a la carte
Much has transpired since our last posts, so let me begin with the most recent developments.
Bush V. Bush
Sidney Blumenthal has an interesting scoop on Salon about Bush 1 trying to convince Bush 2 to drop Rummy. It turns out, most of the piece is on Haditha, so I'll post the scoop here:
"Former President George H.W. Bush waged a secret campaign over several months early this year to remove Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The elder Bush went so far as to recruit Rumsfeld's potential replacement, personally asking a retired four-star general if he would accept the position, a reliable source close to the general told me. But the former president's effort failed, apparently rebuffed by the current president. When seven retired generals who had been commanders in Iraq demanded Rumsfeld's resignation in April, the younger Bush leapt to his defense. "I'm the decider and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain," he said. His endorsement of Rumsfeld was a rebuke not only to the generals but also to his father.
The elder Bush's intervention was an extraordinary attempt to rescue simultaneously his son, the family legacy and the country. The current president had previously rejected entreaties from party establishment figures to revamp his administration with new appointments. There was no one left to approach him except his father. This effort to pluck George W. from his troubles is the latest episode in a recurrent drama -- from the drunken young man challenging his father to go "mano a mano" on the front lawn of the family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, to the father pulling strings to get the son into the Texas Air National Guard and helping salvage his finances from George W.'s mismanagement of Harken Energy. For the father, parental responsibility never ends. But for the son, rebellion continues. When journalist Bob Woodward asked George W. Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."
Lauer V. Coulter
Check out the video
here.
Warner V. Feingold
Last weekend two likely presidential candidates made their case in New Hampshire.
I think Warner and Feingold are pretty good representatives of the two sides of today's Democratic party. I don't mind Warner's centrism, as long as it isn't just watered down bad ideas - Liebermanesque social security reform compromises, etc. And I don't mind Feingold's bolder approach so long as it isn't just about civil liberties. Don't get me wrong, protecting civil liberties is not a mistake for Dems, or anyone, but framing the debate as protecting American lives or civil liberties, and Dems lose. Democrats like Feingold need to make sure they appear to want to protect America as much as they want to punish Bush. That doesn't mean he has to change any of his positions. Feingold, and his ilk, have to find the right balance on what they emphasize. And Warner, and his ilk, have to not compromise their way to oblivion on Iraq, SSC reform, immigration, etc. Here's a Washington Post interview with Feingold.
Warner V. Hillary
The nytimes reports that Warner has criticized Hillary, making him the first potential candidate to do so. Sure, it's a process critique, not one of policy, but this will likely be a huge trend in the primaries: to what extent do you attack or ignore Hillary?
Hillary V. Gore
These two pieces from New York Magazine focus on a Gore run and what that might mean to Hillary.
Hillary V. Everybody
MSNBC on more Clinton concerns.
And, of course, there's much more Gore. I haven't seen AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH yet, but I hope that Gore and his film have an impact on the primaries. Or, at least, he can keep doing bits for SNL.
With all this in mind, who looks like the best prospect for '08? It's obviously way early, but going by the current climate at home and abroad, the policies and personalities, who looks good? Right now, I'll go with Obama, even though it is far from clear that he is running. (currently the likely field is Hillary, Warner, Feingold, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Vilsack, Bayh, whew!) I'm going with Obama because I think he's a mix of the qualities you can find in Feingold and John Edwards, with the name recognition of Hillary. He ought to run, not because he's ready, (he can do some crash courses before the inauguration) but because it's unlikely that his star power will grow. He faces diminishing returns, so strike while the iron is hot.
And does the Democratic Party need a plan on Iraq for '06 and/or '08? Or is it more important that each candidate have a plan? What kind of a plan do you prefer? On this, I'll go with Jack Murtha.
posted by Christopher @ 10:40 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Nicely done; much to consider.
I'll leave Ms Coulter to her self-destruction, though that video is amusing.
As for '08, I found myself surprised by the preference for Obama, and yet more surprised by my agreement with you, Mr Lee. Although he's young and doesn't have much legislation to trumpet, you're right in pointing out that he's got some star-power now, and he might as well use it.
