Last night, CNN aired an exclusive interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki. Most of the publicity generated by this interview has centered on Al-Maliki's get-tough pronouncements toward the Al-Sadr Mehdi Militia, with some mention also of his opposition to the State Department's renewal of Blackwater's contract.
While these are both important issues in themselves, another aspect of Al-Maliki's CNN interview has gone unnoticed and unreported in any headlines that I can find. Quite simply, Maliki directly asserted that he is perfectly fine with Barack Obama's call to quickly draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, flatly contradicting the doomsday scenarios put forth by McCain, Bush, and the Republicans.
I've transcribed the relevant segment of the interview on Page 2, below:
It is now virtually beyond the point where we can hope for a clear and non-controversial nomination for the Democratic candidate for President. It's almost mathematically impossible for either Obama or Clinton to win enough pledged delegates for a pure majority before Denver, and unless Obama truly wipes the floor with Hillary in Texas, Ohio, and/or Pennsylvania, the delegate counts will remain close, and below the magic number of 2025, all the way to the convention. We will see more and more stories like today's dust-up over campaigns trying to "steal" each other's delegates, increasingly intense fights over the superdelegates, and a nuclear war over the status of Michigan and Florida.
It's still only February: can you believe that?! In past campaign years, the primaries were barely getting off the ground in February! With the scenario in front of us, we are likely to face another 5+ months of increasingly bitter and vicious infighting, while McCain and the Repubs have all that time to kiss and make up, and train their guns on our side, with immense help from the Democratic candidates and their most vocal supporters.
What scenario remains, realistically, to minimize this damage and emerge from the convention with the strongest possible candidate?
(Please turn to Page 2)
How freaking hard is it to say, and believe, those words? Why is it necessary for so many so-called progressives on this blog to insult, demean, and ridicule those with whom they disagree, even fervently, over the direction of the Democratic Party, the choice of candidates, or tactics?
On a Yahoo Games chat board just now, the kind of random "conversation" that pops up all the time:
"Looks like the Repubs have chosen McCain"
"He's better than Obama, but worse than Clinton"
My first reaction = "Excuse me?" Is there really anyone in the political world, of any stripe, who would rank their Presidential preferences (1) Hillary Clinton, (2) John McCain, (3) Barack Obama?
But then I come back to the most basic axiom that we should never lose sight of throughout our discussions and theorizing on these matters: Most voters have absolutely no clue what is really going on in politics.
Jeez, from many of the recent diaries and comments here, you would think that a lot of people on this site just started following Presidential politics last October or something. When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, there was a flood of diaries actually suggesting that Hillary Clinton's campaign was hopelessly over, that she should just drop out, etc. And the conviction was that, if Obama had managed to squeak out a win in New Hampshire, it would definitely have been over for Hillary, despite her huge lead in national polls, her vast fund-raising machine, her support of the Democratic establishment, etc.
Now suddenly, less than a couple of weeks later, after a somewhat surprising Clinton victory in NH and her 5-point victory today in Nevada, the Clinton supporters are claiming that the race is over, and many anti-Clinton/pro-Obama commenters are virtually throwing in the towel!
What part of "long, drawn-out process" don't people understand?
You can take all of your scenarios and hypotheses and theories, all of your sophisticated political analysis and what-if calculations, all of your hopes and beliefs and crossed-fingers and toss them in the trash can. I am here to tell you the raw, unvarnished truth:
Neither Barack Obama nor John Edwards will be elected the next President of the United States.
You may not like this truth, you may wish to deny it or try to argue fervently against it, but in the end you will be forced to acknowledge the reality. There is one overriding, indisputable factor that simply guarantees that neither of these men stands a chance in the 2008 election, and that reason is this:
New York, August 8, 2007. A torrential downpour sent water surging through New York's subway system and highway tunnels and across airport runways Wednesday...The storm, which also spawned a rare tornado, hit just before dawn. By rush hour, the subway system was virtually paralyzed when pumping stations became overwhelmed.
My travels took me through Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport this week, on my way to and from Africa, arriving back this morning, Memorial Day. As it turned out, I encountered large contingents of U.S. Army soldiers on both legs.
Last week there was a unit getting ready to ship out, just down the terminal from my flight. They were heading to Frankfurt, undoubtedly the first stop on the way to Iraq. Everyone was dressed in grey-green fatigues, carrying duffle bags or backpacks. To look at their faces as they waited, like any other passengers, for the announcement to board and head off toward their destiny, I had the sense almost of school children, apprehensive on the first day of school. They didn’t look scared or unwilling, but they sure didn’t look enthusiastic. Several were talking on cell phones, others milling about or resting near the gate. Waiting.
Meanwhile, the airport public address system offered reminders every few minutes of the ironic pretext for the soldiers’ deployment, repeatedly announcing that "the Homeland Security Threat Level is at Orange", and my favorite Orwellian warning: "Report any suspicious persons to the nearest Law Enforcement Officer".
Usually I feel very connected with the general mindset and philosophy that underlies the progressive agenda emodied in the Daily Kos community. On a few other occasions, I get discouraged and feel alienated, for example when flame wars and troll battles erupt that bring out the ugly, intolerant side of many people here. But I still feel safe among ideological brethren the vast majority of the time, and certainly I feel the camaraderie of warriors engaged in a common struggle against a hideous enemy.
But every now and then -- and now is one of those nows -- I start to feel that I am, in fact not really aligned with a large part, maybe a substantial majority, of this community.
