Saturday, January 27, 2007
"The One with Some Anti-War Rally Pictures"
Adam Conner on MyDD. Booman blogs about "The AP's Crappy Coverage." Hillary wasn't there. Nor was Barack or John.
"Democrats Try to Increase Leverage Over Iraq Policy"
NY Times:
Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, said Friday that Congress might consider legislation revising the authorization it gave President Bush in 2002 to use military force in Iraq.Howie P.S.: I don't think I've seen too many stories that start out with a phrase like "might consider legislation."
Mr. Hoyer set out a road map for the House to exercise more control over Iraq strategy, as he and other Democratic leaders continued on Friday to exert pressure against the president’s plan to send in an additional 21,500 troops.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, moved on Friday to force a debate on a resolution opposing the troop increase that had been offered by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska.
But Mr. Reid said that he also expected debate on other similar resolutions. forces “are ready” to assume responsibility for the country’s security.Ultimately, he said, he expects the Senate to come together behind one resolution when the debate begins the week after next, with broad bipartisan opposition to the president’s plan.
Public opinion, he predicted, will compel many Republicans to support a resolution opposing the troop increase.
“Twenty-one Republicans are up for re-election this time,” Mr. Reid said. “If they think this is going to be a soft vote for them, they’ve got another think coming.”
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Congress against passing any such resolution, saying it “emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.”
“I’m sure that’s not the intent behind the resolutions,” he said, “but I think it may be the effect.”
President Bush told reporters on Friday that he had proposed the increase “in that I’m the decision maker, and I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.”
“I’ve listened a lot to members of Congress,” he added, speaking at a meeting at the White House with Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom the Senate confirmed Friday as the new commander in Iraq. “I’ve listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.”
In a speech to the Brookings Institution, Mr. Hoyer predicted that the House would follow the Senate’s lead in backing a resolution against the troop increase, with broad support from Republicans.
Several committees in the House would then convene hearings on the war, he said. To follow that, the House might try to exercise more control over Iraq strategy in legislation regarding spending for the Defense or State Department. Another option, he said, would be a revised authorization for the use of military force in Iraq “that more accurately reflects the mission of our troops on the ground.”
Some Republicans as well as Democrats have said that the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, passed in October 2002, was not intended to allow American troops to police a civil war, as some lawmakers now say is the case.
Mr. Hoyer said in his speech that he would not have supported the resolution allowing the president to go to war “had I known then what I know now: that the United States of America could and would prosecute a war and manage a nation-building effort in such an incompetent, arrogant, unplanned and unsuccessful manner.”
Mr. Hoyer also called for requiring the president to certify to Congress that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was meeting the benchmarks Mr. Bush said he had set. He also called for greater international involvement in securing Iraq, and peace talks like the ones held in Dayton, Ohio, in 1995 that ended the Bosnian war.
“The president’s so-called new strategy is really little more than stay the course,” Mr. Hoyer said, adding that it “places far more confidence in the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki than his record of competence and cooperation merits.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a surprise visit to Baghdad on Friday with other members of Congress, including the chairmen of the armed services, foreign affairs, and intelligence committees, as well as Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic critic of the war.
In a statement after her visit, Ms. Pelosi said that she had traveled to Iraq to thank the troops and to express support for them, “as well as our hope that they will come home safely and soon.”
In meetings with the prime minister and other senior American and Iraqi officials, the statement said, “we stressed our belief that it is well past time for the Iraqis to take primary responsibility for the security of their nation.” American forces, Ms. Pelosi said, “should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counterterrorism, force protection and controlling Iraq’s borders.”
Mr. Maliki’s office released a statement after the meeting saying that the prime minister had “confirmed the resolution of the Iraqi government to challenge the terrorist groups with the full power” of its military force and the political system.
The prime minister also emphasized that Iraqi forces “are ready” to assume responsibility for the country’s security.
"Washington DC Rally to Stop the War in Iraq--Live from the Washington Mall "
pacificanetwork.org:
Pacifica Live CoverageHowie P.S.: ejmw will "use this diary to post pics and updates from DC throughout the day" on Booman Tribune.
DATE: Saturday, January 27, 2007
TIME: 11-am to 1pm EST (8-11am Pacific)
When President Bush announced he was sending in another 21,500 troops to Iraq, the anti-war movement began to mobilize its forces. Organizers with the United for Peace and Justice Coalition expect hundreds of thousands of Americans to gather this weekend to March on Washington to signal the Bush administration their outrage over the escalation of troops.
As the masses gather to protest, Pacifica Radio will broadcast live from the mall to bring you the voices of the people from the activists to the analysts.
ANCHORED BY: Verna Avery Brown, Washington Bureau Chief
An exciting team of expert anchors will join Verna Avery-Brown at the anchor desk to enhance the coverage with analysis and anecdotal information. Co-Anchors include:
Dr. Dahlia Wasfi
Nationally known speaker and activist. Born in the US to an American Jewish mother and an Iraqi Muslim father. Wasfi has made two trips to Iraq since the 2003 "Shock and Awe" invasion .On April 27th she testified at a Congressional Forum to provide her eyewitness account of life in Iraq.
