29 Days Later

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 452

The Bush administration today announced a broad package of sanctions against Iran. This development, coming as it does just 29 days after Senate passage of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, strikes me as a significant, and worrying, acceleration in the on-going confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program.

As of this writing, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama have issued statements responding to the imposition of sanctions. Of all of them, Chris Dodd's is of particular merit:

"I recognize the obvious threat a nuclear Iran poses to the region and beyond, and that we must stop Iran's continued support for international terrorism.

"Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran.

"I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.

"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."

Chris Dodd is absolutely right about this. Sanctions, and their effects, do not operate in a vacuum. Sanctions are used to reinforce diplomacy, or military preparations, and sometimes both at once. The sanctions against Iran announced today are being introduced in an atmosphere devoid of diplomatic initiatives, which strongly suggests they are intended in aid of preparation for military action. Worse still, since no other nations joined the United States in imposing sanctions today, that would mean unilateral military action.

Chris Dodd's statement shows that he knows how to keep his eye on the ball. While Dodd's references to Kyl-Lieberman are clearly aimed at Hillary Clinton, who has faced, and largely deserved, heavy criticism for her vote in favor of that resolution, he reserves his main points for the larger issue of the sanctions themselves and what they might indicate about future U.S. actions regarding Iran. John Edwards spent his statement in a direct frontal assault at Clinton for voting in favor of Kyl-Lieberman, making it seem as though he thinks these sanctions are little more than a nifty opportunity to score some political points against a rival. Barack Obama also issued a statement referring to Kyl-Lieberman, which, frankly, would carry a lot more weight but for the fact that Obama didn't even show up to vote on the resolution.

Chris Dodd is showing honest-to-goodness leadership on this issue. In doing so, he distinguishes himself as being one of the few candidates in this race who knows exactly where the line between politics and statesmanship is, and is wise and experienced enough not to cross it.

The Kyl-Lieberman resolution passed the Senate 29 days ago; 29 days from now, when the Bush administration's Iran policy may well take us who-knows-where, we may look back at what Chris Dodd said today and ask ourselves why more of us didn't listen.

Florida GOP Chair Lets Slip Plan for Bush Third Term

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 454

Whether he intended to or not, Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer yesterday issued a press statement which seemingly confirms what many people throughout the world have worried may be in the cards: a secret plan to keep George W. Bush in office for a third term.

In a statement responding to the RNC Executive Committee’s recommendation to strip the Florida GOP of half its delegates to next year’s national convention as a penalty for holding the state's primary earlier than party rules allow, Greer said, "While we disagree with the Republican National Committee's recommendation to sanction the state of Florida, at the end of the day this is a disagreement among friends and we recognize that we are all working towards a common goal: re-electing a Republican president in 2008."

Read those words again: "re-electing a Republican president in 2008." A slip of the tongue? Or an inadvertent confirmation of a secret plan for the ultimate circumvention of the Constitution?

OK, so it’s a slip of the tongue. From a GOP state chairman. In, er, Florida, no less. A slip of the tongue. Definitely. I mean, no one would be crazy enough think they could stay in office when the constitution expressly forbids it. Right? I mean, not even George W. Bush. Or…um…Dick Cheney. *starting to sweat* A slip of the tongue. Probably. That’s all. Yes, I’m pretty sure. Or a joke, maybe? *weak laughter*

Yeah, that must be it.


[Note to readers: no, I haven’t been launched on a mission to Planet Kucinich. The Greer press statement is real, and quoted verbatim. But the fuss made about it above is in jest.]

[Note to Kucinich’s people: if you run with this, I want royalties.]

