Only Richardson gets it on Iraq. He doesn't attempt as the other Dems are trying to have it both ways - bash Bush, call for an end to the war but then not end the occupation so as to appeal to the D.C. insiders that got us in the war to start with.
Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."
Posted by Stephen Cassidy at September 25, 2007 09:33 AMWHOA! Where the Hell is an admission that Dennis Kucinich is even in the race? I certainly applaud the Richardson position, on Iraq at least. But it's dishonest to keep saying that ONLY Bill Richardson will get all the troops out. Only once, did I hear the caveat of all the major candidates.
Let's not pretend we're the "media" and sweep a long time Congressman and bona fide Liberal candidate under the steamroller. I'm not a fan of his either, but I will give kudos where I feel they're deserved.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 25, 2007 10:21 AMDeminNewJ, you beat me to it. I get the feeling that the campaigns have these commenters on retainer and they respond to google alerts with these little ads everytime someone posts. Really is kinda skeezy, if you think about it.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 10:35 AMYou're right, Congressman Kucinich does call for all of the troops out of Iraq now, as does Senator Gravel. Both deserve kudos for that. But neither is going to get the Democratic nomination, so let's not pretend that they're viable candidates. That doesn't mean I want to exclude them from future debates. Unlike Senators Clinton and Edwards, I believe both Kucinich and Gravel bring valuable viewpoints to the debates.
That said, I qualified my statement, by referring to the "top four" candidates. I could have also said "viable" candidates, because last I checked Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel aren't polling within the margin of error on any of the top 4 in any state.
Posted by Ken Camp at September 25, 2007 11:11 AMDo you really think Richardson is viable, Ken?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 11:34 AMHey Ken, Richardson is not getting the nomination.
Posted by T2 at September 25, 2007 11:35 AMI want to respond to the comment that the campaign has commentors on retainer. That is just silly. You will see some of the same names repeating on these diaries and stories because we believe the governor is the best candidate for the job, and we are dedicated VOLUNTEERS who blog and comment on our own time and our own dimes.
I wrote a piece yesterday on Open Left, here...
Posted by Cara Valente-Compton at September 25, 2007 11:39 AM
So, Cara, you VOLUNTEER to spam comments, then. That's ever so much better, isn't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 12:13 PMDoes Kucinich even get double digit support in Ohio in polls of the Democratic Presidential candidates?
Kucinich has many admirable qualities but his campaign is all about generating media attention for himself and nothing about actually winning the nomination.
Richardson on the other hand is one of four Dems in America running for President that has double-digit support in NV, NH and IA. Richardson has strong campaign organizations in each state.
HRC is the favorite but Richardson has a realistic chance. Kucinich doesn't.
Posted by Stephen Cassidy at September 25, 2007 12:24 PM...you VOLUNTEER to spam comments...
It's not really spam if it's on topic with the post and not copy pasted talking points is it?
I would expect any competent campaign to have staffers encourage supporters to participate on blogs.
So the Richardson campaign may be competent but I don't think he's a viable presidential candidate.
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 12:38 PMKucinich has many admirable qualities but his campaign is all about generating media attention for himself...
I thought that was the intent behind any campaign.
But you do Kucinich a diservice. His campaign is about issues and policy. Not about himself.
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 12:40 PMYou're right Ken,
I apologize to Mike Gravel for not mentioning his history of talking truth as well. And I especially agree with you that they both belong in the debates.
I always feel, when they are actually allowed to speak by whatever smarmy "journalist" is running the debate, that what both of them have to add is actually worth more, or at least is certainly more honest than any of the top contenders who are surrounded by advisers and pollsters and must be cautious about what they say.
Both men have a long history of public service and are putting their lives on hold in an apparently vain attempt to inject some plain talk and common sense into the circus.
