Its ironic that the Clintons need and thurst for power, and slash and burn tactics have just destroyed the Democratic parties best chance in a GENERATION to build a huge united coalition of Democrats, Independents and Moderate Republicans. Barack Obama has a chance to usher in a new democratic majority and a period of democratic rule like none we have ever had before. But we are blowing this opportunity because we are not thinking (1) strategically or (2) long-term. Instead we are focused on the past. We are focused on the 1990's. We have been so angered by Bush, and our hearts are so filled with venom towards Republicans we are rejecting sensible calls to reach out to independents and moderate Republicans. Republicans won by a big margin with Reagan because they formed a huge coalition of support. Economic conservatives and social conservatives all got behind one guy. He also won many independents and moderate Democrats who were called "Reagan Democrats." The Republicans know the power of such a coalition and ever since Reagan have been trying to keep it together with various degrees of success. In order for Democrats to win in November and ALSO, to accomplish many of our largest policy goals we need to think strategically and get behind the candidate who can form a large coalition.
I'm sitting here watching CNBC at 3:00am. Things are bad. Really bad. REALLY REALLY bad. When the DOW opens tomarrow morning, prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Its going to get ugly. The index futures are crashing. Yes, crashing. Everything is pointing towards a drastically lower opening tomorrow, and I hope you are all ready for it. This market is not rational. This is emotional panic selling. This is meltdown.
Check out this guy, he got stuck in US futures over the weekend and dropped 40k. Its ugly, ugly out there. The overall direction in the immediate turn is down. Its probably best to stay on the sidelines until this is over. But it may not be over for a long time.
A new AP story just came out that says that the Clinton campaign has sent out a mailer in NH that criticizes Obama on abortion rights. The mailer basically says that "seven times during his time in the Illinois state Senate, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills," while Clinton has been a defender of abortion rights. Its really sad to see Clinton go down this sorry route and try to undermine Obama's support among young women. As most people know, during the eight years Obama was a state legislator he received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. We need to reject these Clinton personal attacks and expose them for what they are -- the politics of old, the politics of Penn, and the politics that will not get you elected President. Boo to Clinton.
I'm amazed that so many Democrats today suffer from a "victim mentality." They are so scared of Republican tactics and so scared that our eventual general election candidate will be "swift boated" they are willing to abandon their principles. So instead of selecting a candidate based on their policies and stances on the important issues, instead of selecting a candidate who will bring real change, they coward and want to select a candidate like Hillary Clinton who is the best at triangulation and in carving out positions that mean nothing but which are not as easy to attack. I think that is wrong, I think that is playing defensive and I think that is a victim mentality we have to rid ourselves of in the Democratic party if we are ever going to End the War in Iraq and defeat terrorism. John Edwards is right, we have to take the Re-thug-licans on, head on. We can't be victims. If Fox News attacks us politically, we have to attack back and harder. We have to be strong and stand by our principles and ideas -- to hell with them and their smears. If democrats don't stand up to these people this election we'll never stand up to them. Enough with letting the Republicans pick our candidates. I'm sick of it. I'm with John Edwards, come hell or high water.
There is an interesting discussion going on over at MyDD about Hillary Clinton, the netroots and specifically DailyKos. One of the chief allegations being made is that DailyKos and other Netroots blogs are suffering from "group-think" and are "out of touch" with mainstream democratic thought--thus the reason why Hillary Clinton is leading widely in the polls while most Kossacks support John Edwards, Barrack Obama or others for President.
According to many like blogger RJEvans, it should be OK for Democrats to stake out positions strong on national defense and terrorism, as that is what the "general public" wants to hear. RJEvans points out in the thread:
The problem is our Party has moved so far left and strongly against the war in Iraq that talking tough on National Security or Terrorism gives off the perception that we are hawks. Well, it's okay to be a hawk, as long we are responsibles hawks. Our military needs to be ready for the 'new war,' whatever the hell that may be, and we need to be prepared to answer and lead on the issue of terrorism, should there be a terrorist attack and Republicans threaten to take the upperhand on the issue. It's okay to be strong on defense.
I know that I really shouldn't expect anything better from the Corporate Media but their obsession with attacking John Edwards is really getting out of control. And its not just Fox News. We expect Fox News and the Murdoch owned companies to smear John Edwards but now the smears are coming from everywhere. I turned on CNN's situation room, and they were smearing John Edwards. I turn to MSNBC and Tucker is smearing Edwards. I turn to Fox, they are smearing Edwards. Its to the point now where I'm so frustrated I just want to throw my TV controller at the screen. I know I shouldn't let them get to me but I'm so angry about what these people have done to political discourse in our nation. Have they no shame?
"... .. We can’t be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war." - Hillary Clinton
I think everyone is missing the real problem with Clinton's statement before the VFW convention on Monday. Her biggest "gaffe" was saying that we have to prepare to fight the new war. Not new diplomatic tactics, not we should be preparing to withdraw from Iraq immediately. Instead, we get... we should be preparing TO FIGHT the NEW WAR. What problem does Clinton think she can solve with a new war? Join me after the fold to discuss.
Yesterday Hillary Clinton spoke to hundreds of members of the VFW, which is holding its annual convention in Kansas City. She mentioned that "new military tactics" in Iraq were working, but said that the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home." I assume the "new tactics" she is talking about include Bush's troop surge? So does Clinton now agree that the surge is working or am I misreading things? What other tactics is she talking about?
Clinton said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province.
"It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said. "We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war."