Role Call of The Heartless

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 460

Here is a complete list of members of Congress who today voted to deny health care to millions of American children. Shame on every last one of you:

Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Rodney Alexander, Michele Bachmann, Spencer Bachus, Richard Baker, J. Gresham Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Barton, Judith Biggert, Brian Bilbray, Gus Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Jo Bonner, John Boozman, Charles Boustany, Kevin Brady, Paul Broun, Henry Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, John Campbell, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor, John Carter, Steve Chabot, Howard Coble, Tom Cole, Michael Conaway, Ander Crenshaw, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, Geoff Davis, David Davis, Nathan Deal, Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, John Doolittle, Thelma Drake, David Dreier, John 'Jimmy' Duncan, Terry Everett, Mary Fallin, Tom Feeney, Jeff Flake, Randy Forbes, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Elton Gallegly, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Virgil Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Ralph Hall, J. Dennis Hastert, Doc Hastings, Robin Hayes, Dean Heller, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Kenny Hulshof, Duncan Hunter, Bob Inglis, Darrell Issa, Tim Johnson, Sam Johnson, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Ric Keller, Steve King, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Joe Knollenberg, Randy Kuhl, Doug Lamborn, Jerry Lewis, Ron Lewis, John Linder, Frank Lucas, Daniel Lungren, Connie Mack, Donald Manzullo, Kenny Marchant, Kevin McCarthy, Michael McCaul, Thad McCotter, Jim McCrery, Patrick McHenry, Buck McKeon, John Mica, Jeff Miller, Gary Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Devin Nunes, Ron Paul, Stevan Pearce, Mike Pence, John Peterson, Chip Pickering, Joe Pitts, Ted Poe, Tom Price, Adam Putnam, George Radanovich, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Rogers, Hal Rogers, Mike Rogers, Dana Rohrabacher, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Peter Roskam, Edward Royce, Paul Ryan, Bill Sali, Jim Saxton, Jean Schmidt, Jim Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, John Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Adrian Smith, Lamar Smith, Mark Souder, Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Tom Tancredo, Lee Terry, Mac Thornberry, Todd Tiahrt, Timothy Walberg, Greg Walden, Zachary Wamp, Dave Weldon, Jerry Weller, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, Roger Wicker, Joe Wilson, Jim Marshall, Gene Taylor

Candidate Reactions to CHIP Override Vote

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 460

Joe Biden: “I am deeply disappointed first that the President chose to veto this crucial legislation and second, that the House failed to override his veto. Every single child in this country should have health insurance. Instead of making progress toward this goal, the President and Republicans in the House are turning their backs on 9 million children.”

“Despite this blow, I am committed to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle until our kids have the health coverage they need and deserve.”

Hillary Clinton: “It is deeply disappointing that a small minority of Republicans in Congress have put loyalty to this president ahead of healthcare for millions of children. But we will not give up until a bill becomes law. I will keep fighting to enact a bipartisan bill that provides affordable coverage to America’s children.”

Chris Dodd: “Today's vote in the House to uphold the President's shameful veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is yet another reminder of the consequences of disastrous priorities on the part of this White House. With the resources it takes to execute just over three months of the Iraq War, we could fully fund the expansion of health care for needy children that Bush vetoed."

John Edwards: "Today is another sad example of how broken Washington is. Instead of standing up for children and health care, House Republicans have decided to stand up for special interests and lobbyists. From this day forward, House Republicans are on notice. When I am the Democratic nominee, the days of Republican members who voted against children's health care will be numbered. We are taking names and, together, as one party, we will campaign against them."

"Sadly, there is strong message here for Democrats and Republicans. We should never have to consider selling out to lobbyists when it comes to the health of our kids. If universal health care is ever going to be more than a dream, we need to do more than change the president. We need to elect strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate with the backbone to stand up to the big insurance and drug companies that are going to do everything they can to block universal health care. We need a strong ticket from top to bottom that will compete and win everywhere in America.

"And, when I am the Democratic nominee, we will not only win the White House, we will make every Republican who stands against children's health care pay the price."

Barack Obama: "Four million American children were denied basic health coverage today because Washington politicians failed to stand up to this President’s disgraceful veto. At a time when we’re spending billions of dollars on a war that never should’ve been authorized and giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, Washington’s failure shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans.

When I am President, I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut costs more dramatically than any other plan offered by a candidate in this race. And I’ll do it by bringing Republicans and Democrats together, like I did when I expanded health care for an additional 150,000 children and their parents as an Illinois state Senator."

Bill Richardson: "By siding with the President on this failed override vote, 154 Republican members of Congress chose to protect President Bush's misguided view, rather than protect the health of 10 million children nationwide. This President needs to stop playing politics with the lives and health of 20,000 New Mexico children and start supporting this bipartisan legislation, which is the highest health care priority for Governors across the country."

