Tag: Barack Obama

…or President Obama?

“I certainly didn’t expect to find myself in this position a year ago. But as I’ve spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past months; as I’ve read your emails and read your letters; I’ve been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics…Today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.” Also officially entering the 2008 Democratic fray, Senator Barack Obama. Admittedly, his resume is on the thin side, and one can argue that he’s never been truly tested by the GOP’s ruthless legions of Swift Boaters. But, I gotta say, it’s hard not to get excited about this piece of news: Senator Obama has the potential to get people excited about politics again, and to spearhead a progressive movement the likes of which only comes around once a generation. It’s still a toss-up right now as to whether I’ll support him or John Edwards in the 2008 primaries. But, if Obama plays his hand right, he could be really something…

Iraq is a Hard Place.

“Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” I’m still furiously playing catch-up, so I’m obviously a day or two behind on blogging this…Then again, Dubya’s just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I’ll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush — sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission — calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what’s being billed as a “surge.” (Re: “escalation.”) When you get right down to it, Dubya’s basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: “Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I’ve dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging…“

Here’s the thing — A massive troop increase would’ve made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then — and a quicker restoration of order and basic services — would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops — many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended — isn’t going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we’ve been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam’s hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything — until now — to rein in Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can’t handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran…who says Dubya isn’t a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn’t having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya’s plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight — While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya’s move (most notably John McCain, who’s been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

The Ethical Senate.

Meanwhile, over in the newly Democratic Senate: With Wednesday’s House cleaning spurring similar ethics reform in the upper chamber, a progressive dream team of Russ Feingold and Barack Obama unveil the Senate Dems’ ethics reform package, which includes a provision for an independent Office of Public Integrity, a key element of reform which failed 67-30 last year on the GOP’s watch.

Fight Card.

“The attack ads practically write themselves: Hillary Clinton voted against ethanol! Barack Obama wants to increase taxes!” Already looking to next year’s big show, the WP parses Clinton and Obama’s respective voting records in the Senate.

Dennis Redux | Obamatastic?

“Democrats were swept into power on November 7 because of widespread voter discontent with the war in Iraq. Instead of heeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in policies and direction, the Democratic congressional leadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of the war.” Irate over Iraq, Democrat Dennis Kucinich returns for another go at the presidency. And, more intriguingly, Senate wunderkind Barack Obama seems to be testing the waters in New Hampshire: “‘America is ready to turn the page,’ he said. ‘America is ready for a new set of challenges. This is our time. A new generation is prepared to lead.'”

Same Old Senate for Sale.

“I don’t know,’ said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio…’People are not really talking to me directly about lobbying. I think they’re concerned about some of the, quote, scandal, but I don’t have anybody come up to me and say there’s a lobbying problem. It doesn’t get that specific.‘” As such, one day after voting down an independent ethics office 67-30, the Senate passes a watered-down “lobbying reform” bill 90-8 that, for all intent and purposes. seems to be merely cosmetic. “The Senate measure toughens disclosure requirements for lobbyists and requires lawmakers to obtain advance approval for the private trips that were a central feature of the Abramoff scandal. But it does not rein in lawmakers’ use of corporate jets, and it fell far short of the sweeping changes, including a ban on privately financed travel, that some lawmakers advocated in January…’It’s very, very weak,’ said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.“

Five Republicans and only three measly Democrats voted against the phantom reform bill: McCain, Feingold, Kerry, Graham, DeMint, Inhofe, and the “unlikely duo” of Obama and Coburn. (The West Virginia Dem delegation — Byrd and Rockefeller — abstained.) Still, “Mr. McCain predicted that there would be more indictments growing out of the investigation into political corruption, and said that such a development would lead Congress to revisit the issue again.“

Would it help to confuse them if we run away more?

“‘I haven’t read it,’ demurred Barack Obama (Ill.). ‘I just don’t have enough information,’ protested Ben Nelson (Neb.).” As Senator Tom Harkin signs on as a co-sponsor of Russ Feingold’s censure resolution — which, word has it, is also now backed by John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Menendez — the Post‘s Dana Milbank watches the rest of our party head for the hills. “Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.). ‘Ask her after lunch’ offered Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.”

The McCain Blame Game.

In a fit of misplaced pique, John McCain goes house on Barack Obama over his relatively innocuous decision to skip McCain’s proposed “bipartisan” task force on lobbying revisions (and, by extension, Obama’s point that the Ballad of Casino Jack is primarily a GOP scandal.) I’ve been generally sympathetic to McCain’s work for campaign finance and lobbying reform throughout his career, but, frankly, the outrage of this letter is way outta line. I just posted on this in the comments at National Journal, so I’ll just repost here:

“I’d be more impressed with McCain’s alleged commitment to bipartisan reform if (a) he could find Dems other than Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson* — not exactly the Democratic mainstream — to back his “task force” play, (b) he didn’t consistently allow himself to be used as the “mythical maverick” smokescreen for GOP lobbying abuses, and (c) he displayed half as much righteous outrage when the Dubya administration eviscerated his anti-torture legislation, violated both the FISA Act and the National Security Act of 1947 with their illegal wiretaps, and generally stood in the way of serious campaign finance reform. Sure, McCain talks tough at Barack Obama, but everytime Dubya comes a-knockin’ at his door, he folds like an accordion, even despite the ugly incident in the South Carolina primary six years ago.

The Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and — arguably — the Supreme Court at this moment. Is it really McCain’s contention that Barack Obama, a freshman Senator in the minority party, is the one stopping real lobbying and campaign finance reform from happening? Please. If McCain wants real reform, he should be directing his wrath at the people in charge. Otherwise, he’s even more guilty of putting the partisan game above the public interest than is Obama.” Update: Obama answers.

Obama: Watch the Friendly Fire.

“There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.” In an impressive blog post that’s worth reading in its entirety, Sen. Barack Obama spells out his concerns with the often-shrill, backbiting tone of the liberal blogosphere (particularly at sites like dKos) and progressive advocacy groups in general. Put plainly, his point is this: keep an eye to undecided voters, and concentrate your firepower outward. (Via Medley.)