January 2007

It’s Kind of What We’ve Been Asking For….

Duncan made a good point the other day about Obama’s statement about the war:

The basic content of what Obama is saying, divorced from the larger debate, is fine, but as to how it plays in the current debate it’s not fine. It allows us to wait around one more Friedman… and then something will happen. Except it won’t happen. Troops will not start coming home 4-6 months from now. And, most likely, 4-6 months from now Obama won’t be saying “bring them home now,” though I’ve put him on my little calendar and will make sure to check back then and let you know.

The thing is that “bring them home now” doesn’t really mean now. It doesn’t mean that thousands of troops start boarding transport planes for the trip home. It just means that the focus shifts from staying to leaving, and the latter slowly begins to happen. Every time someone punts that action for yet another Friedman, it helps to ensure that the end of the war will always be a Friedman away.

I agreed with Duncan at the time even though I’m very sympathetic to what Obama is saying. Ultimately, Duncan was right though. Discussing Iraq in terms of how pony plans doesn’t work no matter how well intentioned and serious the idea. If George Bush believes all that is happening is that people are going to offer alternative plans he’ll keep sending troops to Iraq like a gambling addict chasing his losses.

The thing is, here’s Duncan today:

I suppose it’s progress that major Democrats are trying to one-up each other on legislation-about-Iraq-that-won’t pass. Still, now that they have a majority and seem to generally agree that ending the war is the right thing to do I’d prefer it if they got into a room and found something they could all get behind which would be an attempt to end this thing.

I do think Democrats (ones in office more than the 60s-scarred punditry) are at least understanding that this war is unpopular and there will be no backlash against them for attempts to end it.

Someone running for President and getting the message that there has to be a loud and unambiguous message to Bush that it’s time to get out, has to and should do exactly what Obama is doing. Yeah, it’s more symbolism than substance in one sense, but it turns the debate exactly as Duncan wanted to one of getting the fuck out. Obama and everyone besides Joe Biden will be able to still work together on mutually agreed upon plans after this, but the loud and clear call isn’t a bad thing.

So Obama’s doing what we wanted him to do and actually I think Duncan is doing exactly what he was previously annoyed with Obama doing which was to avoid the limelight and work with everyone on a plan in the Senate to get this over with. Duncan has good points in both cases, but I think we need to realize Obama’s statement is

a) a reflection of what he’s come to realize

and

b) exactly what Duncan (and I) were asking for essentially.

It’s the Only Way to Wake Bush Up

Obama Statement on Iraq

“Throughout the war in Iraq, we have been given assurance after assurance by our government only to find out that facts on the ground reflect a completely different reality.

“Last week, after being told by President Bush that his plan to escalate this war would be well-planned, well-coordinated, and well-supported by the Iraqi government, we find out in this week’s New York Times that none of this is true. Military officials tell us that there is no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership.

“I cannot in good conscience support this plan. As I first said two months ago, we should not be sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, we should begin redeploying them to let the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever and to pressure the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to finally reach a political settlement.

“Escalation is a failed policy opposed by generals, Democrats and Republicans, and now even the Iraqis themselves, and the fact that the President is already moving ahead with this idea is a terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002.

“It now falls on Congress to find a way to support our troops in the field while still preventing the President from multiplying his previous mistakes. That is why I not only favor capping the number U.S. troops in Iraq, but believe it’s imperative that we begin the phased redeployment I called for two months ago, and intend to introduce legislation that does just that.”

They’re Too Soft

Rich takes on some of the claims that Obama’s team can’t handle what Clinton and others will throw at them.

Bullshit.

Giangreco was central to Rod’s reelection–you know, the one where he ran against George Ryan…uhhhh…Judy.

Let me add as I briefly mentioned below. Gibbs worked with the team that torpedoed Dean with the terrorism commercials in Iowa. That might not ingratiate him to others, but he’s good at fighting. He just had an embarrassment of riches in 2004 with Keyes.

Hildebrand ran a brutal campaign against Bradley in Iowa. Every damned event Gore people were there mucking it up.

Burton was working in a very effective press shop at DCCC this cycle. They turned out good work the entire campaign keeping the Republicans off of message.

I don’t know if this team will win, but it’s certainly a group who can handle a punch and hit back.

Scaife is Getting the Band Back Together

Expect to see the Illinois Project modeled on the Arkansas Project.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review takes a shot at “Obama’s Closet”

Interesting pattern: Only Barack’s middle name is used in the article. Huh….

More fun in this quote:

Said the senator later in an interview: “It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy.” Usually, when discussing drug use, politicians urge kids and their parents to “Just say no” to drugs. Barack Obama forgot to do so.

The whole quote

What about confessing to drug use? You talk about marijuana and cocaine.

Oh, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled. Frequently. That was the point.

It was, wasn’t it?