UI & Brookings Institution Present Forum on Energy and National Security

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 461

Tonight, October 17, the University of Iowa is teaming up with the Brookings Institution to present a forum on energy and national security, with particular focus on the place of biofuels and other alternative energy sources in the policy debate leading into next year's presidential election.

I've had the opportunity to review some of the white papers that will be discussed at tonight's forum, and they present some of the very best thinking about these issues to be found anywhere. These papers, "Tackling Trade and Climate Change: Leadership on the Home Front of Foreign Policy," by William Antholis and Strobe Talbott, "Stemming Nuclear Proliferation: Prevent and Manage the Rise of New Nuclear Powers," by Stephen P. Cohen and Michael E. O'Hanlon, and "Ending Oil Dependence: Protecting National Security, the Environment and the Economy," by David Sandalow, address separate policy issues, but share a strong interconnection. A common theme in each of the papers is the need for the next president to restore America's international leadership by first forging domestic political consensus; that, in turn, will require a president with the will to confront complicated issues and the commitment to work through those issues with both parties in Congress, and all segments and regions of our economy and society. A tough challenge, certainly, and it highlights an important consideration for selecting whom among the candidates most deserves your support: which candidate best combines the vision, the commitment and political skill to restore America's international leadership by building domestic consensus on the key issues facing the country, and, indeed, the wider international community?

These are all vital issues, and anyone interested in soaking up some truly cutting-edge thinking about them should attend tonight's event. Details are below, courtesy of the University of Iowa Lecture Committee.

When: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Where: Iowa Memorial Union
University of Iowa
125 North Madison St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
What: Energy and National Security: The Role of Biofuels in America's Policy Debate
Contact: Sharon Benzoni, Chair, University Lecture Committee
sharon-benzoni@uiowa.edu
319.335.3255

This event is open to the public and registration is not required.

The Event: The forum will consist of two panels, the first of which will discuss energy security and alternative energy sources, specifically focusing on biofuels. The second will discuss the role that energy plays in America's foreign policy. Each panel will discuss questions from the moderator for about 45 minutes, followed by a 15 minute question and answer session with the audience.

We are working with student and activist groups, as well as some of the UI’s departments and institutes, to generate some of the questions that will be asked during the forum.

The Moderator: Dean Borg of IPTV

The Panelists:
David B. Sandalow, an Energy and Environment Scholar at Brookings, is an expert on energy policy and global warming. During the Clinton administration, Sandalow served as assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science and as a senior director on the staff of the National Security Council. Sandalow will be releasing a book entitled, "Freedom from Oil: How the Next President Can End the U.S. Oil Addiction."

William Antholis, managing director of Brookings. Antholis has worked on foreign security and economic policy at the National Security Council and the State Department, and was director of studies at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, senior fellow at Brookings. O'Hanlon specializes in Iraq, North Korea, homeland security, the use of military force and other defense issues. He advised members of Congress on military spending as a defense budget analyst. He is the director of Opportunity 08.

John Miranowski, professor of economics and director of Institute of Science and Society at Iowa State University (ISU). Miranowski has previously served as director of the Resources and Technology Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service and was executive coordinator of the Secretary of Agriculture's Policy Coordination Council.

Steven Fales, associate director of the Office of Biorenewables Programs and professor in the Department of Agronomy at ISU. Fales coordinates the College of Agriculture's Bioeconomy Initiative, which focuses on developing technologies for converting crops and plant materials into chemicals, fuels, fibers and energy.

Jerry Schnoor, co-director of the UI College of Engineering's Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research. Schnoor, who also serves as Allen S. Henry Chair in Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and research engineer at IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, has extensive environmental research experience. He recently chaired a U.S. biofuels production colloquium for the National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences.

Mani Subramanian, director of the UI Center for Biocatalysis and Bioprocessing (CBB) and professor in the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering. Prior to coming to the CBB, Subramanian was the global research and development director of biotechnology, bioprocessing and bioinformatics at the Dow Chemical Company.

Tonya Peeples, associate professor of chemical and biochemical engineering at the UI. Peeples' work focuses on research in the field of organisms that thrive in extreme environments. She is a member of the CBB and is director of the Ethnic Inclusion Effort for Iowa Engineering.