David Swanson
A progressive, well informed activist living in the Washington area who founded Impeacebush.org ./afterdowningstreet.org/and pdamerica.org.
Medea Benjamin
Courageous and tireless activist and co-founder of anti war group CODE PINK.
Rev. Graylan Hagler
Progressive, passionate anti-war minister of Plymouth Congregational Church in Washington, DC.
Travis Morales
Organizer with World Can
SPEAKERS FROM THE STAGE:
Include(along with other guests to be confirmed by organizers):
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, who last year led an antiwar march of thousands, the largest protest in Salt Lake City history
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Rainbow Coalition
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH);
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA);
Bob Watada- father of Lt. Watada, the first military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq and currently facing court-martial; and active-duty service people.
Listen live on line.
"The Gore Game"
Dan Conley:
Until April 1st, there's only one game that matters in the battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination -- the donor's game. The contest to put up the biggest first quarter fundraising number possible is intense and is prone to misinformation and stunts.
Hence, James Carville talks talks and talks some more about Al Gore getting into the race. Let's boil this down to reality:
* Carville supports Hillary Clinton
* Obama is making a hard and fast play for Hollywood money
* An Al Gore entry into the race is the only thing preventing Obama from running the table on that money in this quarter.
End of story. Gore is not running. (Admittedly, I know nothing ... but neither does Carville.)
Friday, January 26, 2007
"March for Peace, Accountability"
John Nichols:
Hundreds of thousands of antiwar demonstrators will take to the streets this weekend in a surge for peace that is long overdue.
The message of these demonstrations is not directed at the Bush Administration.The President has made it clear that he does not intend to listen to anyone outside of his delusional inner circle when it comes to resolving the mess he has created in Iraq. George Bush did not listen in 2003 to the wise counsel of experts on Iraq and the Middle East who warned about the dangers of invading and occupying that country. He has not listened to the cries of anguish from Cindy Sheehan and other Americans who have lost their loved ones in a war that should never have been fought. He has not listened to the Iraqi people, who in poll after poll have indicated their desire for the occupation to end. He has not listened to world opinion, which has turned dramatically against the United States because of his misguided and dangerous military adventuring. And he is not listening to the will of the American people, which was clearly expressed in the antiwar result of the 2006 elections that shifted control of Congress to the Democrats.
It is the prospect that members of the new Congress might listen to the people who elected them that makes this weekend's demonstrations meaningful--not to mention necessary.
Many members of Congress--from veteran Democrats such as Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and California Senator Barbara Boxer ☼ to Republican mavericks such as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones to newcomers such as Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison and Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen--recognize the need to get this country's troops out of Iraq and to focus its energies on diplomacy and realistic responses to terrorist threats. But the majorities in both the House and Senate have yet to accept that they have a responsibility to check and balance the President. They continue to waste time and energy on essentially meaningless resolutions expressing discomfort with the Administration's latest strategic blunder.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, cast his vote for the nonbinding resolution disapproving of President Bush's plan to surge 21,500 more US troops into the Iraq quagmire. But, he bluntly told the committee, the action represented an insufficient Congressional response.
"My fear, Mr. Chairman, is this is slow walking," Feingold told the committee, which approved the resolution 12-9. "This is not a time for legislative nuancing. This is not a time for trying to forge a compromise that everybody can be a part of. This is a time to stop the needless deaths of American troops in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the lives of the American people, to start doing it now."
Feingold says, "It's time for Congress to use the power of the purse to end this devastating war and finally bring American troops out of Iraq."
He is right, and antiwar marchers should demand nothing less. It is sad but true that only by telling the current King George that he will no longer have an unlimited credit line to pursue his madness can the occupation be ended.
"As the President made clear (in announcing a plan to 'surge' 21,500 more troops into the quagmire), he has no intention of redeploying our troops from Iraq. Congress cannot continue to accept this. Congress can, by restricting funding for this misguided war, do what the President refuses to do--redeploy from Iraq to refocus on defeating global terrorist networks."
Feingold is not naïve. He understands the spin that will be employed to argue against blocking funding for an endless US presence in Iraq.
"Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our service men and women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger," the Senator explains. "Congress will continue to give our troops the resources and support they need, but by, for example, specifying a time after which funding for the war would end, it can give the President the time needed to redeploy troops safely from Iraq."
That is the essential message of the moment.
It is the message that this weekend's antiwar demonstrators can and must deliver.
Nonbinding resolutions are a joke.
Congress needs to embrace its constitutional duty to check executive excess and to balance against dangerous exercises of the presidential prerogative.
The first step is to use the power of the purse to force a course correction regarding Iraq.
The second step is to use the full authority afforded the House and Senate by the Constitution to hold the President and the Vice President to account for their deceptions and their abuses of power--so that never again will the Republic be placed in so perilous a circumstance.
Cheney Implicated in Plamegate (video) (UPDATED)
UPDATE: The LA Times has "Cheney's key role in leak case detailed."
Watch MSNBC report here. YouTube version here. Will the "traditional media" bury this story, too?
"Who Will Get Iran Right?"
