Open Left - residual forces

Obama Pledges No Residual Forces After 2011

Chris Bowers — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:37:35 GMT

In his speech on Iraq redeployment today, President Obama pledged to have all troops, including "residual forces," by the end of 2011. It doesn't start that way, but it ends that way:

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

Of course, then President Obama follows this sentence with a detailed description of American military actions in Iraq after August 31, 2010. It is the standard residual force operation we have discussed here on Open Left since our inception, and is anything but an end to the American military presence in Iraq after August 2010:

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq . Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

But the important departure comes next, when President Obama pledges that this residual force will itself be continually decreasing in size, and eventually reach zero troops by the end of 2011:

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

This is what I have been waiting for: a commitment to end the residual force operation by the close of 2011.

More in the extended entry.
In September of 2007, President Obama refused to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by January 20th, 2013. Now, he has promised to remove them all by December 31st, 2011. That is a positive shift.

This is huge for no residual forces proponents. Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012--the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept.

It is frustrating that it took the Iraqi government, rather than internal anti-war pressure, to finally secure a no residual troop promise from the American government (and they actually succeeded in wringing it out of the Bush administration, something Democrats were entirely unable to achieve). Still, as someone who has opposed the Iraq war for more than six years, and who been has writing about the need for no residual American military forces in Iraq for more than two years, any promise of no residual forces from the American government, backed up by a binding, public document like the Status of Forces Agreement, it an extremely welcome development no matter how it was secured.

The Iraq war is going to end. No residual troops after 2011.

Residual Forces Appears Yet Again

Chris Bowers — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:21:00 GMT

There is a lot of media coverage on residual forces in Iraq lately. My honest, and probably unhelpful, first reaction to this is "where the f@#k where all of you people back in 2007 when I spent six months telling you that both Clinton and Obama were proposing large residual force contingents?" We cut a television ad on it. We pushed enough that there was a debate question about it. Jay Leno ended up making a joke about it. We spent months cajoling all Democratic campaigns to put a number on their residual troop plans. We even presented to you, in detail, the exact plan that President Obama is now executing. Why is anyone surprised on this now? Where were people pushing on this issue back when it could have actually made a difference?

Anyway, at this point, no amount of pressure will stop President Obama from executing his residual force plan in Iraq. The real issue is whether or not he will try to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement, which explicitly prohibits residual forces after 2011. All the pressure now needs to be on making the administration not re-write, not re-negotiate, and not disregard the Status of Froces Agreement, as there are elements in the administration who would like to do just that.

In the end, if we can get all of the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, that will still be a minimum thirteen month improvement on where we stood in the No Residual Forces campaign back in 2007. At a debate on September 27th of that year, then-Senator Obama didn't even promise to get all troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. No matter how this change happened, it would still be a welcome development.

Residual Force Hawk Backs Down

Chris Bowers — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:45:00 GMT

It is worth noting that in 2007, Center for a New American Security co-founder Michele Flournoy co-authored a hawkish plan for Iraq that argued for leaving 60,000 American troops (and untold numbers of contractors) in Iraq for up to four and a half years after the start of "withdrawal" from Iraq. Now, Flournoy is set to become Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration, the third highest-ranking position in the Department of Defense. On the surface, this is an extremely negative sign when it comes to American troops withdrawal in Iraq.

However, as Spencer Ackerman reports, today Flournoy backed off her hawkish position on residual forces in Iraq. When, during a Senate Armed Services committee hearing, Jim Webb asked her about the number of residual forces in her 2007 report, she repudiated her earlier stance:

"I think I would not be willing to stand behind that number at this time," she said, clarifying that "when I wrote that it was at a somewhat different time, there was no SOFA commitment, [and] the security environment was different." Flournoy added that a "very strong commitment" for the Obama administration and the Gates Pentagon was "implementing the SOFA and moving U.S. forces out of a combat role." What remained uncertain was what, in 2011, when the SOFA's requirments for a U.S. departure wrap up, "what support for Iraqi forces would look like, and we don't know if the Iraqi government would want any U.S. forces."

When pressed, she said it was "not necessarily" a requirement to keep a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq.

There is a lot to unpack here. First, it is positive that she no longer favors 60,000 residual troops, especially given that she is supposed to be the "progressive" voice in the senior DoD leadership during this administration. Second, it is also a positive that she takes the SOFA seriously, along with the wishes of the Iraqi government in determining residual troop levels. This is a lot better than just the "listening to commanders" language we usually hear on this matter, which to my ears wanders way too close to a lack of civilian rule over the military.

The negatives are that she considers the number of troops in Iraq dependant upon the security environment, which holds neither to the principle of a timetable for withdrawal nor with the notion that the SOFA has set fixed dates and numbers. It is reasonable to be worried that there will be either an attempt to renegotiate SOFA in order to allow for residual troops after 2011, or that the Pentagon doesn't consider the dates in the SOFA to be binding. After all, American commanders and Iraqi governmental officials alike have already expressed both of these positions.

Still, given that foreign policy is one of the areas to be least optimistic about in the Obama administration (from a left-wing point of view, anyway), it is nice to point out positive signs when they come. When the author of the most hawkish residual force plan to back down on her numbers as she assumes the #3 post in the Pentagon, that is one such positive sign.

Residual Forces To Remain in Iraqi Cities After June 30th

Chris Bowers — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:04:18 GMT

It appears that there will be a residual American military presence in Iraqi cities after the June 30th, 2009 "deadline." Or, at least, that is the expectation from the American military commander:

Despite a summer deadline to pull American combat troops from Iraqi cities, thousands will remain to support and train Iraqi forces, the top U.S. commander in Iraq confirmed on Saturday.

Gen. Ray Odierno said he expects troops operating alongside the Iraqis will remain "after the summer" in urban centres in joint security operations.