For more about the Brookings Institution's Opportunity '08 forums, please visit www.opportunity08.org.

How Many More Victories Can John Edwards Survive?

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 462

I sat in on a conference call hosted by the John Edwards campaign yesterday. The purpose of the call was to trumpet Edwards' winning the endorsement of the Iowa chapter of the SEIU, comprised of about 2,000 members statewide. Among the participants were national campaign manager and former congressman David Bonior, communications director Chris Kofinis, Iowa state director Jennifer O'Malley-Dillon, and other senior staff.

After detailed expository remarks about the importance of gaining the endorsement of the SEIU's Iowa chapter, and hinting at additional endorsements to follow later in the day (indeed, nine more SEIU state chapters followed the Iowa chapter's lead in endorsing Edwards before the day was out), the Edwards staff threw the call open to Q&A. The most pointed question, asked in slightly different forms by several members of the media, was how much effect the Iowa endorsement had in assuaging the campaign's disappointment at not winning the endorsement of the SEIU national council. David Bonior in particular was quick to try to deflect that question away from the Edwards campaign, and towards the Clinton and Obama campaigns, stressing how hard the others tried to first win the national SEIU endorsement, and then tried to block the Edwards campaign from gaining the Iowa endorsement. Without putting it in so many words, Bonior went so far as to assert that not winning the SEIU national endorsement was in fact a victory for the Edwards campaign, since no other campaign won it, either.

No one with even a vague understanding of the Iowa caucuses, or Democratic politics in general, would discount the importance of union support. Indeed, the endorsement of The International Association of Fire Fighters is probably the decisive factor allowing Chris Dodd to stay in the race until caucus night. And as Bonior and the other Edwards staffers pointed out during yesterday's conference call, political organizers dispatched by unions are among the best in the business, and can provide a significant boost to a candidate's ground game. And the nine other SEIU state chapters joining the Iowa chapter in endorsing John Edwards yesterday have a combined membership of some 930,000, a big number in anybody's book.

So, yes, all of those things are true. And still none of them can erase the central and overriding fact that John Edwards' not winning the SEIU national endorsement is, quite simply, not winning. It is losing. There is no victory in getting 10 state SEIU chapters to support you when you have spent more than three years working to win the combined support of all 50 state chapters in the form of a national endorsement; far from it. It is a defeat of the first magnitude.

Similarly, Edwards' announcement late last month that he is opting in to public financing of his campaign, and thereby accepting the spending limits that are a condition of receiving federal matching dollars, was not, as he told CNN, "taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing." This belief would seem to have come to Edwards late in a year when he has been working as hard as anyone to raise campaign cash, and just happened to precede by a few days definitive confirmation that his fundraising numbers have dropped alarmingly from earlier quarters. A victory for principle, or a triumph of spin?

So it is that the Iowa SEIU "victory" extends John Edwards' summer slump into the autumn, and, as much as anything, serves to highlight the extent to which the Edwards campaign continues to fall short of achieving every single one of its major goals. One has to wonder how many more such victories his campaign can survive.

Not-So-Friendly Fire on Iraq

[Updated, with video and a verbatim transcription of the Q&A]

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 463

While peace on Iraq policy was breaking out in Des Moines Friday between presidential candidates from opposite side of the aisle, a war of words was at the same time erupting between one of those candidates and a rival from his own party.

I'm talking about Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, respectively. Before Biden even walked into the room to appear with Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas on Friday, Bill Richardson issued a statement titled "No Way Forward in Iraq Unless All Troops are Withdrawn," taking aim at the Biden-Brownback-Boxer proposal. Here's an excerpt:

"Senator Biden's plan to leave troops in Iraq means his plan has very little chance to succeed. The parties will not even sit down in a meaningful way until we get all the forces out.

"Senator Biden keeps drawing an analogy to Bosnia, but he has that one backwards: the peacekeepers could only enforce the peace after the deal was made. Using U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq would turn the guarantors into targets, thus plunging any settlement back into war."

Pretty serious stuff, if true, I thought. So in the press conference following the Biden-Brownback joint appearance in Des Moines, I asked Senator Biden about it.