Not a bad speaker, either—here's my favorite bit from his generally good commencement address at Knox College:
Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity - that has produced our unrivaled political stability.
Exactly.
Loved the Al Gore clip; great satire, and it's a nice reminder of Gore's sense of humor—beats the Two Bushes bit any day of the week.
On another note, Joe Klein wrote a nice review of the Beinart book which ran in today's Sunday Times book review section.
I think my stance on the book (which, alas, I still have not read in full) is clear, so I'll just offer this quote and voice my approval:
Beinart's argument for a return to a more judicious American idealism seems essential. The world's problems will not be solved by authoritarians or, in most cases, by a superpower acting alone. If President Bush is right when he says democracy is the truest path toward global stability, he is wrong when he calls freedom a "gift from the Almighty." Beinart knows that freedom is a struggle, not a gift, and that democracy is an achievement, and not always attainable. It requires economic nurture and sometimes military support, and the humility of action taken only within an international context. It requires a fervent attention to detail and, above all, patience.
Huzzah.
I agree with your analysis of Feingold and Warner, CR. However, what we're more likely to see in '08 is Hillary on the ticket, trying to act like Warner but attacked by the GOP for being too much like Feingold. Some Democrats are nervous about this, but I think it's about as palatable as any other scenario.
I'm OK with Gore, as well, although the groundswell in his favor seems to be mostly a media creation as far as I can tell.
I disagree on Obama. This is the presidency we're talking about, not a stock speculation. The guy has to prove himself in the Senate; he's done well so far, but this job is too important to hand off to the prettiest face.
The worst-case scenario would be for him to run this time and ruin his career before it's started, with a gaffe in the harsh light of the prez campaign. Let's allow him to make whatever rookie mistakes he's going to make in the less harsh light of the Senate.
If he's truly presidential material, he'll be even more viable in '12 or '16. (If McCain wins in '08, he's going to be awfully old by 2012, and if CR is to be believed, he'll be weakened by his unilateral war against Iran).
I respect Murtha's position, yet I can't escape the fear that withdrawal would make things worse. We shouldn't have gone in the first place and now that we're there every option is bad--withdraw, stay the course, fire Rummy, don't fire Rummy--all fruits of the poisonous tree.
YHD, the article on Beinart clarified some things for me. I'm glad to see him own up to his mistake on Iraq and acknowledge that this was a violation of the very principles he's promoting in his book.
But Klein and Beinart also seem to be arguing (forgive me if I'm misreading) that liberals should promote free trade, as part of this program of internationalism over isolationism. Does this pose a problem for you, YHD?
Also, just as a footnote, I still have trouble with the uncritical hero-worship of the only world leader in history to use atomic weapons, killing an estimated 200,000 people, mostly innocent civilians, and then claim not to lose a wink of sleep over it. I know Beinart is lionizing him for Cold War policy, not WWII, but still ...
I'm not saying the scenario is perfect with Obama, but I think experience is overrated.
And I'm not sure what more experience in the senate will do for obama in terms of executive preparation. We've run really experienced guys lately, and it certainly doesn't help politically. I'm not sure how much it helps policy-wise. Clinton had 12 years of experience, but was probably more green in '93 on foreign affairs than Obama is right now.
Obama did get elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996. He's a true star. I don't know if he can sustain that. He may be perfectly seasoned for failure in '12 and beyond.
And he'll be just about as experienced as Mark Warner by the time he would have to declare.
In terms of Truman, I've always been a big fan, but his legacy does have a huge shadow. I will say this: post 9/11 and after all of Bush's destructive and negligent turn at the helm, it's clear that all of those presidents who seemed mediocre to many(bush 1, clinton, ford, carter)were highly underrated. JFK and Truman have also been a little overrated.
I do think dems can learn lessons from jfk & hst in terms of style & politics, but I'm not sure that they were significantly better presidents than Carter and Clinton.
I think a lot of people, even if inclined to like Obama, will share my gut feeling that it's too soon. I love the guy, but it just doesn't sit well.
From what I can tell, even HE doesn't believe he has enough experience.
Maybe Warner doesn't, either, but he at least governed a red state for four years, and quite successfully by all accounts.