In full disclosure mode, I dislike Hillary (DLC) Clinton because of her postions. I'm a bit suspicious of Barack Obama, but willing to learn more. I tend to like John Edwards because I believe his populist approach is genuine, but he's shown bad judgment in the past and the sale is not final. Joe Biden is a lifelong professional politician with a lot of votes I don't like at all and his feet are full of holes from his unconsidered "shooting". Bill Richardson has many good positions and an impressive resume, but I don't get a good impression of his readiness to run a successful campaign. Chris Dodd has been sounding good lately, and I also believe he's sincere about the rule of law. Unfortunately, he's supported too many pro-corporate positions in the past and is another permanent politician.
The only one left, who may not be, is Nobel prize winning, "true" victor of the 2000 elections and the one I'M convinced has the best resume, history of accomplishment and grasp of the stakes. ANY of the Democrats would get my vote over the crop of slugs fighting for the basement dwellers on the Republic side. I just believe in going for the best.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 25, 2007 12:42 PMBut you do Kucinich a diservice. His campaign is about issues and policy. Not about himself.
You don't think Kucinich on some level likes all the attention he's getting? While I believe Kucinich is sincere in his passion for the issues he raises, his campaign is all about symbolism, not winning the nomination. In the meantime, it appears he's upset local Democrats with the time he's spent out of the district and D.C. in running for President. Kucinich has a primary challenger for next year.
Turning back to the question at hand, what Democratic candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination has the best plan for leaving Iraq? To me the clear answer is Richardson.
Posted by Stephen Cassidy at September 25, 2007 12:56 PMIt's not really spam if it's on topic with the post and not copy pasted talking points is it?
Mr. Cassidy's comments sure look like a copy/paste talking point to me. I guess we differ on the meaning of spam, here. To me, someone popping in out of no where to drop a nugget like that is spam, be it on topic or not.
I would expect any competent campaign to have staffers encourage supporters to participate on blogs.
I would, too. But calling it "participation" is a stretch, IMHO. Coming in to trash other candidates is just negative advertising. Of course, this is the first election where the blogs are going to be a big part of the process, so we're going to see a whole lot of this kind of stuff, I'm sure.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 01:02 PMYou don't think Kucinich on some level likes all the attention he's getting?
Of the lot. I'd honestly say he strikes me as the least interested in 'the attention'.
While I believe Kucinich is sincere in his passion for the issues he raises, his campaign is all about symbolism, not winning the nomination.
Not as a symbol of himself I'd assume? I have a hard time understanding how this sentence could follow your first. I don't think symbolism is the correct word. I think he doesn't have any real belief that he is going to be president. But his presence in the campaign and his position on the issues (as do those of Gravel and Richardson) serves a purpose. It challanges the "viable" candidates to serve up more than generic talking points in answer to questions. This, in my opinion is an invaluable contribution to our electoral process. Just as low voter turnout is a dire problem, going to the voting booth without a real idea of how candidate x differs from candidate y is as well.
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 01:08 PMMr. Cassidy's comments sure look like a copy/paste talking point to me.
But you were talking to Cara, no?
To me, someone popping in out of no where to drop a nugget like that is spam, be it on topic or not.
Invitation only here now? You may have more in common with Christopher than you know! ;)
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 01:12 PMMr. Cassidy's comments sure look like a copy/paste talking point to me.
I am stating what I believe and my words are entirely my own. Now, do you care to discuss the issue at hand - does keeping residual troops in Iraq prolong the war or should we bring ALL troops home promptly?
Posted by Stephen Cassidy at September 25, 2007 01:13 PMRichardson has a "realistic" chance. Certainly, if Clinton, Obama, Edwards and maybe Gore all drop out. Do you think that is realistic? Don't get my take wrong, I pretty much like Richardson and certainly his Iraq position, but claiming he has a realistic hope of the nomination.....uh, no.
Posted by T2 at September 25, 2007 01:14 PMI don't think keeping 'residual troops' in Iraq is going to prolong the war but I can't see that it's gonna do much good. The civil war in Iraq is gonna continue whether we're there or not. That being the case I see us having much more than a residual force there well into the next presidency. Be it Republican or Democratic. That's 'realistic'.
