Dodd on Foreign Policy

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 648

I attended Chris Dodd's foreign policy speech at the Des Moines Club last night. As with last month's foreign policy town hall with Joe Biden, this was sponsored by the US Center for Citizen Diplomacy, and was once again an excellent event. Small but engaged crowd, wine and cheese, views from the 34th floor, a speaker who is running for President - what's not to like? So any poligeeks out there looking for the ideal first date with that cute analyst from legislative affairs you've had your eye on, these events are your dream come true. But you knew that.

I must say that this event had quite a bit more amperage than the one with Biden last month - probably 10 news outlets were there last night, in addition to Congressman Leonard Boswell (D - IA03), State Senator Matt McCoy (D - 31st District) and Robert Pratt (U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Iowa). And - wonder of wonders - it started pretty much on time.

Dodd took to the podium and spoke a bit about what he characterized as Iowa's long-standing tradition of involvement in foreign affairs, citing, among other things, Henry Wallace's car trip to Mexico as FDR's emissary just before Wallace was sworn in as Vice-President (which story Dodd attributed to "American Dreamer: The Life and Times of Henry A. Wallace," by John C. Culver and John Hyde), as well as the 2,000 retired Peace Corps volunteers now living in Iowa. Dodd himself served in the Peace Corp for two years in the 1960's, working in the Dominican Republic, because, he said, "an American President asked me to," and cited this as an example of the willingness of the American people to respond to leadership that encourages, rather than dismisses,engagement with the rest of the world.

Speaking of the Peace Corps and other civilian programs to engage Americans with the rest of the world, Dodd delivered some of his best lines of the night, saying that he believed that "You can't hate America if you know America," and "American power comes not from the example of our force, but from the force of our example." Home runs, both.

Addressing the Big Question for all presidential candidates, Dodd said he is running because he wants an America that is more secure and more prosperous than it is today. He said that 2008 is an historically important election, one in which the country is less secure and less prosperous than it should be, and confronted with challenges on Iran, Iraq, the global AIDS crises that, he said "is devastating entire continents," economic disparity and ecological dangers.

Turning to Iraq, Dodd launched into a criticism of John McCain and his support of military escalation. Dodd noted that the Baghdad market McCain toured on his recent visit to Iraq (a tour, Dodd noted, made possible only by a contingent of 100 Army soldiers, 2 Blackhawk helicopters and 3 Apache gunships) was on the very next day the scene of a sectarian kidnap/ambush that resulted in the deaths of 21 Shia civilians. Dodd said that this incident illustrated that there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq and that it also "makes clear the point many of us have made for some time. We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq - we need a surge of diplomacy." Dodd followed this up with by calling on all the candidates in the race to support the Feingold-Reid bill, which sets a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31 of next year.

Then, in a clear shot at Barack Obama, Dodd said, "Let me be clear - hope alone will not wipe away the damage to America's moral authority these last six years. Hope alone will not restore America's leadership. Like never before, we need a president who is ready to lead from day one. There will not be a single day, a single moment for on the job training - not one."

As an aside: like John Edwards last week, this broadside from Dodd is another clue that the Democratic field, from top to bottom, perceives Obama as vulnerable on experience and specifics, and is going after him on those points. From what I've seen so far, Obama has been slow to respond to this trend, and this could hurt him unless he addresses it soon.

Dodd went on to say that he would immediately redeploy American forces out of urban areas in Iraq, shifting them to the boarders, or to bases in Kuwait or Qatar, and to assignments in an increasingly unstable Afghanistan. The new mission in Iraq would be to train Iraqi forces, go after terrorist bases, and police Iraqi boarders to intercept arms and insurgents.

Dodd then added that America has challenges not only with its enemies, but also with some of its friends, notably Saudi Arabia and Russia, who, according to Dodd, "continue to suppress freedom and democracy and permit conditions that allow our enemies to thrive." He criticised Saudi Arabia for simply shipping dissenters to other countries, thereby passively exporting terror to the rest of the world, rather than confronting it at its source within the Kingdom itself. Speaking of Russia, Dodd said, "What America needs is a president who will look into Vladimir Putin's eyes not to get a sense of his soul, but to tell him America wants to work together with Russia, not against her, but cannot in the face of his blatant disregard for a free press and suppression of political dissent."

Dodd connected problematic allies with dependence on foreign oil, saying "it is time we help countries end their alliances of necessity with dictators simply because they are desperate for oil and aid." Dodd added that he would undertake technology initiatives to create renewable energy, and would then share that technology with our friends. This, Dodd, concluded, would make "the oil bribes offered by Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez irrelevant," and would "open new doors in [America's] relationship with nations from Latin America to Africa to Asia."