I guess JFK and HST were more successful at articulating a vision (Marshall Plan/containment, Peace Corps) and carrying it out than were Clinton and Carter.
One former Republican congressman (a moderate--ah, for the good old days!) told my seminar group here last year that Carter "couldn't pass a Mother's Day resolution." Carter did enrich the idiom by introducing us to the concept of "stagflation." And Clinton had his health care debacle, and Somalia, which is now coming back to haunt us again. But at least these two don't have a Nagasaki or a Vietnam in their legacy.
I've always loved Truman, and I know he thought he was doing the right thing, but I think Dave Barry really nailed it when he wrote that the justification for Nagasaki seemed to be that, "Hey, we had another bomb!"
I might also make the case that experience can teach us the wrong lessons. For example, many democrats voted for the resolution because they remembered all too well the embarassment they faced when they voted against Desert Storm. They thought a new Iraq war, justifiable or not, would be quick and relatively painless.
And Hillary is the only potential candidate who voted for the war that hasn't said she would do it any differently. Edwards, Biden, and Kerry have all expressed regrets over their choice.
And if Hillary thinks she'll capture hearts and minds by supporting flag burning ammendments - oh sorry, she opposes an ammendment to ban flag burning but supports federal legislation making it a crime to burn the flag and compared flag burning to cross burnings. Oy! Bring on Obama.
You're right - Carter was pretty poor at dealing with Congress. He did however, as Fritz Mondale said, keep the peace. And the Camp David Peace Accords were no mean feat.
I might argue that we're still paying some a the price for the Korean War. But I can't help liking Truman too.
Definitely the bomb falls into the "momentum of events" theory of history. Truman, relatively unknown and thrust into the presidency, is told of a secret project that can end the war. They didn't spend all that time, money, and manpower on a bomb they weren't going to use. Doesn't make it right, but I can see how it happened.
Obama will undoubtedly be a better candidate than Hillary--when he's ready. I'd hate to see him pressured into a premature candidacy just because he's the "it girl" of the moment.
Hillary's flag-burning "stance" is the only unsupportable thing she's done, in my opinion. Typical Clintonian cynicism. The courts would overturn such a law anyway.
Still, I'll take triangulation and competence over dogma and incompetence any day.
As for her Iraq vote, I'm not sure it's relevant whether she repudiates it as long as she repudiates elective, preemptive, unilateral war, which I think she will.
Beinart and Tomasky have just begun a dialogue on Slate. Beinart just fired the first shot, and boy, is he pissed!
But it is important. It tells us that you learned from your mistake, even if your mistake was a misdemeanor when compared to the prez's felony.
To not admit it was a mistake muddies the water when you try to attack the strategy. Do we really think the only problem with this war was the execution? You don't lose hearts & minds by being too anti-Irq war. You lose them by seeming like you criticize it but wouldn't do much differently. That's what killed Kerry. Not his charm deficit or the moral issue voters. Many people agreed with his criticisms of the war, but he got so middle of the road-defensive-parsing when it came to his support for the resolution that people generally assumed his criticisms were self serving and in reality, he wouldn't do much differently. He didn't have a well articulated vision on what to do differently on Iraq. God knows it hurt Wes Clark to support the resolution but oppose the war.
You know that if she wants to engage on the iraq issue, the russerts and the matthews are gonna say " but you voted for the resolution . . . " and then the backtracking and the defensiveness and you sound like a "politician."
How you talk about that vote matters - "i voted for it before i voted against it." You say "Bush was wrong to engage in an elective, pre-emptive, unilateral war and I was wrong to pass a resolution that allowed him to do so."
If you voted for the war and you're not Joe Lieberman, just come out & say you were wrong, then get into how you would have and will do it differently.
Otherwise you're backpedaling and doing fancy pivots.
You certainly shouldn't base your run on what you did in the fall of '03, and we don't need to flog our candidates for it either. But it's going to come up, and you need a clean simple way to dismiss it. Best way is to say "I was wrong."
I also read in New York Magazine recently how Hillary is pretty much silent on the war, and that she should pull a RFK on vietnam and come out against it full bore. He admitted that some policies that he supported in JFK's terms led to the quagmire, but now (1968) he was fully opposed. I might feel a lot differently about her if she staked out that ground. But I won't hold my breath.
