Standing Fast

Got this nice letter from the Edwards Campaign in my in-box

------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, right now, you and I have the best chance in years to help end the war in Iraq but we must take immediate action. Here's the situation: Both houses of Congress have voted across party lines to bring our troops home with a plan to fully fund their redeployment and safe return. President Bush has vowed to veto this funding because it hampers his ability to wage endless war—he'd rather block funding for the troops than listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want the war to end.

Yesterday, Bush called a special press conference and made his strategy crystal clear: veto funding for the troops and then blame Congress for the results. He's betting that Congress will buckle under the pressure and just drop their plan to end the war. We cannot let that happen. So today, I'm launching an emergency petition to Congress, urging them to stand firm on Iraq. We have to show every senator and representative that their constituents will not be fooled by Bush's ploy—Congress must not abandon the plan to end the war.

We're aiming to gather at least 100,000 signatures before the showdown begins after Congress returns to Washington next week. Please add your name today:

President Bush's calculation is simple. He knows the people are against him and his occupation is a failure, but because he controls the bully pulpit he thinks he can control the debate. So he'll continue to use the full might of his legendary spin machine to tell the American people that Congress is de-funding the troops, even as he vetos that very funding with his own pen. As the President of the United States, Bush has a responsibility to the troops, and he has failed this responsibility over and over again.

Congress also has a responsibility: To decide how to spend the people's money—and to say when enough is enough.It's true that Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the president's team are master political calculators—and they do have a head start in shaping the headlines and controlling the spin.But this is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage.If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send it back to him just as before—with a plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should pass it again. And they should do this as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people will not be bullied into writing another blank check for his war without end.

For years, Bush has abused the rhetoric of patriotism to frighten his opponents and divide our country—we can't let Bush get away with it anymore. When Congress funds the troops with a plan to bring them home, they are supporting the troops. When Bush vetoes that funding, he is responsible for blocking the money the troops depend on—nobody else.But where will our representatives in Washington find that political courage, in the face of such powerful opposition? They will find it where courage has always been strongest in our nation's most critical moments. They will find it in the voice of the people—they will find it in you.Will you add your name—your voice—to our call for courage? We're aiming to gather a hundred thousand signatures before Congress returns to Washington, and we can't do it without you.

Please sign today. Thank you for standing up,

John Edwards

P.S. - Gathering 100,000 voices in the time we have will require all of us taking that extra step. Will you forward this email to friends and family members who also want to end this war, and ask them to join you by signing this petition?P.P.S. - You can find links to detailed summaries of both the House and Senate funding packages and troop drawdown plan here.

Former Sen. John Edwards is rocketing in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/CNN poll released yesterday.

"Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards appears to be surging among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire shortly after the announcement that his wife's cancer had returned in an “incurable, but treatable” form.

A WMUR/CNN poll released this afternoon shows Edwards shooting into second place ahead of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, though within the margin of error.

The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, showed support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton dropping eight percentage points from two months ago, to 27 percent. Edwards is at 21 percent and Obama at 20 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore-doing better than most announced candidates-received 11 percent. All other Democrats running were in the single digits."

Right now the big loser is Clinton who was polling a safe first at around 40% back in January. Obama also lost out, dropping to 3rd, though Edwards surge was clearly at the expense of Clinton. Al Gore's 11% percent-not bad considering he is not even running-is also bad news for Clinton. I think we can safely take Gore out of the equation. I'm absolutely convinced that Gore is very happy with his new role of environmental advocate and has no plans to run. This guy always hated electoral politics anyway; he'd rather stayed a journalist. That 11% can be taken as an anti-Hillary vote which would likely be split between Obama and Edwards.

This is big news for Edwards because NH was likely to be where Edwards would do the worst out the four early primary contests. Of course the problem for Edwards is to build on this strong showing. I don't know what kind of ground operation Edwards has in NH, but Clinton's is very strong and as the example of Howard Dean shows, it doesn't matter how well you do in the polls in a small state if you don't have a strong grassroots operation.

The media is focusing on Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement as the reason for the bounce, which probably has some validity. But I think that Edwards's political message might have something to do with it too. For the last two electoral cycles Democrats have voluntarily chosen candidates that many people voted for while holding their nose. They picked nominees they thought could win, not because they found anything particularly exciting about their ideas or message. It was the politics of siege with the idea that most of the country hated progressive ideas so Democrats needed to find the least "offensive candidate". With the GOP in its worst position since 1974, a lot of Democrats are looking for a candidate who can energize their electorate around a new direction for the country, not play more of the same politics of old. And as a recent study by the Pew Research Center shows, political attitudes of most Americans is turning away from the conservative agenda that dominated Washington for over twenty years. For example, in response to the question of whether the government should have the responsibility of taking care to those who can not take care of themselves, the percentage of Americans answering in the affirmative has gone up 12 points since 1994. Social conservatism is on the decline too, with those who claim to support "old-fashioned views on family and marriage" down 8 points since 1994. The number of Americans who believe that peace is best guaranteed through military strength have declined almost 15 points points since 2002. As I've said before I think Edwards is the only candidate who really gets the opportunity 2008 presents and understands that the mood of the country is for real-not rhetorical-change.

For all you in the District.


