Standing Fast

John Judis has a good follow up to Michael Crowly's piece at the The New Republic on Hillary Clinton's real foreign policy. Judis makes the good point that Hillary has a very good reason she has not apologized for voting for the Iraq war: She still supports it.

"In spite of her support this month for a Senate resolution mandating withdrawal, Clinton is still a hawk on Iraq--and, in my opinion, is still flying blind. "

Clinton did vote for August 2008 withdrawal date in the Senate, but according to Judis her conception of the level of involvement we will still have in Iraq after that date is much more extensive that what most of her fellow Democrats probably think.

"Clinton's idea of a residual occupying force goes well beyond that of the recent Senate resolution. The resolution provides for a "limited number" of troops after the pullout date, which would be devoted to training and to "targeted counterterrorism operations." By contrast, Clinton's force would have larger geopolitical responsibilities, including the restraint of Iranian power. Clinton says she doesn't know how many U.S. troops her plan would require, or how many military bases would be required to house them. But Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, who conducted the interview, noted that former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who has developed a strikingly similar plan, estimates that 75,000 American troops would be needed to carry his plan out. That's about half of the current force stationed in Iraq."

Clinton would pull troops out the areas where the sectarian conflict is hottest, which is most of the major cities but on the whole the US would continue to occupy Iraq and play a major military role in the region for the indefinite future.

If Clinton cinches the Democratic nomination, she would in all likelihood run a Nixonian like "Peace with Honor" campaign, portraying the Republicans as a party in crisis who have failed to pacify Iraq. I can see the commercials now. The 1968 comparisons would be even more apt if McCain-who looks as happy about watching his political career crumble defending someone else's foreign policy disaster as Humphrey did-gets the GOP nomination.

Unlike some, I think she would win pretty handily, even against a Giuliani or Thompson. The American public sees Iraq as the GOP's war, just like Americans in 1968 saw Vietnam as the Democrats war. In 1968 the public did not trust the same party that got us into the conflict to get us out and I think it will be the same in 2008. But if we get stuck with four years of what Judis admits is a "Bush-lite" foreign policy, the terrible damage inflicted by the Bush administration in the realm of foreign policy will only be compounded and would likely have a disastrous effect on the Democratic Party.

Unlike Nixon-who secretly knew we could not achieve a victory in Vietnam-Crowly makes a convincing case that Hillary really does believe in a milder version of neo-conservatism that still believes in the value of the regular and offensive use of military force to enforce US will around the world. Crowly quotes here before the Council of Foreign Relations as saying

I don't know if blindness and arrogance is any better for the country than cynicism however.

Debt is a problem that crushing the dreams and hopes of too many Americans. Last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton unveiled a new plan to help Americans get on the road in financial freedom. And she started in America's heartland.

Tom Vilsack is a former Governor of Iowa. At one point he was running for President but he dropped out because it cost way too much money. Money he didn't have. So much money that he was $400,000 in the hole when he decided to drop out in February. This was only after four months of campaigning. The newly unemployed Vilsack, harrased by collection agencies at all hours of the day and finding that repo men had taken his car, did not know where to turn.

Luckily, Sen. Clinton who also happens to be running for President and is sitting on more money than Scrooge McDuck decided to chip in and help old Tom out. What a pal.

In unrelated news, the newly debt free Vilsack endorsed the generous junior Senator from New York on Monday and encouraged his fellow Iowans who seems to have a big say who gets to be President to get behind her too. Vilsack is now living debt-free and faces every new day with the hope that financial freedom brings. Right after he puts on his "Hillary '08" button.

Bill Clinton's magic starts to fade when he is stuck defending the indefensible according to Ari Melber at the Huffington Post:

"In a conference call with major donors yesterday, former President Bill Clinton challenged the netroots for backing Barack Obama as an anti-war candidate, according to The Hill newspaper. While avoiding any direct criticism of Obama's statements, President Clinton said it was "ludicrous" to treat "Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites." Then he tried to fact-check the netroots:

"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow [Obama] to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."The Hill reports that President Clinton continued, "It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," and he argued that Hillary's defense of her war vote is similar to Chuck Hagel, who remains popular in the antiwar community"

It might have something to do with the fact that Hillary has made it point of pride to show that she has not learned anything in last five years.

It's been hinted at for a while, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger officially moved up California's primary date from June to February 5. For the first time since before this blogger was even born, primary voters in our biggest state will have a real say in the outcome of the Democratic and Republican party primaries. Being that California is bigger than many European nations, candidates will likely skip the coffee shops and pancake breakfasts common to our smaller and whiter states and go straight to media saturation.

I've mentioned before why the primary calendar compression is a bad thing for grassroots politics. Today George Will made a good point that in addition to coming closer to creating a national one-day primary, this will end up only making Iowa and New Hampshire, in addition to Nevada and South Carolina, more important than they already are.

"Every campaign is shaped by two scarcities -- the candidate's time and money. No candidate will have enough of either to campaign intensely, in person or even on television, in perhaps 24 states across the continent in the 22 days from Iowa (Jan. 14) to Feb. 5. As political analyst Charlie Cook says, this will raise the stakes -- the free media attention and the momentum it imparts -- that will accrue to the winner or winners of the first four states (South Carolina Democrats and Republicans vote on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2, respectively). Indeed, if one person wins three or all four of those, the Feb. 5 primaries might be mere ratifying echoes rather than deciding events."


The whole thing had me depressed about the potential of John Edwards to make it this year, but then I noticed how the even higher stakes now in place could help Edwards push past Obama and Clinton very quickly. Edwards polls the strongest in Iowa. He has been in the lead there in many polls for a while now, but most importantly he is the only candidate to have competed there before and done well. He knows what it takes to succeed in Iowa, as opposed to say Howard Dean who polled well but had little on the ground operation in the 2004 caucus. Plus as seen by the self-destruction by both Dean and Richard Gephardt on the Iowa plains, the phenomenon of two front runners beating on each other turns Iowa voters off.

A Edwards victory will throw off both Clinton and Obama and bring a lot of media coverage(not to mention money) Edwards way. Then there is Nevada. So far Edwards has not polled well there, but it is very possible that the strong Hotel and Restaurant Employees union will back Edwards giving him ground troops in Clark county. Endorsements of a candidate that members are not enthusiastic about or feel don't have a chance in hell never make a victory in itself, but an endorsement and real mobilization around his candidacy coming off a victory in Iowa could be just what Edwards needs to get a real momentum going. I think Clinton will win New Hampshire, but an Edwards victory in Iowa and Nevada will guarantee him at least 2nd place.

South Carolina is up in the air, but I think an Edwards victory in 2 of previous primary match ups will put South Carolina into his column. If Edwards can pull that off, the race will be narrowed down to two candidates for the 2nd round of primaries. Obama will likely bow out, but Clinton will stay in. She still would have an enormous amount of cash and soldiers at her disposal and the likelihood of strong showing by her in California and New York would be enough of an incentive to keep fighting. But at this point a lot of Democratic money, not to mention grassroots support would start coming Edwards way as he would be the now only viable alternative to Clinton. Then get ready for a lot of TV commericals.

Beware of what you ask for. California wanted to get attention from the candiates; you'll be sure to get so much you all will be sick to death of it.

Former U.N Iraqi weapons inspector Scott Ritter has some tough talk for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote for the Iraqi war resolution.

"This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration."

Ritter ends his piece with:

"Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq. "

Ouch.