She has said she doesn't favor immediate withdrawal or a timetable, so I doubt she'll go the RFK-Vietnam route anytime soon.
You're right that she'll need to articulate a more definite plan, as every candidate will. But we're still like 29 months away from the damn election!
As for what the best plan is ... well, the easiest thing for a Democrat trying to appease the base is to say let's withdraw. That's what Kerry is doing now, having apparently learned the lesson that you've articulated above.
But, politics aside, is that the best policy? I'm not so sure. Now that we're invested in Iraq should we just bail and risk civil war and/or an Iranian-style theocracy?
Personally, I'm torn. Maybe the right course of action will seem more obvious by next year when the primary campaigns begin.
By the way, what's Obama's plan? Is he ready to take this kind of heat?
Does he get a pass just because he wasn't around to vote in '03?
Did you see this Obama quote in a New Yorker from April?
“In political terms, I don’t think that Democrats are obligated to solve Iraq for the Administration.” He added, “I think that, for the good of the country, we’ve got to be constructive in figuring out what’s going to be best. I’ve taken political hits from certain quarters in the Democratic Party for even trying to figure this out. I feel that obligation. I’ll confess to you, though, I haven’t come up with any novel, unique answer so far.”
Now, that's not a plan, but it's at least also not grandstanding.
As for Hillary, she is calculating, and has lately been saying ridiculous things ("young people today think work is a four-letter word"—that's both insulting and inane; 'work' is a four-letter word, no? Okay, sorry.), but I would vote for her over many (not Obama, but many). Just think what a relief it would be to finally have a woman president. . . .
Thanks for linking to that Beinart piece on Slate, DGL—it's pretty hilarious, and he seems to make a good case against Tomasky's review.
Beinart and Tomasky aren't arguing over policy at all; they seem to agree on the issues.
The argument is over whether Beinart is sufficiently repentant for supporting the war in '03, which coincidentally is exactly what CR and I are debating with regard to Hillary.
Maybe the advantage for an Obama or a Warner is that we wouldn't have to revisit '03 during the campaign as we do with Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, etc. But that still wouldn't get us any closer to solving the Iraq quagmire, a task which may ultimately fall to Democrats.
Obama looks and talks pretty. The only question is, where's the beef?
Obama has been coy, or honestly unsure of what do to in Iraq, but it is different.
He wasn't there in '03, so yes he gets a pass of sorts. He won't have to defend a vote.
And hillary has been pretty hawkish on Iraq. It feels (and I know this is an easy criticism to make of the Clintons - but it's easy for a reason) like a run to the middle or right. Maybe foreign policy isn't the place for that.
JFK ran on a phony missile gap in 1960, and it worked for him. But there are real consequences to such political expediency and the legacy of vietnam maybe in some small way tied in to that missile gap issue. He may have wanted to be genuinely tough on the soviets, but the way he ran in 1960, he had to be. Running to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower may have worked in 1960, but it may have also screwed the country in terms of Vietnam.
So, hillary votes for the resolution in 2003, and is making noise about running to bush's right on iran. If that is her genuine position, that's one thing. But taking aggressive positions on foreign policy for electability purposes can be bad news for all of us. If she concludes that her best option is to fight her image problems by being a warrior, she may feel the need to act on that promise when she shouldn't.
Advocating a forseeable redeployment or pull out is no less a serious option just because it appeals to the democratic base. It may be the right option, and the base was right on this war.
And staying the course in Iraq just delays the inevitable crises that will occur if we were to depart soon. Only, in the meantime, we lose more of our young. I don't see how that's a more responsible option.
Opposing a failed war shouldn't be any more controversial a position than supporting it.
Well, I don't see why Obama has to completely avoid '03; he's said he would have voted against the resolution, and this speech from October 2002 makes his stance pretty clear.
Some favorite quotes of mine:
I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by [former Pentagon policy adviser] Richard Perle and [Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
and this:
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.… The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
As for Murtha's and other plans, it may be naïve, but it seems to me that the only palatable option is to find a way (and presumably only a Democrat could to it at this point) to bring in the Blue Hats. A UN peace-keeping force, preferably with troops from Arab nations, would stand a much better chance than our military does of bringing some stability to Iraq.
