Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Republicans, thankfully, are doing a good job of self-destructing on their own. This will serve to depress their base in the primaries and the election next year. But Democrats should be warned that their own base will likely desert them if they can't manage to win a few fights in Congress.
We continue today looking at the Democratic candidates for President, and what they would do about Iraq. Part 1 of this article ran yesterday, and covered Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order, today we examine Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.
With the most important debate of the whole year (and possibly the whole war) teed up and ready to begin in Congress in the next few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to do a summary and analysis of what all the Democratic candidates have to say on the subject of Iraq. Many of these candidates, it should be noted, are still sitting Senators and Representatives, and therefore have both the duty and the responsibility to participate in the debate in Congress.
They should be relishing this upcoming debate, since it will be a rare chance to show actual, tangible leadership. Which is definitely a requirement for the job of President of the United States.
The results were overwhelming. In one day there were almost 150 posts. Narrowing these down to a list of winners was extremely hard, due to the fact that almost all the entries were excellent.
The only thing about the contest which disappointed me was there was absolutely no blatant attempts to bribe the judge. Oh, well... maybe next time.
Republican:
3. "GOP in '08! No, seriously!" -- DerekJ.
2. "9/11/2001. 9/11. 911. NineEleven. Boo! GOP in '08." -- monsteroflove.
Democratic:
3. "We Shouldn't Even Need A Slogan." -- ScottyRVA.
2. "Osama Still Has a Job. Do You?" -- myiq2xu.
Democrats have proven that they can intelligently frame an issue about a place nobody visits, since they have consistently shut down Republican efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). When people hear ANWR, they think of caribou. There's a reason they do, and that reason is because Democrats successfully framed the issue (for once). Protecting streams for fishing is another image they could be just as successfully utilizing to show the American public the face of the Republican Party, up close and personal.
The White House even tried to stop Petraeus from testifying before Congress in the open (as opposed to a secret hearing), until they noticed that the law specifically said that he would be made available to Congress for testimony in both "open" and "closed" settings. The White House quickly backpedaled on that one, thankfully, which means that both Petraeus and Crocker will indeed be answering Congress' questions in public, in open hearings.
I'm actually kind of surprised President Bush didn't try to claim executive privilege, which seems to be his knee-jerk reaction to anyone testifying before Congress. Even if Bush thought he'd eventually lose in court, it would take months if not years to resolve, just like all his other executive privilege claims
It isn't all that often that a political tactician at Karl Rove's level gives you a sneak preview of their campaign strategy, but that's exactly what happened on Meet The Press yesterday. Democratic candidates should marshal their arguments against these talking points, because they're going to need them next year.
I don't get no respect. I played hide-and-seek, and they wouldn't even look for me.
-- Rodney Dangerfield
Wyoming Republicans must know how Rodney feels. They attempted to get some media attention (and some attention from the candidates) by passing an impossibility into law, but nobody noticed. No respect indeed.