Bill Scher:
On Wednesday during NBC's Today, Sen. Barack Obama said:
I think all of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message not only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors like Iran that we're not abandoning the field.
Also this week, John Edwards said in a speech:
Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table.
Finally, Rep. Dennis Kucinich remarked after the State of the Union:
He's clearly laying the groundwork for an attack against Iran, and I think that ought to be a grave concern to all members of Congress.
A bright red line for LiberalOasis in sizing up the candidates is foreign policy vision.Are the presidential candidates going to continue the neocon project of a permanent military presence in the Middle East, in order to exert illegitimate influence that would only breed resentment and spread the jihadist movement?
Or will they fundamentally change course, and articlate different objectives in the region?
(Ideally, credible democracy and eradicating poverty, only using our military for counterrerrorism, not geopolitical goals.)
We don't have to worry about Kucinich going neocon on us.
But did Obama and Edwards cross that line with their statements?
Not quite.
Obama's call for keeping troops in the region as a check on Iran comes particularly close, but he also has called for renewing diplomacy with Iran, so LiberalOasis won't jump to conclusions.
More importantly, the statements of both fail to reframe discussion around a wholly different vision.
If the discussion isn't fundamentally reframed, they might find themselves trapped by events -- either during the campaign or even once one occupies the Oval Office.
Obama seems to understand the need to do this. In the same interview, he said:
we've got to recraft our foreign policy to deal with our national security, to deal with terrorism, but also to help to stitch back together a sense around the world that America is leading with its values and its ideals.
That's on the mark.
But talk of leaving troops in other countries as part of a geopolitical chess game isn't recrafting.
Neither is echoing the neocons' crude portrayal of Iran, which actually has a factionalized government.
It is certainly important to talk of strategies to keep Iran from going nuclear.
But to do so in saber-rattling fashion maintains the neocon frame, facilitating the neocon strategy to lay the groundwork for an eventual attack.
Instead, candidates should not simply mention diplomacy, but explain how they can get diplomacy to work.
For example: dismantling permanent bases in Iraq to make clear regime change is not our objective, setting the stage for productive talks. And, reaching out to President Ahmadinejad's opponents, who are on the rise in Iran.
(Sanctions, like Edwards proposed, can certainly be part of that message. But it must be clear there's a carrot to go along with that stick -- otherwise, sanctions amount to an empty gesture as part of a build-up to war.)
From there (as argued in Wait! Don't Move To Canada!), candidates can explain how such a strategy help promote democracy.
When authoritarian regimes get nukes, they hold a trump card making it far harder to press for democratic reforms.
Preventing proliferation through war, however, further destabilizes the region -- as we are seeing in Iraq -- creating more problems than it solves.
Whereas preventing proliferation through diplomacy fosters stability and creates opportunities to push democratization.
As also discussed in Wait!, a great political opportunity presents itself once a conservative president is perceived as a national security failure.
The perception that a conservative approach keeps us safe and secure is questioned, giving us the chance to reshape perceptions and build a mandate for a change in course.
We are in such a moment right now. To miss that opportunity, and maintain conservative foreign policy frames, would be a huge mistake.
The more candidates that understand that, the better.
"It won't be just grayheads at Saturday's peace rally" (UPDATED)
UPDATE: More details here, from United for Peace.
Susan Paynter (Seatle P-I):
Susan Paynter (Seatle P-I):
I got that old angry feeling last week reading about mom and school bus driver Pat McCune sending cookies to her son, 22-year-old Redmond High grad James Riekena, in Iraq. A roadside bomb killed him before the package arrived. She hopes the other guys in his National Guard unit enjoy them.
I got it again this week listening to the president's State of the Union speech and walked away humming, "All he is saying is give war a chance."
But I really felt it talking with 28-year-old Jesse Hagopian. Hearing him, I remembered my own red-eared fury as a rookie reporter still wet behind the ears with news ink as we took to the streets to say "no more" to senseless, endless death in Vietnam.
Some of those who are convinced that we can change our destructive direction again -- who believe it strongly enough to get up off their glutes to march -- are the same indefatigable souls who protested that other war, bless 'em.
But a greener crop of objectors is being watered by the blood spilled since March of '03. Along with the gray hairs, they are the organizers of Saturday's march rallied by the January 27th Coalition to Bring the Troops Home Now.
It starts at 1 p.m. at the Center for Social Justice, 2111 E. Union St., moving to the Military Recruitment Center at 2301 S. Jackson St., then to the Langston Hughes Center at 104 17th Ave. S. at 3, where speakers will include Lt. Ehren Watada. He'll face a court-martial Feb. 5 for his refusal to deploy to Iraq based on his claim that it is an illegal war.
Teen Peace and Youth Against War and Racism will be there along with Green Party members and Iraq Veterans Against the War. So will Hagopian, a middle school teacher recently graduated from the University of Washington. And, if his last name sounds familiar, he's the son of Amy Hagopian, the former school board member and activist who fiercely pushed against the presence of military recruiters in the halls of Seattle's high schools, including Garfield, where her son graduated in '97.
"My mom is my hero," Jesse Hagopian said -- something you don't hear every day.