Or so it appears to me.
The blue hats makes as much sense as any option I've seen. I say, and I'm no military strategist, you do a mix of the Clark/Kerry idea of setting up a big conference with regional leaders (presumably easier to do with new leadership) deploy to the horizon (murtha), bring in the blue hats (yancy).
I would say that today, Tomasky has the upper hand. The New Republic, and Beinart has been a big part of this, is often way more critical of dems than conservatives. An odd critique to make, I would think, in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
It matters who was right on Vietnam, and it matters who was/is right on Iraq. Not so that we can get out the tar & feather, but to learn something from calamity.
You're right, Yancy, Obama had a pretty clear stance on the invasion, and a less clear stance on what to do now. But he (as opposed to hillary, kerry, edwards, biden, & beinart) was right then and that makes a difference.
This debate (tomasky/beinart's- hillary/gore or whomever else opposed invasion) is an excellent one for dems to have now so that they can draw some conclusions and move forward when '08 comes around.
Good comments, guys. Much for me to think about.
Thanks for the Obama '02 excerpt, Yancy. Today's Obama is much more cautious than that Obama, though he still gives a good speech. You're getting me to come around, but I still don't think he should run this time.
Ominous news off the wire:
CNN POLL
June 8-11
Constitutional Amendment to Make Flag-Burning Illegal
Favor 56%
Oppose 40%
It's a true Kent Brockman moment: "I've said it before and I'll say it again. Democracy just doesn't work."
that is an ominous poll.
i am enjoying this back & forth.
i believe that rfk did not come out against the war until late in the game, he certainly jumped into the primaries after mccarthy scared johnson away. so by the rfk standard, hillary may be right on schedule.
but the point is, regardless of her plans, it is assumed that hillary will run and she appears to be taking the appropriate steps. as a presumptive candidate and frontrunner, and as a sitting senator, she would do well to be a bit clearer on her position on iraq - past present & future.
i don't think you can, or should, finesse this.
not only is it a good time to suss out democrats' options on iraq, but also the party's approach to domestic policies/politics. i'm still enamored with tomasky's idea of moving toward the greater good and less of the group rights focus.
i'd hate to waste another primary season watching candidates flex over who's the most pro-choice and who is the most pro-gay. those issues are not irrelevant, but they don't make for much of a unifying platform.
a "we're all in this together" theme on foreign & domestic issues may fit the post 9/11 moment. i say it's time to move away from niche politics.
one point i forgot to drive home in the above comment - as a sitting, influential senator, hillary could affect change right now. not just as a candidate or president.
dems are in the minority, but with her name recognition she might be able to move the debate forward were she so inclined.
That's a great point, Chris, about today's Hillary—a little less "you know what's wrong with kids today?" and a little more substance would be good for her, good for the party, and—dammit—good for America.
I don't know about Beinart (that Cup has kept me away from Slate thus far today), but it's not group rights that interest me; it's individual rights.
Torture; warrantless wire-tapping; rendition; detention without charges or trials—these are major violations of individual rights, rights guaranteed not only by treaties we've signed, but by our own founding documents. If we value democracy, we must value—and fight for—individual rights. Dammit.
i don't think that rights business is much of a debate between beinart & tomasky - it's just that tomasky was pushing for a greater good over interest group-centric policies. One would hope that a "common good" emphasis would also be a boon for individual rights as it's for the greater good that we stop torturing & wiretapping illegally.
the way things operate today, many progressive pursuits can be dismissed by voters as being beholden to some far out environmental lobby, or a teachers union. i don't want unions & lobbyists to disapear, but i would like the party to stop catering to single issue groups.
serve the issues and the individuals by connecting it to the common/greater good. clearly, as tomasky points out, something is wrong when an evironmental lobby suports a conservative pol for one issue when the rest of said pol's voting habits would spell disaster for progressive goals.
i don't mind interest groups leveraging influence in washington. i just don't want democratic candidates having to kneel down to each and every group. for example, if a candidate chooses to say "i'm pro choice but am for less abortions" some pro-choice groups blanch. should they get to determine if this candidate is fit?
is that a good way to pick a nominee?
