obama. That's a point I could argue, but I'll leave it alone for now.

Instead I'll toss back at you the idea that Obama's speech before the Germans means nothing because those Germans don't vote in our election. It's a similar thing.

See, the folks who are against the Iraq war really don't care how well it's going. They care that we are expending our resources over there in a fight that they don't deem necessary. Yippeekayah if we are winning...that's not the point.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

I agree with you. If he had stood on his principal and talked in what he believed, he could have won. Maybe he still has a shot but with so many close states, it has to break really good for him to win and if it breaks wrong, he could get beat by 10 points or more.

Obama beat Hillary by standing up to her, speaking on what he believed in and he did what many didn't think he could do. Long ago, McCain stood for alot of the same and spoke on what he believed. It looks as if he is going to try to beat him on smear, negative and trying to turn it ugly. This is not the McCain we once knew. In the end, i feel principal will win out.

In the end it's going to look like '96. A respected senator loses to a popular (yet vulnerable) political figure, at least in part because he ran an anemic campaign.

At this point I'm just hoping the moribund McCain survives until the election.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'll assume that you are going on a model that says the impact of the surge in Iraq is good for McCain and bad for Obama. That's a point I could argue, but I'll leave it alone for now.

Instead I'll toss back at you the idea that Obama's speech before the Germans means nothing because those Germans don't vote in our election. It's a similar thing.

See, the folks who are against the Iraq war really don't care how well it's going. They care that we are expending our resources over there in a fight that they don't deem necessary. Yippeekayah if we are winning...that's not the point.

No you are missing my point. Obama continues to say that he was right, the surge wasn't going to do anything to help. He's refused to admit he was in error many,many times. However it's like Baghdad Bob out there. His big problem is credibility. He hasn't done anything except run for office. If he continues to refute facts which are obvious to more and more people, his credibility will continue to be questioned, as it should.

Hard over folks won't agree that we should have done x or y, but they still don't like losing and Obama's position was a clear loser and he's sticking to it.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is a poll I like. No matter how hard the Obamastar tries, he's not going to be able to continue talking like a knucklehead and win. No matter how hard Nancy Pelosi and Obamastar try to make up/down and right/left...sooner or later those nasty facts have a way of bubbling up.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109165/Ne...raq-Surge.aspx

Smear and attack won't win dude. A rock star, a Brittney, Paris Hilton. How does he talk like a knucklehead? See again, no one speaks for Obama, not Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Clintons, no one dude. This is one of the reasons he beat Hillary, he spoke his mind and used his brain and while Hillary tried to please everyone and watch out what you say. You might step on toes. She did change but he had already beat her in to many states. Now McCain is doing what Hillary did except worse.

A rep in here told you and all of us in here, you won't beat Hillary by saying she is a Clinton, a woman, and attacking her and not saying what you are for. Obama beat her on issues. Just as you attacking Obama by his name and you know what i am talking about, by his race, and the race card and trying to paint him into the boogie man won't work. Even the south has changed dude. Even the south is votting for a black man. All that is over now. Mccain won't beat him on the tactic you want to see but you must stand for something and issues. As McCain attacks on very silly things, Obama stays on topic and issues. McCain needs to find himself again or find his voice, like they said about Hillary. He has to listen and trust himself, not others on what they tell him to say. It isn't over and it is time but he needs to stay on cue and stop flipping and flopping around.

[chumdawg]

I think it's you who are missing my point. Are you claiming that Obama voted against the surge because he deemed that it would not work?

[Janett_Reno]

If he stands on faith and values. If he stands on no more taxes, if he stands for guns, if he stands for what the majority of conservatives stands for, then he needs to stay on cue and speak about these things. Not one week saying i might have to raise taxes and next week saying he really didn't mean that. Same on oil drilling.

Then being asked and pinned down, are you for two gay people adopting a child? He wouldn't answer the question. Who cares if you step on toes, say what you believe in, not what people tell you to say or not to say. You start flip flopping and wonder, what did i say last week? He wasn't this type person at one time.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's you who are missing my point. Are you claiming that Obama voted against the surge because he deemed that it would not work?