I talked with Senator Dodd for a few minutes following the post-speech press availability. During the conversation, I noted that pretty much all the candidates agree that there's no military solution Iraq, and everyone agrees that the entire war has been spectacularly mismanaged; addressing all of these things will be high on the next president's agenda. But beyond agreement on what's gone wrong in the past, I said, there's the reality that Iraq is not the last military action America will be required to suit up for. I asked the Senator what would be the "Dodd Doctrine" on when and how to deploy American military force if he were to become president. Dodd responded that he would seek much closer engagement with our allies and would not entire a sustained military engagement without a congressional resolution of support. I asked if that meant a declaration of war; Dodd, said no, not a declaration of war, but a congressional resolution of support. A disappointingly generic answer, I thought.

In his speech and the ensuing audience Q&A, Chris Dodd said some important things last night. But equally important, I think, are the things he did not say: nothing about increasing foreign aid, only passing mention of increasing America's role in addressing global climate change, nothing about North Korea, and little about the rise of China as a military and economic power in the 21st Century.

Notwithstanding, my overall impression on the night was positive. Chris Dodd looked presidential, spoke with passion and conviction about American leadership, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the complexities and interconnectedness of the challenges awaiting the next president. No sales closed last night, but I think his stock went up a few points.

Here are links to some of the mainstream media coverage of last night's speech:
Des Moines Register
New York Newsday
Hartford Courant

NOTE: According to an announcement following Dodd's address, Iowa Public Radio taped last night's speech, and will broadcast it Sunday, April 22 at 8:00 P.M.

On My Way to See Chris Dodd

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 649

Just on my way upstairs to hear Chris Dodd give what his campaign is billing as "a major foreign policy address" to the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy. The topic is either "Beyond Iraq and Into An Era of Bold Engagement" (according to the Dodd website), or “The Future Role of the U.S. in World Affairs” (according to the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy website).

Full account to follow, either way.

Hillary Takes a Swing at Imus

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 649

From the in box:

"This year the Rutgers women's basketball team defied the odds and lived up to their dreams, providing inspiration to every little boy and girl beginning to pick up a ball or open a book. These remarkable young women reached the pinnacle of success and won the hearts of basketball fans everywhere with their grace, skill, and poise. They are role models deserving our praise -- and our support.

Don Imus's comments about them were nothing more than small-minded bigotry and coarse sexism. They showed a disregard for basic decency and were disrespectful and degrading to African Americans and women everywhere.

Please join me in sending the young women of Rutgers a message of respect and support. Show them that we are proud to stand with them and for them.

Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton"

I think Don Imus deserves every bit of thrashing he gets in response to his remarks. But beyond that, this is clearly a move by the Clinton campaign to beat Barack Obama to the punch in responding to a slur against a) African Americans and b) women. Throw in c) sports, and you've got everybody on board.

Kucinich Coming to Des Moines

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 650

Dennis Kucinich has booked a trip to Des Moines for this Thursday, April 12. His plans include a noontime visit to a well-known eatery downtown.

In the interest of covering the field, I'll be there. You owe me.

Survey Says...

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 652

From the inbox today, a note from my friends at Gallup:

"Thank you for recently taking part in a Gallup Panel survey. The information you provided will be used to improve commerce and government in this country.

Because you were willing to share your thoughts and opinions with us, we thought you might enjoy reading about some recent findings from Gallup Panel surveys.

--As candidates for the 2008 presidential election continue to emerge, Gallup asked panelists an open-ended question about what quality they deem most important in the next president. One-third of panelists say that honesty or the ability to be straightforward is the most important quality for the next president to possess (emphasis added). This response far outpaced the percentages for any other responses given."

As Letterman would say, I don't really have a joke here. I'm just putting this out there for those not currently in the position to directly shape public opinion. ;->

Why They Come to Iowa

Days Unit Bush Leaves Office = 653


Iowa is tiny, in terms of both geography and population, it is less diverse than the country as a whole, it is far less urban than the country as a whole, and generally is so dull and unimportant that one of the top priorities of the governor and legislature this term is to figure out how to keep native Iowan sons and daughters from fleeing the state before the ink is even dry on their diplomas.

Which leads to the entirely fair and reasonable question asked around the country about why it is that such a tiny place, along with equally small and nationally non-representative New Hampshire, should hold such outsized clout in the presidential nominating process. Why would candidates and the national press even brother with places like these when culturally, financially, demographically and in almost every other respect, the coasts dominate the terms of discussion in this country?

From today's New York Times, recounting an encounter at an Obama event earlier this week at the V.F.W. Hall in Dakota City, here's your answer:

"Mr. Obama was approached by a woman, her eyes wet. She spoke into his ear and began to weep, collapsing into his embrace. They stood like that for a full minute, Mr. Obama looking ashen, before she pulled away. She began crying again, Mr. Obama pulled her in for another embrace.

