It might be too facile to label Barack Obama's speech Tuesday as his "I told you so" address on Iraq.
But he used the fifth anniversary of his decision to come out against the war to deliver a frequently eloquent, obviously tendentious speech that was designed to say just that - to the Democratic electorate, to Sen. Hillary Clinton and to his other rivals for the presidential nomination.
The remarks come against the backdrop of a nominating process that has left Obama in a landslide deficit to Clinton in most polls and out fundraised by her in the last quarter by one-third - $27 million to $20 million. Despite the plumbing of every Clinton tic, including her affected laugh, most of the political media have raved about her near-flawless campaign and the aura of inevitability she has created. That includes in Nevada, where her presentations to the pivotal Culinary Union membership have drawn raves and where her remarkable ability to generate positive media attention, including for her Hoovering up every elected official endorsement in sight, cannot be underestimated.
I scored a few minutes with Obama after the speech Tuesday and wondered about something that has puzzled me: If his judgment was so oracular, and he did predict the post "Mission Accomplished" chaos, where did it come from? And as a U.S. Senate candidate at the time, did he ever think to consult with some of those who made the decision, such as Clinton, to vote for the war resolution shortly thereafter?
"My judgment came from reading, came from studying the intelligence that was out there," Obama said by phone. "It came from talking to people familiar with Iraq and the Middle East, and drew on my previous knowledge and experience."
But why not talk to senators who were about to vote to authorize the president to go to war?
"I confess that I don't remember whether I talked to Dick Durbin (the Democratic senator from his home state of Illinois who voted against the war) prior to the speech," Obama acknowledged. Should he have? Should he have talked to others?
Obama bristles at the notion that he was throwing bricks from the sidelines in 2002, with no risk. He points out Illinois voters favored the war and the president was at twice his current approval rating.
But Obama makes a much more compelling case for himself - and his candidacy - when he talks about the toxic stew of Democratic quiescence , cooked intelligence and media complicity in the run-up to the war. He is almost startlingly critical of another African-American once considered presidential timber: Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made the case for war to the United Nations.
"I didn't find it to be a compelling case," Obama recalled. "The press found it to be a compelling case. But here you have the United States of America trying to make the best case to the world, a rationale for going to war, you think they would have come up with the best evidence ... It was flimsy, circumstantial evidence from unreliable witnesses."
Obama took much heat in the context of Tuesday's speech for saying before the Democratic National Convention in 2004 of that war vote : "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
I wondered whether this was a sign that he had become part of the problem by making such a political statement?
"That wasn't a political statement," he retorted. "It was common courtesy" (to John Kerry and John Edwards, who had voted for the war and were about to be nominated.)
Obama doesn't have much time for courtesy these days as he tries to knock down the perception that Clinton's nomination is a fait accompli. It's not yet - as I have written before, the lunacy of the process allows Iowa to revive candidacies and redesign the electoral dynamic. Even Nevada's Little Caucus That Could might be important if Clinton doesn't crush Obama by New Hampshire.
If Obama manages to pull off a miracle and derail the Clinton freight train, it will be because he has tapped into a disaffected party electorate that sees him as the anthropomorphic agent of change, an inhibitor of dynasties and a prescient man of judgment.
It still remains hard to believe that he can actually do it. But if he can manage all of that, he'll be waiting to deliver another "I told you so" speech.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy