Finally, regarding Obama’s voting record – our best measure (Poole-Rosenthal scores) places him as the 10th most liberal Senator in the most recent Congress, with 9 Senators more liberal and 89 more conservative. There’s a reason why those on the Left voted for this guy, and why they are not pleased with his choices so far. For now, I think you are right: they will give him the benefit of the doubt. But if they see him appearing to renege on campaign promises by, for example, using the full three years Bush negotiated before enacting a total pullout of combat troops from Iraq, the Left will not be happy. They didn’t pull the lever for this guy only to discover he’s a pragmatist who governs from the center.

My sense is that most people on the left recognized Obama as a pragmatist first and foremost, and never bought into the rhetoric that he was the most liberal member of the Senate – his FISA vote made that clear enough earlier in the year. But people want to keep the pressure on from the left-side to avoid letting the right frame the debate – see the “Clinton blew it by tacking left in 1993″ myth, as well as the quick attempt to say that this election proved that the US is “a center/right nation.” So highlighting how Obama’s decisions are classically left/moderate might help move the scale back toward something resembling the center after decades of rightward slant.

Noting that the SOFA points us in the right direction, he seemed to “claim victory,” arguing that it was consistent with his goals. He also restated his support for his 16 month plan, while stressing the possibility that a residual force would remain beyond 16 months. He then said that he would consult with Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commanders on the ground, making adjustments as they deem necessary in order to protect our troops.

In terms of the three choices you outlined above, Obama seemed to choose option 4: all of the above. He claimed victory, restated his position, bought more time, and immediately shifted the discussion to Afghanistan. This does not seem contradictory to me. Because the SOFA only supplies an upper limit to American forces staying in Iraq and does not provide a withdrawal outline within that, Obama is able to continue to push for his plan without seeming to disregard the Bush agreement.

What he really seemed to do, however, was buy time. He stressed the need for residual forces after the withdrawal of combat troops and left the composition of such a force vague enough to allow it to be quite substantial. It seems like he is moving in the direction of a position between his 16 month plan and the 3 year Bush plan. Ultimately, I think after he consults more with military officials he will move towards a slower withdrawal, following Dickinson’s option 3. I wonder how much he has already solicited information on the military situation and whether he has more information on what is feasible than he is letting on. Even if he believes his rushed timetable is both right and doable, I don’t see him rejecting the Bush SOFA, because its framework does not necessitate it and because it is progress that he can work from. His statements today seem to suggest that this is the case. He can wield it as a statement from the Iraqi people that they want us out and by speeding up the withdrawal he can argue that he is only improving the agreement.

I do think he will relax that timetable, however. I just wonder when he will say something more definitive on it. Perhaps not until he is in office.

Status of ForceSSSSS. Not “force,” singular.

Also, there’s some debate in Washington as to whether it’s properly called a “status of forces agreement” (delightfully acronymed as SoFA here) because it specifies limits on the use of forces that are based in Iraq and includes other obligations that resemble more closely a treaty than a mere SoFA. The Bush Administration prefers SoFA, because they typically don’t require as a legal matter that Congress ratify them.

I’ll leave the Advice to Presidents to others, as it is typically dangerous for me, on a professional level, to do so.

Two quick responses to your very good comment: first, it may be obvious to you that Obama knows the difference between governing and campaigning, but history suggests that the distinction is often lost on incoming presidents. In particular, they often act as if the strategy for passing legislation is the same as that for getting elected – if your plans are opposed, take your case to the people and use your public support as leverage. As Clinton discovered with health care, and Bush on social security reform, however, this strategy almost never works.

As for suspicion on the Left that Obama is not as progressive as some had hoped, you need only read the comments section on any number of blog sites, ranging from the Huffington Post to the Daily Kos. They are grumbling, to put it mildly, in response to a number of Obama’s initial actions, ranging from supporting Lieberman’s efforts to retain his homeland security chairmanship to appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to placing Larry Summers in the West Wing as the key economic adviser. To many on the Left, this is not change – this is the status quo all over again.