I feel this now in the context of the sudden back-and-forth debate over "globalization", its inevitability and its effects. Nearly all of the most passionate comments and rants that have been expressed in these latest diaries on the subject have employed the terms "we" and "us"; and each time I read them, I felt a little bit more that this particular "we" doesn't include "me".
My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for presidents to get good decisions," he said. "If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served
Here is Richard M. Nixon, August 15, 1973:
It is absolutely necessary, if the President is to be able to do his job as the country expects, that he be able to talk openly and candidly with his advisers about issues and individuals. This kind of frank discussion is only possible when those who take part in it know that what they say is in strictest confidence.
Turn the page for more from Nixon, and witness history attempting to repeat itself.
Just five months ago, I wrote a diary to commemorate the funeral of a local kid from my hometown, who had just been killed in Iraq.
I thought I was somehow beyond feeling "real" emotion, feeling on the verge of tears, welling up like a kid and wanting to cry. I had even almost gotten beyond anger, a much cheaper emotion; I thought I was just stuck with disgust, and a resigned sense of helplessness.
Then the war finally hit home, in my town.
Even though I didn't know U.S. Army Specialist Jared R. personally, it still somehow hurt, all that much more, because the ceremony and the salutes and the memorial and the tearful pictures in the local paper were all in my home, where I grew up, and where I still live, raising my own kids. All the abstract pain and anger driven by this evil, insane war became way too real that day.
Okay, no, it's not THAT David Brooks (of the NYT)! He probably thinks Darfur is too "polarizing" or something. THIS David Brooks is a musician, composer, and activist, who has produced a new song and video to raise awareness for the suffering Sudanese in Darfur, and the movement SaveDarfur.org.
Even though the first Primary of the 2008 Presidential Election is more than a year away, the buzz is already building for what will by any measure by one of the most important election years in American history. With all the diaries and discussions swirling around preferred candidates and scenarios, I thought I'd spend some time instead connecting the upcoming '08 contests to our political past. I'm somewhat of an amateur historian of presidential politics, and having followed the last 34+ years' worth of them very closely, I hope I can offer some interesting perspectives.
In this first Part, I want to introduce some of the historical background, and explain the very special nature of next year's election. To put it simply, next year's Presidential election is shaping up as an almost unprecedented and unique episode in the history of modern U.S. electoral politics.
Too bad they don't have "Democracy" in Iran. Then maybe the people of that country could actually vote according to their preferences, and perhaps repudiate the hard-line extremism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
TEHRAN, Iran - Opponents of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took an early lead in key races in
Iran's local elections, according to partial results announced Monday, with moderate conservatives winning control of councils across Iran. If the final results hold — especially in the bellwether capital, Tehran — it will be an embarrassment to Ahmadinejad
No big deal, no surprise, nothing particularly significant happened. It's just that, well, okay, it feels pretty damned good, and I'm pleased to have a forum of virtual friends to brag to.
My daughter, the apple of my eye, doesn't turn 18 until April, when she'll become eligible to vote for the first time. But tomorrow she's taking her driver's license test, a nervous moment to be sure. She just left the Registry of Motor Vehicles license application out for me to sign before she goes to the test. Looking through it, I recalled that MA "moter voter" law allows applicants to register to vote when they apply for a driver's license (a very good idea).
And sure enough, there under "party affiliation", she checked "Democrat". Add another one to the ranks, Howard.
U.S. Presidential politics, especially the nominating process, is as much spectator sport as a serious political exercise. We are in the habit of choosing favorites and rooting for them, and against others, sometimes with exceeding passion, in spite of the fact that we would almost all acknowledge, on this side of the aisle, that virtually any Democrat would be preferable to any Republican in the White House.
The problem is that while such favoritism and competitiveness may be "fun" in the same way that rooting for the Red Sox and hating the Yankees is fun, in the real world of political choices and consequences, the impact of too much internecine warfare over the choice of a nominee can be to undermine the viability of the candidate who ultimately prevails.
Which is not to say that we shouldn’t air out all of our concerns and expectations relative to every Democrat who throws his or her hat into the ring. What I do think, however, is that we should collectively, as Democratic activists, consider the criteria and ultimately the calculus by which we will judge prospective candidates, and thereby attempt to isolate the basis for our preferences and disagreements, grounding them in concrete, subjective factors that can be debated honestly and, one can hope, dispassionately.
In the wake of the elections, Democratic grass-roots are showering a lot of attention on what is perceived to be a "new type of Democrat", as personified by Senator-elect Jon Tester. An idea is taking shape, that the simple prairie populism and down-home values embodied by Tester can become the foundation for expanding Democratic electoral gains, and reworking the Party's public image. This is all for the good, but it is important to keep in mind that rural farmers can only make up one part of a truly popular coalition.
In other quarters, Barack Obama has captured much of the public's fancy. Although Obama has come in for some criticism around here for seeming to play into Republican talking points, he remains an intriguing and forceful representative of another vital Democratic constituency: urban minorities, and the working class. What is needed is a melding of these rather disparate groups, together with other traditional supporters, into a new, 21st century Democratic coalition. To me, the best analogy would be the Larry Bird-Magic Johnson model.
Most of us are expecting at least modest gains in the House and Senate, with a strong chance of Dems taking over at least one chamber, while crossing our fingers for a much larger wave. As we hunker down after long days of GOTV to start watching the election results tomorrow night, there will be some potential early signals as to how the evening will unfold.
It is characteristic of political waves that they tend to play out similarly across the country, regardless of state or district. Thus, if the early returns in the East show exceptional Democratic strength (or not), there's a good chance that the same will occur in the Midwest and West. For that reason, it will be especially interesting to watch several bellwether districts for any early trends.
