The Sincerest Form of Flattery

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 481

Imagine my surprise when a Google alert hit my in box this morning containing a blog post by "iPol" all about candidate of the week - wait for it - Ron Paul.

Odd. Had I been blogging for looney GOP pseudo-candidates in my sleep? Had I been taken over, ala Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by some bio-propagating variant of the Ron Paul botnet worm?

No. Rather, it seems someone in France, of all places, has decided to launch a blog about the 2008 presidential campaign and accrete it to the name iPol, calling it iPol in America.

It is an ancient saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But just the same, I would rather my friends in France had staked out their own web territory instead of infringing on mine.

So, just to make it clear: there is no affiliation between my site and this French impostor. And, in the hope of fostering an entente cordiale with the French site, I'll go the extra mile and unilaterally pledge to forgo covering French politics, and ask only that they reciprocate on American politics.

De toute façon, mes affaires font mal au cul! Ne joue pas avec moi.

(pardon my French)

Maybe You Should Drive

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 482

So, let's say you're a blogger. And let's say a presidential campaign calls you up one day because they've been reading your stuff, and they note that you've run some posts that, if not exactly endorsements of their candidate, more or less concur with them on some point of policy - like Iraq, for instance. And then let's say they ask you if you'd be interested in appearing in a campaign ad for their guy to talk about it.

Would you do it?

Of course you would. Like, duh. Adding our voices to the din and exerting influence in the political process is why most of us took the leap into the vast echo chamber of the blogosphere in the first place. To be individually recognized, even lauded, by one of the very campaigns you've been covering, on top of that is just gravy, no matter how many, or few, hits your site gets. No way you could pass it up.

Throw in a healthy slap at the mainstream media by way of introduction, and you've got an ad that practically writes itself.

That's pretty much he story behind Bill Richardson's new commercial, now playing on YouTube, and, in 30-second form, on televisions in New Hampshire. Featuring bloggers Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers from Open Left.com and Christina Siun O'Connell from Firedoglake.com, Richardson's ad touts his plan for withdrawing all US forces from Iraq and attacks - and that really is the only word that fits - every other Democratic candidate for not taking the same position.

So, okay. There are no easy answers on Iraq, and reasonable people will disagree on what should be done. Try asking two Army generals what they think should be done on Iraq and see what happens.

There’s something admirable about Richardson’s consistency in sticking by his “all troops out now” stance, especially since polling indicates that the percentage of the public who support that approach is roughly equal with the minority at the other extreme who think we should throw ever more troops into the war until we “win.” Those numbers haven’t moved much so far this year, indicating that Richardson’s proposals aren’t really having much impact in framing the Iraq debate. So continuing to hammer away at it regardless either indicates political ineptitude on Richardson's part or demonstrates the courage of his convictions (I'm convinced it is the latter).

But what strikes me most forcibly about Richardson’s ad is not what it says about Richardson’s position on troop redeployment, but its reflection on the electorate at large and its perceived view of the netroots and its role in setting the terms of political discussion this cycle: a mystical beast in an ethereal electronic lair, breathing digital fire upon its enemies and bestowing incalculable binary influence in the form of “buzz” to those who win its favor. The overriding message of the ad is that Richardson's got the internet mojo.

Don’t misunderstand me: in the early going, I believe that we do, in fact, have a material impact on shaping issues that will matter in the election campaign. The question is, in the frenetic campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, what does “early going” really mean?

I would argue that when it comes to promoting issues and setting the terms of discussion in this campaign, we are not now seeing the blazing noon of the period in which we in the netroots exert our disproportionate influence, but rather, are approaching its twilight. Not that we’ve stopped speaking out, and certainly not to say that we in any way should, but we’ve been weighing in on the issues in this campaign, and Iraq in particular, for a long time now. And, as evidenced by Richardson’s ad, among other things, the campaigns certainly have heard us, loud, if not always clear.