In case you were wondering if this was a violation of the status of forces agreement, or of Iraqi sovereignty, General Odierno offers this clarification of the June 30th date (emphasis mine):

"We are, I believe, in terms of the American commitment, in the end game. The June 30 date was the date we gave them, not vice versa," he said.

Fine. Whatever. The June 30th withdrawal from Iraqi cities was nice, but it was never the reason why I was originally excited about the status of forces agreement. I can live with a "residual" American military presence in Iraqi cities after June 30th, but the big enchilada is the aspect of the agreement that argues no residual troop presence in all of Iraq after December 21st, 2011. That part of the deal still seems to be on, although there are those who want to re-negotiate:

A security pact with the Iraqi government, which will be put to a referendum next year, stipulates the Americans will be out of cities and towns by June, and out of the country by 2011.

Earlier in the week, an Iraqi government spokesman said the Baghdad government would be open to negotiations that would keep troops in Iraq past the agreed upon withdrawal date.

Ali al-Dabbagh, on a visit to Washington, said Iraqi security forces might need 10 years to get ready to take over from U.S. troops.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office said in a written statement Saturday that al-Dabbagh was expressing only an opinion that did not represent government policy.

December 31st, 2011 still appears to be a hard deadline for no residual forces under the current status of forces agreement. The question is whether the desire on the part of some elements of the American and Iraqi government to extend that deadline and / or allow for residual forces will overcome what appears to be broad desire for no residual American military presence in Iraq. Hopefully, the deadline will hold, but our best chance for that happening involves political players and political parties in Iraq that are quite out of the influence of American grassroots progressives.

Curses, Foiled Again? Hardly

Chris Bowers — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:15:00 GMT

I'm pretty disappointed at the outcome over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs leadership fight. Denying Lieberman the chair would have been a sign that the Senate Democratic caucus was willing to stand up for itself over the next two years, but instead we were given another sign that the legislative branch no longer matters that much in the United States.

However, given the focus on how this vote means that "the left has been foiled again," I want to push back against the idea that the last two weeks has not somehow been a string of defeats for progressives. There have been setbacks, such as today's Lieberman vote, but there have also been real victories. In the extended entry, I accentuate the positive.
Here are some good things that have happened over the last fourteen days:

The leadership of the U.S. House has moved to the left. At first, I was pretty disappointed with Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff. However, it seems increasingly clear that removing Emanuel from the House has resulted in a net gain for progressive leadership in that chamber. Given that Obama probably would have picked someone in Rahm Emanuel's mold even if he did not select Emanuel himself, this means our choices were either no Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel temporarily serving as Chief of Staff, or Rahm Emanuel in the House leadership plus Rahm Emanuel clone temporarily serving as Chief of Staff. On net, I will take the former, and I am currently leaning toward the move as a net gain for progressives. If the left was "foiled" again, then I wonder why so many center-right House Democrats are feeling unhappy.
Lieberman did not get off scot-free: Keep in mind that Lieberman was punished, that 13 Senate Democrats voted to punish him even more, and that he probably would have been stripped of his full committee chair entirely were it not for Obama. While what happened wasn't the punishment that Lieberman deserved, I'm with Matt on feeling good about the thirteen independent minded Senate progressives who seem to have emerged. That may not seem like much, but thirteen independently minded, Democratic progressives is actually a lot better off than we were six years ago when Feingold might have been the only one.
A no residual forces agreement was signed in Iraq. Here is the actual text of Article 24 of the agreement:
1- All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.

2- All U.S. combat forces must withdraw from all cities, towns, and villages as soon as the Iraqi forces take over the full security responsibility in them. The U.S. withdrawal from these areas shall take place no later than June 30th, 2009

As I had hoped, this is indeed a no residual forces agreement. The differentiation between "all U.S. forces" in section one and "all U.S. combat forces" in section two make that clear. The "all forces" and "all combat forces" was a line that most Democratic candidates tried to blur back in 2007. Those following the issue closely were aware that "all forces" actually meant "no residual force" and "all combat forces" meant "residual force." So, this agreement means an end to all residual American military presence in Iraq by December 31st, 2011 at the latest. This is just an utterly massive progressive victory. The key is that it was engineered by the Iraqi government, rather than Democratic Party leadership. This gets to David's point earlier today about how the progressive movement needs to focus on organizing other than as an assistant to the Democratic Party's electoral efforts. Progressive change can happen, as long as we look

Now, I'm not going to argue that everything is all smiles und sunshine. The fifty-state strategy is in real peril, corporate bailouts continue apace, and neither Senate Democrats nor the Obama administration appear poised to be progressive paragons over the next two years. However, even in these areas, the fifty-state strategy might be revived, the bailouts are partly socialist nationalizations and thus quite left-wing, and the new bosses in the White House and the Senate will be a hell of a lot better than what we have had for the last fourteen years. My point is that progress is being made, and all is not lost. We are winning some of these fights so, and at least making progress in others. For crying out loud, we won a major policy fight in Iraq even though it was opposed by the Bush administration, the Democratic congressional leadership, and the incoming Democratic President. If that alone isn't a hopeful sign, I don't know what is.

No Residual Forces In Iraq After 2011

Chris Bowers — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:45:00 GMT

During the second half of 2007, one of my most common topics of discussion was the over the issue of a residual American military presence in Iraq, even post-withdrawal and even under a Democratic trifecta. Now, unless I am reading it wrong, or the news reports on the subject are wrong, the new security agreement between Iraq and the United States will result in no residual American military presence in the country after December 31, 2011:

Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet's decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.

The agreement also appears to be based on fixed date timetables, rather than the non-timetable "conditions on the ground" line pushed by conservatives. Perhaps even better, the deal was negotiated by the Bush administration, meaning that there won't be any "stabbed in the back" narrative from conservatives. Or, at least, it will mean that narrative will be even dumber than the one they spun post-Vietnam (and that's really saying something).