I don't recall any formal vote in Congress for or against the surge, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Obama was against the surge, because he felt diplomacy and rapid troop "redeployment" (aka withdrawal) was the way to go. In his response to the latest line of questioning about the surge, Obama's response was something like "well, we'll never really know if my plan would have worked, because we didn't give it a try."

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I don't recall any formal vote in Congress for or against the surge, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Obama was against the surge, because he felt diplomacy and rapid troop "redeployment" (aka withdrawal) was the way to go. In his response to the latest line of questioning about the surge, Obama's response was something like "well, we'll never really know if my plan would have worked, because we didn't give it a try."

Exactly.

Obama can say: "Of course we were going to do some good if we threw a bunch of resources at it. After all, we are the USofA. But my idea would have done as much good, if not more, with substantially fewer resources and substantially less loss of American life."

That's the stuff a lot of Americans like to hear. Fewer resources committed, fewer lives lost.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Exactly.

Obama can say: "Of course we were going to do some good if we threw a bunch of resources at it. After all, we are the USofA. But my idea would have done as much good, if not more, with substantially fewer resources and substantially less loss of American life."

That's the stuff a lot of Americans like to hear. Fewer resources committed, fewer lives lost.

In that response, Obama was trying to take both sides of the issue. He commended the troops for a job well done, and yet didn't back away from his prior non-support for the surge. He's trying to please people whether they were for or against the surge. And he's rather good at doing that.

The kind of detail most people don't care about (or are too uninformed to realize), is that the political gains in Iraq (15 of 18 benchmarks met) were BECAUSE of the surge, and not because any increase in pressure/diplomacy alone would have worked. The two went hand in hand. The surge worked, and we have no way of knowing what kind of pressure Bush and Co. were putting on the leadership of Iraq to make headway politically.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

If he stands on faith and values. If he stands on no more taxes, if he stands for guns, if he stands for what the majority of conservatives stands for, then he needs to stay on cue and speak about these things. Not one week saying i might have to raise taxes and next week saying he really didn't mean that. Same on oil drilling.

Then being asked and pinned down, are you for two gay people adopting a child? He wouldn't answer the question. Who cares if you step on toes, say what you believe in, not what people tell you to say or not to say. You start flip flopping and wonder, what did i say last week? He wasn't this type person at one time.

The problem is, that wouldn't help him, either. I mean, John McCain is not stupid. What he is is desparate. He's desparate for something that will gain traction. But the old "faith and values" thing isn't going to cut it, because the electorate isn't of a very conservative bent right now.

Bush was able to win--and ever so barely--because of the great fatigue the nation had with Clinton and also because of Karl Rove's extraordinary political acumen. He was able to win the second time because A) the nation still perceived terrorism as an immediate threat and B) John Kerry had a very exploitable record when it came to foreign policy.

McCain doesn't have either of these benefits. And he doesn't have Karl Rove working for him. McCain is in the unenviable position of being a Republican when the nation doesn't want to vote for a Republican and trying to be a conservative when A) the electorate doesn't much want a conservative right now and B) there is no Karl Rove to convince them they should.

It's more likely that McCain loses by 200 electoral votes than it is he wins.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The kind of detail most people don't care about (or are too uninformed to realize), is that the political gains in Iraq (15 of 18 benchmarks met) were BECAUSE of the surge, and not because any increase in pressure/diplomacy alone would have worked.

Can you spell out those "political gains"? And can you demonstrate how another method had no chance of achieving the same?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Can you spell out those "political gains"? And can you demonstrate how another method had no chance of achieving the same?

No, I don't know or care what those 15 accomplished benchmarks were. I never followed that. But the point is Obama's plan of increased diplomacy has been in action for years now. Do you think Bush and Co. haven't been putting pressure on the Iraqis to reconcile and move on? Obama's plan was "more of the same", with the only real difference being a withdrawal of American forces. If we agree things were bad and not working before the surge, then how would doing "more of the same" suddenly work?

[Janett_Reno]

I agree he is desparate and trying to do anything he can to shake it up and make it ugly.

Another unknown and in a poll other day it said likely voters and maybe they do this on the voters that has voted in the past. It is going to take someone in the gop party to bring the base back and get the majority on some kind of track. I feel many gop voters are not really eager to even get out and vote and i did read since the last election, the gop has lost 700 thousandvoters and the dems have picked up right at 1 millon new voters.

