According to an article published today by Fox News, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed Obama's plan for a 16-month withdrawal of US forces from Iraq during an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months," al-Maliki told Der Spiegel. He said he wants U.S. troops to leave "as soon as possible."
The apparent endorsement of a cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy is a big boost for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee ahead of his scheduled meeting with al-Maliki.
...
Al-Maliki said for the first time earlier this month that the U.S. military should work toward a timetable for withdrawal - something President Bush and Obama's rival John McCain oppose. The White House also reported Friday that Iraq and the United States are discussing a "general time horizon" for reductions in troop levels.
Both developments gave Obama fuel in his argument that U.S. involvement in Iraq soon must draw to a close. But al-Maliki's comments to Der Spiegel seemingly were the deepest the foreign leader has waded into the tense foreign policy debate between the two major presidential candidates.
Al-Maliki told the magazine that his comments were "by no means an election endorsement."
But he seemed to refer disparagingly to McCain when he said "short time periods" in Iraq are more "realistic," while "artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems."
Maliki can claim all he wants that his endorsement of Obama's plan isn't an endorsement of the candidate himself, but it goes pretty far in undermining McCain's central campaign platform that he's better on foreign policy. McCain hasn't really made much of an argument on domestic policy, and I can't figure out how he gets around this. Depending on coverage, which I expect will be huge, this could become the biggest turning point of the election.
Adding to the good news coming out of Bagdad, "Iraq's largest Sunni Arab bloc rejoined the Cabinet Saturday after a year-long boycott," according to CNN. "The United States and Iraq have cited the inclusion of Sunni Arabs in Iraq's political lifeblood as a major factor in restoring political stability and improving the atmosphere for national unity."
Also this week my favorite Iraq war blogger, Michael Yon, declared, "We have won the war in Iraq." This from a guy who has been on the ground from the beginning, working side-by-side with our soldiers and frequently critiquing the Bush administration's mishanding of the war. From his most recent post:
I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.
I wouldn't make some major speech on an aircraft carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" or anything, but it looks like things in Iraq may actually turn out ok.
Afghanistan, though, now that's where we're in trouble.
UPDATE: The Bush administration really can't do anything right, even sending emails. They accidentally sent the Obama/Malaki story to their entire press distribution list. Oopsy!
Whoa. With a stinging rebuke of the two front-runners in the race to replace Rep. Mark Udall in CD-2, the Rocky Mountain News endorsedWill Shafroth for Congress.
The two experienced office-holders, Polis and Fitz-Gerald, are flawed to the point that we think voters should acquaint themselves with the political newcomer, Shafroth. He's a professional conservationist who could add a needed perspective to the Washington debate. (emphasis added)
I'll say it again - whoa.
The endorsement goes on to compare Polis with Huey Long and condems Fitz-Gerald as - incredibly enough - too liberal. Huh?!
This is a great piece for Shafroth, and the inevitable TV ad practically writes itself: The Rocky Mountain News says that Will Shafroth has a "proven ability to work with people across the political spectrum," and that "Shafroth's level-headed approach paid big dividends while he was executive director of Great Outdoors Colorado." Will Shafroth is "a professional conservationist who could add a needed perspective to the Washington debate." "We'd urge voters to... get back to basics: Which candidate has the skills to best excel in Washington's ego-heavy arena. We think the answer is clear." Will Shafroth for Congress.
One more endorsement from a major paper and this dark horse could become a Congressman. Who'd-a-thunk?
My usual disclaimer: I'm supporting Polis in this race and have donated to his campaign, but I have good friends working for all three candidates.
Never thought I'd see the day. Bill O'Reilly sounds like *gasp* a good reporter. Scratch that, he sounds like someone interested in news and not sensationalism. Well, sensational news, sure, but... Just watch the video:
In a story about Reverend Jesse Jackson saying he'd like to "cut [Barack Obama's] nuts off," O'Reilly chose not to include footage of Jackson using the n-word. In the above interview, O'Reilly explains the quote was "trash talk not directed at Barack Obama" and he asked himself "do we need that to get the story across and the answer is no."
O'Reilly's right that the footage seriously hurts the Reverend's reputation, which makes it all the more amazing it didn't make the final Fox News story.
Still doesn't mean I like O'Reilly or Fox News, but my respect for the guy just went up a notch.
I spent a year in DC working for Senator Salazar as a Legislative Assistant, and I count it as one of the most rewarding times of my life. I feel like what I did made an actual difference in the lives of Colorado's military men and women, and somewhere in Iraq people aren't dead because of what we accomplished.
