I'm glad that we are finally done in Iowa. The past week has been crazy.
Here's some background. I am a student at Grinnell College, which is located in the First Ward of Grinnell, IA, which is the precinct in Iowa with the highest delegate count at 37 delegates to the county convention. My parents live in Neenah, WI, so that is where I spend my breaks, though most of the year, I live in Grinnell and am registered to vote there.
I decided over the summer that Barack Obama was the best candidate and as this was the first Presidential election where I had the right to vote, I decided that I would put in a great effort to not only choosing the best candidate but actively contributing to that candidate's victory. So I did campaign work during school and during fall break.
I finally came back after a short time with my family for Christmas, driving back to Iowa with a fellow Obama supporter. We volunteered full time until the caucus, doing phone calls, canvassing, and doing data entry. We helped our field organizer set up an office in Grinnell, which he had gone above and beyond to obtain.
Today, in an show of disingenuousness, Hillary Clinton's campaign decided to run an attack memo on her main opponent, Barack Obama. I will dissect the memo bit-by-bit to show how it masks the true situation in an attempt to make one of Clinton's weaknesses seem like a strength:
Who said this? “Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.” George Bush? Nope. The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again. Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry. That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran’s ambitions. But that was then.
Who said this?
“Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.”
George Bush? Nope.
The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.
Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.
That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran’s ambitions. But that was then.
It is true that this was part of Obama's Speech on November 20 last year to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. To show the context of the statement, here is the paragraph in which it is contained:
In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. But only if U.S. commanders think such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us – in a public and unambiguous way – for such continued support. We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.
So, there were list of caveats for such a force, none of which have been reached by present day. Furthermore, the comparative text from the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment is much more bellicose even than the statement the Clinton campaign took out of context:
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
So, the beginning of the Clinton menu is a disingenuous quote-mine. This is an inauspicious start. Continuation after the jump.
Today, we worked to erect a series of signs emulating the ad campaign put forth by the now defunct Burma-Shave between 1925 and 1963.
We set up the signs on the property of Mary McDonald, and Obama supporter and precinct captain who generously allowed us to place the signs there. With a few volunteers, some posts, and the signs, we set to work:
According to ABC News's Jake Tapper, Hillary Clinton is holding an event with the following invitation:
Rural Americans for HillaryLunch and Briefing Join Rural Americans for Hillary for lunch and a campaign briefingBy Members of Congress and Senior Campaign Staff WhenTuesday, October 30, 200712 PM Where401 9th Street, NWSuite 1000Washington, DC 2004 Conference call dial-in number available upon request for those outside of DC.
Rural Americans for HillaryLunch and Briefing
Join Rural Americans for Hillary for lunch and a campaign briefingBy Members of Congress and Senior Campaign Staff
WhenTuesday, October 30, 200712 PM
Where401 9th Street, NWSuite 1000Washington, DC 2004
Conference call dial-in number available upon request for those outside of DC.
The interesting thing about this is that this "Rural Americans for Hillary" event is being hosted by a DC lobbying firm that represents Monsanto, which is a big agri-biotech firm that has some ethically questionable practices. So, while there is a rural connection, the connection to the average rural resident is tenuous at best.
But, then again, Senator Clinton is not shy about taking money from lobbyists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Ev95ZK664
I'm sure they represent real Americans, but only a small portion of real Americans who have the deep pockets of afford to pay someone to plead their case.
via Markos Moulitsas
In today's The American Prospect, Paul Waldman wrote an editorial criticizing the current primary and caucus system and the Iowa caucuses that start it off in particular.
His criticism starts with the turnout issue for the Iowa caucuses:
If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can't manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. One might protest that caucusing is hard -- it requires hours of time and a complicated sequence of standing in corners, raising hands, and trading votes (here is an explanation of the ridiculousness). But so what? If ten presidential candidates personally came to your house to beg for your vote, wouldn't you set aside an evening when decision time finally came?
This is a fair criticism. Here we have a small state that has a huge impact on the outcome of the primaries and less than 10% of eligible voters from this state are participants. Certainly, this does seem undemocratic.