The woman left declining to give her name or recount their conversation. Mr. Obama said she told him what had happened to her 20-year-old son, who was serving in Iraq.

“Her son died,” he said. He paused. “What can you say? This happens to me every single place I go.”

The next day, at the rally here, Mr. Obama described the encounter for the crowd. The woman, he said, had asked if her son’s death was the result of a mistake by the government. “And I told her the service of our young men and women — the duty they show this country — that’s never a mistake,” he said.

He paused carefully as he reflected on that encounter. “It reminds you why you get into politics,” he said. “It reminds you that this isn’t a game.”"

That's why.

Biden's Iraq Policy SmackDown Site

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 655

From the inbox this week, an email from the Biden campaign that reads in part:

"As many of you know, this week we also launched our new web domain, HeadToHead08.com. Using publicly available video from You Tube, we created a web site to compare the candidate's views on Iraq.

Of course, one video cannot capture the depth of the experience or knowledge any candidate brings to the table. But, it is our hope that Head to Head '08 will help begin a dialogue on the issues among the candidates, particularly the most important issue of our time, ending the war in Iraq. "

This is a clever and gutsy move by Biden's campaign: to go beyond putting out their own plan to launching a site that directly constrasts his proposals with that of the other candidates. Of course, the video on the site, while sourced from YouTube, is nonetheless handpicked by Biden's campaign, so this isn't anything like an unbiased exercise in policy comparison. The intent, clearly, is to show Biden and his proposals in the best possible light while showing the other candidates in the worst. Still, the video is genuine and the statements by the candidates are their actual words, so the potential for outright misrepresentation is limited.

But this is a good example of how campaigns (vis-a-vis all of those sneaky bloggers out there) are beginning to get a handle on using the internet not just to drive the money race, but to change the terms and format of the policy debate this cycle. Look for the other campaigns to serve up their variations on this move. And if you know of similar sites run by other campaigns, post a comment with the URLs so we can all have a look.

John Edwards' Des Moines Town Hall

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 656

When a top-tier presidential candidate holds an event in the gym at the high school four blocks from your house, you are all but required to attend: I'm pretty sure that's Iowa state law. So it was that I stopped by John Edwards' town hall last night in Des Moines.

This was the Iowa campaign event from central casting: high school gym, about 1,000 people in attendance after work on a week night, "vote for me" signs hanging amidst the giant American flag and the "State Champions" banners from yesteryear, even an announcement over the school public address system summoning someone to the vice principal's office (during the warm-up speaker's introductory remarks, no less!).

Following the introductions, the Edwards family arrived: John and Elizabeth, with their two youngest children, Jack, age 6, and Emma Claire, age 8. They received a truly affectionate welcome from the crowd, far different from the frenzy I've seen greet Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; the crowd seemed to genuinely like the Edwards', and, after the recent announcements about Elizabeth Edwards' health, exuded something like tenderness toward them. It was touching and moving to witness.

After quieting the applause, John stood with the children while Elizabeth introduced him. She spoke passionately about why she felt John Edwards should be president, and kicked things off to a great start. No candidate could have asked for a more effective introduction.

John Edwards then spoke for about 30 minutes, covering his signature themes: the "two Americas," health care, opposition to the war, energy, poverty, education, the economy, the environment. He sang his usual aria of praise for labor unions. And repeatedly throughout this remarks, John Edwards uttered the word "plans" like a mantra, emphasizing that he has plans, discussing the details of his plans, extolling the virtues of his plans. The target of all this was clearly Barack Obama, with the imputation that, political celebrity though he is, Obama is still something of a policy lightweight. I take this to be a hint at Edwards' campaign strategy, which is that he dearly wants to run against Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and not Obama. We'll see how that one plays out over time.

After the prepared remarks, Edwards fielded ten or so questions from the crowd, on topics ranging from health care to stem cell research to supreme court nominations. Here, as in his prepared remarks, Edwards was nearly flawless: smooth, poised, personable.

Ordinarily, I would not characterize John Edwards as rhetorically gifted - I have not once listened to a formal speech of his and come away impressed. But in town hall settings is where John Edwards finds his gift for communication. He does extremely well in this type of event, and the number of town halls he has held in Iowa over the past few months goes a long way in explaining his presence at the front of the field here.