"Hi Neighbors:

Just wanted to let you know that a bunch of John Edwards for President supporters here in DC got together to form DC For John Edwards. I also wanted to invite you to the first DC for John Edwards network kick off fundraiser to support John Edwards for President on Thursday,April 12th from 5PM to 7PM at the Big Hunt located at 1345 Connecticut Avenue, NW (Dupont Circle Metro). A $20 donation will includecomplementary appetizers and John Edwards for President campaign goodies. If you would like to join us please RSVP at mailto:atDCforJohnEdwards

Thanks,
Allyson
Co-Founder, DC for John Edwards

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.

Thanks Bob. While most pundits and bloggers are talking about this as another notch on Shrum's belt of bad advice and questioning Edwards's political judgement, I think we should see this as something more. It’s an indictment of the whole "Fighting Faith", Scoop Jackson school of militarist liberalism that led a lot of Democrats who should have known better to buy into ne-conservative foreign policy and support Bush’s Iraq war. According to the Peter Beinarts (on the historical and ideological side) and Bob Shrums (on the pollster side) of the world, voters stop trusting the Democrats not because most Americans are instinctively conservative but because they are seen as weak on national defense. Therefore liberals need to role up their sleeves and show they aren't Michael Moore style "softs" afraid to unleash the U.S military in the struggle against radical Islam. You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who opposed using military force to get the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, but back in 2002 that was not good enough for some. To prove your military hardness you had to sign up whole-hog for Bush's "war on terror".

Political arguments aside there was an another immediate reason why Democrats who should have know better-particularly those considering a Presidential run-felt pressure to support Bush’s war. In 1991 the majority of Democrats opposed the first Gulf War, fearing a repeat of Vietnam. According to a Washington Post article about the 91 Congressional vote to give President H.W. Bush the authority to use military force against Saadam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait:

While accurately describing how our current Iraq conflict turned out, the first Gulf War turned out to be short, successful and very low in American casualties. President George H.W Bush’s popularity soared to unheard of heights while those Democrats with Presidential ambitions who opposed the conflict, particularly centrist Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, saw their Oval Office dreams fade.

Too many Democrats were scared to death of another Gulf War backlash to vote against Bush’s 2002 resolution, including sadly Sen. Kerry who had spoken so eloquently over a decade ago.

For someone like Beinart who originally supported the Iraq war, this was keeping in the best traditions of Harry Truman liberalism as opposed to the “peacenik” McGovernite wing that supposedly is responsible for the decline of the Democratic Party. I’d call it morally reprehensible not to mention politically dumb. It didn’t prove to voters that Democrats were tougher on national security, and it got us stuck in the mess we’re in now. And while the Senator from South Dakota was unable to profit from being proven politically and morally right on Vietnam, most Democrats are now tripping over each other to show they support ending the conflict in Iraq. Of course Beinart also changed his mind too, but that is kind of like admitting the Titanic is unsinkable while standing in four feet of water.

Liberals aren’t pacifists. There are times sadly when military force is the only option available. Even McGovern advocated military force to rescue American hostages during the Iranian hostage crisis. And we can’t be naïve about the enemies we face. There are forces in the world that do want to do harm to our country and its citizens and they must be stopped; even by our imperfect government with its imperfect foreign policy record. But mindless playing with military rhetoric as a political cover against voter backlash is what got us into both this mess and Vietnam. Toughness does not mean throwing ones principles, or common sense for that matter, over board. And fighting terrorism means much more than military muscle; it means economic aid and development to build up unstable nations and supporting democratic movements in the struggle to build their own future, even if those movements fall short of our exact ideal. Democracies very rarely follow the back of someone else's tank. Shrum’s own admitted bad advice is another reason why Democrats need throw out the consultants and pollsters, not too mention the Peter Beinarts, and start standing on their own two feet again.

Ezra Klein has an insightful look in this month's American Prospect at John Edwards and his campaign to become the most viable populist candidate of a major party in decades. Klein manages to breakdown what gives Edwards his authenticity and fire on issues of class and poverty and it has more to do than just his blue-collar upbringing in a North Carolina mill town. A union leader quoted by Klein sums up it succinctly:

""American have politicians who come from two places," says Bruce Raynor, general President of UNITE HERE, 450,000 member apparel and hotel union. "Either they are professional politicians-which is nothing bad-or they are rich people who were successful in the corporate world. John Edwards made his money suing corporations. That's very different.""

Edwards career before he entered politics was all about standing up for consumers in the face of corporate maleficence and indifference. And as Klein recounts, for many working people in the right to work south, their first and last line of defense against corporate power is not a union; it's a trial lawyer. Klein quotes Edwards's wife, Elizabeth:

"Every single day what he saw were good people, in great need, who were being mistreated by big corporations-corporations that knew that they had done wrong...If you took that person, a person who chose that as his life, you would end up with the politics that he's talking about today."

I think was most interesting thing here is the continuity Edwards draws between his domestic agenda and foreign policy.

This kind of language has not been heard in a real way in Democratic foreign policy circles since the Alliance for Progress and the Marshall Plan. It's liberal interventionism at its best, rejecting un-critical market worship common to both the Democratics and Republicans in addition to the militarist unilateralism of the neo-conservatives. But it is also a break with the isolationism of some sections of the left that rejects the idea that the U.S can and should play a positive role in world affairs.