True story: His mom was off to try to shut down the Trident submarine installation the day she found out she was pregnant with him. Just that once, she didn't go.
As a toddler, he rode her shoulders at marches against South African apartheid.
"She says the right thing even when it's uncomfortable," Hagopian said. "The counterrecruitment movement at Garfield was very polarizing. Some parents thanked her for standing up, others screamed at her."
He did not immediately march in his mother's footsteps. It was a three-year stint with the Teach for America program in a crumbling, leaking Washington, D.C., school just 10 blocks from the White House that peeled back his eyelids.
The kids would work for months on a project only to have it flooded by rain from the roof. There were few books and no playground as the war tab rose to billions a month.
"OK," Hagopian thought. "Now I know what my family was talking about."
He got busy. Last fall he was campaign manager for Green Party senatorial candidate Aaron Dixon because Dixon's "out of war and into our communities" message clicked.
At Saturday's march, Hagopian will moderate a panel and give some introductory remarks. He'll talk about opposing the troop surge as a "new way forward" in Iraq. And try to tell the Democrats who now control Congress that they will fail a real opportunity if they don't withhold funds for that escalation.
"All of them were elected because people were fed up with the war. Seventy percent of American oppose the surge so, if they are ever going to stand up, now is the time for more than a symbolic resolution."
Hagopian hopes momentum will build from Saturday's march followed by Watada's court-martial, then by the March anniversary of the war. He hopes masses of people will turn out on Saturday to lend the crowd confidence. And that, if they come, so will the media.
He knows people think that the young care more about iPods than about fighting for social change. But Hagopian believes that people are not apathetic, they just need to see that collective action works to persuade them that there is something they can actually do.
It wasn't one protest or image that turned the public against Vietnam, although body bags on the nightly news and that "Cronkite moment" helped fill streets and screens.
Now, Hagopian believes, people are angry enough for another surge of activism.
It's an old feeling, but it's marching on new feet.
"Obama Calls for Universal Health Care"
Nedra Pickler (AP):
Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.
"The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said.
Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. One of his rivals, 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, also said as he announced his candidacy last month that he will offer a proposal for universal health care.
Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with "much fanfare and promise," they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.
He said it's wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.
"We can't afford another disappointing charade in 2008, 2009 and 2010," Obama said. "It's not only tiresome, it's wrong."
Obama's call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats "need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."
His argument Thursday not only will be considered through the prism of the presidential campaign, but weighed against rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ill-fated plan to overhaul the health care insurance system when she was first lady.
Even after leading that calamitous attempt in 1993, Clinton remains a strong advocate of universal health care and has made it a central theme of her presidential bid.
"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," she said at a community health clinic in New York Sunday, the day after entering the 2008 Democratic field. "That's a very major part of my campaign and I want to hear people's ideas about how we can achieve that goal."
Another candidate, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, also backs universal health care.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
"Officer Refused to Deploy to Iraq" (with audio)
NPR (listen to audio here):
Fresh Air from WHYY, January 25, 2007 · Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada is the first American officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that he thinks the war is illegal. He is joined by one of his lawyers, Eric Seitz, a civillian. Watada is now being court-martialed for his refusal, and for statements he made opposing the war and the Bush administration's leadership.
"Netroots and the Clintons"
Matthew Yglesias:
Matt Stoller says the netroots have a deep-seated loathing of Hillary Clinton and her elitist triangulating ways. Atrios says the foundation of the netroots worldview has to do with outrage at press coverage of Whitewater and a separate post complaining about Fox News and the "Clinton rules of journalism."Howie says: Read the comments if you're not sure you agree with this. For example, this one from Stuart Eugene Thiel:
All of which reminds me that I meant to link to Ed Kilgore's post on the netroots and Clintonism, though not to answer his questions which seem to me to have been phrased in a loaded way. The thing of it is, however, that both the Stoller post and the Atrios posts speak to important strands of netroots thinking. You can find a ton of mean stuff written about Bill and Hillary Clinton on the blogs, but it's still the case that the progressive internet movement substantially has its roots in endeavors (MoveOn, MediaWhoresOnline, the Daily Howler) whose original purposes were to defend the Clinton/Gore administration and their DLCish policy agenda from the right-wing's attacks. And, indeed, since this started with looking at Stoller in contradistinction to Atrios, it's worth revisiting this section of Matt's big recent essay:
Beginning with the Clinton impeachment in 1998, identity liberals who had voted but not really gone beyond that in their direct political activity began to sign petitions, give money, and engage in activism. As the shocks not only got worse – the impeachment was followed by what was essentially a legal coup in 2000, the attacks of 9/11, and then the disgraceful Democratic complacency during the Iraq debate in 2002 – liberals began to not only vote but use innovative political strategies to take and institutionalize power.
9/11 and Iraq are today's signature issues, but the origins institutionally and emotionally are the battles in defense of Clinton (1998) and Gore (2000) and I don't think the implications and meaning of this are well understood.
I don't see the contradiction. Sure, the Clintons are equivocating, triangulating weasels, but they're OUR equivocating, triangulating weasels. And they're both really damn smart and, at bottom, their hearts are more or less in the right place. We'll defend them when we must and will replace them when we can.