These three aspects of the deal mean an end to the war in Iraq is, finally, coming. While it will unfortunately take three years for the war to completely end, this is still good news. It should be said that the political victories on a fixed timetable and no residual forces only happened because they were demanded by Iraqis, rather than because of progressive American pressure. Back in the primaries, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying they would have residual troops in Iraq after 2012. So, maybe it wasn't directly our fault, but I'm just happy that it seems to have finally happened. It took Iraqis to finally end the war we started.

Update: More from McClatchy: Under Iraq troop pact, U.S. can't leave any forces behind.

Back To Residual Forces

Chris Bowers — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:50:39 GMT

In a sign of how seriously the Obama campaign is taking Pennsylvania, last night at my ward endorsement meeting, the Obama campaign actually sent three surrogates to speak to, and take questions from, the committee people. One of those surrogates was iMark Alexander, the national policy director! And this is just one of 66 wards in Philadelphia, which itself only represents 23-25% of the statewide primary electorate in the state. Despite my large platform, I could not pass up the chance to ask a question about residual forces in Iraq to the national policy director.

The answer was pretty much as expected. There will be residual troops, carrying out a variety of possible missions: protecting the embassy, participating in an international peacekeeping force, conducting counter-terrorism, and training Iraqi troops. All of those missions, except embassy protection, were listed as possible missions, not definite ones. No estimate on troop levels were provided. Basically, it was all of the same answers I kept receiving from campaigns back in 2007, and which eventually led to the following television commercial:

I actually wrote that ad, but since it had limited visibility, and since I have a beard now, it is possible that Mark Alexander did not recognize me. The ad was a culmination of months of research, strategizing and placing questions to campaigns, after which I concluded that Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama were all proposing Iraq residual force plans that would leave around 60,000 troops in Iraq. The residual forces campaign eventually became the first question in a late September debate, and even ended up on Jay Leno.

Unfortunately, it appears that nothing has changed over the past six months:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

This is not surprising at all, given that Kahl wrote the paper for the Center for a New American Security (which is not "center-left"). That was the think tank that finally allowed us to put a solid figure on the size of residual forces back in September. Second, it has been clear for literally a year now that both Obama and Clinton (and Biden and Dodd) were proposing residual forces in Iraq of this size. This is publicly available information, and it has been around for some time. While both Kahl and the Obama campaign deny that the plan represents the position of the Obama campaign, the fact is that the answer I received last night on residual forces, just like the answers I had been receiving on residual forces during 2007, is exactly the same as the Center for a New American Security plan. It is exactly the same list of troop missions, only without the estimate on the number of troops.

This isn't something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign's plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country. The simple fact is that once Edwards dropped out, there was no longer any meaningful difference between the remaining Democratic candidates on residual forces. As such, residual did not play a role in determining who I would support in the primary.

It is increasingly clear that, even in a Democratic administration, in order to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq, several things will have to happen. First, it will be important for a no residual force supporter, such as Bill Richardson, to hold either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Second, it will require congressional leadership, such as that found in the Responsible Plan for Iraq, to pass legislation requiring even a Democratic President to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq. Third, it will require continuing pressure of Democrats, progressives and anti-war activists who will support the nominee this year to influence and hold the new President accountable on completing withdrawal from Iraq. The simple, and depressing, fact is that we will not end our military participation in the war in Iraq just by winning a big trifecta in the 2008 elections. In order to build a truly progressive governing majority in this and other areas, we will have to keep fighting long afterwards. To put it one way, progressives will need our own residual troops in a Democratic administration.

Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission

Chris Bowers — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:18:39 GMT

The reason Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her Iraq war vote is because she clearly believes in the American "mission" in Iraq. Here is a statement from her campaign today on the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq:

"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'

Clinton presents Iraq as a resounding success where a tyrannical regime was removed from power, and freedom was brought to the Iraqi people. From this perspective, withdrawal is justified because the major missions have been accomplished, not because the war itself was a mistake. Also, as has been repeatedly made clear over the past twelve months, a sizable residual force will be left behind to continue some of the secondary missions of the war.

Compare this to Obama's statement on 4,000:

Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service."

For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. As I wrote earlier today, the Iraq war has ended America's brief tenure as the world's only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America's role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America's power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not "the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being." A candidate's ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.

McCain Pushes Full-Blown Iraq Blurring Strategy

Chris Bowers — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:21:23 GMT

John McCain is now pushing the Iraq Blurring Strategy from both sides. Check out his latest attacks (emphasis mine):

"So yesterday, Senator Obama said, 'Well we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and if we hadn't gone in in the first place we wouldn't be facing this problem,'" the Arizona senator said. "Well, that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now.

"And what we're going to do now is continue this strategy, which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge. The Iraqi military are taking over more and more responsibilities, the casualties are down, and we will be able to withdraw and come home. But we will come home with honor."

This goes beyond even Joe Lieberman's "no one wants to end the war more than I do," spiel, and enters Nixonian territory of "peace with honor." And now McCain is pushing both sides of the blurring strategy, using surrogate James Baker to argue that even those in favor of withdrawal plan to leave troops in Iraq for a long time:

Baker, also well-known for heading up the Iraq Study Group, voiced his agreement with McCain's view of the situation in Iraq.

"I think what Senator McCain's position is today is quite consistent with what we said in the Iraq Study Group Report," Baker said. "We negated the idea of setting a timetable, a withdrawal date...we also said and pointed out that we're going to have American forces in Iraq for a long time to come."

So, McCain wants to end the war, but to do so with "honor." Also, he is in favor of a timetable, but like everyone calling for Iraq withdrawal, including Barack Obama, he knows that American troops will stay in Iraq for "a long time to come."