Obama has now gone in with 20 million to get latino votes. It is very bad on what all these parties do and spend trying to win an election but let's face it, usually money talks. Think around in the usa where they will go in and spend this 20 million. At this point, they say he has 65% of the latino vote. Now i the poll other day, McCain did very well with likely voters but again this election is turning into, not the likely norm.

I feel it is going to be a turn out like never before and it won't refelect the likely voters. This is the unknown in this election, will Obama and his staff get out and get people excited, registered, and these unlikely voters come out and really turn this thing around. Now it is true, if the base did not go with Obama and was still upset Hillary people, then yes it could also be what McCain is facing but i do not see this in the democrats base. Young people is another big vote, if they get out and vote.

Look at the votes that was cast in the democratic race comparred to the gop race. It is a huge, huge gap. It is an uphill battle for McCain and it didn't and doesn't help that his base can't agree on many things and they stay in turmoil on so many things.

Like jefelump says, it's Obama's to lose.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

No, I don't know or care what those 15 accomplished benchmarks were. I never followed that. But the point is Obama's plan of increased diplomacy has been in action for years now. Do you think Bush and Co. haven't been putting pressure on the Iraqis to reconcile and move on? Obama's plan was "more of the same", with the only real difference being a withdrawal of American forces. If we agree things were bad and not working before the surge, then how would doing "more of the same" suddenly work?

I don't see any reason to believe that the Bush administration's diplomacy is necessarily equivalent to an Obama administration's diplomacy.

I also don't see any reason to expect that an Obama administration wouldn't resort to force if it were deemed necessary.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't see any reason to believe that the Bush administration's diplomacy is necessarily equivalent to an Obama administration's diplomacy.

I also don't see any reason to expect that an Obama administration wouldn't resort to force if it were deemed necessary.

OK, then in your opinion, what would Obama say to Al-Maliki and the Iraqi lawmakers that would convince them to do as Obama wants? What great argument would Obama make that would change the course of Iraq?

The point is we don't know what Obama would say, that hasn't already been said. Anyone can say "well I would have said <insert something here>, and it would work." They could be right, or they could be dillusional.

And I agree there's no reason to think Obama wouldn't use force. He has said as much.

[chumdawg]

I don't know what he would say. But why does that seem, according to the rhetoric, to mean that he would bend over and say "stick it here"?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't know what he would say. But why does that seem, according to the rhetoric, to mean that he would bend over and say "stick it here"?

What can he say to ensure the Iraqi's don't say "bend over while we stick it there"? Diplomacy is based on track record and real/perceived threat of force. What can Obama point to in his track record to back up any threat he might make?

[GuerillaBlack]

Post of the month right there. Very good points Janett.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

What can he say to ensure the Iraqi's don't say "bend over while we stick it there"? Diplomacy is based on track record and real/perceived threat of force. What can Obama point to in his track record to back up any threat he might make?

200,000 Germans can't be wrong?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

200,000 Germans can't be wrong?

There are a lot more than 200,000 Americans who support McCain and do not like Obama. So who is "more" right? And yes, 200,000 Germans CAN be wrong, just like 200,000 Americans, Brits, or any other nationality of your choice can be wrong.

[chumdawg]

I think you missed the broader point!

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think you missed the broader point!

After reading it again, I see your point.... And I found it quite humorous!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's you who are missing my point. Are you claiming that Obama voted against the surge because he deemed that it would not work?

Well of course he did, he's on the record as saying it won't work. I think he even said that 10-20 more than planned wouldn't help either. That the only thing that will work is to quit.

He was wrong, again.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No you are missing my point. Obama continues to say that he was right, the surge wasn't going to do anything to help. He's refused to admit he was in error many,many times. However it's like Baghdad Bob out there. His big problem is credibility. He hasn't done anything except run for office. If he continues to refute facts which are obvious to more and more people, his credibility will continue to be questioned, as it should.

Hard over folks won't agree that we should have done x or y, but they still don't like losing and Obama's position was a clear loser and he's sticking to it.