But damn, I couldn't stand the attitude of so many of my fellow Hill staffers (not the ones in the Salazar office, of course). From an article in the Politico called, "Hill job seekers must be on the list," this is a perfect example of the pervasive "l33t" Hill mentality:
[I]f you want to actually land [a job on the Hill], you'll almost certainly have to subscribe to one of the unofficial e-mail vacancy lists run by staffers themselves.... In fact, some see that as the first test for job seekers.
"To get a job on the Hill, you have to be a good networker, have a little savvy," said Paul Teller, a Republican Study Committee deputy director who runs a jobs list. "The job search is kind of that first hurdle and test to doing that. It provides a good weeding-out of people. If you can't do a basic networking-type thing" - like discovering these e-mail lists - "then maybe you're not Capitol Hill material." [emphasis added]
So, think you're Hill material? Great! Learn this phrase and make it the first thing you say to everyone you meet, "What do you do?"
Watch out, racing fans. According to an article in Politics Magazine posted yesterday, one of the owners of NASCAR tracks, the International Speedway Corporation (ICS), has declared that no campaigning will take place at any of the tracks they own - including those in Daytona and both candidates' home states.
Interesting, because in 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton campaigned at an ISC owned track in Darlington, SC. George Bush has done it, and as the Politics article points out, just this year Rudy Giuliani rode his campaign bus around the ISC owned track in Daytona, accompanied by music from the movie "Rudy."
But now that Obama's the Democratic candidate, all of a sudden it's not OK?
I've lived in the South long enough to know what's going on here, and I'm calling bullshit. ISC apparently thinks having a black man campaign for president at their events would cause a disruption, but NASCAR fans aren't the racists ISC thinks they are - and they should treat their fans with more respect.
ISC claims the policy has been in place for "some time" (since Giuliani lost, maybe?) but refuses to provide a copy. Again, from Politics Magazine, "When asked if her office would be willing to produce the policy in writing for Politics, [ISC lobbyist Cheryl] Coxwell declined. 'I don't think at this point that that will do either one of us any good.'"
Yeah, no kidding.
And yes, these are the same jerks who bought and then shut down Pikes Peak International Raceway down in Fountain.
As you may have read, last week US Senate candidate and Congressman Mark Udall voted to give immunity to phone companies - and the Bush administration - for their role in the NSA's recent illegal wiretapping scandal. Also of note, Barack Obama voted for the same bill in the Senate.
Stephen Ducat observed on the Huffington Post yesterday that this doesn't just indicate election year politics have caused our legislators to surrender their principles. Rather that our strongest Democratic candidates have given in to Republican messaging on this vital issue - our privacy.
3rd Amendment problems aside, of which there are many, Democrats could easily win this fight and come out looking stronger. I humbly offer the following message frame for illegal wiretapping and government surveillance:
"America is only as strong as the liberties we protect. In the face of overwhelming evil we choose to remain true to the principles that have kept us strong through the last 200 years, and will continue to shine as a beacon of light to the rest of the world. We remain confident that no enemy, foreign or domestic, will ever have the power to bring down this great nation so long as we stay true to our rights, our ideals, and the American way of life."
As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." So Mark, next time something like this comes up for a vote when you're a Senator, please do the right thing and vote for America - don't let the terrorists win.
So we know that Bob Schaffer thinks all mountains look the same. His geographical gaffe led to a great attack ad by the DSCC and one of my favorite quotes of this campaign cycle. From the Anchorage mayor's spokeswoman: "While Alaskans can understand why Bob Schaffer would promote our beautiful mountain, I hope he doesn't expect Alaska to cede North America's highest peak to the State of Colorado."
Maybe they could mail it to us?
Channel 7 reported yesterday that the US Postal Service wants to give us yet another mountain. "Colorado's new flag stamp that went on sale two weeks ago as part of a new national stamp series may have a major problem: the mountain is in Wyoming."
Even better, "The Denver Channel" made a sweet moving graphic to illustrate the point:
Don't get me wrong, I love mountains. I just think we've got enough without taking them away from other states. A beach would be great, but no more mountains.
I really hope Schaffer used this stamp to send his TV consultants their check. Then again, the irony would be completely lost them.
It really irks me when the people selected for an office actually serve in that office. Seriously. Voters don't know best, even if those voters are some of the most active party loyalists in the state. They just get it wrong sometimes!
Like when they elected too many men to represent Colorado at the Democratic National Convention. From today's Denver Post:
Colorado's delegation to the Democratic National Convention has one man too many and must make changes to replace him with a woman, the national party revealed Wednesday.
The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee found the Centennial State - and eight others - out of compliance with the national party's requirement that delegates represent an equitable number of minorities, genders and other communities among delegations and standing committees.