And so, we arrive at the full-blown Iraq Blurring Strategy from John McCain. No one wants to end the war more than he does. In fact, he is in favor of withdrawal. However, everyone who favors withdrawal, like Barack Obama, also wants to leave large numbers of residual forces in Iraq.

In some ways, it is a relief that after many congressional Democrats decided to take Iraq off the table in the 2008 elections, that John McCain became the Republican nominee and decided to make it the central issue. However, I would be lying if I didn't say I was worried about this strategy. I have long believed that Democratic support of residual forces provided the opening for such a strategy, and that Joe Lieberman's campaign provided the blueprint. Obama needs to make his differences with McCain on future plans for Iraq crystal clear, to the point where he starts talking about the different troops estimates for Iraq under an Obama administration and under a McCain administration. The argument can still be won as long as it is clear, and as long as the Obama campaign calls bullshit on McCain's phony desire to withdrawal from Iraq. Starting with an attack on McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman, who said the same thing in 2006 and then voted with Bush on Iraq, is probably a good place to start.

McCain Hits Obama On Residual Forces

Chris Bowers — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:42:15 GMT

There is more than one way to engage the Iraq Blurring Strategy. While McCain has declined the take the Joe Lieberman approach of "no one wants to end the war more than me, but..." he has instead adopted the approach of "I don't want to end the war, but neither does Obama, and we agree on the reasons why." Here is McCain:

"I'm not embarrassed to tell you that I did not watch the Democrat debate last night," McCain said, "but I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.

"It's pretty remarkable when Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and want to withdraw from Iraq and then say you will go back to Iraq if they have a base there. That's -- when you examine that statement it's pretty remarkable."

One of the main problems with the leading Democratic candidates promising to keep residual American military forces in Iraq is that such plans provide continuing justification for keeping American troops in Iraq, and comparatively little justification for withdrawal. Both Obama and Clinton have promised to keep residual troops in Iraq in order to attack Al Qaeda, although in fairness Obama has said that in his plan these troops might not actually be based in Iraq but instead just over the border. This position causes a serious credibility problem for withdrawal of any sort. As McCain points out, if you think American troops should be in Iraq to fight terrorists, then why withdraw the troops at all?

As long leading Democrats are arguing that we need troops in Iraq to carry out missions like "fighting terrorists," it severely weakens the public argument to engage in any sort of withdrawal. Democratic promises to keep residual forces in Iraq in general, and now Obama's promises to keep residual forces in Iraq in particular, have a net result of pre-blurring the Iraq issue even for Republicans like McCain who refuse to even say they want to end the war. Not only do residual forces give McCain further amminition on why we should stay in Iraq, but it also gives more credence to the argument that Democrats don't really want to end the war. It might be too late for Obama to promise no residual troops at this point, but as the campaign moves forward he is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating his position on Iraq, and his rational behind that position, from McCain's.

Update: Obama hits back:

"I have some news for John McCain," Obama said, according to The Politico. "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain" started their war.

That will likely become a stock message for Obama. He also uncorked this:

"John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

That is a decent comeback from Obama, but it mainly talks about the decision to go to war rather than the decision on what to do in the future. He needs clearer differentiation on both in order to really bury McCain, and the Iraq war, once and for all.

The Disaster Scenario In 2008

Chris Bowers — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:21:45 GMT

I realize that I need to provide a lot more context to the pessimism of my previous post. So, in the extended entry, I provide a quick timeline of recent major political events since the Democratic takeover of Congress, and explain how the progressive movement is in serious jeopardy in 2008 unless we can reverse the current trends of the debate on the Iraq war:

November 7th, 2006: Democrats win a majority in both the House and the Senate. According to opinion polls in the two months before the elections, Iraq is the clear number one priority, with an average of 31% of the country listing it as their top priority, compared to 19% listing "the economy." The number listing Iraq as their top priority balloons to 39% in open-ended polling on national priorities, and reaches 44% in the month after the election.
January 2007: Both the 2008 Presidential campaign and congressional fight troop levels in Iraq begin. In general election polling, John McCain leads Hillary Clinton by an average of 2.3% according to nine January polls, and leads Barack Obama by an average of 2.9% according to eight January polls.
February through early May 2007: Fight over troop levels in Iraq heats up in Congress, focusing on the escalation and the Iraq war supplemental. Public overwhelmingly backs Democrats position, typically to the tune of 60%. or more. At the same time, one of the most public proponents of the escalation and continued war in Iraq, John McCain, sees his poll numbers begin to detonate, dropping from about 25% of national Republicans in January 2007 to 15% in mid-May 2007 (see here and here). Obama leads McCain by an average of 2.4% across 18 polls, and Clinton cuts McCain's lead to 0.5% across 20 polls. Further, Democratic self-identification reaches a 20-year high , and congressional approval hovers in the mid-30's.
Late May though early August 2007: Following Bush's veto of an Iraq supplemental with a timeline for withdrawal, an alliance of Republicans and Democratic Bush Dogs pass a blank check on Iraq through both branches of Congress. Congressional approval immediately drops below 30%, and never recovers. Despite defeat and dropping approval ratings, Democratic congressional leaders caution against using more aggressive tactics to force a change of direction in Iraq. Concurrently, John McCain's favorable rating drops below 50% for the first time ever, and even reaches net negative in some polls. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton now lead John McCain in every single general election poll, and do so by an average of more than 3%.
Late August through September 2007: General Petraeus testifies before Congress, argues that the escalation has worked. Like virtually every Democratic leader, Clinton offers stumbling initial support for the Petraeus claim. Less than five Republicans flip their votes on Iraq from May. Since Congress refuses to do so itself, MoveOn.org attempts more aggressive tactics against the Petraeus claim, and ends up getting condemned by the same congressional coalition that passed the blank check. Obama does not vote on the condemnation, but also does not speak out against it except in a press release. McCain's national poll numbers temporarily recover by about 5% according to Real Clear Politics. At a debate in late September, all leading Democratic contenders for the nomination refuse to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013.
Late 2007: Democrats leaders in Congress decide to shift focus away from Iraq, although it takes three months for the country to finally agree with this shift and start ranking the economy ahead of Iraq on a list of national priorities. Despite low approval ratings, Democrats are still poised to make large congressional gains on Republicans due to a wave of Republican retirements in the House (28 so far), the need to only defend 12 seats in the Senate, persistent Republican recruiting problems, and a seismic shift if the fundraising landscape between Democrats and Republicans. John McCain sees a complete recovery in his poll numbers and, by the end of the year, has taken the national lead for the Republican nomination. He also reasserts small leads on both Obama and Clinton in general election polls.
Early 2008: Democratic congressional leaders completely give up on trying to change the direction of the war in Iraq. McCain wins the Republican nomination for President because of Iraq, even though according to exit polls the majority of his primary voters indicate they are "angry" or "dissatisfied" with the Bush administration. He leads both Clinton and Obama the majority of general election polls. Although Clinton is still favored, the Democratic nomination is now poised to drag on past Super Tuesday, potentially dividing the party in a campaign when it already starts from behind.