But having heard from the netroots, campaign have pretty much “priced in” our voices and formulated their strategies to court or deflect them, and are starting to move on. Does this mean that we’ve entered a static period in which candidates’ attitudes vis-à-vis the political blogosphere will remain more or less the same, come what may? No. The netroots will continue to exert influence, continue to call candidates to account where we think they fall short, and continue to work hard to drum up support for whichever candidate we individually decide merits our favor. And that will continue to register on candidates and their campaigns. But will we see a decline in how far our reach extends in shaping the political discussion and driving candidates to respond to us throughout the rest of the primary season? Yes. There are other fish in the electoral sea: PACs, “traditional” interest groups like the NAACP, AMA and ABA, advocacy groups, and, let’s not forget, labor unions. Each of these will only grow in importance as the campaign evolves, and, like it or not, will increasingly dilute the influence of the netroots the closer to a conclusion this campaign comes. It’s not that these groups are the enemies of the netroots; rather, and by nature, we do different things. Where we mobilize opinion, they mobilize the donors who finance campaigns and armies of volunteers who knock on doors, man phone banks, lick envelopes, and do the thousand other things that must be done to reach the constituency wielding the ultimate say in the election’s outcome: the voters themselves.

“The ad demonstrates how important the netroots community is to the political dialogue,” Richardson’s National Press Secretary Tom Reynolds told the New York Times today. “Obviously our campaign recognizes their power in communicating a message.” True enough. But in politics, as in so much of life, timing is everything, and Richardson’s ad, far from cresting the netroots wave, catches it just as its moment of decisive advantage in this campaign is beginning to decline.

"This is Much Bigger Than One Ad"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 486

Last night, I got a couple of emails from Moveon.org. The first, with the subject line "How are we doing?," began with, "MoveOn is a member-driven organization, and we rely on your feedback to guide everything we do," and included a link to an on line survey largely focused on the ad pictured at the left of this column.

The second email from Moveon.org was titled, "BREAKING: Senate ignores war, goes after MoveOn," and included a link allowing recipients to add their name to a statement responding to the Senate vote. The email also noted, "Maybe you liked our General Petraeus ad. Maybe you thought the language went too far. But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad."

I didn't add my name to the statement, largely because I can't really buy the idea that Moveon was just minding its own business when the United States Senate arbitrarily and viciously attacked them. But I do agree with the sentiment that the debate around Moveon this past couple of weeks is, indeed, much bigger than one ad, and so I did respond to the survey.

The survey asked a number of questions about the "General Betray Us" ad, and concluded by asking "What should we do next?" In response, I answered with the following, and reproduce it here in the spirit of the first email's statement that Moveon values member feedback:

Focus on issues, not invective. Rhetorical excess, name calling and defamation is what Rove Republicans do, NOT US! Any validity in the substance of your ad was buried by the adverse, and entirely predictable, reaction to the "Betray Us" line. Did you ever think that this is just the sort of thing the White House was praying for: a political enemy to attack for its own failure in Iraq?

Did you learn nothing from the 2004 Swift Boat campaign?

But MUCH WORSE than all of that is the fact that you looked like amateurs in the conduct of this entire affair. This is why good and fair-minded people think we don't support the troops and why they get nervous when they think about Democrats and national security. You are setting us back years.

What should you do? Stop attacking people, and start addressing the policies that are leading this country to such misfortune. The facts are there, and are sufficiently compelling at face value and in their own right to do the job of changing public opinion without resorting to the sort of childish, inept and self-defeating tactics of the "General Betray Us" fiasco.

The real test Moveon faces now is not a public relations battle, but the question of whether it will be able to rise above the temptation to return venom for venom and instead work to raise the level of civic debate in our country. If it does, then the current flap over the Betray Us ad will fade, and, albeit it in the most unexpected of ways, the ad ultimately will be proven to have been the turning point that Moveon undoubtedly hoped it would be all along. If not, then Moveon will simply become one more beast in the baying pack of animals from both extremes whose only instinct is for blood.

I'm a Moveon member, and I'll be watching for the ongoing answer to the question of "How are we doing?"

We Owe Them

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 487

Here's an email from Ted Kennedy and the Committee for a Democratic Majority about a worthwhile initiative to expand the number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the United States. The text speaks for itself, and I hope you'll click through to sign the petition and show your support. As the title of the email says, we owe them.

American soldiers aren't the only ones in danger in Iraq.

Thousands of brave Iraqi men and women work alongside our military, State Department, contractors and non-governmental organizations in Iraq, meeting a critical need for Arabic translators and supporting our effort in Iraq.

Now insurgents are hunting down these cooperative Iraqis and killing them and their families for working with "the enemy."

Regardless of where we stand on the war, the US has an obligation to help the Iraqis who have supported our troops -- and whose lives are in peril as a result.

The Bush Administration has failed this obligation and left these brave friends behind -- and that's unacceptable. That's why I'm sponsoring bipartisan legislation to make it easier for Iraqis associated with the US to seek refugee status and escape the consequences of their collaboration.

