May 24, 2007

5/24: Doddmania ... No Really ... It's Here!

Is Chris Dodd best positioned to become the anti-war candidate in '08? With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both charting more centrist courses, Dodd has been out in front among '08er senators in opposition to the war. He was the first to back the Reid-Feingold plan to defund the war and now has ads up credibly claiming to have moved Obama and Clinton left on the issue. Now Dodd has a YouTube up pressuring them in the same direction on the Iraq supplemental bill. While John Edwards attracts derision for carping from the sidelines, Dodd is uniquely positioned among WH '08ers to actually do something to end the war. If the supplemental has enough votes to pass, Dodd has an opportunity to steal the national spotlight with an old school filibuster of the legislation. Such a showdown would place him toe-to-toe with Pres. Bush. Not a bad enemy to have in a Dem primary.

DEM FIELD: Branding Obama

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong predicts how Dem '08ers will vote on the Iraq supplemental: "The biggest question is whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote for or against the supplemental funding of the war. I would bet that, in the end, both of them vote against it. Neither of them can afford to let John Edwards (or Chris Dodd for that matter) be the candidates that would end the war now. But especially Obama, as that's a big part of his brand, his credibility and his campaign."

Not completely unrelated, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas announces Obama and Bill Richardson will join John Edwards at 8/2-5's Yearly Kos '07 convention.

CLINTON: We're Either With Us ...

MyDD's Armstrong is in a minority believing Hillary Clinton will vote against the supplemental. Kos blogs: "Given that she doesn't regret her 2002 war vote, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that she's considering voting for the Capitulation Bill." Digby adds: "Voting for the Iraq resolution was the biggest mistake she ever made and it remains the biggest obstacle to her winning the nomination. Democratic voters reluctantly forgave John Kerry and John Edwards for making that boneheaded decision the first time but they won't do it again. If she votes with Bush on Iraq this time, it's over. She will lose the left wing of her party completely."

MyDD's Stoller concurs: "Clinton is a hawk. She believes in the occupation and she doesn't want to withdraw all our troops from Iraq because she thinks they are protecting what she sees as vital national security interest. I'm not going to pretend this is a political calculation, I'm not going to be that condescending to Clinton. She genuinely thinks this and is pretty upfront about it (though she does try to blur the difference as a strategy, her policy statements are pretty clear)."

DODD: 'No' Is Just The Beginning

Chris Dodd's YouTube challenge to fellow Dem '08ers to join him in voting 'no' on the supplemental so Dems can send a "very clear message that the time to redeploy is now" is all over the netroots. Laudatory reactions include:

• The Nation's John Nichols: "It is a very good thing, indeed, that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency. ... While Clinton, Obama and Biden talk an increasingly good game when it comes to criticizing President Bush's handling of the war, all three shy away from using the power of the purse to constrain executive excess in a time of war."
• Atrios: "I'm quite surprised at his willingness to take shots at his colleagues. Is This The Beginning of Doddmania?"
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Hey '08 ... by this measure shall ye be judged."
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Chris Dodd keeps making sense. It will be interesting to see if there is a chorus of Democrats who start to join him on this. The other 2008ers in Congress will be interesting too."
• Bob Geiger: "Chris Dodd, who is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, continues to display the guts and leadership he's been showing on the war throughout the new Congress."
• Bleeding Heartland's Chris Woods: "Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he's the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent looks at Dodd's latest ads in NH "lasting frontrunners Hillary and Obama by claiming they followed him in backing" Reid-Feingold's bill to end funding for the war and comments: "John Edwards and Dodd are both using Congress, and its failure to stop the war, as a foil -- with the one difference that Dodd is in the Senate, and Edwards no longer is. Can Dodd really make any serious inroads with the antiwar voters that Edwards is laying claim to?"