"Senator Biden," I began, "earlier today Governor Richardson issued a statement that I think could be fairly characterized as a point-by-point refutation of your Plan for Iraq. One feature in that release was that you have the Bosnia analogy exactly backwards: that there was peace, and then we brought in U.S. military forces. I would like to have your response to that."

Biden's face momentarily curdled into a grimace. Then he fixed me with an eagle eye and answered, "Very quickly, I wonder what he thought General Clark was doing there."



Ouch! Give that round to Biden.

Afterwards, Biden's communications director, Larry Raske, approached me and said he had seen the Richardson statement, and that the campaign was considering releasing a response later in the day. Sure enough, a couple of hours later came a rocket from the Biden campaign, titled, "Biden Statement on Richardson's Irresponsible Position on Iraq." Here's an excerpt:

“Governor Richardson’s remarks today on my Iraq plan were surprising. First, he was in favor of my plan, now he’s attacking it. First, he said he would take all of our troops out in six months, and now he acknowledges it would take a year. First, he said he would leave residual forces in Iraq, and now he says he wouldn’t. First, he was in favor of diplomacy followed by withdrawal, now he says it’s the other way around. When it comes to the single most important issue facing our country – how to end the war in Iraq responsibly – it is important to be clear and consistent. It is especially important on this issue that there be no gap between what we say as candidates and what we would do as president.

“My plan for Iraq has overwhelming bipartisan support. More and more people acknowledge that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not enough. We also have to do everything we can not to leave chaos behind. The only way to do that is through the political solution that I put forward, which has been embraced by the Senate, the Iraqis and the foreign policy community. I suggest that Governor Richardson go back and review his record and statements and reconsider today’s remarks.”

Biden's statement then goes on to exhibit, at some length, what it characterizes as Bill Richardson's inconsistent statements about Iraq in general, and Biden's proposals in particular. Probably the most damning part of the Biden campaign's statement is this quote:

February 2003: Richardson Said he Would Have Voted to Authorize War In Iraq. Richardson said, “My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war.” [CNN, Larry Kind [sic] Live, 2/14/03, emphasis added]

The Richardson campaign's response to this was a further press release about an hour later. Rather than taking up the gauntlet on Iraq, this release was titled, "Poll: Biden not top presidential choice in Delaware." The point seemed to be that although 54% of Delaware Democrats think Joe Biden would make a good president, they think Hillary Clinton will eventually be nominated, and that this should be interpreted as a strike against Biden.

I take all this back and forth to indicate several things. First, in starting this dust up with Biden, a candidate ranked below him in both polling and fundraising, Richardson's campaign is either a) shooting in the wrong direction, when by all accounts they should be focusing on overtaking an increasingly vulnerable John Edwards, or b) they're feeling heat from Joe Biden on the key issue of this campaign, and one Richardson has increasingly come to feel that he should own: Iraq. The "All Troops Out Now" policy Richardson has been espousing was supposed to lock up the anti-war netroots voice of the blogosphere with one simple - or perhaps, merely simplified - idea, and that would in turn resonate out to primary voters in general. But Richardson's policy has gotten little traction in recent polls, and the Senate's recent overwhelming passage of Biden's proposal highlights a vulnerability on Iraq that Richardson would plainly prefer didn't exist.

Second, this shows how Joe Biden has come to dominate the discussion on Iraq. Many observers feel that after the Dartmouth debate, Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all been neutralized on this issue, and the second-tier candidates are battling for advantage in light of that development. But Biden's policy proposals on Iraq have been a matter of public record for more than a year, and it's going to be hard to dislodge him from the driver's seat.

Lastly, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of these types of sharpened exchanges from now until the nomination is decided. The "get to know me" phase of the race is clearly over now, and the campaigns are beginning to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their competitors. I'd like to think that this will not, in turn, lead to a spate of negative personal attacks between the candidates, but who wants odds?

The weekend has passed without further skirmishes between Richardson and Biden, so we'll see whether the cease-fire extends into this week, or if things only heat up again. Time, and the in-box, will tell.

Biden and Brownback Make Political History

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 466

History comes at us in two forms: history in the moment when it is made, and history in the aftermath when it is written. The first is action, and the second is judgment. If we're wise, we always pay attention to the judgments of history; if we're lucky, we may get to be present on an occasion when history is made.