So what happens from here? One of Colorado's male delegates gets swapped to the alternate pool, and one of the male alternates gets booted entirely and replaced by, well, Chairman Waak isn't exactly clear on how that'll happen, but rest assured he'll be replaced by a woman.
Just as a side note, last I checked a woman almost got our party's nomination, but lost to an African American. A woman runs the United States House of Representatives, and the third ranking Democratic member of that body is African American (Whip James Clyburn, and for those of you who don't know about him you should - he's one of the most impressive individuals in Congress today).
But fear not, gentle voters. Should you make the mistake of electing the person you want to represent you instead of who the Party believes should do so, well, that error will get corrected lickety-split.
Now go back go work, Comrades, the Party has everything under control.
I've seen lots of articles and blog posts connecting Republican US Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and all the connections run through a trip Schaffer made to the Marianas Islands.
So here's my question: why focus on Abramoff?
I worked as Communications Director for the Governors race down in Alabama the same year former Focus on the Family Executive Director Ralph Reed ran for Lt. Governor in Georgia. Reed, whom most people assumed to be a shoo-in, got destroyed because of his connected to the Marianas - and only peripherally because of his ties to Abramoff.
Reed's connection looked a lot like Schaffer's. From the Washington Post:
In August 1999, political organizer Ralph Reed's firm sent out a mailer to Alabama conservative Christians asking them to call then-Rep. Bob Riley (R-Ala.) and tell him to vote against legislation that would have made the U.S. commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands subject to federal wage and worker safety laws.
Here's the ad run by Reed's opponent and eventual victor, Casey Cagle. Note that the Abramoff connection is used to set up the ad, but the primary thrust of the attack is labor conditions in the Marianas.
For Udall supporters it seems like pressing the Marianas angle, rather than the Abramoff angle, would make a lot more sense.
First of all, Schaffer can deny the Abramoff connection up and down, which won't make the issue go away but will certainly muddy the water, taking away from the strength of the attack. Secondly, when Reed ran back in 2004, the Abramoff scandal had the front page of every newspaper in the country; not so much these days. Third, Schaffer is on the record proposing that the Untied States use labor regulations in the Marianas as a model for our own, and has several votes against bringing the island under US labor and immigration law. This has already caused major problems for Schaffer with his Republican base. And finally, why focus on Abramoff when the Marianas storyline is so much more compelling?
I saw a mailer from Cagle (which I unfortunately didn't scan or save) that had the face of a very poor looking little Asian girl on the front with red letters running across the middle about forced child labor in the Marianas. It was so powerful that I remember it clearly two years later, and I'm a cynical campaign hack.
A picture of Abramoff? Yeah, not so much, even with that stupid fedora.
When Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, I believed him. After all, he is my President, and I think that Presidents should hold themselves and their administration to a higher standard. You know, like the standard we hold kindergarteners to.
I never liked George Bush, but even after it became apparent that Iraq possessed no WMDs and never had a nuclear program of any significance, I still believed hoped he hadn't lied. I hoped Colin Powell, at the very least, wouldn't stand by information he knew wasn't true. That - maybe? - Bush was so stupid he just didn't understand the intelligence. (I maintain that this last hope remains plausible.)
Turns out I just really am very naive. From the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on what we knew before the war, via the Huffington Post:
* Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
* Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. ...
* Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
* The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
So there you go. Bush said a bunch of stuff that wasn't backed up by intelligence lied.
I'm now confronted with the question of what to do if/when President Obama gets mixed up in something like this. Ugh. Why can't our political leaders be the role models we as Americans deserve to have?
Now here's a guy who really feels this war in his gut. From the Politico:
For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families.
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.
"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf - I think I was in central Texas - and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"
Interesting how the death of a Brazilian diplomat, not a US soldier, inspired our president to make this great personal sacrifice. My friends, this is what true patriotism looks like.
As the Colorado Democratic Party gets ready to hold it's state convention, the presidential race remains an enigma wrapped in a riddle. The popular analysis tells us that Obama has already won the nomination and that the math dictates the outcome. What those folks, led by the ever more bitter, nasty, old and out of touch Chris Mathews on MSNBC, seem to miss is that the Clinton camp isn't counting on math, they're counting a significant change in the political tides. Any one who thinks that Hillary Clinton will drop out because the popular sentiment is that she should...hasn't read many newspapers or newsmagazines in the past decade. The worst possible case to make is that Clinton should drop out because she has no chance. She can cite multiple moments in her past, and her husband's past, when they were told they had no chance and they have prevailed. It's time for the Obama crowd to grow up and gain a measure of political sophistication. The nomination is likely Obama's. And the only reason it isn't already done is that Obama has failed, time after time, to put Clinton away. So what Obama needs to do now is beat Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico and convince the press and the party that the race is over. If he fails to do that, he deserves all the second-guessing that will come his way.
