A Free Ride for Edwards on Iraq?

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 628

John Edwards today put up an ad in the D.C. market (and on YouTube) to urge Congress (and the four senators in it who are competing with him for the nomination) to stand up against the administration and vote to override President Bush's veto. All the other candidates have probably been thinking along the same lines about this, but today Chris Dodd came right out and said it:

"As Senator Dodd was the first candidate to support the Reid-Feingold measure, we agree that Democrats in the Senate should stand up to a President who stubbornly refuses to change his failed policy in Iraq," said [Dodd spokesperson] Christy Setzer. "We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight."

Setzer added: "If we can't get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards ' support for Senator Dodd's plan, which would safely re-deploy our troops and bring an end to this war within one year rather than the incremental eighteen-month approach he has proposed."

In other words, Dodd is calling Edwards out for throwing stones at him (and Clinton, Obama and Biden into the bargain) from the sidelines while not putting any skin in the fight himself. All well and good, Dodd is evidently saying, to vote to authorize the war and then cop a mea culpa for it after leaving office (and any electoral responsibility for the consequences), but what are you actually in a position to do about the war, not after you're elected president, but right now?

Does Chris Dodd have a point? Maybe so. John Edwards knew before releasing this ad what everyone else knows, too: that with but few exceptions, Democrats in Congress would vote to override the veto. That was never in question, and to put up an ad that suggests otherwise was disingenuous and unfair.

But there is a larger point, and episodes like this one cause me to wonder whether Dodd, or Edwards, or anyone else in the field sees it: regardless of past actions on the war and the numerous apologies meant to assuage responsibility for them, the fight now is about curbing President Bush's ability to do further harm to the interests of the United States and the entire world. Sniping over the airwaves won't get this done. Every Democratic candidate for President should - and does - vigorously oppose this war and seeks to bring it to an end. There are different ideas about how best to do that, but that discussion must not be allowed to distract from the challenge at hand: rising above the political temptations of the moment in order to deliver a responsible way out of the historic tragedy of our Iraq misadventure. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

Candidate Reactions to Bush's Veto

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 628

Skipped around the web today to find out what the Democratic candidates for President are saying in the aftermath of President Bush's veto yesterday of the Iraq funding bill. Here's what I found, in alphabetical order.

Biden:

"At a time when the country needs real leadership the most, President Bush continues to practice the politics of division.
There was room to work with the Democrats and Congress to give our troops the money they need and the American people the plan they expect to end the war in Iraq.
But the President slammed the door shut on cooperation and compromise.
The fact is - Democrats sent the President every dollar he requested for our troops and then some. And we sent him a plan to bring this war to a responsible end, instead of continuing it with no end in sight. That's what the American people want.
The President's veto demonstrates that he is totally out of touch with the needs of our troops, the hopes of our people and the interests of our country.
The President has repeatedly turned his back on our military. He took us to war unnecessarily without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq. He took us to war without enough troops, without the right equipment for the troops we sent, or the proper care for those who came home wounded.
Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home.
Nothing is more outrageous than the President's claim that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops or emboldening the enemy.
That's the one mission his failed policy has accomplished."

Clinton:

"With his veto today, President Bush has made it clear that he is standing in the way of ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The nation is ready for the President to stop disregarding the will of the American people and to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin redeploying our troops. He has a chance to do just that when he meets with the Democratic leadership tomorrow.
It has been four years since the President declared an end to major combat operations. It is my hope that the President will approach this next round of talks in good faith.
I am also disappointed that with his veto, the President has taken us back a step in meeting the homeland security needs of our high-threat cities like New York City and vetoed $35 million in additional funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
In addition, with his veto, the President has shirked his responsibility to address the growing health needs affecting those exposed to the toxic air around Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11 and vetoed $50 million in funding for 9/11 health, which would not only have helped provide treatment to those affected in the New York metro area, but also to responders from all over the country who are suffering from 9/11 health effects. This funding would have helped meet immediate health needs and allow 9/11 health programs to continue operating. Despite the President's actions today, I will continue to fight, along with my colleagues in the New York delegation, to secure the federal commitment and funding required to meet 9/11 health needs in the long-term.
The President has also chosen to veto critical legislation that would have ended the practice of giving Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contractors bonuses for incomplete or sub-par work, thereby saving taxpayers millions of dollars."