I had the luck to be a witness to history being made today, as two U.S. Senators and presidential candidates, from opposite parties, appeared at the same podium to campaign, not for votes for their respective candidacies, but for support of their joint plan to end the civil war in Iraq, bring stability to the Persian Gulf region and pave the way for an end to U.S. combat operations without leaving chaos behind.

Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) spoke today of their plan to implement federalism in Iraq, a system in which power is devolved from the central government in Baghdad to separate regions controlled by the three main Iraqi ethnic factions, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Each region would maintain control of their own coinage, law enforcement, education, utilities, etc., with the central government in Baghdad responsible for border security, foreign policy, and the distribution of oil revenues.

The bulk of remarks by both Senators was aimed at refuting the notion that their proposals represent a foreign-imposed solution, or a partition of Iraq. Biden, who delivered his remarks without referring to notes, stated that those who characterized the proposals in that way either had not actually read the plan, or were deliberately misconstruing it for political purposes. Biden pointed out that federalism is at the heart of the Iraqi constitution, and that the Iraqi parliament voted in the summer of 2006 to devolve power away from the central government over the course of 18 months beginning next year. In answer to the question posed by critics of why it is the Iraqis themselves haven't done this yet if they're actually in favor of the idea, Biden made the obvious point that "they're at war. They need the help of the United States and the international community to do it." Further, federalism would not contribute to further sectarian cleansing, but rather, as a political solution, represents the only means of stopping it. "Five hundred thousand American troops cannot settle this issue" in the absence of the political framework of federalism, said Biden. Iraqis, Biden concluded, do not oppose federalism; they oppose partition, and the Biden-Brownback-Boxer proposal represents the former and not the latter. To critics of the plan, Biden asked, "very simply, what is your alternative?"

Senator Brownback then took the podium. Often reading from notes, his remarks largely echoed Biden's, but reflected Brownback's view that the U.S. military should remain in Iraq for a protracted period, along the lines of Korea and Bosnia. Brownback pointed to the Kurdish region in the north of Iraq as an example of federalism already successfully in place, and suggested that power might be similarly devolved to Iraq's Sunni and Shiite regions in phases, rather than all at once.

Brownback appeared poised and dynamic in his remarks, and gave ample evidence as to why he's an attractive choice to Republican constituents in his home state.

Having seen all the Democratic contenders for the White House at least three times this year, I can say frankly that Biden's presence and aspect on the podium on this occasion was by far the most presidential of any candidate in this campaign. Scholars often speak of the extent to which presidents grow in office as a measure of their greatness; Biden's growth as a presidential candidate since the first time I saw him back in March of this year has been astounding. Given a few breaks between now and caucus night, and a corresponding upswing in fundraising, it is not at all difficult today to combine two words in a way that would have been unthinkable, and to some laughable, only six months ago: President Biden.

The judgment of history about today's event and its significance in the sweep of the Iraq tragedy will be written over time. Whatever that judgment eventually turns out to be, let it stand recorded that on a brilliant autumn afternoon at the height of the campaign season in Des Moines, Iowa today, partisanship gave way to statesmanship, and for a rare and precious moment, American politics actually stopped not only at the water's edge, but far enough back from it to allow us, however briefly, to savor the view.

BRAVO!

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 466

The Norwegian Nobel Institute today awarded its 2007 Peace Prize jointly to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore in recognition of their efforts to combat global climate change.

[UPDATE] Following the announcement, Al Gore issued the following statement:

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis--a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

Thank you,
Al Gore"

Congratulations and well done!

Dodd Campaign's Statement on the Michigan Primary

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 468

Chris Dodd, profile in courage, has had his communications director Hari Sevugan issue the following statement regarding the Michigan primary:

We are committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation. However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters.

Compare this with the statement Dodd himself made on August 31, 2007:

“I believe that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada offer a cross-section of America and allow for voters to probe the experience and vision of candidates in a meaningful way,” said Dodd. “In this year, where the national media focus seems to be on celebrity and bank accounts, the role of these states is more important than ever. I am committed to the DNC nominating calendar and preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire.”

Make of that what you will.