I've worked in politics, and specifically "spin," since I created the title "Visibility Director" for myself during my very first political gig at the Dottie Lamm for US Senate campaign in 1998. My actual job: Yardsign Boy. Over the last 10 years I've made a lot of mistakes - enough that when I see other people make amazingly stupid mistakes I like to blog about it in my "What Not To Do" series here on State38.
So far, though, I've only used out of state examples because, well, I haven't seen anything stupid enough here in Colorado to qualify for What Not To Do. (This series started after the Ali Hasan kerfuffle.) Thank you, Bob Schaffer, for giving me the chance to write about something right here at home.
Schaffer, the Republican candidate for Colorado's open US Senate seat, released his first TV ad today. Well, he was supposed to release it today. Turns out the media firm he hired thinks all mountain ranges look the same - or maybe they just didn't think Colorado's mountains look impressive enough, which I think is grounds for a hanging in this state.
Take a look for yourself:
Uhh, can someone say "Alaska?" The TV spot even ends with a "hero shot" of the Schaffer logo against a Mt. McKinley/Denali backdrop.
In 2002, as Communications Director for the Stan Matsunaka for Congress campaign against Marilyn Musgrave up in CO04, we cut a spot with the word "Coloradoan" in it. When we got the preview in I yelled and screamed about how people who live in Colorado are NOT "Coloradoans," we are "Coloradans!" The media firm, however, had already decided our race couldn't be won and refused to rerecord the voiceover. I got at least 10 emails a day about that spot, and I assume that sending an email takes more work than not voting for us. Of course when you lose by 14% it's tough to blame "Coloradoan" for the loss...
Using the wrong mountain rage doesn't usually cost a candidate the election, but this latest misstep follows in a pattern of blown opportunities and stupid mistakes. Most prominent, and something that could actually cost the election, was Schaffer's comment about the Mariana Islands serving as a model immigration program - you know, except for all that child labor and forced abortions. Groups like Progress Now (and the Udall campaign, to a lesser degree, which I think is smart) have jumped all over these unnecessary openings and have really bloodied the Schaffer campaign.
I worried when Dick Whaddams came back to Colorado. He's damn good, but it turns out he hasn't done much better than his protege John Marshall. So far the Schaffer campaign looks like a sequel to Bob Beauprez - and we all know sequels are never as good as the original. Except for Godfather Part II. That one rocked. III, not so much, but II - "I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"
Schafer shtould give his media consultants a big wet kiss on the lips and have 'em whacked for this amateur and completely avoidable mistake.
I'm furious. While I understand that police officers deal with the worst elements of society and I deeply appreciate the work they do, some of them need to get a clue about how to deal with the rest of us.
I just found out about the "Jefferson 1," as the media has come to call a young woman named Brooke Oberwetter. She got arrested at the Jefferson Memorial in DC for, I shit you not, dancing.
Oberwetter and a group of her friends decided to celebrate Jefferson's birthday by taking advantage of the freedoms he helped deliver. They strapped on their iPods and danced away under the watchful gaze of his statue. For a while, anyway.
Within minutes the DC Park Police decided to break it up. When one of the dancers, a cheeky young lass for sure, dared to ask why - well, time to throw her in jail, of course!
Huh? Excuse me? A blogger for Atlantic Monthly put it best, "The purpose of the justice system is to protect the public, not to keep them in line."
Oberwetter's been charged with "interfering with an agency function," whatever that means, and "demonstrating without a permit." This last charge is especially ludicrous because as another blogger points out, "Memorial guidelines clearly say a permit is only necessary if there are more than 25 people in the group. This event didn't break 25 people."
The justification by Park Police for the arrest has been lame at best. Sgt. Robert Lachance, a police spokesman, said in the Washington Post, "The chamber of the Jefferson Memorial is a restricted area for demonstrations or causing any kind of activity that could distract other visitors . . . (in order) to preserve a spirit of tranquility and reverence." Right, because three minutes of silent dancing constitutes a clear and present danger to the peace and security of our nation's monuments.
A message to the Park Police: People won't always do everything you tell them to, especially when it's stupid and you're acting like an authoritative jerk. That doesn't mean you go nuclear and arrest them. For dancing? For questioning you? Please.
As Walter Sobchak would say, "OVER THE LINE!" Yes, police deal with truly awful stuff. Rapes, murders, child abuse, the list goes on and on. But when confronted by ordinary citizens committing minor infractions, they need to step back and chill out. Many of them do, and this might just be my libertarian streak coming to the forefront, but what happened to Oberwetter happens far too often across this great country every day, and it's not right.