Dodd: Nothing that I could find. Not on his campaign website. Not on his Senate website.

*crickets chirping*

Edwards:

"Today, President Bush vetoed a bill that supports our troops and ends the war in Iraq that he declared won four years ago.
"Four years ago he flew onto the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln under a 'Mission Accomplished' banner to declare victory in Iraq. Today, all the photo ops in the world can't hide the truth - the war is still raging, and the president's mismanagement of Iraq is still dead wrong. Our troops have done everything they were asked and deserve a hero's welcome. Instead, they remain in harm's way; Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists; and we're no closer to a permanent political solution than we were four years ago.
But one thing has changed: The American people have given Congress a mission to end the war - but that mission hasn't been accomplished yet.
Congress needs to stand firm and strong. Congress should answer the president's veto by sending him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. And if he vetoes that one, Congress should send him another and another until we end this war and bring our troops home.
There is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq - only a political solution. The Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own country. Under my plan, we would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. Now is not the time for political calculation, it is the time for political courage. Every person who is against this war needs to speak out, so together we can bring an end to the quagmire that is Iraq."

Obama:

"With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has stubbornly ignored the will of the American people, the majority of Congress and, most disturbingly, the realities on the ground in Iraq. Now we call upon our Republican colleagues in Congress to help override this veto and acknowledge what the President will not – that there is no military solution to a political conflict that lies at the heart of this civil war. Only the Iraqi leadership can make peace, and the best way to pressure them to do so is still a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat troops from Iraq by March 30th, 2008. It is time to end this war so we can bring our troops home and redeploy our forces to help fight the broader struggle against terrorism and other threats of this new century."

Richardson:

"The President is defying the will of the American people so it is time for Congress to take action that cannot be vetoed," said Governor Bill Richardson. "It is clear to all but the President that no military solution remains in Iraq. Mr. President, stubbornness is not foreign policy. The death of more than 100 U.S. soldiers there last month underscores the need to withdraw our brave men and women now. To continue with more of the same is not a strategy, it is a tragedy. The only solution is strong diplomacy and real political progress led by the Iraqis. Our troops have performed bravely, with honor and sacrifice, but it is time to get them out of the crossfire of a civil war. We need to redeploy all of our forces out of Iraq leaving no residual forces. Al Qaeda and other anti-American forces benefit from our continued presence in Iraq- it enables them to portray the US as imperialist occupiers- we need to deprive them of that propaganda. The truth is our enemies want us mired and bleeding in Iraq rather than fighting the real war against the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11."

There's also good read about this in today's Washington Post.

Des Moines Anti-War Rally May 2, 5:00 PM

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 629

From the inbox today, this note from MoveOn:

"Congress is about to send an important bill to the White House—it would require the president to start bringing our troops home from Iraq this year. President Bush has said repeatedly he's going to veto it. It's outrageous. Most Americans support a timeline and he's standing in the way.

This will be a pivotal moment on Iraq—it's not clear what Congress or the president will do after the veto. We need to make clear that President Bush is really vetoing the will of the American people. And we need to tell Congress to hold firm.

There are already more than 200 rallies planned and it's really important to turn out in big numbers to get our message across. There is one right near you in Des Moines. Can you make it tomorrow?

Here are the details:

Outside the Downtown Library

Wednesday, May 2 2007, 5:00 PM

RSVP: http://pol.moveon.org/event/vetorally/37033?id=10263-8047930-XP6od7&t=4

If this event doesn't work for you, click below to search for another rally near you:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/vetorally/?search_zip=50311&id=10263-8047930-XP6od7&t=5

Four years ago today, President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Now there is a plan on the table that will finally start bringing our troops home—but the president is going to veto it. By doing so, he's vetoing the will of the people.

Congress has two options on how to respond—they can either cave to the president's pressure or stand strong and demand accountability from him on Iraq. Members of Congress are going to be gauging public reaction in the next few days to decide which path they'll follow.

There's also a fun twist to these rallies: We'll be using noisemakers to demonstrate that President Bush and Congress cannot ignore us any longer—our voices must be heard.