But if Dodd is going to solidify himself as THE netroots anti-war candidate, bloggers are indicating that a simple 'no' vote will not be enough. David Sirota asks: ""So isn't the natural next question when we're going to see a filibuster from these two and all the other Senators claiming they are doing everything they can to end the war?" Taylor Marsh: "Oh, and I got an email a little earlier today that asked a very good question. Where's the filibuster? Seriously, if Democratic senators don't like this bill they've definitely got options. Aren't we in charge?"

EDWARDS: Most Impressive, But You Are Not The Nominee Yet

"Impressive" was the consensus netroots reaction to John Edwards 5/23 CFR speech. Reax include:

• AMERICAblog's AJ in DC: "It was extremely impressive. The speech was perhaps most notable for what it did not include: absent was the reflexive bellicosity that conventional Democratic beltway wisdom has long insisted is necessary to project "strength" on foreign policy and national defense.
• Matthew Yglesias: "Okay. The speech is very impressive on several of the more technical aspects of military policy. It's also genuinely great to see a high-profile politician taking on the "war on terror" concept. ... All-in-all, I'm not in love, but I was impressed. Obama was much better on proliferation, but Edwards is doing a great job of pushing the envelop on topics like the need to get fence-sitters on our side, the need to move beyond "war on terror" rhetoric, etc."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "John Edwards and his impressive speech today on the war on terror ... I'll quibble in that he says he'll leave troops in the Green Zone to protect the embassy, but the rejection of of fear is huge."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent notes a quick Nexis search shows Edwards often used the "war on terror" meme throughout '04, but then posts an email response from Team Edwards on his evolution: "John Edwards has seen the Bush administration use the phrase to justify everything they do. So although he believes that there are terrorists and terrorism, the phrase itself has become a political tool the right uses to justify whatever they want to do -- like Guantanamo, like Abu Ghraib, like warrentless wiretapping of Americans here at home."

In other Edwards blogging, CaliticsTodd Beeton explains why San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci insists on covering stories like Edwards haircuts, hedge fund wealth, and $55K speaking fees to students: "Like so much of the media, Marinucci isn't concerned with truth, she's concerned with faux balance. The only way she can talk about all the good Edwards has done and does do is by framing it as a negative, lest she be accused of having a liberal bent."

OBAMA: You Get To Vote On The Obama You Have, Not The Obama You Wish You Had

Trying to flesh out how Barack Obama will vote on the Iraq supplemental, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong likes Obama circa '03:"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no'... I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance;" but doesn't care for Obama circa '07: "Obama explained that position yesterday by saying that his initial opposition to the $87 billion was based on the fact that $20 billion of that sum was earmarked for reconstruction projects that he feared would be awarded by the White House in no-bid contracts."

Armstrong comments: "Obama wants to win the Democratic nomination and is not going to let Edwards or Dodd grab the ball and be the voice/vote ending the war. Maybe, in voting against any further funding, Obama will get his 2002-03 voice back too-- that would be a good thing."

Atrios compares Obama's recent Iraq rhetoric to SNL's Jack Handey promoting this commenter Handeysim: "If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." Atrios comments: "Given the centrality of the Iraq war this perhaps isn't the most appropriate example, but if we see this as a metaphor for politics rather than a meditation on war strategy, the basic question is whether Obama's willing to throw the grenade after confusing them with the pumpkins or if he thinks the pumpkins will be enough."

OBAMA II: Start A Love Train

TPM Cafe's Andrew Golis defends Obama's call for a "new kind of politics" from doubters uncomfortable with the "Lieberman-esque capitulation and collusion" feeling it gives them: "[I]t would be a mistake, I think, to replace the Othering politics of the Right with an Othering politics of our own. It's hard to blame folks for hating Bush and the dishonest jingoists he's populated our government with. But we should remember that our heroes, the MLKs and the RFKs, preached love and empathy for even those who are unable to return the sentiment.