"What Hillary Must Do to Win in Iowa "
David Yepsen, Des Moines Register:
Howie says: Yepsen knows his stuff. Other candidates may want to take notes.A new poll released Wednesday highlights the challenges Hillary Clinton faces in Iowa as she starts campaigning for caucus votes this weekend.
She trails John Edwards, Barack Obama and Tom Vilsack in a poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers taken by Strategic Vision, an Atlanta-based public-relations firm.
Edwards gets 25 percent of the vote, Obama receives 17 percent and Vilsack 16. Clinton follows with 15, Joe Biden with 4, John Kerry, 3; Wesley Clark, 2; and Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich each with 1 percent. There are 15 percent who are undecided.
(The poll of 600 likely Democratic caucus-goers was taken Jan. 19 to 21, before Kerry dropped out of the race, and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. One caveat: Strategic Vision is a Republican-leaning firm, but its polling data are considered credible. Its numbers are mirrored by a recent Zogby poll of caucus-goers that also shows Edwards ahead with the others trailing.)
The most charitable spin you can put on the numbers for Clinton is that she's not really in fourth place but is in a statistical tie for second with Obama and Vilsack. Even so, a second-place showing on caucus night in Iowa for the person seen as the front-runner nationally would be interpreted by the political community as a setback.
So what must she do in Iowa?
• Spend time on task. Clinton has not been in Iowa since 2003. Others are frequent visitors. While this trip is good, she needs to make more. Caucus-goers like to see candidates up close.
• Get out of the bubble. That "up close" part may be difficult for Clinton. A celebrity candidate like her has to rent high school auditoriums for events. There are also security issues that require having lots of burly people around wearing earplugs.
(So much for the historical one-on-one campaigning by candidates in living rooms, something that's rapidly becoming a thing of the past.)
Still, to the extent she can, if Clinton can campaign the way she did when she and her husband were first running for office in Arkansas, her numbers will improve.
• Focus on electability. Polls show just about everybody knows Clinton and has an opinion of her. Some are energized by the prospect of the first woman president, and she'll attract support from those who say "it's about time" and women who say "it's our turn." This gives her an ability to attract new, first-time caucus-goers.
But she also registers some of the highest negative ratings of any candidate in the race. Often you'll hear Democrats say things like, "I like Hillary Clinton, but..." They don't want to rehash her husband's presidency or Whitewater or other troubles. Or they just don't think she can win a general election. (Electability is always an issue with party activists, just like health care or the economy.)
• Move left on Iraq. Her biggest problem may be her position on the Iraq war. Many Democrats don't like her vote for it, and these peace Democrats are finding better champions in Edwards or Obama. Anti-war activists will need some reassurances and explanations from her.
• Build precinct organizations. She doesn't need to worry about people who dislike her. She's still got enough fans that if she can locate them and turn them out on caucus night, she'll do quite well.Only about 120,000 activist Democrats are likely to show up at their caucuses. Divided among half-a-dozen viable challengers, a candidate could win the thing with just 25,000 to 30,000 votes. (Although if I were a candidate, I might bump up my turnout targets, since all the frenzy around the 2008 presidential election may make for a — dare I say "surge" — of people on caucus night.)
But she is behind in the organizational game. While other candidates have been traveling to the state and lining up talent, Clinton's absence has hurt her recruiting.
And since her husband bypassed Iowa in 1992 because Tom Harkin was running, her national operation may be long on people with experience in New Hampshire primaries but no depth in Iowa caucus fights.
"Will blog for food"
Seattle's Blogger-in-Chief makes the ask:
The past few years have been an extraordinary experience, immensely gratifying in nearly every way except financial, and while it is a relief to have some steady income from the KIRO gig, two nights a week does not make ends meet and is far from enough to help pull me out of the financial hole I’ve dug for myself. Everything in my life — my house, my car, my clothes, my body — is falling apart, and well… as I stare at these words on my fuzzy new/old screen, it’s just kinda depressing.Howie says: If gave him a quarter for every time I've linked to him, I'd have to give him more than I can afford!
Don’t get me wrong. I love what I do, and given the choice I’d do it all over again. (’Cause… I’m crazy.) And I certainly plan to continue almost-full-time blogging as long as I can keep the lights on. But the City Light bill is past due, so who knows how much longer that might be?
The point is, I need cash, and so I’ve decided to do what I first should have done a couple years ago, and hold an online fundraiser. That’s right, I’m asking you, my loyal readers, to help me continue my hard work, by forking over a little or your hard earned cash.
Consider this to be HorsesAss.org’s first official pledge drive. From now through the end of the month I’ll be shamelessly begging you for money… you know, just like politicians, NPR, PBS, teenage children and… well… beggars. My goal: a modest $3500 — about enough to pay my bills for a month. Barely.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
"Hillary Clinton's DLC Problem"
Matt Stoller:
From the New York Times, on the escalation in Iraq:Kos backs Stoller up as far as her support with the netroots.
"We know this policy is going forward," said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. "We know the troops are moving. We know that we're not likely to stop this escalation. But we are going to do everything we can to send a message to our government and the Iraqi government that they had better change, because the enemy we are confronting is adaptable."