There are two specific reasons why John Edwards has come out strongly against taking money from Political Action Committees (PACs) and registered federal lobbyists. One reason he has refused lobbyist money is to distinguish himself from Sen. Hillary Clinton who continues to take money from PACs and federal lobbyists. Edwards has argued repeatedly that "real change" can only be achieved by a Democratic candidate on issues such as Health Care reform and Poverty by electing a candidate who is not beholden to corporate interests. While this reason for refusing to accept lobbyist money has been repeatedly discussed, there is another reason why John Edwards may be coming out so strongly against lobbyist influence, and that has to do with something outside his political parties control -- the potential rise of Fred Thompson.
At this point in the Presidential campaign, polls are basically worthless from a perspective of actually determining a candidates standing in Iowa among likely caucus-goers. However, they can be useful in keeping morale up among supporters and are often used as a fund-raising tool. This is because giving money to a candidate is sort of like making an investment, and most people will only give money to a candidate who they think has a legitimate chance to win; and they will only think their candidate has a legitimate chance to win if they are doing well in the polls. In some ways, it can be a which came first, the "chicken or egg" problem. You can't do well in the polls without name-id and media coverage, and you can't get name-id and media attention without money, but you can't do well raising money if your not doing well in the polls. Frustrating eh? Lets take a look at why polls don't matter in Iowa right now...
At YearlyKos, Hillary Clinton defended taking money from lobbyists because "you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." According to this recently posted Newsweek article many of these lobbyists who represent "real Americans" have now been identified:
An upcoming study by the watchdog group Public Citizen finds that at least 16 of her campaign's "Hill-raisers"—elite fund-raisers or "bundlers" who have pledged to bring in at least $100,000—are registered D.C. lobbyists who represent corporate interests that include financial, airline, defense and pharmaceutical firms. Among the players: Matthew Bernstein (whose client list includes Raytheon and Merrill Lynch), James Blanchard (Bristol-Myers and an Indian gaming tribe), Steve Ricchetti (Eli Lilly and General Motors), Richard Sullivan (Delta and Freddie Mac) and John Merrigan (Starwood Hotels). Figures compiled by another group, the Center for Responsive Politics, find Clinton has raised $668,250 from registered lobbyists and "government relations" officers—far more than any of the other presidential candidates, including the GOP contenders (who openly seek lobbyists' cash).
WASHINGTON (AP) - Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.
Why do Democrats want to replace the politics of fear with the politics of DLC/Clinton-style triangulation? It's time to reject Republican-lite triangulation and embrace strong progressive leadership.
On Wikipedia Triangulation is defined as "the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being 'above' and 'between' the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it not only takes good ideas away from your opponent, but that it insulates you from attacks on that particular issue."
The Clinton's are the masters of triangulation. Using triangulation, Hillary can both authorize the war in Iraq, yet never have to admit that such authorization was a mistake. Using triangulation, she can be for universal health care, and also be the second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health care industry. There is no doubt that walking such a tight rope requires a tremendous amount of political skill. But the question remains, will this "political skill" lead to big change for America?
At the AFL-CIO debate in Chicago yesterday, Hillary Clinton once again stated that the Iraq war was "George Bush’s war." I reject this notion and I cannot in good conscious support Hillary Clinton until she apologizes for her vote that gave President Bush the authorization to start a unilateral war with Iraq at his discretion. Deciding when, where and who to go to war with isn't the President’s job under the Constitution. Congress "declares war" and Presidents fight them. But Hillary Clinton dodged that responsibility when she and Congress delegated that decision to the President. It was certainly foolish to delegate their war powers to the President. But to give these powers to George W. Bush of all people was clearly a bonehead mistake. But what is so scary about Hillary Clinton isn’t the fact that she voted to authorize the President to go to war at his discretion. What frightens me about Hillary Clinton, is that after all these years, she still doesn’t realize she made a mistake in doing so! Hillary Clinton, I want an apology. If you want an apology as well, ask for one in the comments.
There is no doubt that Robert Kennedy’s last campaign was a special one. As Jules Witcover examined in great detail in his famous book about the campaign, "85 Days," Bobby Kennedy struck an emotional chord in both voters and political leaders and shook the foundations of the Democratic Party. This is not 1967, but 2007--and Senator John Edwards will be first to tell you that he is not Bobby Kennedy. However, there are similarities between 2007 and the tumultuous period of 1967-1968, and there are also similarities between the campaigns of JRE and RFK. In both the 1960’s and today, there was a controversial war waging in a foreign land that was costing American blood. Robert Kennedy initially supported the war in Vietnam as a Senator and was considered by many to be a foreign policy "hawk." But with age and experience came greater wisdom, and in 1968, Robert Kennedy felt so strongly against the war in Vietnam he ran against a sitting President of his own party on a platform of social and economic justice, and on ending the war in Vietnam.
Aug. 6, 2007 Edwards in Iowa attended Senator Edwards policy speech on Trade in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. After the speech during a press conference, a reporter asked Senator Edwards what he thought of Congress' action over the weekend to amend FISA. Here is the video of his response:
Reporter: Senator what was your reaction to the wiretaping law that was just signed?
Edwards: I think it was a bad idea, I think giving George Bush and Alberto Gonzales any discretion in this area is an enormous mistake--I was against it.
Reporter: What would you like to see instead?
Edwards:I think the President of the United States needs to follow the law, there was already a law, that required to go through certain procedures to do these types of things and he's been ignoring it.