As I said...Barack Hussein Obama's problem is credibility, he's losing it fast and the polls are reflecting it. IMO if he's smart(and there's one thing he is is a smart politician) he'll do all of his flip-flopping now and get it over with. He'll have to flip-flop on the surge just like he's flipped on drilling.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you continue to deny that the sun is shining when you have sunglasses on.

Well...he may not be able to come back if he keeps on talking like a lunatic. So he doesn't want to drill but he wants to give everyone 1000 bucks to pay for his unwillingness to drill. Wow..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html

By MIKE ALLEN | 8/1/08 9:38 AM EST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”

Details are in this six-page policy paper.

The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

“This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months,” Obama said. “Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt

Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well of course he did, he's on the record as saying it won't work. I think he even said that 10-20 more than planned wouldn't help either. That the only thing that will work is to quit.

He was wrong, again.

I'm underinformed on this. It surprised me to hear you say Obama claimed the surge wouldn't work. I was under the impression that he felt the surge wasn't worth the costs, which is a different matter altogether.

I don't suppose you have links to what he said? I'm still not entirely convinced, because you also said that Obama claimed the only thing that "will work is to quit." That would suggest that we need to better define what is meant by "will work." Obviously you aren't going to win an ongoing war by exiting it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm underinformed on this. It surprised me to hear you say Obama claimed the surge wouldn't work. I was under the impression that he felt the surge wasn't worth the costs, which is a different matter altogether.

I don't suppose you have links to what he said? I'm still not entirely convinced, because you also said that Obama claimed the only thing that "will work is to quit." That would suggest that we need to better define what is meant by "will work." Obviously you aren't going to win an ongoing war by exiting it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/329myyan.asp

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

From powerline
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../07/020997.php

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

[chumdawg]

Okay, thanks. That certainly illuminates the situation for me. Of course, we can't know what would have happened had we withdrawn troops rather than reinforced them. But I'm glad to have a better sense of where Obama stood on the issue.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Okay, thanks. That certainly illuminates the situation for me. Of course, we can't know what would have happened had we withdrawn troops rather than reinforced them. But I'm glad to have a better sense of where Obama stood on the issue.

What do YOU think would have happened chum? Of course imo, it's obvious what would have happened. But as they say "miracles do happen".

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What do YOU think would have happened chum? Of course imo, it's obvious what would have happened. But as they say "miracles do happen".

I don't really know. I wish I knew more about the situation in Iraq, before the war began and before the surge and today. Basically, here's what I know (or believe):

--Saddam was the dictator, and he was an evil human being
--Saddam is gone, and that is a very good thing
--We thought he had WMD's...we may have been wrong...but also may have been right
--there were terrorists there before the war began
--there are still terrorists there, though not as many
--Iraq had scant ability to threaten our nation before the war, and still scant ability now

I'm happy that the evil dictator has been deposed, for the sake of humanity. But from a bottom-line viewpoint about the safety of Americans...well, I don't feel safer today than I did before the war. I just don't believe that Iraq was ever going to be able to launch a missile that would harm anyone on our soil. Nor do I believe that they were going to be able to harm us in any other significant way.

So, what if we had gone in, deposed Saddam, and got the hell out? Would our safety be anywhere different from where it is today, or where it stands to be in the long term? I'm not seeing how it is. Terrorists have been around for a long time, and I suspect they always will be.

[dude1394]

You are evading the question I think. You can easily make the argument that we should have never done it, that's not the argument.

Obama isn't talking about that, he's talking about in the beginning of 2007, when Al Queda was inciting civil war in the country. He's talking about leaving when Petraeus said they were finding (I think more than 100 if I recall) dead bodies on the street every morning.

He's talking about leaving on Jan 07 when there was more than 1700civilian casualties per month going on. If I recall even the NYTimes acknowledged there would probably be genocide if we left.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...july-2008.html

[chumdawg]

I concede your point here. It would seem clear that the surge has been very effective, and that's a good thing for everyone. Two things, though...

As for Obama, surely it was clear to him that he didn't hold a "swing vote" on this issue. In other words, the surge was going to happen no matter what Barack Hussein Obama thought. In that context, one can recognize how the political implications of his vote dictated what he had to do. In other words, it's not as if Obama made a commander-in-chief sort of decision that said: No surge.