TPM Cafe's Reed Hundt seconds the sentiment: "The withdrawal will be, if it ever happens, extraordinarily dangerous for people in Iraq and for stock markets and economic conditions around the world. ... We will need someone who can live the ethic of having malice toward none, and charity toward all. ... This transition to high leadership is, I think, what Senator Obama is talking about. I don't think he is by any means the only person who can aim in this direction, but he is a distinctive voice on the topic."

Atrios is still unconvinced: "I went to an Obama fundraiser yesterday at the 2400-or-so capacity Electric Factory (normally a concert venue) yesterday. His rhetoric is interesting, as he seems to be able to seamlessly shift between Liebermanesque what's-most-important-is-that-we-all-get-along rhetoric and radical "let's take to the streets and burn shit down" rhetoric (I'm exaggerating on both sides, of course). The inclusive rhetoric doesn't just worry people like me because of policy concerns, it's that one worries he's confusing idealism with reality."

RICHARDSON: Does Anyone Support This Bill?

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt credits Bill Richardson for opposing the Senate immigration bill "because it is too onerous for immigrants."

GIULIANI: Towards A Clearer Muddle

Ex-Pres. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson latest WaPo punditry effort raised some blogger eyes. The Corner's Yuval Levin found it "clearer than so very much of what has been said about Rudy Giuliani's candidacy, both in laying out what's appealing about it (much more than September 11th) and in getting to the core of the problem with Giuliani's abortion position."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff dissents from Gerson's argument that Giuliani's abortion position in an "muddle." Mirengoff: "Although I don't agree with Giuliani's position, neither do I find it inherently incoherent. One can regard the fetus in its early stages as close enough to an innocent human being for us to abhor its destruction, but not close enough for us to deny the would-be mother the freedom to terminate it."

F. THOMPSON: With Enemies Like These ...

Instapundit links to a Great American Country item on ex-Fred Thompson girlfriend and country singer Lorrie Morgan's kind words: "I used to beg him to run for president. I used to say, 'If you were in the White House, I would be so safe-feeling. I could go to sleep at night and know that everything was taken care of up there.'" Instapundit comments: "As I've noted here before on several occasions, it pays to stay on good terms with your ex-girlfriends."

IRAQ: A Long-Term Project

Keith Olbermann's 5/23 'special comment' on the Iraq supplemental was widely posted in netroots circles. Highlighted portions include:

• Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato: "The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq. ... You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions - Stop The War - have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you ... for a handful of magic beans."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it? Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit."

76% of Daily Kos readers "agree 100% with Olbermann." More lefty reax:

• Kos: "I've got to say, of all the things that get me down about this job, there's nothing worse than the people who want to quit the game and take their ball home every time we face a setback. ... Did any of you really think we won that war in 2006? I sure as heck didn't. 2006 was incremental improvement, just as 2008 will be. And hopefully 2010. Along the way, we'll likely lose some ground, but we must always remain focused on the long term.
• Scarecrow at firedoglake: "I have often argued here that Congress cannot stop the Bush/Cheney neocon wars until the country removes Bush and Cheney from office and gets a President who wants to end the occupation and is committed to defeat the dark ideological forces that have the nation by the throat. I strongly favor starting impeachment hearings with the regime's Iraq deceptions and degrading our national honor being the lead article(s), followed closely by the subversion of the rule of law and administration of justice at home."
• Atrios: "As for what the Democrats should do, they should vote against the supplemental. ... If this is the bill, let it be a Republican bill."
• The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu: "The best hope we have right now is that a large number of Democrats will vote against the war funding resolution, perhaps even a majority of Democrats, forcing the Democratic leadership to pass the bill by relying on Republican votes. At least those Democrats could show themselves as people who won't be intimidated and stand on principle."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "[I]t's worth noting that the Dem leadership still hasn't figured out what its messaging should be here. Dem Rep. Rahm Emanuel, for instance, is out there praising the effort as "the beginning of the end of the President's policy on Iraq," and Dem Senate leader Harry Reid has made similar noises. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is so disappointed that she's voting against the bill. If this is the successful effort Emanuel and Reid claim it is, why is Pelosi saying she may vote against it?"
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "'Democrats divided' narratives be damned. The next national general election against Republicans isn't for 17.5 months anyway. We are in the middle of a presidential primary season where we are supposed to be arguing over the direction of the party. This is one argument that needs to be made."
• American Family Voices Pres. Mike Lux at The Huffington Post: "The Democratic rank and file should vote overwhelmingly against this deal with the devil, and make clear to their leadership that the Democrats should have the same rule as the Republicans: only bills that have a majority of the majority party caucus supporting them should go to the floor."