At this point, the most likely--but hardly guaranteed--outcome to the 2008 elections is John McCain winning the Presidency over Hillary Clinton, while Democrats make decent gains of 10-15 seats in the House and 3-5 seats in the Senate. If this comes to pass, the failure to win the Presidency will be squarely placed on several major pillars of the progressive movement. MoveOn.org will be blamed for losing Iraq. Howard Dean will be blamed for the Michigan and Florida situations. Progressive activists in the blogosphere and on the ground will be blamed for pushing the party too far to the left, dividing the party, and denying Hillary Clinton an earlier nomination that could have helped her against McCain. The Village and the more timid, pro-corporate, centrist elements on the Democratic Party will both remain in total command of their respective power centers. McCain and the Democratic Congress probably pass a series of compromise measures on major issues like global warming that give the appearance of tackling the problem, but ultimately fail to make serious inroads to impending catastrophes. The potential for even further damage to our republic and long-term exhaustion within the ten-year old, contemporary manifestation of the progressive movement will be very real.

That, in a nutshell, is the disaster scenario we face on the electoral front in 2008. The central cause of this scenario is timidity on Iraq. John McCain would not be the Republican nominee, and neither Clinton nor Obama would be losing to him, if Iraq had not been taken off the table and if the "escalation is working" narrative had not taken hold. And yet, if this scenario comes to pass, the Democrats who allowed that narrative to take hold will find their relative power increased, while we will find ours relatively decreased. In a very real sense, this has already happened, given the strained relations both MoveOn.org and Howard Dean have with congressional Democrats. Not only has Iraq been taken off the table, but our two strongest voices within the establishment are being taken out of the equation.

Obviously, this can all be prevented by a series of electoral victories in the Democratic presidential primary, in the key congressional primaries of IL-03, MD-04 and IA-03, and, most of all, through general election victory for the eventual Democratic presidential nominee. However, we are now facing uphill battles in all three of those areas, making our chances of pulling all three of them off much more difficult than the task was just a few months ago. The simple truth is that, starting with the explosion of blogosphere traffic during the invasion of Iraq and with the rise of Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2003, over the past five years, the rising and declining fortunes of the contemporary manifestation of the progressive movement have been inextricably tied to winning and losing the Iraq debate nationwide. Right now, because we are losing that debate, we are losing pretty much every other fight, too. Until we start winning that fight again, our fortunes will not reverse. As long as the Iraq war continues, winning that debate must always be our number one priority.

Clinton Literally Applauds Troop Escalation

Chris Bowers — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:46:19 GMT

Here is an important campaign difference:

Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.

The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70's style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.

There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed. Even if she was applauding "the troops," that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq. If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.

I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign.

Why I Prefer Obama To Clinton: Ending the Causes of War

Chris Bowers — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:40:31 GMT

Last month, I wrote a piece listing seven key policy areas that would tackle the causes of the Iraq war, and prevent future disasters of the same type. Despite Obama's weakness on health care and continuing habit of reinforcing right-wing narratives, it now seems to me that he has a clear advantage over Clinton when it comes to tackling the causes of war:

Media Reform: Obama's telecom proposals are excellent, while Clinton's don't seem to be very good at all. This is an open and shut case.
Election Reform: If Obama's work on Von Spakovsky wasn't enough, the ongoing dispute about voting rights in Nevada once again makes this an open and shut case in favor of Obama.
Ending Military Privatization: Obama has introduced legislation targeting military contractors. Also, in a conversation I had with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the House leader on this issue, she praised Obama's leadership on the issue without even being asked about the Presidential campaigns. Schakowsky is from Illinois and an Obama supporter, so take that with a grain of salt, I guess. Again, I think Obama has a clear edge in this category.
Advisor and Institutional Reform: In early September, Tom Edsall made a key finding:

The well-publicized contrast between Hillary Clinton's early backing of the Bush administration's war effort and Barack Obama's early opposition, has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated -- the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton.
Combine this with the real threat of Harold Ford Jr. as DNC chair, and once again, there is a clear advantage to Obama.
Residual Forces: While I don't think Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan is any better than Clinton's in terms of residual forces, he has begun to discuss the issue and argues that he would have fewer residual forces than Clinton. I give him props for at least mentioning it, and thus a very slight edge to Obama in this category.
Global Warming and Energy Policy: Pretty much everything I have seen praises both Obama and Clinton's plans, so this appears to be a draw.
Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances. This is the one area where I see an edge for Clinton. There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. I seriously doubt we will see anything from Obama on this front, giving at least his desire for unity, post-partisanship and leaving the past behind. Obama also wasn't very good on Habeas Corpus, to say the least. Pretty clear edge to Clinton in this area.