But Waldman doesn't just focus on the fact that Iowans don't turn up to vote, he also argues in the next paragraph that Iowans are not good stewards of their privilege of going first, because on average, Iowans don't pay much more attention than average Americans, citing a study of primary and caucus voters in 2000:
But only one in ten Iowans can be bothered. Not only that, despite all the attention, Iowans know barely more about the candidates than citizens of other states, and don't discuss politics any more than anyone else (unless something has changed since this research was conducted in 2000). Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years. The problem isn't that Iowans aren't like the rest of the country (95 percent white, for one). The problem is that despite the extraordinary privilege of having the next president grovel before them, they're just as indifferent and apathetic as any other group of Americans.
But this is where Waldman's argument here turns on itself. Certainly the fact that Iowans on average aren't paying more attention than most Americans may cause us to raise our eyebrows about their first state status, but as Waldman stated, most Iowans aren't going to the caucus.
It would stand to reason that those who are investing the time and energy it takes to go caucus for a few hours on a cold January day are those who are taking their privilege and duty as the first state to vote most seriously and are thus more likely to be informed about the candidates than the average Iowan. In fact, given the very public and open nature of the decision-making done at the Iowa caucuses, going to a caucus uninformed would likely be quite embarrassing, considering that one's views are made public.
via Ben Smith
It appears that the four states for which the Four-State Pledge is named (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) have started to move toward an agreed-upon alternate calendar first reported by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, which is as such:
January 5 - Iowa caucuses, Wyoming GOP conventionJanuary 8 - New Hampshire primaryJanuary 12 - Nevada caucusesJanuary 15 - Michigan primary*January 19 - South Carolina primaryJanuary 29 - Florida primary*
*The delegates from Michigan and Florida are officially prohibited from casting their votes at the Democratic National Convention thus making the primary in Ambinder's words a "beauty contest" for the Democrats. All the states above will only be able to seat half their normal delegation in the Republican National Convention.
It seems that this is what will happen, as the Nevada Democratic Party has announced the move, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It appears that Iowa will wait for New Hampshire's move before implementing theirs, but should things go according to plan, that will be the early state schedule.
Obviously, this is still less than ideal from a retail politics point of view, as Michigan's vote comes before South Carolina's and there isn't much time for the momentum from those early elections to sink in and influence later results. However, I think it's the best they could do.
Hopefully a completely redone calendar is put forth by both parties at next year's conventions.
Yesterday, John Edwards announced that he would accept matching public campaign funds, which basically means that the U.S. government will match up to $250. In return, Edwards must submit to a $50 million spending cap nationally during the primary season (before the official nomination) as well as state-level caps.
Edwards is trying to frame this as a principled stand as accepting public funds means that a good chunk of your campaign's money is coming from taxpayers, not special interests.
From the New York Times article on the subject:
At a campaign stop on Thursday in Conway, N.H., Mr. Edwards said it was the huge amounts being raised by the campaigns that had changed his mind. “Washington is awash with money, and the system is corrupt,” he said. “I don’t think anybody anticipated the amount of money that would be raised,” he added, saying it had persuaded him to “step up” on the issue.
This is nice sentiment, but I have a harder time believing it because of the previous paragraph of the article:
Taking a principled stand to change a corrupt system does not really jibe with exploiting loopholes in the program you are taking part in "on principle".
The UN General assembly is meeting in New York this week and so many world leaders are in New York. The leader that has elicited the most controversy in his visit is Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who asked to visit the site of the World Trade Center to lay a wreath down. As can be expected, this was refused.
But he was invited by Columbia University to speak before students, which has led to many students and organizations protesting the decision. There have been quite a few news stories about this, some critical of Columbia's decision (i.e. International Herald Tribune, Ynetnews) others attempting to maintain journalistic neutrality (i.e. AFP, USA Today).
Personally, despite some of the rather unsavory views of the Iranian President, I think this is an excellent opportunity for students at Columbia University. It is not often that one gets to hear a speech from a foreign leader, especially one who comes from a nation considered an enemy of our own. Because of the UN's position in New York, Columbia has a unique opportunity to host speeches from world leaders.
As I mentioned in this post, I was pleased when Barack Obama spoke against the following advertisement from MoveOn.org:
If you cannot read the text in the image, I've put the body text of the ad after the jump).
Now, I am against the Iraq War, as I have been since it started. I even participated in an anti-war rally in Appleton, WI a few weeks before we invaded on March 17, 2003. And for the most part, I feel that Petraeus' testimony was overly optimistic.