I think the Democrats have done much more than the Republicans in recent years to declare independence from interest group politics, for better or worse. If anything, I'd say the interest groups on the left have less influence than any time in memory.
Clinton and the DLC sort of pioneered it, beginning with NAFTA, which defied the labor unions.
This year, Chuck Schumer and the DSCC have strongly supported candidates on the basis of centrist electability--Webb in VA, a former Reaganite who has spoken out against affirmative action, and Casey in PA, who's pro-life. The interest groups sure didn't pick those candidates.
Today, Pelosi is trying to expel Rep. Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee over heavy objections from the Congressional Black Caucus, who point out that white congressmen Dan Rostenkowski and Gary Condit did not undergo similar expulsions.
Some of this is probably to the "greater good," although we all have our own ideas of what the "greater good" is; the Republicans think their policies promote the greater good.
But there's always a cost for moving center. The cost is that your base doesn't get fired up--they may even look to a third party--and it becomes more and more difficult to define what your party stands for. The "greater good" party is just too vague.
It's hard out here for a Dem. When they listen to the special interests they're tarred as liberals or panderers, and when they defy liberal orthodoxy they're tarred as a party with no identity.
perhaps it is too vague.
and i'm not interested in breaking w/special interests just to flaunt a candidate's independence. I just want the party, and future prez. campaigns to be more than the sum of its parts (issue wise & special interest group wise).
tomasky's common good theme appeals to me as i am a more communitarian democrat than a libertarian dem.
i just think it's a helpful way to frame issues. it's for all of our good to fund homeland security, flood relief, health care, etc. it's not just serving the agenda of distinct groups.
maybe this is obvious, but it relates to the idea that campaigns should be more than just a checklist of policies. you have to find a unified narrative to draw in media & voters to support you over the course of a campaign, and you have to find a unified coherent approach to get support for the checklist of policies over the course of a generation or at least an administration.
voters & media see policos as totally beholden to their interest groups. i'm more supportive of teachers unions than the nra, but the party and the next candidate would do well to defy that image by being a big idea big picture party.
whether or not you ever use the terms common good or greater good, it seems like a great approach to me.
consistently appeal to something bigger than the sum of the issues/interest groups.
and make that "something bigger" real and not just a slogan.
he wasn't a superb candidate, but bill bradley was on to something when he ran in 2000 and tried to focus on 3 big issues (health care, poverty, campaign finance reform) and remarked how the only reason you would run for president is to improve the lives of millions of americans. not just this or that group (even though that's clearly part of the game).
that's something that kerry & gore never really tapped into. you vote for me, you know the following 3 or 4 big things will happen: . . .
to me the way you run the campaign, the focus of the party in the future, it's all the same.
i just think it would be wise to make the case that the policies you espouse would benefit all - not just your obvious political brethren.
more on dems & iraq from matthew yglesias:
THE WAR: IT'S HERE, IT'S REAL, GET USED TO IT. Yesterday's scummy GOP political stunts over Iraq were, of course, scummy. At the same time, though, Democrats are paying the price for the ostrich-like attitude they've taken to the war ever since the 2004 election. There's been this persistent hope that either the Bush administration would declare victory and go home, or else that the mounting casualties, costs, and unpopularity of the venture would somehow allow a bipartisan truce to prevail letting Democrats wage a campaign that's all about ethics and prescription drugs.
There's a lesson in yesterday's events that Democrats need to learn, and quickly: The Republicans are confident -- very confident -- about the politics of national security. Confident enough to try and sell a war based on bogus intelligence. Confident enough to, in the wake of the intelligence's evident wrongness, simply revise history and say it was about something else. Confident enough to try and make the war a winning issue years after it's launch, even though it's unpopular.
Democrats need to be prepared to fight this battle. They need to figure out what they think about Iraq and then they need to put in whatever time is necessary to craft a compelling message out of that policy. And they need to do it before they get ambushed by congressional Republicans, and before something or other forces them to talk about the war.
--Matthew Yglesias
Post a Comment
<< Home