Show your support for the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/refugees

This issue isn't as well known as it should be, so make sure you spread the word. Here are some compelling numbers:

The State Department pledged to process 25,000 Iraqi refugee applications this year. Then they reduced that number 7,000 -- and later to 2,000.

With only a few days left in the fiscal year, fewer than 1,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States. One Iraqi translator told 60 Minutes:

"I lost everything. I lost my country, I cannot stay there anymore, and I lost all my friends. I can't see them, I lost my family, and I feel like a prisoner."

There has to be a better way. While the United States cannot resettle every Iraqi refugee, we can't ignore the mortal danger facing these brave Iraqis working with our country.

The legislation I've introduced streamlines the process for Iraqis who have worked with us to receive refugee status. It also makes 5,000 special immigrant visas available to those who have worked with our government for a year.

Too many Iraqis have already died for helping our troops. Tell President Bush to protect the people who are protecting us:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/refugees

The United States doesn't have many friends in Iraq these days, and we aren't helping the situation.

As Retired General Paul Eaton said:

"Anybody who threw their lot in with the Americans deserves an opportunity for a future. And the loyalty has got to be in both directions. If we do not take care of these people, then the signal to anybody else in the future is a bad signal. And if you throw your lot with the United States, they'll use you for a while and then they will - they'll just cut you off," he argues.

Asked if he thinks it's a matter of honor, Eaton says, "I believe this is a matter of morality."

Many of us disagree with President Bush's failed war, but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on these Iraqi men and women. Americans have paid a terrible price for this war -- but we must not forget the Iraqis who are paying a terrible price as well.

Sincerely,
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

So many things in Iraq defy our ability and desire to do good. This is something we can do, and therefore have the moral imperative to do. Please help by signing the petition.

Odds & Ends

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 489

Just a couple of paper bullets from the brain while I'm thinking of them.

1: You Know You're the Front Runner When...

As everybody knows by now, Hillary Clinton put out the final piece of her health care plan here in Des Moines yesterday. No sooner had the words, 'health care' left Senator Clinton's mouth than the reactions from the rest of the Democratic field began to pile up in my in box:

Chris Dodd had this to say:

"While she talks about the political scars she bears, the personal scars borne by the American people are far greater. The mismanagement of the effort in 1993 and 1994 has set back our ability to move toward universal health care immeasurably.

"We've known what the problems have been for nearly 15 years, and what the solutions could be. What's been missing is leadership that knows how to bring people together and get the job done.

"To ensure all Americans have affordable health care will take more than leadership that simply knows how to fight - it will take leadership that knows how to bring people together and win."

Here is part of John Edwards' lengthy statement:

"I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal - and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered.

"But unless Senator Clinton's willing to acknowledge the truth about our broken government and the cost of health care reform, I'm afraid flattery will get us nowhere.

"The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'"

Barack Obama chimed in with:

"I commend Senator Clinton for her health care proposal. It's similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign. But the real key to passing any health care reform is the ability to bring people together in an open, transparent process that builds a broad consensus for change. That's how I was able to pass health care reform in Illinois that covered an additional 150,000 children and their parents, and that's how we'll prevent the drug and insurance industry from defeating our reform efforts like they did in 1994."

Bill Richardson's statement was in a similar vein:

"Health care affects the people of this country more directly than any other issue in this campaign, and I am pleased that Senator Clinton finally has joined the debate," Governor Richardson said. "I also am proud to see that she supports most of the initiatives I have outlined in my comprehensive proposal."

You've gotta love being Hillary Clinton - in statements regarding the same speech, she's snarkily "welcomed" to the health care debate, praised by her opponants for mirroring their own proposals, and castigated by them for her record on the issue.

And that's how you know you're the front runner.


2: Habeas Corpus

Of more urgent note this week, the Senate is due to vote on a measure to restore Habeas Corpus tomorrow. Habeas Corpus is the simple, basic right for anyone accused of a crime to appear before an impartial court and demand their accusers produce compelling evidence to back up the charges made against them. It is a cornerstone of liberty, and was severely weakened just before last November's elections with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

A bill to restore the right of habeas corpus by repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act is now pending in the Senate. Predictably, Republican senators opposed to this bill are threatening a filibuster to prevent what they are otherwise fond of referring to as a "straight up or down vote" that would likely see the bill pass.