You know, it’s, it’s not something I make light of. It’s something that I wrote actually about in my first book, and it was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teen-age boy. And in that sense, I think, the vast majority of Americans understand that teen-age boys are frequently confused.

Sort of a different context there, isn’t it.

Kevin Bacon connections:

use drop cap here) Our story shifts to Baghdad. Ayham Alsammarae, an American of Iraqi descent who is a Cabinet member and Electricity minister, was jailed and waiting trial on corruption charges. But he escaped jail and claims to be out of Iraq. His whereabouts are unknown. He left with the assistance of “foreigners,” according to Iraqi police, who say an earlier escape attempt was assisted by two U.S. security contractors since departed from Iraq.

Alsammarae is a friend of Tony Rezko; the FBI is said to seek information on $2 billion in missing money meant to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.

The connection to Alsammarae? None apparently other than knowing Rezko. And no mention that Alsammarae’s primary political ties are to Bush

And then claiming some nefarious connection to ACORN

But back in Chicago, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is more important than Iraq or Washington. ACORN and its associated Midwest Academy, both founded in the 1970s, continue to train and mobilize activists throughout the country, often using them to manipulate public opinion through “direct action.” It’s sometimes a code for illegal activities.

Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person — meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.

Since he graduated from law school, Obama’s work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work.

What exactly it is that Obama was involved with in the case of ACORN that is illegal is never identified. ACORN has more than it’s share of problems, but it’s a bit bizarre to tie Obama to that.

In three of his five years he was director of the Developing Communities Project funded by the dastardly Catholic Churches in South Chicago. His primary connection to ACORN is through classes he has helped with…terrifying I tell you. The Gamaliel Foundation was another he worked with which is based on community organizing and is affiliated with….faith based organizing. Shocking. The Midwest Academy? An activist training organization. Oh, and the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation are deep dark foundations trying to, you know, work and improve on inner cities and the such. How could it be.

It’s only going to get worse, but if you think this is nothing to worry about, remember what Scaife did to Clinton with $1.8 million. It doesn’t matter if anything is true, it only matters if these clowns can get it in print.

Illinois Political Pro Employment Act

It’s nothing like when millionaires run for something, but Obama will be keeping several local shops and people employed.

The Trib ran down some of the folks. Those most familiar to those on the blog:

Axelrod
Giangreco
Robert Gibbs
Plouffe
Bill Burton formerly of the DCCC

No word on Dan Shomon’s role–Shomon does public relations for many candidates and worked for Obama for a long time and is a favorite target in Cap Fax comments for apparently disgruntled people for no apparent reason.

And, of course, to make it bloggy, enter your favorite jokes about the crew (nothing really mean)

Most notable to me is that Gibbs and Giangreco both outbaby face me and I have a baby face.

TPM has a more exhaustive list:

* David Plouffe: likely campaign manager, senior strategist for Gephardt in ’04 and former executive director of the DCCC.
* Steve Hildebrand: accompanied Obama to Iowa and has been reaching out to potential staff behind the scenes, Daschle’s campaign manager in ’04 and Tim Johnson’s in ’02. Ran the Iowa caucuses for Gore in ’00.
* Robert Gibbs: communications director, a campaign veteran.
* Lou Susman: – will fundraise for Obama if he runs, Kerry’s national finance chair in ’04, formerly worked for Vilsack.
* David Axelrod: chief strategist and media consultant, formerly worked for Vilsack and Edwards.
* Paul Harstad: pollster, formerly worked for Vilsack.
* Matt Rodriguez: “friend” of the campaign who helped staff Obama in NH, political director of Gephardt’s ’04 pres campaign.
* Jim Demers: “friend” of the campaign, NH lawyer and strategist.
* Devorah Adler: likely research director, recent research director for the DNC.
* Shauna Daly: likely deputy director, recent deputy director for the DNC.
* Julianna Smoot: finance director, DSCC finance director in ’06 and Edwards’ finance director in ’04.
* Valerie Jarrett: part of inner circle, friend of Obama’s and a veteran of Chicago Democratic circles.
* Bill Burton: likely to join staff, press secretary for House Democrats’ midterm campaign.
* Paul Giangreco: direct mail, media consultant and veteran of Iowa caucuses.
* Larry Grisolano: direct mail, Giangreco’s West Coast partner.

I’m not sure which is worse–Giangreco being called Paul or being towards the end of the list

Hildebrand ran Gore’s 2000 campaign in Iowa which will still piss off most of the Bradley people, but oddly, Gibbs raises more anger over being close to the people who ran the negative Dean ad in Iowa on terrorism.

Vilsack would probably have a formidable team if Barack wasn’t running.

One of the best things is that the campaign team isn’t dominated by people from D.C. That’s a good thing since D.C. is a world unto itself.

US Government Confirms, It Actually Thinks the Grand Canyon is Millions of Years Old

snark Courageous /snark, but still troubling, from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

* Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
* What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
* Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?

The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

As Doonesbury said, teach the controversy apparently….