Looking ahead, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto advises: "As for the midterm strategy, and the long term strategy, the messaging and framing needs to start now. Democrats need to make it clear today that this war will not be dumped on Bush's successor. ... Democrats should make it clear now that there will be no permanent bases inside Iraq, and that America expects Iraq and its neighbors to collaboratively ensure regional security as we draw down in 2008."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat notes everyone is finally coming around to his way of thinking on the subject: "I think everyone finally gets that the Spending Power, and specifically the NOT Spending power is the only potential check on Bush on Iraq now. There will be no veto proof majorities for deauthorization, timelines ... So, for moral, pragmatic and politically craven reasons, I urge the Dem Leadership to try to end the war, by announcing a date certain when the Debacle will not be funded."

IMMIGRATION: It's The Enforcement Stupid!

The WH can have all the back and forths with The Corner they want, but nothing they say is going to convince conservatives they, or the next administration, is going to enforce the provisions of the Senate's immigration bill any better than they enforce existing immigration law. After meeting with DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff and Tony Snow, The Corner's Kate O'Beirne asks: "Why not give "enforcement only" about five years to work, given the past 21 years of lax enforcement?"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt also talked to Chertoff and summarizes: "I had hoped to get some answers from Secretary Chertoff that would have allayed my concerns about the draft immigration bill. I was not persuaded by his answers on a number of questions, and was mystified why it was so hard to get to the bottom line on the fence: 75 new miles are under construction and none have been completed thus far. The Department hopes that the 75 miles will be done by the end of September. Getting to the bottom line wasn't easy."

Kausfiles seconds George Will's suggestion, that if we just protect the border, the immigration issue will slowly fade away. From Will: "Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away." From Kaus: "If border-enforcement can be made to work (and the implausible premise of the "grand bargain" is that it can--indeed, that it will work so well it can hold off a new wave of illegals lured by amnesty) the problem of the 12 million diminishes gradually, steadily over time. Eventually, it disappears. The Bush administration, which always gins up a "crisis" before its big policy pushes, doesn't like to dwell on this point."

The Directors of RedState announce there opposition to the bill suggesting a similar solution:

Consider: under the current system, the vast majority of illegals here are Latino men between the ages of 18 and 50. They work, and work, and work. They send home money to their families, and live in communities outside the law. ... If this bill works as it is intended, it will essentially ghettoize these hardworking people for the foreseeable future. ... Over and over, research has shown us that most legal immigrant families are Americanized within one generation-many speak fluent English and view themselves as Americans first, not as displaced residents of their parents' country of birth. But this bill will not leverage this knowledge to help create a stable, law-abiding community of fully legal American citizens; instead, it will simply manage human beings as if they were another commodity, and provide a false promise of a solution for politicians eager for a cover story.

Many conservatives are also touting a Rasmussen poll showing only 26% of Americans favor the Senate's bill:

• Captain's Quarters: "Not a single demographic in the study favors this proposal, except under Race: Other. ... But when the subject turns to border security, the numbers turn even more dramatic. Every single demographic -- race, gender, age, and political orientation -- has majorities that show border security as 'very important'."


• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Oh, and while you're staring agape over the fact that we've finally found an issue that Democrats and Republicans agree on, don't forget to note how astonishing that 89% number is on the Republican side of things."