However, he is a general who is taking orders from the Bush administration, where the policy is actually set and is thus only doing his job, which is to fulfill his mission to the best of his ability and report on its progress. The real onus should be on the Bush administration for hiding behind a general as a way to push through policy.
However, what annoys me about the ad is not so much that they are directing their energy at the wrong target but that they have reduced their discourse to petty name-calling, and not only is it petty, but it also harkens back to the beginning of the war when many war proponents questioned the patriotism of war opponents.
By accusing Petraeus of betrayal for carrying out his mission and reporting on it optimistically, MoveOn.org has lost the high ground. This of course, did not go unnoticed by Senate Republicans who rallied around a resolution put forth by Senator Jon Conryn (R-TX), which condemned the ad and passed it with a 72-25 vote.
This vote was an obvious pander to the pro-war constituency, which makes up a majority of the Republican base but it was more than that: it was a political trap for the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate. Senators Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton took the option to use the vote to pander to the ardent anti-war crowd.
However, the other two presidential candidates in the Senate, Joe Biden and the candidate I support, Barack Obama took the, in my opinion, more intelligent, principled path of abstaining from the vote. Both have spoken against the ad before, with Biden calling it "dead, flat wrong" and Obama calling it "counterproductive".
But the ad was not the only thing silly in this episode. So was the vote which was nothing more than a political gimmick, something that Obama recognized when he said in a written statement:
The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, noton criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared. All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.
The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, noton criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.
All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.
I wasn't sure he'd do it, but Senator Obama hit the nail on the head.
On Monday, after a speech on Wall Street, Obama had an interview with Brian Williams on the roof of a building where he gave very sober, frank, honest answers to Williams' questions. What he says is very open but it isn't dripping with ideological oversimplification either. He is a candidate who has thought through many things and is willing to share his thoughts.
Obviously these sort of nuanced discussions don't rile up many supporters (though if you were at the Harkin Steak Fry as I was, you would know that Obama has quite a few riled up supporters), but it shows that he is a candidate that is more than just a hyped up demagogue, but rather someone who has pondered the issues and while he does maintain a large following, he doesn't just stand on his charisma as some would like to believe.
One section of the interview that I was particularly fond of was a response to one of Brian's questions about the primary schedule:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, about this front load in calendar, how-- how great a concern do you have that just at the time when a lot of Americans will be dialing in, a lot of states will have already made the decisions leading up to who the nominees of the party are. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think-- I-- I think it's a problem. I think that in some ways for people like myself and Hillary Clinton who are a little bit better known, it gives us probably an unfair advantage. On the other hand, it also means that we're gonna see a very long general election which could end up making it even uglier than usual general elections. Because when there's that much time to be filled in general elections typically, it ends up being filled with negative ads. That seems to be the process. Now, that's a process that I hope to change as the nominee. But you know, I think we would have benefited from spreading out the-- this primary season longer, so that people weren't voting right after they'd done their Christmas shopping.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, about this front load in calendar, how-- how great a concern do you have that just at the time when a lot of Americans will be dialing in, a lot of states will have already made the decisions leading up to who the nominees of the party are.
BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think-- I-- I think it's a problem. I think that in some ways for people like myself and Hillary Clinton who are a little bit better known, it gives us probably an unfair advantage. On the other hand, it also means that we're gonna see a very long general election which could end up making it even uglier than usual general elections.
Because when there's that much time to be filled in general elections typically, it ends up being filled with negative ads. That seems to be the process. Now, that's a process that I hope to change as the nominee. But you know, I think we would have benefited from spreading out the-- this primary season longer, so that people weren't voting right after they'd done their Christmas shopping.
He is willing to openly admit that the schedule is likely to benefit his candidacy and yet he denounces it for its unfairness. This shows that he is a man who believes in the principles of democracy that are being strained by our current electoral setup, even when he would benefit by letting it be.
He also rightly spoke against a recent ad by MoveOn.org that played with General Petraeus's name by asking "General Petraeus or General Betray Us". While Obama rejects the idea that Petraeus' testimony serves as justification for the policies put forth by the Bush Administration, he has a more nuanced view of the situation in which he points out that we should be taking issue with the Administration not with the general who is following the mission that is assigned.
I stand firmly in the anti-war camp but I think that the overly simplistic ideological discourse that ads like the "General Betray Us" ad put forth is counterproductive as they allow the more neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party, including Giuliani, to paint the anti-war movement as consisting of ideological simpletons.