So, that makes four clear advantages to Obama, one to Clinton, and two areas that are about even. Overall, that is a very strong advantage for Obama. While I have issues with Obama's rhetoric and health care proposals, on balance this list outweighs those negatives. Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton.

Right now, I still prefer John Edwards, and I have explained why on several occasions (see here, here and here for starters). However, if he finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences.

America As The French Fourth Republic

Chris Bowers — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:22:27 GMT

Iraqi defense minister says that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq for another ten years:

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq's borders from external threat until at least 2018.

Which is, of course, exactly what we are going to do. This one quote is all of the justification that another Republican administration will need to keep American troops in Iraq, at their present levels, for as long as the administration holds power. Then again, a Democratic administration will keep not as many, but still a lot, of troops in Iraq, too. And the Democratic Congress won't ever do anything about it, because they are afraid of seeming like they were "against the troops." Doing that, or really anything that might even a little aggressive on Iraq, will, of course, hurt election chances..

The whole thing feels like we have entered a military dictatorship through means of manners and peer pressure. We are required to keep troops in Iraq for as long and in whatever quantities conservative generals tell us to keep them in Iraq, because otherwise we would be offending the troops. We can never order them to leave Iraq, because otherwise we would be offending the troops. We also can't cut back on military spending, because to do so would offend the troops. In order to avoid offending the troops, we collectively agree to let the military do whatever its most conservative commanding officers say we should do.

The whole thing smacks of the Algiers Crisis coup that caused the end of the fourth French Republic. In 1958, the French government abolished its constitution and willing handed over power to De Gaulle, including the power to write a new constitution greatly expanding the President's powers, because the military asked the government to do so. Of all the historical comparisons I have seen, the end of the French Fourth Republic really strikes me as the best analogy for what has happened to our democracy. It was, in effect, a modern, relatively bloodless coup perpetuated in a liberal democracy as the result of a national crisis, and with the willing support of a large percentage of the population. This isn't without precedent in America, considering the Business Plot to overthrow FDR back in the 1930's. Really, the only difference strikes me as being the comparatively crude military tactics proposed by the Business Plot, and the even the more sophisticated tactics utilized by De Gaulle were crude in comparison to the more gradual, more sophisticated techniques of the Powell memo. n both situations, military supremacy over the government was assured through popular will of the people, and enforced through our most pervasive institutions: government, mass media, and our sense of national supremacy.

It is funny how much conservatives hate France, since we seem to emulating them quite nicely.

A Politics Without Logic

Chris Bowers — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:36:17 GMT

This is the most depressing passage I have read in some time:

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

That passage is from Hillary Clinton's floor speech in favor of S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It is remarkable that a congressional resolution entitled "A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," is justified on the grounds that it will improve diplomatic efforts. What part of "Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," wasn't clear in the title? The text of the legislation, which isn't very long, also states "[t]he President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." To argue that this legislation serves to further diplomacy, rather than to authorize the use of force no matter the outcome of diplomatic efforts and no matter the seriousness with which such efforts were engaged, is to cling to an incontrovertibly false argument. Arguing that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq authorized the use of military force against Iraq is as straightforward as an argument can be.

More in the extended entry.
The self-delusion and / or lying that warps the meaning of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq as somehow not authorizing the use of military force against Iraq is not even what bothers me the most about this passage. Even beyond denying the fundamental principles of logic, what really bothers me is the argument that if Democrats do not vote for this bill in sufficient numbers, then they will be the ones sabotaging diplomacy. In fact, as the opening sentence of the second paragraph makes clear, Clinton offers this as the primary justification for her vote. Clinton's argument is that if large numbers of Democrats offer bipartisan support to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, then war is less likely. Not only is this an exhortation to her fellow Democrats to be more hawkish, but this actually blames those who opposed the war for causing the war because they didn't back diplomatic efforts strongly enough.

This, in a nutshell, is Washington bipartisanship. Deny the fundamental principles of logic by claiming that a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq did not authorize the use of military force in Iraq. Urge your fellow Democrats to move to the right. Top it off by placing the blame for the start of the war on those who opposed the war. It an extreme level of mendacity that twice denies both logic and common sense. What has been the source of this mendacity? Why, of course, it is identity politics:

McAuliffe declared that under no circumstances would she take back her vote. "A woman?" he almost yelled. "Can you imagine?"

In a politics without logic, the only thing left is identity and power. For reasons steeped in identity politics, Hillary Clinton has been fundamentally dishonest about Iraq with Democrats during virtually this entire campaign, both by repeatedly claiming that she didn't vote for the war in late 2002 and then claiming for a long time that she would end the war even though her Iraq plans will leave thousands, even tens of thousands, of troops in Iraq. It took six months of pressure from the residual forces campaign for her to even start admitting that she would remove most, but not all troops. Even then, however, it seemingly has not resonated much with the Democratic electorate, because identity is all that matters in the electorate, too. Clinton still leads nationwide.

Like Matt, I miss the days when we talked about electability, especially since things aren't going too well on that front, either.

Richardson Set To Send Obama Second-Choice Support?

Chris Bowers — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:15:15 GMT

Iowa Independent:

Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.

It should be noted that, late last night, Joaquin Guerra of the Richardson campaign killed these rumors right here on Open Left. Still, even if it is true, it isn't a deal like the Edwards-Kucinich mutual agreement four years ago. It is, instead, more like the strategic choice the Gephardt campaign made four years ago to instruct his precinct captains to back Edwards in the event he isn't viable. Still, since precinct captains are more likely to take campaign orders than other caucus goers, and since precinct captains actually make up a decent percentage of every candidate's caucus goers, it should still be significant.