• Right Wing News: "It is almost impossible to overstate how unpopular this bill is with conservatives. The reaction to this bill has been like the reaction to the Dubai Port Deal and Harriet Miers combined. If the GOP were voting to do away with the 2nd Amendment or enshrine partial birth abortion in the Constitution, I'm not sure that the reaction among their biggest supporters would be any more negative than it is today."

Finally, no friend to the right, Eric Alterman explains his support for a fence: "I think many liberals are no less woolly-headed and simple-minded about illegal immigration than they were (and still sometimes are) about welfare. Yes, the yahoos exploit the issue. Yes, there's plenty of racism involved in the opposition. And yes, the victims are often the people with the least amount to say in the outcome, but that hardly makes the current system worth defending. ... Personally, I support a fence. The current system encourages the horrific abuses that take place against immigrants attempting to sneak in. Naturally, I support allowing generous numbers of immigrants into this country, but I support doing so legally, first and foremost. I also think it encourages contempt for the law, which is a net negative in any society."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: There's Politics Going On In The Bush WH!

Firedoglake's Marcy Wheeler sums up the highlights from Monica Goodling's 5/23 testimony:

• Monica did ask political questions of civil service employees
• Rove may have emphasized that DOJ needed to make sure its story was straight
• Gonzales tried to coach Monica's testimony
• Monica is paying for her own legal defense, but she intends to set up a legal defense fund after the fact-I wonder if her performance netted her any contributions to that effect?

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: So Can We Blame Klein For Kerry's Loss Now Too?

The Plank's Michael Crowley highlights the following Joe Klein related passage from an advance copy of Bob Shrum's memoir: "Klein himself was trying to play many parts. He was not only reporting on the campaign and preparing to write a book about consultants; he was also a constant critic and yet another sometime adviser. ... He would chastise Kerry on the phone when he didn't like a speech, counseling both Kerry and me about what the candidate should say and what our strategy should be."

Crowley comments: "I don't fully buy into Washington-cocktail-circuit conspiracy theories. But I can understand how the anti-Beltway crowd, particularly those who don't admire Klein, might not be so crazy about this revelation." An uncrazy Klein responded by email to TPM Cafe, including

I have a pretty simple rule here: If a candidate asks my opinion, I usually give it. ... In 2004, the situation was more complicated than usual because I'd known Kerry for 30 years and there was a war going on. In my recollection, most of my conversations with Kerry were about the war. ... There is a bright line here. I don't give political advice. I give policy (and horse race) opinions.

TPM's Greg Sargent comments: "Shrum portrays Klein's advice as unsolicited -- which would reflect badly on Klein. But Klein responds that the advice was not about pushing pols to behave a certain way and more part of a reportorial back-and-forth between him and his subjects -- and, in Kerry's case, rooted partly in a longtime friendship. Klein's account suggests that Shrum solicited his advice partly to gauge how various Kerry campaign decisions might play in the press."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Could Teach Them All How To Cut John Edwards Hair

Atrios comments John Edwardssupport for mandatory national service:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. ... It's one of those ideas which appealed to me, not coincidentally, around the time when I would've been too old for it to apply to me. I've never really quite understood why proponents think it's a good idea. I don't especially think we should have some culturally unifying program. I don't think we need a mass labor program to instill a sense of civic obligation. I'm not sure how to put a bunch of 18-19 year olds to work. Non-military options would ensure that elites would not serve in the military if they did not want to.

LEST WE FORGET: Way Better Than American Idol

Andrew Sullivan points us to Tyler Cowen's innovative suggestions for making our presidential debates more useful and entertaining:

• 1. Allow all candidates to watch a short debate of experts -- with a fraud or two thrown in -- and ask them to evaluate what they just heard and why they reached the conclusion they did.
• 2. Test candidates for the ability to spot liars.
• 3. Give each candidate a substantive message and then give each two minutes to turn it into pure fluff. This tests communications skills, plus we can see the meat grinder in action.
• 4. Require each candidate to conduct an orchestra. Watch to what extent each candidate defers to the players, and to what extent he prefers "panache."

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 24, 2007 12:41 PM