Hopefully we can see more of this type of interview from Obama in the future.
reposted from my main blog.
One of the things that's perplexed me during this early election season is how well Al Gore holds onto support in the polls and on the Web without even trying. He has said repeatedly that he has no plans of running. And seeing how far along other campaigns have come in the time, it's difficult to see him entering the race.
I suppose that one thing that keeps Gore supporters clinging to hope that their chosen candidate will actually become a candidate is that he hasn't outright said that he will never run. He has just dismissed it as unlikely at every chance the media gets to ask him. And here is another example.
This AP article won't get much attention because most of the content is predictable. Gore says that while he isn't ruling out a run, it doesn't feel right. In a time where Fred Thompson looks to have an uphill battle because he announced now after running a "testing the waters" campaign for three months, a candidate, even one with name recognition, who hasn't even started a committee would have a terrible task in front of them.
Of course, the title of the article speaks to Gore's likely endorsement of one of the candidates going into the primaries. In 2004, he endorsed Howard Dean, whose candidacy stalled at the primaries.
However, I think that this year, a Gore endorsement could have a big impact on this election. This year there is a candidate who has been running on a platform of poll leading and inevitability. A Gore endorsement of anyone but Hillary Clinton would give that candidate a tremendous boost at the polls.
In fact, at this point, it seems that such an endorsement would be necessary for a candidate like Dodd or Biden to become competitive. An endorsement of either Barack Obama or John Edwards would very likely give that candidate a significant poll jump while draining Clinton's support.
What if he supports Clinton? Well, that will likely solidify her position as the front-runner in the eyes of the media, but it is worth note that many Gore supporters consider Clinton to be their second choice, likely a result of a nostalgia for the Clinton years that seems to be heavily influencing the decision-making of many Democrats.
In the end, this is a waiting game. Though it is unlikely that Gore will run, his supporters haven't given up yet, and as he creates an external appearance of neutrality towards the Democratic candidates, it is difficult to discern which way he will sway, but when he does decide to give up that facade, we could see a changed Presidential race.
My last post caught the attention of some Kucinich supporters and quickly garnered the most comments that I have received in a single day...um...4 from 3 different commenters. Obviously, it wasn't something that was hotly circling the web, but it was a busy post by my standards.
So, as long as I am receiving a trickle of traffic from Kucinich supporters such as this one, I feel that it would be a good idea to explain my reasons for not supporting Dennis Kucinich. That way, the next time a Kucinich supporter such as Tom calls me a "tool of the mass media", they can actually have substance to back that assertion up.
Cross-posted at my main blog
Wow, there are some tenacious Dennis Kucinich supporters out there. It seems that a few of them have taken to running up his numbers in ABC New's online poll on the winner of the debate held in Iowa yesterday morning. If you are skeptical of this result, you are right to be so.
Of course, the fact that this is an online poll disqualifies any real significance it has in showing viewer sentiment. Considering that Kucinich did not get much air time, and of the air time he got, a significant portion was devoted to complaining about how he didn't get much air time, I have a hard time seeing him as a "winner" of this debate (but then again, the debate format makes an actual "win" difficult).
Of course, the real issue is that this is an online poll which counts previous voters with cookies, packets of information sites send to visitors that can be used for identification later. The funny thing is, if you delete the cookies sent by abcnews.go.com after voting, you can vote again, and this is exactly what these tenacious Kucinich voters have been doing. Look at the data after the break.
Here's some background:
6 days ago (August 8), the Annenberg Political Fact Check, better known as FactCheck.org posted an article about the AFL-CIO Presidential Forum, in which it criticized statements from Joe Biden, John Edwards, and our favorite candidate, Barack Obama. In fact, the article had two segments criticizing Barack. One segment was fair, pointing out that when Barack said he would speak with the "President of Canada", he should have referred to the Prime Minister of Canada.
However, the previous segment was not a fair assessment. It dealt with Barack's response to criticism, specifically from Chris Dodd, on his foreign policy speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda. Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf. That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act. Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. That's the only time Obama mentions Musharraf at all in the speech, as posted on his own campaign Web site.
Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.
Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf.
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.
Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
That's the only time Obama mentions Musharraf at all in the speech, as posted on his own campaign Web site.