That's what Hillary Clinton is saying on Iraq. And it's pathetic. Welcome to the Kerry campaign, redux, 2008 style.Contrast this mushy untrustworthy glop to what we heard with Jim Webb's SOTU response, and what a clear-eyed Democratic message looks like. Webb's speech centered on two themes - inequality and Iraq. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the speech worked, since Webb and a whole host of Democrats just won a big election based on that message. If we had a nominee who carried this winning theme forward, 2008 would probably be the reverse Reagan for us, the consolidating roll-up of the electoral map after the 2006 Congressional realignment that parallels the 1980 electoral follow-up to 1978, which delivered us prop 13 in California (among other reactionary electoral victories). A progressive populist message would work in bringing us huge national majorities and a mandate for massive change. Still, if this is so obvious, why are we only hearing populism, or even a pale attempt at populism, from John Edwards (and Tom Vilsack)?
On the face of it, this doesn't make sense. It's a winning message, so why not use it? Well, it's a winning message, alright, but only for the public. And right now, Presidential candidates are tailoring their messages for elite donors, and the rich don't really care about inequality or Iraq. They care first and foremost about preserving the status quo, because in the status quo they are, well, rich. That's a problem, because if your message is targeted towards the top 1% of the country, you're leaving 99% of the country out of the conversation.
By far the worst example of this disturbing trend among 08ers is Hillary Clinton, who is rolling over donors and trying to prevent a primary from even happening by scooping up mindshare among elites before anyone else can organize. When you hear that you aren't credible unless you can raise several hundred million dollars, realize that this is an idea planted by these elites to entrench their power, and not something that is falsifiable. It bears saying that it's quite probable that don't need $100M to run for President - Kerry didn't lose the General because of a financial disadvantage, and he didn't win in Iowa because of a financial advantage. The 'only credible with $100M' idea is another and more sophisticated version of the electable or inevitable meme that hurt us so badly in 2004. It's something that Hillary Clinton wants us to believe is true. Whether it is true is a different story.
In fact, everything that Hillary Clinton is doing is designed to make us think that she cannot be stopped, to pull the plug on money for others so she can get through the nomination without having to be clear on Iraq or populist in orientation. She is desperately fighting against having to do what Jim Webb did so well - spell out plainly the irresponsibility of political and economic elites. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's a strategy. Or maybe, and this is what I believe, she sympathizes with the elite class more than the public, believing that the public are sheep who can be easily manipulated. She herself hasn't lived in anything close to the real world since 1991. She still makes major policy addresses to the DLC on a fairly regular basis.
Hillary Clinton's inevitability campaign is impressive. Her people aren't just hard-selling donors, they put on a full court press on the announcement, even going so far as to pretend she is competitive in the 'netroots primary'. It's a rather remarkable claim, considering that she got only 4 points in the most recent Dailykos straw poll, which is the home base for Democratic activists. Misleading reporters on netroots support is meant to distract two non-netroots audiences. One is the large dollar donor base, who will read for instance that Hillary Clinton does internet cool stuff in the Wall Street Journal without knowing that we really don't like her. And two is the early influential audience, the local politicians who know it's bad to be on the wrong side of a vindictive nominee. The echo chamber of pro-Clinton media, muscle, and money is very strong right now. But Jim Webb just showed us how hollow all that organization really is.
Ironically, though she is popular among some base voters and most progressive elites, few activists, bloggers, or local politicians actually want Hillary as the nominee. Local politicians are desperately afraid she will hurt downticket candidates all over the country. Progressives know she hasn't dealt with Iraq, and will cripple the Democratic Party badly as Iraq gets worse in 2007 and 2008. And political junkies know that she has done very little that is substantive in the Senate except grant Bush the power to go to war and pander on flag-burning and video games. Politically, Hillary has passed out enough favors and kept every group atomized and fearful enough to make her seem both unpalatable and inevitable. That is why her camp is claiming that they are in the netroots primary, when they are simply not.
I believe her tending to an elite audience and ignoring the concerns of various activists explains the loathing of Hillary Clinton within a certain piece of the progressive base. I've noted before how one slice of primary voters is pretty similar to the netroots. This loathing isn't based on the right-wing slime machine, though often progressives unwittingly slip into discussions about things like 'electability'. It's a loathing that is more 'gut', more about conflicting identities. Chris has noted this with his excellent series of about a year ago on class stratification between the activist class and the elites. Hillary Clinton is an establishment elitist, and we are opposed to this institutional baggage.
Demographics aside, one way to theorize about our ideology is that we have seen and rejected the triangulating model of politics. It's not that Clinton wasn't a good President in the 1990s, it's that he failed to enact anything that outlasted him. He got nothing done on, say, global warming, and failed to establish a firm post-Cold War framework that Bush didn't detonate in five minutes. More relevantly, the Clintonistas performed horribly in the 2000s, acting as lobbyists and warhawks, and just generally working against progressives until they realized they couldn't overtly beat us in the PR game.
So it's not surprising that the Hillary Clinton campaign is working to convince the DLC that she'll do the 1990s over again, only this time with an extra helpings of the strategies that failed.
