I’m not really much for forcible identity politics, but some Latino leaders are making noises that a Hispanic ought to replace Bill Richardson (who withdrew his nomination) as the Secretary of Commerce, making the argument that the Latino population must maintain its representation in the Administration. I’d prefer the best man or woman for the job, but this is a case where there already is a Hispanic who Obama considered for a separate cabinet appointment who may be able to be persuaded into accepting this one. That would be Xavier Becerra.
An Obama transition team source said a veteran California congressman, Xavier Becerra, has emerged as the leading congressional candidate to replace Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, as President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for a job that will include overseeing the 2010 U.S. Census.
“Even though he turned down the trade representative slot, Becerra is not only Hispanic, but he has the skill, talent and experience to do the Commerce job,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak for the president-elect.
“Xavier’s name has gone to the top of the list of potential replacements in part because he is a member of the House leadership, he is well liked, he has very good credentials, and, of course, he was an early Obama backer,” the source said.
It’s all speculative at the moment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened. Becerra wanted a bigger role in the Administration than trade representative, and certainly the Commerce Department would give him a better opportunity to shape White House policy.
Obviously this would create another special election in an adjoining district to incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ CA-32. Los Angeles County from Hollywood to points east would be ground zero for political wrangling this spring.
Xavier Becerra is not considering an appointment to become Secretary of Commerce and will remain in the House, his spokeswoman told Politico.
“The Congressman has already expressed that he is staying in Congress and looks forward to working with the Obama Administration from his position as House Democratic Vice Chair,” said Fabiola Rodriguez.
(thereisnospoon again from the Big Tent – promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))
Looks like they finally got Richardson to the podium!
Richardson greets the crowd in English and Spanish.
John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time. Was that thinking for himself? He was against the tax cuts, now he supports them. Is that thinking for himself?
Slamming McCain now. McCain has changed his mind on everything from taxes to torture.
John McCain may spend hundreds of dollars on shoes, but we’re the ones who will pay for his flip-flops
Zing! I didn’t think they’d use Richardson as the attack dog, but he’s doing a bang-up job of it.
McCain thinks we need more tax breaks for oil companies, Obama wants to end it. Invest in renewable energy: that’s the change America needs. McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Obama says it’s time for that to end. Time to bring our troops home from Iraq responsibly. Force Iraqi politicians to use their oil money, and invest in jobs, schools and healthcare and take care of our veterans. That’s the change america needs.
McCain called the recession psychological. His advisors say we’re whiners. But when the oil companies whine, McCain says they need more tax breaks. Time for that to end. No more economic policies that send jobs overseas, cripple industries and depress wages. Time to put American workers first and rebuild the middle class with a president who supports unions. This is great stuff
Focus on Afghanistan and loose nukes. Someone who will swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and then actually does it. A president who respects civil liberties, stops spying on Americans, and supports a woman’s right to choose. Who respects the Bill of Rights, shuts down Guantanamo and stops torture. Nice, nice stuff. Getting huge applause.
Says in Spanish that we need a president who will pay attention to relations between the U.S. and Mexico.
Honors John McCain’s service again. Why do that? No need to do that.
Are you ready to take America back? Let’s do it!
I’ve never seen Richardson fire up a crowd like that. If Richardson could have given a speech like that during the campaign, he might have been delivering the keynote tonight. That was good stuff.
Brian has a diary about the session Bill Clinton had with Superdelegates at the CDP convention, and his comments to Rachel Binah about Carville calling Bill Richardson Judas.
(I had a chance to meet Rachel this weekend, and she is a great person, and very sharp.)
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Carville told the New York Times.
Carville, who usually appears on CNN as an analyst, today was an interviewee, telling Wolf Blizter that his quote “had its desired intent” — i.e., depicting Richardson as disloyal to the Clinton brand that he once had been so firmly affixed to.
Where this story gets interesting is when Bill Clinton is quoted in the SF Chronicle today as saying:
“Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,” a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
Meaning, Bill Clinton is saying that Richardson told him that Richardson would never endorse Obama, I suppose that means Richardson would endorse Clinton or at least not endorse.
In any case, Bill Clinton is adamant in this quote that Richardson told him that he would never endorse Obama and probably would endorse Clinton.
And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.
Richardson says that those that say that Richardson would endorse Clinton are “misinformed”
There could be alot of word parsing here, but this sounds like there are inconsistencies in the business of was Richardson going to endorse Hillary Clinton or not, and did he tell Bill Clinton that he was going to endorse anyone, or did he just tell Bill Clinton he would never endorse Obama.
Bill Richardson, by virtue of this Op-Ed, could be saying that Bill Clinton is misinformed or worse.