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 01:24 PMEdwards in 2004 almost won Iowa, when only a few months before he was in single digits in the polls. Kerry won the race even though he was far behind Dean and the word in September 2003 was his campaign was falling apart. Richardson is polling in Iowa today at the same level Kerry was polling in 2003 and far above Edwards.
In three months in Presidential politics, everything can change - particularly in Iowa where the voters often don't settle on a candidate until right before the election.
Posted by Stephen Cassidy at September 25, 2007 01:28 PMAt the risk of sounding totally impolite what the hell does that mean? "you volunteer to spam comments..." I volunteer my time, read blogs from my sofa at home because I believe in the governor, I write, I comment. How is that spam?
You know, people like you are what causes the netroots community to struggle for any shred of credibility or dignity. You can't have a civil discussion, you have to launch uncalled for personal attacks totally unrelated to the subject in an attempt to sound clever.
Posted by Cara Valente-Compton at September 25, 2007 01:29 PMI get the feeling that the campaigns have these commenters on retainer and they respond to google alerts with these little ads everytime someone posts.
Full disclosure: I am not being paid by the Richardson campaign for my thoughts on the campaign.
I also clearly disclosed in my post that I participated in a phone conference with bloggers yesterday, which is where I got my info. So the Google Alert comment is ridiculous.
Let's stay focused on the issue here. AS long as American troops remain in Iraq, there will be no peace. So, how many troops will Senator Clinton leave in Iraq? How many troops will Senator Obama leave? Ho about John Edwards? Bill Richardson will leave none.
Posted by Ken Camp at September 25, 2007 01:29 PMAt the risk of sounding totally impolite what the hell does that mean?
If you think that's impolite you haven't been around here long enough.
Posted by at September 25, 2007 01:33 PMI will fully disclose that I get google alerts about Richardson because I like to read when there are news articles and blogs written. It is a clever time-saving tool. What is wrong with google alerts?
yes Ken, and Richardson has a whopping 6% in New Hamp.
Posted by T2 at September 25, 2007 01:47 PMWhat the Dems need is a clone of RFK, grown from stem cells or DNA. They would have to correct his annoying Boston accent, though.
Posted by tempus at September 25, 2007 01:49 PMClinton and Obama will leave enough troops in Iraq to protect the oil fields which are located in that corner the chimp painted us into.
How come we never hear about that Bushy, Paul Hunt who donated 35 mil to the chimpbrary and got the Kurd's oil deal for Hunt Oil of Texas?
Keith Olberman reported on it twice, and then - nothing. Why?
Posted by TIKI AL at September 25, 2007 01:58 PMCorrection T2, Richardson is in third in NH in double digits.
Posted by Cara Valente-Compton at September 25, 2007 02:14 PMKen- I know you're not a campaign flack, you're doing what Steve asked you to do. I'm not all that enamoured with the format, but what the hell.
You know, people like you are what causes the netroots community to struggle for any shred of credibility or dignity.
You've never been to a right wing site if you think people like me are the problem. You want civility and dignity? Stick to the campaign blog where everyone agrees with everyone else. As for google alerts, good for them, if you want to find people to play with. We've had a lot of hit and runs, so forgive me if I get suspicious. But hey, I like Richardson, myself; I just don't think he's gonna go too far.
Let's stay focused on the issue here. AS long as American troops remain in Iraq, there will be no peace.
There's not gonna be peace if we leave, either. The sad thing is, as long as we're stuck on oil, the US just plain can't and won't abandon the ME.
None of the Dems can ever admit this, because the country is dead set against this stupid occupation. Sure, I want our people out of there, I have two nephews there. But the problem's not going to go away when our troops are out. There's just as many civilian contractors and mercs in Iraq as military. Are they going to have to get out, too? Who makes that decision? What happens when China and Russia and Iran move in?