In the decisive final hours before the scheduled vote in the Senate, Chris Dodd is spearheading a drive for public pressure on senators who either oppose the bill or have not yet stated their support. If you care at all about civil liberties, or America's moral standing in the world, or upholding human rights in places like Guantanamo, or just want to take back part of your birthright as an American, you should take a moment right now to click over to the Restore Habeas Corpus site and find out how you can help.

A relentless devotion to the Constitution, as evidenced once again by this latest initiative, is the principal thing that makes Chris Dodd worth listening to in a field crowded with better-known candidates. He's got my wholehearted support on this bill.


3: Apparently, There Are Twenty "Top" Iowa Caucus Counties. Do You Live in One of Them?

And finally, tonight, more from Chris Dodd, though, unlike the preceding item, not one for the highlight reel. The Dodd campaign issued a news release this afternoon trumpeting "the announcement of County Chairs for the state’s top twenty Democratic caucus counties."

And which Iowa counties made the cut of the top twenty? Glad you asked! In the order listed by he Dodd campaign, they are: Polk, Linn, Scott, Johnson, Blackhawk, Dubuque, Story, Woodbury, Pottawattamie, Clinton, Cerro Gordo, Des Moines, Dallas, Warren, Lee, Muscatine, Marshall, Webster, Wapello and Marion.

So, if you're in one of the 79 Iowa counties not listed, you'll just have to try harder. Also, no mention in the release of whether counties further down the list of twenty would be able to move up in the rankings. But if supporters in, say, Marshall were to bundle together a few tidy contributions for the campaign, I dare say the sky's the limit.

This could open an entire second front in the Leapfrog Wars.

Harkin Steak Fry, Part I

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 490

First item of note: UNBELIEVABLE TRAFFIC! And, no, sadly, I don't mean visits to my little amoeba of a blog. I mean the astounding spectacle of literally thousands of cars clogging the streets of - wait for it - Indianola, Iowa. In the whole time I've lived in this state, I believe this was the first time I have heard car horns blare in anger. Or at least annoyance.

The total number of tickets sold, as they say at the ballpark, seems to have been around 12,000, which is record attendance in the 30-year history of the Harkin steak fry. I couldn't help but compare that all-time high to the the unmitigated flop that was the GOP Straw Poll last month. In addition to this meaning, of course, that Democrats are fired up about their choices, and chances, this election, it also meant that I was egregiously late to the event. I completely missed the remarks from the Iowa Democratic congressional delegation, and even from Senator Harkin himself. :-(

But I did get there in time for the steaks. :-)

By the time I got near the podium, the introductions were over and Barack Obama was on stage. The one thing I heard him say that was new was his statement that he would not vote for any Senate bill to fund the war in Iraq that did not include a binding timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Here's video of the first part of Obama's speech:


The highlight of the second part of the speech was a little call-and-response act between Obama and his cheering section. It played great on television, and leveraged the large number of supporters that the Obama campaign bussed into the event. I thought Obama's speech was really - you'll pardon the expression - a barn burner. Style by the busload:


Next installment: Bill Richardson's speech.

"Yeah, It's That Important"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 491

Just a quick note to say I was at the 30th Annual Tom Harkin Steak Fry today. What can I say, but that the folks in Indianola really know how to grill up a steak.

I'll be putting up posts about the goings on over the next day or two; not play-by-play stuff (check out Iowa Independent for Chase and John's coverage), but more like color commentary.

So, was there red meat from the podium? Did the air go out of anyone's balloon today? Did the candidates serve it up bloody or well done? And did anyone figure out what drew all those flies to the press file shed? Check back tomorrow for the answers to those questions and more!

Thoughts on the Clark Endorsement

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 492

As I posted earlier today, retired Army general Wes Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The official campaign announcement can be found here.

The timing of this announcement couldn't have been better managed by Clinton's campaign. Coming as it does after a full week of focus on Iraq in Congress, at the White House, and in the media, the endorsement of a military officer of Clark's stature - he was the former NATO Allied Supreme Commander and commanded the Kosovo war - rides the crest of public attention on both the military and political aspects of U.S. policy. Clark's endorsement sends the message that people who can be relied upon to know what they're talking about view Hillary Clinton as a credible potential Commander in Chief. I can think of only two other retired generals to match Clark's public standing, namely Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, and I think it's safe to say that neither of them will be coming out with an endorsement of a Democratic candidate for president, so Hillary has probably locked up the high profile military endorsement market with this announcement.