Former President Clinton has signaled privately that his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), will include aggressive healthcare proposals in her campaign for the White House, despite the debacle of what critics labeled "Hillary Care" 14 years ago.
In remarks to Democratic operatives last month, the ex-president caused a buzz by strongly defending the substance of his wife's 1990s plan, claiming it was a moderate, private-sector approach grossly mischaracterized by its critics.
The former president's statements, delivered during a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) conference at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Mass., have been interpreted as signaling that candidate Clinton could revive aspects of her 1993-94 approach that was vilified by Republicans and health-industry groups.
The Clinton's still believe that health care lost because the plan was mischaracterized by opponents, and that it is the DLC who needs to know that she will stake her reputation once again on a confusing split-the-baby-in-half plan, using the same insider political tactics that didn't work in 1993. If you haven't, I recommend you read this article from the Atlantic on Hillary Clinton, which shows why she failed.
Assessing the historical record of how major reform had been stymied in the past, Bill Clinton doubted that even his own Cabinet could fend off such pressure. And so the president and his counselors devised an end run around Washington's normal way of doing business. They chose their good friend Ira Magaziner, a business consultant without Washington ties, to manage the task force with Hillary. The Clintons and Magaziner shared a certain hubris, as well as an often articulated disdain for (in what was then the president's favored phrase of opprobrium) "the traditional Washington views" on health care.
So the Clinton White House made the audacious decision to write the whole thing itself, in a task force shrouded in secrecy, consciously shutting out Congress and the health-care community. They would simply outsmart the Washington establishment.
A secret policy rolled out through the Presidency is basically the opposite of our approach in the netroots. It's the opposite of open source, the opposite of open debate, and it doesn't work strategically in the current toxic political environment. Hillary Clinton's assumption that lobbyists won't fight a real universal health care plan is a joke. They have and they will do so again, and if you don't believe me, you can read the web site of the National Association of Manufacturers or the US Chamber of Commerce.
In my first post on Hillary Clinton this week, I asked anti-Clinton people if there were ways that Hillary Clinton could get your support. A few argued that if she apologized for her war vote they would consider her, but surprisingly, a number of people said, flat-out, no. I'm beginning to understand why. There is almost no common ground between progressive activists and elitists like Hillary Clinton. Either you are in the elite stream of discourse, the place where health care can be debated without anyone in the room fearing the risks of being uninsured but where the fear of your client losing his business model is real, or you are with the plebes who are worried about their personal health care. You are either angry about being lied to about Iraq, or you are one of the unapologetic liars. We're on one side. The elites are on the other. We can't handle someone who enabled the war and now won't be straight with us on Iraq after four years of watching our America slowly die. It just isn't possible anymore for us to be in the same conversation because there is nothing to discuss.
I won't be that surprised if Clinton wins the nomination, but what she needs to fear is if the various entities that loathe what Hillary Clinton stands for start talking to each other. Right now, there's a reticence to criticize Senator Clinton because of the legacy of the right, and because we don't like to go after Democrats. I doubt that reticence will continue as the candidates attack each other. Hillary Clinton is a tragic figure, a brilliant woman, and she's the frontrunner. But it's very clear that her campaign will be a $500 million attempt to cover for the fact that she has just not been honest or trusthworthy on the most important issue of our time, Iraq. What Jim Webb showed after the State of the Union is that $500M can buy you many things, but it cannot buy you integrity and strength. It can't buy you voter trust. And as the campaign heats up, the Republican nominee is going to run from the Iraq war. We better make sure that we're not stuck with somebody like Hillary Clinton, who is supporting it.
"Dodd Bill Fails To Get Out of Commitee"
Chris Bowers:
Democrats have a host of bills to try and stop the escalation. One of those bills was from Chris Dodd, and had the following purpose:
[My bill] says that, prior to sending any more troops -- the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people -- it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.
Good idea--this bill has actual teeth. Unfortunately, today it failed to get out of committee, largely due to five Democratic defections. From an email I just received:
For those keeping score, here's the Foreign Relations Committee vote on an amendment to cap the troop numbers and to require a complete reauthorization for any increase in troop levels in Iraq:
Dodd - Aye
Kerry - Aye
Feingold - Aye
Boxer - Aye
Obama - Aye
Menedez - Aye
Biden - No
Cardin - No
Nelson - No
Casey - No
Webb - No
Lugar - no
Hagel - No
Coleman - No
Sununnu - No
Corker - No
Voinovich - No
Murkowski - No
DeMint - No
Issacson - No
Vitter - No
I emphasized Hagel as well because I think it shows, like most "independent minded" Republicans, he is all talk and no walk when it comes to stopping Bush.
In terms of individual Democratic votes, I am very disappointed in Democratic freshman--especially Webb. This is pretty stunning after his speech last night. I didn't expect much more from Casey and Nelson. I certainly expected a lot more from Cardin--maybe the Mfume people were right about him, but one vote is not the whole story. Boxer and Feingold typically rock. Also, say what you will about him, but Menendez is one of the best voting Democrats in the Senate--possibly top five. And good for Obama on this one. Further, when you look at his actions over the past year, Kerry seems to have clearly seen the light on Iraq.