Clinton and Obama will leave enough troops in Iraq to protect the oil fields which are located in that corner the chimp painted us into.
Exactly, TIKI, Bush whacked the hornet's nest, and taking the troops out just isn't going to be enough to convince the hornets to settle down.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 02:50 PM"and for what"?
Posted by anon at September 25, 2007 03:16 PMHillary is your candidate....and she is sure to disappoint.
Cheers!
Posted by Bagley at September 25, 2007 03:48 PMYou know, people like you are what causes the netroots community to struggle for any shred of credibility or dignity.
FYI, iamcoyote, I wasn't the one who said this.
Posted by Ken Camp at September 25, 2007 05:28 PMKen, I know it wasn't you, I was responding to a couple comments from different people while juggling phone calls at work, and it ended up scattered and cranky. Sorry for being such a nit on your post, too - I actually thought it was a good one, and really, I like Richardson, I'm glad he's saying what needs to be said. But I don't think he's going to be the nominee; with all the money flying around, it'll be hard for him to get any attention. Still, anything can happen in the next year or so. There's a lot riding on this next election.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 25, 2007 06:14 PMSheesh, what a bunch of nitpickers. Look, we have enough on our plates to control the trolls without turning on each other. None of us are perfect, and many of us are often wrong, but give it a rest.
We cant just sit here and think we have all freedom. We have to fight for it, it's why we are in war today. Bush is a good man, it just seems that us people as a whole tend to hate the president when we are in war, but yet we love him after we have won? When we talk shiznet on our honorable President Bush we are being VERY childish. Its in my opinion uncalled for. I just don't see you running for president now do I? Cut the guy some slack, please.
Posted by Stephanie Foo. at September 25, 2007 06:28 PMI see a possible crackup coming here.
You folks seem to be losing control.
GOP HILLARY
Posted by jj at September 25, 2007 07:17 PMWas supposed to be "GO" Hillary but GOP works too !!
LOL
Posted by jj at September 25, 2007 07:18 PMStephanie Foo and jj are perfect examples of the trolls I'm talking about.
Stephanie dear, I don't think you want to start something on this Blog. Why don't you go to a blog that supports your thinking? This Blog will rip you a new one, so to speak.
Posted by Judith at September 25, 2007 09:31 PMEmbassy? What embassy? There is no American embassy in Iraq, there is only the putative Imperial Regional Command and Control Center, which should be abandoned along with the permanent - excuse me, "enduring" - military bases.
And by the way if that command and control center - excuse me, "embassy" - is sovereign United States territory, by what means did it become so? I doubt it was purchased by the United States government. It was, actually, acquired by military force, which is a violation of the United Nations Charter by which it is not legitimate to acquire territory by force.
Oh well!
Posted by Shirin at September 26, 2007 12:06 AM"Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war."
You started the "war". You are the REASON for the "war". You ARE the "war".
"Our troops have become the targets in a civil war."
No. Do not make the mistake of blaming your troubles on a "civil war". Your troops are the targets because they are the means by which a foreign power is enforcing its occupation of a country whose people do not want to be occupied. They are the means by which a foreign power is attempting to dominate and shape Iraq into a dependent, subservient client state. Targeting your troops is an absolutely legal and morally legitimate act of resistance. Resistance against foreign occupation is permitted under international law. That has nothing to do with any kind of "civil war".
"The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide."
Why should the Iraqis provide security for a make-believe government that was put in place and is kept in place under a regime of foreign occupation? Iraqis are entitled to a legitimate government, are they not? And ironic as it is, the last legitimate government Iraqis had was that of Saddam Hussein. Sad but true.
"Richardson notes: 'The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.'"
Richardson is correct except in one aspect. The Iraqis CANNOT take the "necessary steps toward political reconciliation" - whatever that is supposed to mean - until the U.S. gets out completely, including that so-called "embassy", and stops interfering in Iraqis' business.
Posted by Shirin at September 26, 2007 12:28 AM