I had hoped Richardson would back Edwards, since I consider Edwards superior on residual forces. When I wrote the original drafts of the ad we put together with the Richardson campaign, it was noticeably less harsh on Edwards than on Obama and Clinton. I always thought Edwards was a bit better on residual forces than the other two, and I think since that time he has proven me correct.

Dang. I'm still proud of the ad, though. I am also grateful to the Richardson campaign for working with us on residual forces.

Progressives In the Democratic Primary: Comparing 2004 and 2008

Chris Bowers — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:19:42 GMT

Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn't answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.

Policy Shifting Left. Compared to four years ago, proposed policy among Democratic frontrunners has shifted to the left in virtually every area.
- Iraq. Invading Iraq is now accepted a bad idea, whereas four years ago Howard Dean was the only top-tier candidate who opposed the invasion. The main policy debate is over when to withdraw and whether or not to leave a residual force.
  <.li>Health Care. Unlike four years ago, the rhetoric goal of health care proposals is universal coverage. Candidates now attack each other for not offering universal coverage, whereas four years ago not a single top-tier candidate was proposing universal health care.
- Energy and Global Warming. Four years ago, energy and global warming did not play a prominent role in the campaign. This time around, probably due to the efforts of Al Gore and others, not only is it a main issue, but all of the top candidates have very good proposals on it. This, clearly, is an advance for progressivism.
- Upholding the Constitution. Four years ago, there was little dissent in the field on Republican efforts to increase executive power and strip away civil liberties through measures like the Patriot Act. Now, restoring both civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances has become an issue, even if not a central one. Most candidates have also moved to the left in this area, even if only Chris Dodd has been a leader.
Grassroots Activism Ramping Up. With Clinton, Edwards and Obama all sporting equal or greater numbers of activists than the Dean campaign in 2004, the number of small donors and campaign volunteers has significantly increased from 2004. Attendance at political events is well up from four years ago, as is the audience for progressive media. Most campaigns have advanced netroots outreach departments. In terms of sheer numbers, grassroots activism is well up from 2004.

On the negative side, despite the overall increase, the influence of the progressive grassroots on the campaign has not increased. Small donors are the same percentage of overall donors that they were in 2004. The Draft Gore movement of 2007 failed, unlike the Draft Clark movement of 2003. No clear "netroots favorite" emerged, and the establishment just isn't as scared of any of the top three Democrats as they were of Dean four years ago. While we made a dent on residual forces, many of the issues we focus on, such as the use of Republican talking points, the need for partisanship, and civil liberties / checks and balances, did not become major issues for the voting public. So, while our overall activist numbers have increased, barring a surprising John Edwards victory tomorrow, grassroots progressive influence on the outcome, relative to the establishment, appears to be static. Then again, no matter what happens, Edwards will outperform Dean and have done so against much tougher competition, so perhaps that is progress.
Electability. Electability took a major tumble as a campaign issue this time around, which surely is progress for progressives. Further, while electability has typically meant "moving to the center," when it was discussed in this campaign, mostly it meant poll numbers, handling Republican media attacks, and raising money. Combined, these two developments severely undercut the prominence longstanding argument that Democrats must move to the center in order to win. That argument is still floating around, and we are still some distance from "Democrats must be progressive populists in order to win" becoming conventional wisdom, but we are gaining ground. Again, more progress will be made if Edwards wins Iowa, since if Obama wins Iowa the "Democrats must be bi-partisan in order to win" narrative will gain ground.

The ideal progressive candidate probably would have been someone who managed to cram the leadership of Dodd, the residual force position of Richardson, the rhetoric of Edwards, and the combined activist support of Obama and Edwards into a single package. A candidate like that would have unified the netroots, scared the crap out of the establishment, and basically dominated the entire course of the campaign. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but it just didn't happen. Even so, I think progressives gained ground in terms of influence within the party from 2004 to 2008. If we continue to fight hard, I am hopeful that no matter who wins, we will continue to gain ground in the future.

Fully Explaining Why I Am Cheering For Edwards In Iowa

Chris Bowers — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:46:19 GMT

In the extended entry, I attempt to fully explain my decision to cheer for John Edwards in Iowa, a decision about which I feel pretty certain now. This is, of course, my decision alone, and is not meant to reflect on anyone else on Open Left.
Policy
I basically agree with Matt's post from Tuesday that the Democratic field of Presidential candidates is not addressing, or even really mentioning, some of the most crippling problems we face as a country: American Empire / national security state, and the war on drugs / cradle to prison superhighway. In looking for a candidate to support, those are two enormous issues that I would like to see addressed. That no one, except maybe Kucinich, is talking about those problems is a real disappointment in the Democratic field. As such, while I will support and work for no matter who wins the nomination, I also won't delude myself that that candidate will accomplish what I think needs to be done to fix the country. At the same time, I have also listed what I see as the positive qualities in several of the candidates., and how I will be dissatisfied with the nominee since we can't find them all in a single package.

Further, I have also explained in the past that I was seeking to evaluate the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination on a core list of seven policy issues that, collectively, would tackle the underlying causes that led us to war in places like Iraq. On those issues I think Obama and Edwards are about as good as each other, and both better than Clinton. However, throw in health care, and I have to conclude that Edwards is my policy favorite among the top three.

Electability
In terms of electability, I understand that Edwards will be handicapped in the general election by accepting matching funds, while Obama and Clinton will not be. However, Edwards starts ahead of Obama and Clinton in terms of general election polling, so I think this front is basically a wash. Clinton might be slightly ahead of Obama in this category, given current polling, and Obama might be slightly ahead of Edwards, given the financial situation, but the margins are narrow and difficult to determine based only on polls and financial figures. Besides, I think that all three look good electorally unless McCain is nominated on the other side, in which case it will be difficult no matter who is nominated. Obama versus McCain might be a problem area, but I actually don't see a path for that matchup to occur. If Obama does well in Iowa, then McCain won't win New Hampshire, and thus won't win the nomination. If Obama does not do well in Iowa, then McCain might win New Hampshire, but it won't matter because Obama won't win the nomination. We might get Obama or McCain, but we won't get Obama and McCain.