As Senator Feingold recently wrote:

By carrying out his veto threat, the President will mark yet another sad day in the history of this war. But that veto should be seen as a rallying cry for the vast majority of Americans who believe that the time has come to again stand up, and stand together, with one voice, and demand a policy that makes sense—one that puts our country and our national security first. A policy that makes America safer, not weaker.

Now is the time to take a strong stand against the president's reckless policy in Iraq. Together, we'll show the media and Congress that we won't stand for another blank check for the president on the war. Can you join us?

Click below to search for a rally near you.

http://pol.moveon.org/event/vetorally/?search_zip=50311&id=10263-8047930-XP6od7&t=6"

So click on the links to RSVP, or find an event near you. Stand up, make your voice heard, send a message.

Debate Poll Results

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 630

Following last week’s debate in South Carolina, I put up a poll to explore whether the event succeeded in changing viewer opinions about whom to support for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. The short answer is: No.

By an overwhelming ratio of more than seven to one, poll respondents said the debate didn’t change their minds about which candidate to support. Out of 171 responses to the question, “Did the South Carolina Debate Change Your Mind?,” there were 150 “no’s” and only 21 “yes’s,” or about 87.72% No, 12.28% Yes. Further, respondents who said they were uncommitted coming into the debate were outnumbered by respondents who said they already supported one candidate over the others by 77 to 94 (45% to 55%, a 10 point margin of committed over uncommitted), suggesting that changing minds would be an uphill battle in any case.

The results suggest that the top three candidates held their ground, while the others didn't gain much traction.

This poll, of course, isn’t scientific, and, like everything else at this point in the cycle, the results probably come far too early to be conclusive about the direction things might take in the run-up to next year’s electoral contests. Nonetheless, these results do provide an interesting snapshot of where respondents are at the moment, and how effective debates are likely to be in swaying opinions.

Detailed Results

For the “No” side, the numbers break down as follows:

• Out of 150 responses –
  
• 66 (44%) said they were uncommitted before the debate, and remained so afterwards.
• 84 (56%) said they were already committed to a particular candidate before the debate, and remained so afterwards.

For the “Yes” side, the numbers break down as follows:

• Out of 21 responses –
  
• 11 (52.38%) were uncommitted, and ended up picking a candidate based on the debate.
• 8 (38.10%) actually switched their support from one candidate to another based on the debate.
• 2 (9.52%) were committed to a particular candidate, but ended up uncommitted afterwards.
  

Full results are available here.

Internet Radio Update

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 631

Last week, I put up a post on a recent copyright payment ruling that, if let stand, will kill internet radio. Last Thursday, Rep. Jay Inslee (D- WA) and eight co-sponsors introduced a bill that would reverse the ruling in question and establish a much more equitable copyright payment structure for webcasters.

So, here's what to do now:
1. Learn More
2. Contact your Congressional representatives and urge them to support the bill
3. Tell a friend - email this post, or any of the embedded links, to as many interested people as you can think of.

Again, the ruling that kills internet radio goes into effect on May 15, so a rapid response is essential!

Debate Poll

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 634

Rather than give my commentary on last night's debate or, worse still, provide a blow-by-blow of a televised event that everyone who would even consider coming to this site has already seen (twice, probably), here's a poll. And, rather than make it a poll where one person gets to say 300 times that their candidate could do no wrong on the night, I've made this a poll aimed at finding out whether last night's debate actually changed anyone's mind about the candidates.

So, here goes!

Did the South Carolina Debate Change Your Mind?

Did the South Carolina Debate Change Your Mind?

No - I was undecided before, and still am Yes - I was undecided before, but now support one of the candidates No - I supported a particular candidate before, and still support that candidate Yes - I've switched allegience from one candidate to another Yes - I supported a candidate before the debate, and am now undecided

View Result

Free Web Polls

H.R. 1591

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 635

Following the House vote on Wednesday, the Senate today passed and sent to the President the final Iraq spending bill. Since the bill contains legally binding provisions for a responsible end to the war, President Bush has vowed he will veto it.

