Finding Their Voice

It looks as though movers and shakers in the Democratic party have been taking heed of Truth Will Out's suggestions. As we were debating the various Iraq positions of potential '08 candidates, they were hashing it out on the senate floor. And as we were discussing what direction or issues to push, one likely candidate outside of the Senate started pushing big ideas:

John Edwards is pushing one issue that might satisfy both Peter Beinart & Michael Tomasky (and yancy & me). Poverty is on his mind and his pitch may make him a favorite of the labor movement. Watch Edwards talk about his plan here.

From the National Journal:

"Like JFK challenging America to land a man on the moon, a national goal of eradicating poverty will sharpen our focus, marshal our resources and at the end of the day, bring out our best."

“Besides, we need a goal. America will never get close to eliminating poverty until we set our sights and commit to try."



And not only does he have a big idea, he's letting it all hang out on Iraq:

Gordon Fischer, former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, who isn't aligned with any presidential campaign, says Edwards has ``great support'' in Iowa. ``He has phoned folks here and e-mailed folks here and done guest editorials in the Des Moines Register,'' Fischer said. ``He is working it. That pays off.''

Fischer said the Iraq war is very important to the Democratic activists who dominate the Iowa caucuses, and ``Edwards' apology made a big difference to Democrats here.''

Fischer was referring to a Nov. 13, 2005, opinion piece Edwards wrote for the Washington Post that began, ``I was wrong.'' He went on to say that his 2002 Senate vote authorizing President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq was a mistake, and ``I take responsibility for that mistake.''

Yesterday, Edwards called for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. ``We need to be getting out,'' Edwards said in the interview. He said all combat troops should be withdrawn ``within 12 to 18 months.'' - Bloomberg news.

Senate Dems Speak Out

Last week the Democrats were trapped in a phony House debate on Iraq. This week, Senate Democrats took advantage of the unpopular war by uniting under the broad policy of what I'll call "Something's got to give." There were many more votes for Carl Levin's resolution which set no dates for a withdrawal/re-deployment than there were for John Kerry's amendment which stated the troops should be home within a year.

There were compelling cases made on both sides, and much of the media is playing up the divisions in the party. But I think this week has been good for Democrats. Cards are being laid on the table, positions are being tested, and the floor debates have put strong criticism of the war in the spotlight:

"The Republicans in the Senate stand alone in insisting on 'no plan and no end,' " Harry Reid said."

"“Democrats have a plan to begin to leave Iraq, but leave with our interests intact – it is not simply a phased withdrawal. The Administration has no plan. All they are offering is more of the same. Democrats have an end game, Republicans still have an open-ended commitment.

“There may be differences among Democrats, but that’s a much better place to be than where Republicans are: united behind the President in a failed policy.” - Joe Biden

"I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. . . No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people. And it's troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country." - Barack Obama

"For three years, Congress has played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. With the administration’s failure to offer a coherent or effective strategy in Iraq, it is long past time for Congress to offer a plan to redeploy our troops so we can give Iraq its best chance at stability, and refocus on al Qaeda and the terrorist networks that threaten the security of all Americans.

“We must redeploy to succeed – and we will put this national security imperative to a test in the United States Senate this week. . . Our amendment recognizes the need to keep an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight al Qaeda and its affiliates and protect regional security interests. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel should remain inside Iraq." - John Kerry

Redeploy to succeed. Sounds like a good policy to me.

I think this debate puts Democrats on the side of most voters. Most of us don't know whether we should quickly withdraw, re-deploy, or otherwise alter our policy. But most want the policy to change. I don't think Democrats will be punished at the ballot box for not having a clear bumper-sticker solution. But elected Dems have to get their hands dirty and get in the debate and carve out some space on this.

The '06 election can be about change in Iraq. We can unite on more details under a specific candidate in '08. I know most of the media isn't pushing this angle, but this is the right debate for the moment and I think will ultimately do the party good.

Paul Begala agrees:

"If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they’re a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

The fact is the American people want a new direction in Iraq, and the Democrats offer several. The Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing more than a four-word strategy: more of the same.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.”"

On the heels of white house press secretary Tony Snow's unfortunate WWII comparisons, let me trot out a few FDR quotes that seem apt in the Iraq debate:

"There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still."

"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."

I've been skeptical of Hillary Clinton as an '08 nominee, but I'll give her the last word on this as she best sums up my feelings on the Democrats this week:

"I want to start by saying that although unity is important, it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country. We just finished a debate about the way forward in Iraq. It turned out not to be a debate between the parties because the other party has made a decision to blindly follow the president, to ask no questions, to raise no concerns. My friend Jane Harman here in the front row, who has been a leader in our party on national security issues, has been raising hard questions while her counterpart is basically just in the amen corner for the Bush administration.

So I think that the Democrats may have somewhat different views about how we succeed in Iraq, but we are together unified in fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to engage in a legitimate debate, to ask the difficult issues and to offer honorable, responsible positions." - Hillary Clinton