My expectations for this event were, admittedly, pretty low: going back to the 2004 campaign, I've never been a particular fan of John Edwards. So it's not all that surprizing that he exceeded my expectations in this event. His remarks and answers were detailed, he seemed to know his stuff, he related easily and comfortably with the crowd. What he lacked, however, was passion. Not that John Edwards seemed flat or apathetic at any time; to the contrary, he seemed enthusiastic throughout the event. But his enthusiasm, it appeared to me, derived from the opportunity to meet with and address a crowd of supporters and potential supporters; it was the enthusiasm of a skilled and avid campaigner for office. What John Edwards did not show was passion for the ideas, values and policies he espoused to the crowd; passion you couldn't hide, even if you wanted to; passion on the order of "As President, I will go door to door if I have to, but I will get [policy, proposal, law, whatever] done. And I will do that, even if it means I won't be popular. I will do it even if it means I don't get reelected." Not just enthusiasm for a package of neat ideas, but passion. I've seen it in every other candidate I've met this cycle: Biden, Clinton, Obama. Heck, at this event I even saw it in Elizabeth Edwards. But not John Edwards. Why is that?

Granted, the whole "fire in the belly" thing is a tired cliche and endlessly overblown, but why does John Edwards seem to lack heart and soul passion about the themes of his campaign, where other candidates not only have it, but have it so strongly they are able to impart it to a stadium full of people? It isn't for want of charisma, or campaign experience, that's certain. So why is it? The answer to that question over the next time or two I see John Edwards is going to be a big factor in whether I end up giving him serious consideration for my support. But, I suppose, even with that question hanging out there, the bottom line is this: John Edwards did well enough to merit a second look to try to answer the question. In politics, maybe that's half the battle.

Kucinich Renounces "Eyes and Ears"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = (still) 662 *fingers drumming*

I just checked my inbox, when what to my wondering eyes should appear but this:

A Special Message From Dennis Kucinich Regarding A Recent Campaign Communication

Dear Friends,

Our campaign has arrived at a teachable moment and an opportunity for growth. Yesterday, you received a message from our campaign entitled: "Eyes and Ears: We need your help!" relating to a project which advocated the monitoring of the campaigns of my fellow presidential candidates.

I believe such tactics are spiritually and politically counterproductive, therefore I am asking you to disregard the request. The focus of our campaign has been and must continue to be: What kind of a nation and world do we want to create? The intellectual or emotional focus on any campaign dissipates that creative energy.

The vital organ of this campaign is the heart. This campaign is about transforming politics, not mimicking stale political trends. The other candidates are all fine public servants and long-time friends. I ask that you join me in wishing every one of them well by expressing compassion for all candidates who strive to serve. "Monitoring" projects are inherently pretentious, divisive and mean-spirited and have no place in a campaign which desires to change the world for the better.

When we "track" other candidates, we come from a place of fear which shows that we are off the track of our own objectives. I reserve the right and accept sole responsibility to draw factual comparisons on policy matters. But such comparisons must come from a place of integrity. It is not the job of our campaign to keep other candidates honest. Each candidate must accept responsibility for his or her own integrity.

Let's use this moment to joyously and courageously recommit ourselves to the highest principles which animate our campaign, the imperative of human unity, and saving the planet from global warring and global warming. We have so much work to do. Let us not shift our focus for even one moment from our dedicated efforts to achieve the America and the world we desire.

I am so grateful for your support.

Sincerely,



Dennis J Kucinich

I wholeheartedly commend Dennis Kucinich for this statement. But beyond this being a teachable moment for his campaign, it is also an accountability moment. The next question to be asked is, will Dennis Kucinich identify who in his campaign originated the "Eyes and Ears" project, and who approved it, as well, and will he dismiss them from his campaign? Unless Dennis Kucinich follows through and does this, his disavowal will be proven to be nothing more than empty rhetoric and transparent political posturing after getting caught entangling himself in a public embarrassment.

Verified, Unfortunately

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 662

OK, I must confess that I had been a little nervous that the whole Kucinich Spy Ring story I ran yesterday stemmed from some sort of early April Fool's Day spoof. But, no: the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Kucinich's home town paper, picked up the story and has independently verified the email's authenticity.

I have read comments elsewhere making the point that all the Kucinich campaign is after here is just opposition research, performed at a netroots level, and so there's nothing out of the ordinary, and certainly nothing wrong, with trying to recruit people to help out with that. Fair enough, up to a point. But, honestly, has anyone making even the most cursory rounds of the political blogosphere and mainstream media seen evidence of the other candidates, from the rock stars on down, taking any notice of Dennis Kucinich at all? Does the Kucinich campaign really think it's stuck in Nowhereland due to the contrivance of the other candidates? And if Clinton, or Obama, or Edwards, or any of the other candidates in the Democratic field are up to anything unsavory or unflattering, does Dennis Kuchinich not realize the extent to which they, as *ahem* serious contenders for the White House, are already under nanoscrutiny from the GOP and right-wing media? Wouldn't Dennis Kucinich - and the rest of us - be better served if his campaign concentrated on getting its own message out, instead of worrying about what the other candidates are doing?

The whole thing so reeks of desperation and ineptitude that it is just sad. What an embarrassment to Dennis Kucinich...and honestly, does he need any more of those?