Chris Dodd deserves props for proposing this legislation. From what I am told, Biden appears to have led the opposition. Just drop out of the race already.
John Edwards in 2011: "I'm Sorry for My Vote on Iran"
Matt Stoller:
2008 is so depressing. When you're not looking, these candidates turn around and announce they are going to sell us out to the same people that screwed this country over the last six years. Here's John Edwards doing it on Iran:In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.The issue for John Edwards has always been credibility. Why should we trust a man who sold us out on the war vote? His answer is that he's changed. But has he? It's hard to say. I mean it's a really bad idea to pretend like attacking Iran is a viable option. It's not. It's a horrible, horrible idea, and it's what we shouldn't let Edwards get away with.
Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."
"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."
Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."
"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.
Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
"Why Were Democrats Applauding?" (with videos)
Jonathan Tasini:
It's too easy to pound on the president's State of The Union address. I'll leave that to the red-meat crowd. What annoyed the crap out of me was watching the Democrats. I'm not referring to the perpetual suck-ups like Reps. Eliot "Ann Wright's Counter State of the Union Message,"Engel and Loretta Sanchez, two of the many Democrats I spotted jostling for position to shake the president's hand (what is it with the air in Washington, D.C. that makes people want to cozy up to a politician who two-thirds of the voters detest?).Howie P.S,: For a netroots view on the SOTU, three bloggers and their laptops give us their take on "Dem Response to State of the Union '07" (video, 1:38.)
I'm talking about the vast numbers of Democrats, sometimes the entire caucus, who applauded, sometimes as part of standing ovations, for speech lines that deserved stony silence.Let's look at just a few. "First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause, including large numbers of Democrats going wild) We can do so without raising taxes (Applause, including large numbers of Democrats)." And, then, moments later: "In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause, including many Democrats)."
First of all, balancing the budget is not, and should not be, the first priority at a time when, for example, 48 million Americans have no health care. The trade deficit--as distinguished from the fiscal deficit--is a much bigger issue: and, yet, the president said zero, nada, nothing about the trade deficit and how to grapple with a growing threat (I would have said: let the dollar fall more...which would make it a bit more expensive for tourists but mostly agitate powerful corporations like Wal-Mart who depend on a strong dollar to make imports cheaper and keep labor costs abroad nice and low).
Second, even if you believed that balancing the federal budget was the first priority, it is incomprehensible that Democrats would loudly approve of a line about not raising taxes. That's simply a lie--if our party has any intention of pursuing a sane domestic agenda. When I wrote about a future Democratic agenda, I argued that it would be nothing short of criminal, given what we need to do in the country, if the Democrats did not push for hiking taxes on the top 1 percent of income earner--those who pull in at least $1.3 million a year--who will pocket more than $347 billion in the next four years if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to continue. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, if you want to close the deficit, go where the money is.
The Democratic Party I want, and I believe our country needs, is a party that has to stop pandering to people on the question of taxes. Taxes are a membership fee we pay for schools, roads, safe food, a clean environment and a whole host of things that make our daily lives so much better than many other people around the world. Yes, the average person fears that their taxes will go up simply because they are being squeezed from every direction. But, it's pretty simple to say: we want to pay for health care for every American by asking those who already have yachts, private planes and mansions to pay a little more to make sure our country stays strong.
And, of course, there is Iraq: "On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause, with many Democrats going wild.)" There will be no victory in Iraq. We destroyed a country, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, Americans and Iraqis. We will have squandered at least one trillion dollars--perhaps as much as two trillions dollars.
But, our party, as on taxes, is still caught in a trap. Democrats cheer the words promising "victory" because they don't have the spine--and, frankly, the moral compass--to admit that Iraq is a defeat. Period. A defeat not just because of the human and economic losses but because what our government has done in Iraq is an obscene shredding of the very values that we would like the rest of the world to believe we stand for. Where is the courageous Democrat, not out of audacity or hope or some other empty sloganeering, who can stand before the country and call Iraq a defeat--and, thereby, start the healing, not just here but around the world?
As an amusing aside: When Bush congratulated the new majority party in Congress, he did so using the typical Republican reference to the opposition party: "Democrat majority." And the official White House transcript keeps that language. But, CBS and CNN's version of the transcript of the speech (I didn't check other sources because of time) changed the words to "Democratic majority,"--the correct name of the Democratic Party but not what the president said.
If the president won't even give you the respect to use the correct name of your party, why would you respect his office by clapping for him, particularly when he's dead wrong?
And from the activists on the street, "Ann Wright Gives a Counter State of the Union Message." (video, 5:43). Howie says: Of course, the President didn't tell us all of his plans for us.
"Iraq in Fragments"
Seattle P-I:
Documentary portrays lives of everyday people---Seattle filmmaker James Longley's poetic portrayal of the world of everyday Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds -- in the midst of a devastating war has earned him an Academy Award nomination.Watch the trailer here (2:21).
Longley, 35, who lives in Belltown, learned Tuesday morning that his film, "Iraq in Fragments," was one of five Oscar nominees for Best Documentary Feature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)