That veto will be a turning point in the political struggle over our country’s Iraq policy. With no dictator left to depose, no weapons of mass destruction ever discovered, no link between Saddam and al Qaeda ever credibly established, and not a shred of legitimacy left to the administration’s original premises for starting the Iraq war, the administration and their Republican supporters in congress have stuck their head in the sand, repeating the word “progress” – none of them speaks about victory anymore – as though the word itself will rescue them from the consequences of their own policy failures. They have simply run out of options, out of ideas, and out of time. It is obvious that President Bush’s supporters now see, with the clarity peculiar to the blind, no other recourse for themselves but to follow their leader off a cliff, and are trying to drag the next president – and the country - over the brink with them. Americans will have none of it.

When President Bush issues his veto, it will mark the crossing of the final threshold of public patience with his administration and his war. Congressional Republicans may succeed in thwarting an override of Bush’s veto, this time. But all that does is put the issue right back in play without having moved the debate once inch in the administration’s direction. And with each passing week of public anger over the war, what support the president has left for his policies from congressional Republicans will steadily ebb away, finally disappearing altogether by Labor Day. When the veto occurs, mark it on your calendars as the day George W. Bush became a lame duck in office.

Radio Silence

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 637

Internet radio is one of the coolest things about the information age. Any day, any time, I can launch iTunes or surf to Live365 or Pandora, and hear an astounding variety of music, news and commentary beamed from all around the world right to my computer. What's on top of playlists in Holland? Got it covered. Singapore? Ditto.

Unfortunately, internet radio is under immanent threat of extinction (and no, this isn't the old hoax about the internet tax, blah, blah, blah). Last month, the Copyright Royalty Board, a three-member commission of the Library of Congress responsible for administration of statutory copyright licenses, issued a ruling that effectively increases royalty payments owed by internet radio operators by 300 to 1200 percent, depending on a station's audience size. The ruling is scheduled to go into effect May 15, 2007, when it will then be applied retroactively back to January 1, 2006.

Make no mistake, this is a measure that will kill internet radio. Moreover, it is designed to do so: satellite radio operators pay only one quarter of the rate imposed on internet radio, and - surprise! - broadcast radio doesn't pay it at all. The International Webcasting Association fought this measure, and lost. They then appealed for a rehearing, and lost. The only recourse left is direct action by listeners to internet radio for legislative intervention by Congress.

So, here's what to do:
1. Learn more
2. Contact your representatives in Congress
3. Tell a friend - email this post, or any of the embedded links, to as many interested people as you can think of.

This stuff only takes a minute, and time is of the essence; again, this measure takes effect on May 15. A few minutes now can save internet radio into the future. Please act to save internet radio while there's still time.

Joe Biden's Speech at the Polk County Democrats Spring Dinner

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 638

Joe Biden was the last candidate to address the crowd, and took the stage to robust applause. Every election cycle, he said, America puts up a job description for president. The job description changes from cycle to cycle, but this time, according to Biden, the job description is: restore America’s place in the world, restore the middle class, and put an end to the politics of polarization. In today’s America, Biden said, there is not a single problem that lends itself to a solution supported by 51% of the people and opposed by the other 49%. In order to prevail in the general election, Biden said, the Democratic nominee will need to not just win the same tier of 20 or so “blue” states won by Al Gore and John Kerry in the last two cycles, but also be competitive in at least 9 or 10 traditionally “red’ states as well.

Establishing his thesis for the night, Biden said, “I’m not running for the exercise.”

Biden characterized the current political climate as the politics of false choices. Iraq, he said, cannot be passed on to the next president, or abandoned by the United States, without any idea about what comes next. The next president, Biden said, “needs to be smarter than his advisors,” when it comes to solving problems, and the key question to answer on Iraq is “then what?” Withdraw the troops: then what? How will the civil war be extinguished? How will we conduct our diplomacy so as to involve Iraq’s neighbors in a constructive way? Biden declared that his Iraq plan was the best answer to these questions, and went on to describe it in detail. While Biden’s explanation of his plan was lengthy and very specific, it seemed to me that he had much of the crowd hanging on his every word, a rapt silence that said the audience was decidedly in the mood to hear the details, not just the principles, of his proposals. It was a surprising moment, and a very impressive one.

Biden then turned to Darfur, and declared that when a nation engages in genocide, it forfeits its right to sovereignty. Biden then stated that U.S. troops should be dispatched to Sudan, where, he maintained, 2,500 American soldiers would quickly put an end to the genocide in Darfur. This was a bold proposal that I hadn’t heard before, and I’m at a loss as to why the mainstream media didn’t pick up on this. Biden then took a slap at John Edwards’ remarks of a few minutes earlier for decrying the genocide in Darfur and the lack of U.S. response to it, but failing to propose a solution.