“I never did,” Richardson said. “I never saw [President Clinton] five times. I saw him when he watched the Super Bowl with me. We made it very clear to him that he shouldn’t expect an endorsement after that meeting.”
“I held back. I waited. I felt the campaign got nasty. I heard Senator Obama; he would talk to me continuously,” Richardson said.
That’s a lot of names there, huh? I was thinking about throwing Carole Migden in there as well, but decided to limit myself. At any rate, former President Clinton went off at the mere mention of Governor Bill Richardson. From Matier and Ross:
The Bill Clinton who met privately with California’s superdelegates at last weekend’s state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to “chill out” over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
“It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,” one superdelegate said.
Apparently, Rachel Binah of Mendocino County brought up the New Mexico Governor’s name, and Bill went off. CDP Chair Art Torres reportedly called Binah to apologize for the former President. I don’t know what’s going on with President Clinton, but perhaps he needs more sleep or something. It’s clear the pressures of the campaign are getting to him in a way totally unlike the 1992 campaign.
The Clinton campaign is shunting the former President off to minor markets where the locals in the media and the activist set are just excited to see somebody of that character. Clinton himself titled his new role as “rural hitman.” Perhaps they have yoga studio in South Bend, IN where he could “just chill out.”
Supporters of Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) and his now aborted bid for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President have taken a new turn: They are petitioning to have Richardson named as Vice-President on the Democratic ticket, regardless of the nominee. Apparently, this new wrinkle is not authorized by Governor Richardson or the Richardson for President campaign.
Initially started a few days ago by Ken Camp, a Richardson volunteer supporter and blogger, who started a blog and petition drive (richardson4vp.blogspot.com); the move was seconded by another petition created by former Richardson National Grassroots Coordinator, Jeff Gulko. The two groups have now joined forces and have already received almost 500 signatures in the petition effort.
Today, Thom O’Shaugnessy and David Buchanan, who headed up Richardson’s volunteer and political initiatives in California, launched a new website, www.draftrichardsonforvp.com, complete with links to Camp’s blog and the petition, as well as news stories on the petition drive.
Asked by the Santa Fe New Mexican about the petition effort, Dave Contarino, Campaign Manager for Richardson for President, simply said, “You can’t stop the people.” It’s apparent that Governor Richardson has no plans in the near future to stop the petition drive or the grassroots movement to keep his name at the forefront.
“I whole-heartedly support Governor Bill Richardson, but I will delete this blog and the corresponding petition if asked to by Governor Richardson or any of his senior staff,” Camp wrote in his initial post. “I know the Governor has said he isn’t interested in being Vice-President, and if asked to cease my activities, I will.”
However, to date, Camp says he hadn’t heard from Richardson or any of his staff so far, despite some buzz about his project in New Mexico blogdom.
According to the website, supporters believe “…We believe Governor Richardson is the one person who can balance the ticket with a wealth of both foreign policy and domestic experience. Bill Richardson has balanced budgets 5 times, made New Mexico the clean energy state, and created over 80,000 well-paying jobs to the state.
Governor Richardson’s foreign policy and diplomatic experience is without equal. As a Congressman for 15 years, Ambassador to the United Nations, and confidante of world leaders, Bill Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 5 times for his efforts in bringing hostages and captives home, negotiating ceasefires, and returning the bodies of our servicemen home from North Korea to their final resting place.”
On the day after the New Hampshire primary, according to Albuquerque Tribune, who interviewed voters, “But while a sample of voters interviewed Tuesday said they liked Richardson, they liked him more as the vice presidential candidate, whether with surprise winner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, runner-up Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, or third-place finisher John Edwards of North Carolina. (http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/jan/09/bill-richardson-would-make-good-vice-president-new/)
Support for the petition is growing, but are the candidates listening?
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
Look out! Hillary Clinton just passed Dennis Kucinich and is now in 3rd place both in California and nationally in the Pick Your President Poll. Barack Obama is still leading John Edwards. I know for sure that the Obama supporters and network are encouraging their people to vote in the poll. What about John Edwards? He was doing quite well before Obama supporters started working on GOTV. Who knows maybe Clinton will catch up?
I can’t share with you the actual vote margins, but suffice to say they do not match up with your average daily kos poll. There is plenty of time for anybody to claim first place. The poll will run until the 18th. You can follow the results on this page. The numbers are current as of 2 PM PST. We will be updating over the weekend.
Here are the current California standings, which are now identical to the national rankings:
1. Sen. Barack Obama
2. Sen. John Edwards
3. Sen. Hillary Clinton
4. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
5. Gov. Bill Richardson *
6. Sen. Mike Gravel
(Richardson is starred because he dropped out, but people voted for him prior to that, so he retains his rankings.)