That said, it is never clear what actual electoral muscle these sorts of endorsements deliver. It's not as if legions of Wes Clark clones will suddenly materialize at phone banks and neighborhood canvasses here in Iowa or anywhere else, and Clinton hardly needs help raising money. And Clark's endorsement of John Kerry last time around didn't exactly put Kerry's election in the bag.

But this is a newsworthy development, all the same. As a woman running for president, Hillary Clinton battles a still-pervasive cultural subtext that Commander in Chief is a man's job, and having Wes Clark stand up and say he thinks that Hillary is not only capable, but the most capable candidate to fulfill that role certainly helps her. There's also a nice bit of symmetry to Clark's endorsement, given that Hillary Clinton was a co-chair of Wesley Clark's own presidential campaign in 2004.

Maybe the best thing that can be said about endorsements like today's from Clark is that one would certainly rather have them than not. Just ask any of the other Democratic candidates if they would have liked to have Wes Clark's endorsement, and see what they say.

BREAKING: Wesley Clark Endorses Hillary Clinton

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 493

Former general Wesley Clark has endorsed New York Senator Hillary Clinton for president.

Speaking to reporters via a conference call, Clark said, "I'm very pleased today to announce my endorsement for Hilary Clinton for President of the United States. I think she'll be a great Commander in Chief  for our men and women in uniform."

General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Commander who oversaw military operations during the Kosovo war, was himself briefly a presidential candidate in the 2004 campaign, before dropping out and eventually endorsing John Kerry.

I'll be back later this afternoon with some thoughts about this development.

Notes From the Underground

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 501

Here are a couple of things that have come in over the transom this week that caught my eye.

He's Not President, But He Used to Play One on TV

The Ploughshares Fund, a California nonprofit 501(c)(3) foundation that issues grants to peace groups and advocates, was kind enough to send us a press release titled, "Martin Sheen Launches Peace Primary." Sheen, as anyone with a television and a pulse must know, spent seven years playing fictional president Josiah Bartlet on The West Wing, and has lent his name and services as honorary chairman of this initiative. The idea, in a nutshell, is that people will go to a website and chose who from among a slate of twelve organizations will be the winner of a $100,000 grant to "help promote its agenda for peace and human security over the next year."

What makes this interesting is that it costs a dollar to cast a vote, with the money going directly to the organization for which you vote. So, it's not just a self-selecting poll, but also a nifty fund-raising idea. In the end, the votes are tabulated, and the winner gets the hundred grand, plus pride of place in a "peace plank" that Sheen will personally deliver to the defense and foreign policy advisors of each of presidential candidate.

But what really caught my eye in all of this was the following excerpt from the press release: “You don’t have to live in Iowa or New Hampshire to make a difference this election year,” explained Naila Bolus, executive director of the Ploughshares Fund. “The Peace Primary allows voters to take matters into their own hands by designing a common peace platform and by immediately putting that platform to work in the real world."

With all the primary leapfrogging this campaign season, sparked by envy of Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the kind that I don't mind seeing. Voting is open from now through October 31. Click over to peaceprimary.org for more info, and to cast your vote.

That Ship Has Sailed

If there were a show of hands today, Al Gore would be the next Democratic nominee for president. Or so thinks a group calling itself "Citizens for a Great Presidential Candidate," which is working on putting together a Draft Gore rally and concert in Des Moines on October 21.

Guys: it's over. Gore won't run. If he runs, he won't win. Ergo, he won't run. Democrats like their choices for the nomination this time around, and Gore's entry into the race would excite little more than bemusement.

On the other hand, the planned concert is said to feature The Blue Band
[definite] and Home-Grown Tomatoes [highly probable]), so there will be head banging to go along with the head scratching. In line with the rally's theme, I'd suggest the concert organizers try to book Blue Merle, who could provide both rock and commentary with a performance of "Made to Run" or, perhaps more apropos, "Every Ship Must Sail Away."

And Finally

No survey of the campaign underground would be complete, of course, without peering through the telescope at Planet Kucinich. This past weekend, Dennis and Elizabeth were touring Syria and Lebanon, while, as an email from their campaign put it, "the other leading candidates for the Presidency were spending the Labor Day weekend campaigning." Perhaps this would be a good time for someone on Dennis' staff to explain that campaigning is what candidates do? Then again, as Theodoric of York would say..."Nah."