Also, electability is why I am only looking at the top three Democrats right now. At this late date, I don't see how anyone except Clinton, Obama or Edwards can win the primary. I also don't see how an endorsement of anyone else can promote progressive power in such a short time span.

In My Gut
Apart from policy and electability, I have long sought a candidate who would be able to forge the rising, younger, progressive, non-white and / or non-Christian coalition about which I have written, and a candidate who will work with, and use the language of, new progressive media. The former is clearly Obama, at least in terms of potential, as I have written on numerous occasions for quite a long time now. The latter is clearly John Edwards, considering his campaign's frequent use of the word progressive, adopting terms like neocon, not firing campaign bloggers when they were attacked by right wing media, and talking about fighting corporate interests. (Again, I am only looking at the top three here.) Clinton understand the threat of the conservative movement, and even coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy," but during the campaign Edwards has been more vocal in the type of language I seek.

So, do I go with a figure who could potentially catalyze the type of coalition I seek, or with the candidate who stands with, and uses the language of, new progressive media? As I discussed a couple weeks ago, this is a difficult choice, and not one I with which I will ever be fully satisfied. However, in the end, I once again side with Edwards. Basically, this is because I don't think Obama is trying, or is even wants, to put together the non-white and / or non-Christian coalition I am talking about. While I want both goals, I feel as though improving the rhetorical position of progressivism is more achievable in this cycle, and I feel as though John Edwards is better at that than Obama and Clinton.

Overall
I hope that this post comprehensively explains my decision-making process in voting for Edwards, and why it isn't a clear enough, or satisfying enough, choice that I am willing to take it to the level of activism in the primary. Granted, I have conducted some activism, since I donated to two Presidential campaigns this cycle, Edwards and Richardson, and since I appeared in a television commercial for Bill Richardson.

The nature or level of this endorsement probably won't satisfy anyone, including Edwards supporters. I should also note that my order or support hasn't changed at all in about two years. During 2006, Feingold was my first choice, and Edwards was consistently my second choice. An Edwards-Feingold, Edwards-Spitzer, or Edwards-Sherrod Brown ticket would work for me. I don't really worry that waiting this long reduces my influence on the process, because I'm happy with the impact I made on residual forces in the campaign. There is only so much one person can focus on in a campaign, and if I had to do it all over again, I would still focus mainly on policy and progressivism in general. For me, those are always more important than any single candidate. Besides, I honestly was undecided during most of the campaign, variously moving between Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Richardson and unsure, not to mention frequent changes in my second place choices (which, at different times, briefly included Clinton and Kucinich). If a blogger loses his or her honestly, then she or he loses everything.

I don't begrudge people who are undecided, generally dissatisfied with the field, and / or who support different candidates. If Al Gore had run, I probably would have supported him. If Feingold had run, I probably would have moved to Wisconsin. If Dodd or Richardson had gotten more traction, this entire equation might have changed. If it comes down to Clinton vs. Obama, I think I will cheer for Obama. On the morning of January 3rd, I'll put up the one and only Open Left poll on the Democratic nomination.

It was a difficult decision to make. In the comments, feel free to offer alternative rationales.

The Bottomless Well Of Cynicism

Chris Bowers — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:35:05 GMT

The American political scene provides ample justification for even its closest followers to be cynical, but I have to object this article from Patrick Healy on Bill Richardson:

I just got a phone call - unprompted - from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.

"Senator Clinton's comments are a stunning flip-flop - she's been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround," Mr. Richardson said.

Mrs. Clinton has maintained that she would leave a residual force behind in Iraq to pursue narrow missions, a position that her spokesman said she still holds. As her aides have done before, the spokesman declined to say how many troops Mrs. Clinton would leave.

Mr. Richardson's poke begs the question: Is he, in fact, uninterested in being Mrs. Clinton's running mate should she win the nomination? Some Democrats have suspected that he was angling for the job, given the fact that he has heretofore stuck up for her in some of the recent presidential debates.

There is another possibility that Healy doesn't seem to consider: Bill Richardson is honestly and openly angry about Democratic plans to leave a residual American military presence in Iraq. While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine.

Richardson isn't alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn't even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.

Update: The Clinton campaign is accurately pointing out that Clinton said she would bring "nearly all troops home," not "all troops home." She was misquoted by the reporter. I guess this means she didn't change her position, but really I kind of wish she had.

Iraq Debate Count

Chris Bowers — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:50:58 GMT

The Chris Dodd campaign has done a great job with its debate talk clock meter. I would like to introduce a new debate meter, one that measures how many times Iraq was mentioned in each of the last five debates. The pattern is illuminating:

December 13th, Des Moines Register Debate: 13 mentions
December 4th, NPR Debate: 27 mentions
November 14th, Nevada Debate: 40 mentions
October 30th, Drexel University Debate: 45 mentions
September 26th, New Hampshire Debate: 59 mentions

Iraq peaked as an issue in the Democratic primary in late September, when the residual forces issue hit the mainstream. Since then, it has been a straight, downward decline, with mentions of Iraq cut 80% over the last five debates. Iraq is clearly being "taken off the table," not only by Democrats but also by the media outlets that sponsor their debates. Bill Richardson seems to be just about the only candidate discussing Iraq these days.

Avoiding Iraq is a path to doom for Democratic candidates. In the two most hotly contested special elections this year, MA-05 and OH-05, Republican candidates over-performed first by blurring on Iraq themselves, and then by benefiting from the Democratic candidate taking Iraq off the table. It unfortunately seems to be the path we are walking down. I think we need a series of primaries that will match the impact of Lieberman-Lamont last year in order to, once again, make this point clear to the Democratic establishment.