Biden then turned from foreign affairs to domestic policy, specifically education. Funding seems to be the root of the problems in education for Biden, and he summed up by stating, “Show me you budget, I’ll show you what you value.”

Arriving at his summation, Joe Biden challenged his fellow candidates, and Democrats generally, to stop being tentative, stop beating around the bush. The American people, Biden went on, want leadership and are not afraid of the challenges confronting the country. The American people have never let this country down, Biden exclaimed, and “I am sick of Democrats being cowards.” Biden appealed to the audience for support as a candidate “who you know where they stand” on issues. In the best line delivered by any speaker on the night, Joe Biden concluded by saying, “It ain’t complicated, folks. It just takes courage. Join me to make hope and history rhyme.” The press was all over him as he left the rostrum, and he worked the hall for another 15 minutes after the speech.

This was not the Joe Biden you read about in the mainstream media, the long-winded, academic, bloodless Joe Biden. That characterization may have been true in the past, but tonight I saw a different candidate, different even from when I met him last month, one who, indeed, is not running just for the exercise. Judging from his speech at this gathering, Joe Biden has stopped playing safe in his campaign, stopped parsing his words, and has started speaking from the heart. It was an extraordinary thing to witness, and if continued, may just be the approach that shakes up his prospects and gets him out of single digits.

John Edwards' Speech at the Polk County Democrats Spring Dinner

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 638

Following Bill Richardson's address came John Edwards. WOW - what a reception he received from the crowd when he entered the hall. And again upon ascending the rostrum and telling the audience “Elizabeth sends her love.” There’s no doubt about it: John Edwards is a beloved figure to a lot of Democrats in Iowa, and that’s something the other campaigns cannot take lightly.

Edwards began his remarks by discussing what he thinks will be the most important qualities in the next president at a time of “historic challenges”: honesty, integrity, being “a good, decent human being” who can reestablish trust between the United States and the rest of the world and between the American people and their President, someone with “clear ideas,” who can “take positions,” who can tell people “what will you do as president,” and who understands that for America in the world as it now is, there is no difference between foreign and domestic policy. Edwards said that the next president must spend his/her first few months in office traveling the world to talk about, as he put it, “the idea of America”: equality, diversity, a force for good. Moreover, Edwards continued, the next president must demonstrate through action that the United States is committed not just to our own interests, but also those of all humanity, by, among other things, “solving Darfur” and addressing AIDS in Africa. “We’re better than this,” Edwards declared. “We need to show the world who we are,” by taking the $500 billion in the current Iraq appropriation bill and using it to fund primary education around the world. “We’re not an example for good,” Edwards said, “we’re an example for bad. You gotta have vision, gotta have strength. Are we going to use high rhetoric about ‘hope’ and ‘affordable health care’, or are we gonna do something about it?” Edwards managed to smack both Obama and Clinton in the same sentence, there - nice rhetorical accomplishment.

Edwards also warned against turning inward and disengaging from the rest of the world after we leave Iraq, saying that the world needs America as a stabilizing force. Reciting the litany of challenges confronting the country into the future, Edwards said, “’There’s nothing we can do’ is the Great Lie in America.”

John Edwards concluded with a prose hymn to organized labor and the question to the audience, “What are you going to do for this country?” emphasizing that the solutions to our problems lie not so much with the next president as with the country as a whole.

At times, Edwards’ address seemed more homily than speech, brimming with conviction and a sense of mission. Indeed, for long stretches in Edwards’ remarks, the crowd was silent, as if in church. Where some other candidates make their claims on experience and leadership, Edwards seems to stress personal qualities - honesty, integrity, etc. That strikes me as trickier ground to walk, since it requires supporters to take quite a bit on faith, and the consequences to the campaign can be severe should the candidate’s halo slip. Like Barack Obama, John Edwards may be more vulnerable to character attacks than more experienced, if lesser known, candidates, and needs to guard against that. This is one of the things that, in my view, keeps John Edwards’ actual prospects for becoming president just this side of longshot territory, regardless of how he does in Iowa.