Second, it's a very good thing that there is no genocide going on now. But again, does that say anything positive about our own national security?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

As for Obama, surely it was clear to him that he didn't hold a "swing vote" on this issue. In other words, the surge was going to happen no matter what Barack Hussein Obama thought. In that context, one can recognize how the political implications of his vote dictated what he had to do. In other words, it's not as if Obama made a commander-in-chief sort of decision that said: No surge.

True..however McCain's statement that Obama was willing to lose a war to win an election seems to stick pretty good because of it.

[dude1394]

I"m kind of surprised that it's settled into a tie, I actually expected TheOne to drop below McCain as the three-day average looked to be down.

This poll will probably force theOne to enlist the shedevil to help. Before this I don't think he was thinking about it.

[Janett_Reno]

It looks like the negative silly ad that McCain ran helped some in the polls and tightened it up over the weekend. One thing Obama must do, he should not ever run away from a debate with McCain. He needs to debate McCain every day of the week as McCain can't speak. He has to read everything, he gets tongue tied so easy and you can really piss him off and make him clam up.

Obama can't take McCain, Rove and the neocons lightly because next are some Obama books comming out next couple weeks bashing Obama like they did to Kerry. The neocons wrote the books to bash him and go very negative on him and it doesn't matter if it is lies or true, they are going to do it any cost.

Obama needs to keep hammering the neocons on gas, energy, economy, health care and the fact McCain wants to give more and bigger tax breaks to big oil companies. What about the deficit and all the money the neocons are giving their no bid contract buddies like Blackwater, Haliburton and more? Even millions just tossed in the wind and they say we don't know where it went, just vanished and so much of this money is vanishing in Iraq. Plus many things they have built in Iraq, they just stopped and is not used. Obama must show the public what lies and cheats the neocons are and they will steal ever red cent from a tax payer if they can and fund what they want.

Go around like Gore does and show the public and tell the public, with charts, and speak on it, that this adm has borrowed more money and ran up the highest deficit ever in history trying to wreck this country and economy and that John McCain is no more than Bush, Rove, Rummy's and Cheney's brother. He needs to preach on what a neocon and republican is and what they stand for. Big high borrowing deficits, wars, oil and no money at all for our infrasturcture. Give all our money to oil and other countries and direct our money and tax payers to fund oil and war.

Obama, stay on your message and go after these neocons and tell the public what they are and what they stand for and it will be no contest but if you start beating around the Bush and act like a shy Kerry and run away from a fight, McCain and the necons can and will slip up on you and take this from you.

Go back out this week and rip the neocons and McCain and expose them for who and what they are and tear down any faith and values and let the public know, they have no morals. None. You put McCain on the defensive and he has no chance as the man blows up, can't talk and can't defend himself or the neocons and makes him look very bad but here latelt you have let him and the cons turn the tables on you and you are trying to drift into Kerry land. Don't back down from any fight or any debate because you will tear McCain's playhouse down.

[Flacolaco]

Obama must show the public what lies and cheats the neocons are and they will steal ever red cent from a tax payer if they can and fund what they want.

Steal from tax payers, and fund whatever they want.

Which party are you talking about again?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Steal from tax payers, and fund whatever they want.

Which party are you talking about again?

I was confused by that line too. Bush is on the record for CUTTING taxes. The Dems are on the record for wanting to "roll back the Bush tax cuts" (aka RAISE taxes).

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

As for Obama, surely it was clear to him that he didn't hold a "swing vote" on this issue. In other words, the surge was going to happen no matter what Barack Hussein Obama thought. In that context, one can recognize how the political implications of his vote dictated what he had to do. In other words, it's not as if Obama made a commander-in-chief sort of decision that said: No surge.

You're right, he didn't make a "commander-in-chief" decision, because he isn't the commander-in-chief. However, he wants to be the commander-in-chief, and his position on the surge is very indicative of what he would do in the future, should a similar situation arise. After all, he talks about moving more troops to Afghanistan, and he has also talked about invading Pakistan, although I doubt he would actually do that.

So if the fighting heats up in Afghanistan, and if Al Queada makes a showing like they did in Iraq, will Obama support another surge? From a historical perspective, he would not. If he would support a surge and his lack of support for the previous surge in Iraq is nothing more than politics, then as dude1394 said, Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election.