Here are the Republican rankings. The vote totals are many magnitudes less on the Republican side than the Democratic side. RONPAUL (yes all one word) is leading, not a surprise given his online organizing strength. Being from California really isn’t helping Duncan Hunter.
1. Rep. Ron Paul
2. Sen. John McCain
3. Gov. Mike Huckabee
4. Gov. Mitt Romney
5. Mayor Rudy Giuliani
6. Sen. Fred Thompson
7. Rep. Duncan Hunter
As an aside, it has been a real pleasure to work side by side with other state based progressive groups on this poll. People I met in Chicago at Yearly Kos are now partners on this poll. It’s been a lot of fun and we are happy to see people having fun and firing up their networks.
Watched some of the Democratic Candidate debate on CNN tonight filmed at the UNLV campus in Nevada.
Impressions:
(1) Wolfe Blitzer remains an idiot
(2) Nevada Democratic voters ask much more interesting questions than the news media
(3) Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich aquitted themselves well.
(4) Barack Obama comes across as either less than well-informed or arrogant or a less than adequate listener
(5) Regardless, any of these candidates would make me proud to be a citizen of the U.S., and any of them are better candidates than any that the Repugnants have to offer
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination. As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:
With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.
I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq. On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message. At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:
I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!
It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009. It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand. Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.” She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Clinton is silent on this critical point. What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:
As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.
This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?
What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.
How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow. These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President.
Let's examine each of these persons.
Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.” There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.” In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that:
We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.
If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.
Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge. I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year. Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.” One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.
Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:
If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.
Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:
I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”
Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“. While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.
Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war. In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.
Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:
Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.
This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.”
Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”
After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated.
Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President. As noted by Bill Boyarsky:
Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It's all very clubby.
In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war.
Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.
What is the alternative? There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.
This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.
The latest Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire shows Dennis Kucinich in fourth place, tied with Bill Richardson at 7%. This shouldn’t come as such a surprise, however.
First, Kucinich has already been tied with Richardson in various national polls, such as Rasmussen, Fox, Diego/Hotline. It’s really been the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire that Kucinich has been significantly behind in the polls, a result of the intense money being spent in those states.
But, second, and more significantly, the Kucinich Campaign has been actively working with leadership in the Independent voting community. Jim Mangia, head of Independent Voice, who has been instrumental in introducing Kucinich to other Independents working to reform the political process; meetings with leaders in the national movement like Linda Curtis, director of Independent Texans, and Jacqueline Salit, executive editor of The Neo-Independent magazine and president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, which:
mounts political, legal, legislative and organizing challenges to partisan control of the political process. It has pioneered methods of organizing independents without a political party, creating independent voter associations to project the voice of the 35% of the electorate that considers itself independent.
“The Democrats have learned nothing since 2006,” he said. “Back then, the Democrats promised that if they were put back in control (of the House and Senate) that the war in Iraq would end. Now (estimates) predict there won’t be an end until at least 2013.”
“I want a Democratic party that’s responsive to the needs of all Americans . . . (politicians) shouldn’t be called upon to be loyal to one political party, we’re elected to be loyal to something with much more power – the Constitution.”
As Independents are largely a growing number of dissafected Republicans and Democrats seeking genuine political reform, ending the domination of special interests groups in the political process, and positioning themselves aggressively against this war/occupation, Kucinich is the Democrat who can best mobilize these votes in the primary and general election.
Independent voters, who now make up between 35%-42% of the electorate, have nearly grown into the majority in New Hampshire. As Jacqueline Salit noted at the conference:
registered independents in New Hampshire, for instance, have increased from about 28 percent of total voters several years ago to roughly 45 percent today…
“Why are so many (voters) becoming independents?” Salit asked. “Because by declaring ourselves independents, we’re saying we don’t like what the political parties are doing to our country.
These are the voters who are willing to take a stand. These are the voters who will not be told who is or is not electable. These are the voters that could well decide this election, and could well decide it for Kucinich.
Electability is not a fixed characteristic of a candidate, it doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. It’s easy to dismiss a candidate polling at 2-3% as unelectable. All one does is point to the polls to effectively undermine any other argument. This, further, provides the media with an excuse to not cover voices like Kucinich, creating a viscious cycle that virtually ensures the polling to remain low.
And this has been Kucinich’s major obstacle. It is the first 10-15% that is critical. Once you get there the myth of electability is no longer tenable, forcing more media coverage, exposing more voters, pushing the polls still higher, and opening the door for every Democrat who has ever said, “I like Dennis Kucinich, but…”
So, get ready, America. At 7% we’re half way there in New Hampshire!
