Radical Republican Steve King

While in retrospect, I think comparing anyone who questions Barack Obama getting a pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize today to the Taliban or terrorists is a pretty low road, I did appreciate the newfound aggressiveness from the DNC. Maybe they've hired some staffers from the RNC or something. And this latest project seems not only within bounds but a very canny way of painting Republicans with the beyond-the-pale extremist brush.



"Radical Republican Steve King" is repeated five times throughout the 1:15 piece. Surely this treatment will be given to some of the other figures of the GOP. And then GOP challengers will be forced to comment on these Radical Republicans.

You always want to take the lead in defining your opponent, and this campaign certainly does so. The more the GOP is the party of Limbaugh, Beck and Radical Republican Steve King, the more difficult it becomes for independents to embrace them.

Meanwhile, Steve King isn't exactly trimming his sails after the release of this video:

The hate crimes amendment attached to a defense authorization bill is Orwellian and provides protection to "sexual idiosyncrasies," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) asserted Friday.

King, a conservative Republican lawmaker, also charged that the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, which provided some impetus for hate crimes legislation, was not motivated out of hate against Shepard, who was gay [...]

King said that the hate crimes bill results in a "pedophile protection act," and is meant to create "thought crimes" and protect "sexual idiosyncrasies."

Once a Radical Republican, always a Radical Republican.

Might Have Worked 5 Months Ago

This series of DNC ads blaming Republicans for wanting to eliminate Medicare is dead-on, ruthless, and entirely too late. In August, the Republicans got the jump on defining Democrats as wanting to finance health care reform by cutting Medicare. That opinion hardened, and even though 80% of the GOP did indeed vote to eliminate Medicare back in April, it's a useless data point now, just a comeback in the debate instead of a powerful tool to frame the opponent before they get to frame you. I'd say these ads were completely worthless, except maybe they can be pulled out the next time there's a debate over Medicare. But not now. It looks completely reactive and defensive now, even though it's fundamentally correct.

Way to go, DNC.

Left-Wing Demagogues Found!

Republicans really aren't the problem right now on the health care bill, but here's a message that the Democratic National Committee could have put out in April, when 4/5 of the GOP caucus voted to kill Medicare:



Ryan Grim has the report.

I would have gone with that "Republicans want to end Medicare" line and repeated it 15 times to fill the 30 second spot.

This is at least a bar fight. They can do endless variations off of this. One senior's story: "Medicare saved my life. And Republicans wanted to end it?" A kid talking about how his grandmother was kept alive through Medicare and Republicans wanted to kill his grandma. Get creative!

...The DNC's actually been slugging it out pretty well. This spot calling Dick Cheney wrong about everything is pretty nice. They're a little late and a little reactive on these, however. Take the offense, all the time. Tomorrow, put out a spot about how Republicans think kids should drop out of school. Then one about how they think old people should eat cat food.

Waiting For The Daily Blast Fax So The President Can Tell Me What To Write

Phillip Klein of the far-right American Spectator has an amusing blog post out apparently accusing me of taking marching orders from the White House.

...those bloggers who get their marching orders from the White House and DNC have become part of the effort to attack ordinary Americans expressing their beliefs about an issue of great importance.

David Dayen of the blog D-Day was on the call. Yesterday, he wrote a post titled, "Top-Level Democrats Assault The Extremist Astroturfers." It began, "The White House took the lead on this, publicly calling the teabagger disruptions an example of astroturfing and citing conservative industry-backed groups taking credit for activating the rioters. Now other elements of the Democratic Party are taking up the baton. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer blasted the clown show today..." [...]

So just to sum up, Obama enlists the aid of a small group of liberal bloggers in the health care fight, and then those same bloggers write posts echoing White House and DNC talking points -- and in the very process of doing that, accuse their political opponents of astroturfing!

I seem to remember the call going like this: I asked a fairly pointed question about the negative consequences of those deals with industry groups, and Obama gave an answer based in his conception of realism that I called "deeply unsatisfying." Weeks later, I identify in multiple posts over a series of days an organized effort by corporate lobbying groups to bus around, distribute instructions to and in some cases fund so-called "ordinary Americans" who are hanging Congressmembers in effigy and wishing death upon them. The White House comes to the party a few days late, and I notice that as well.

Who's taking marching orders from whom?

I think the right wing is just a bit upset because their code has been cracked and pretty much every element of the Democratic side of the aisle has managed to notice.



Those aren't "marching orders," it's "recognizing what's plainly visible in front of your face." Which admittedly isn't always a simple task for a conservative.

By the way, when the insurance company lobby is trying to distance themselves from these tactics, you know the worm is starting to turn. The teabaggers are hurting nobody but themselves.

Top-Level Democrats Assault The Extremist Astroturfers

The White House took the lead on this, publicly calling the teabagger disruptions an example of astroturfing and citing conservative industry-backed groups taking credit for activating the rioters. Now other elements of the Democratic Party are taking up the baton. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer blasted the clown show today:

Speaking outside the White House after meeting with President Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York both dismissed the significance of boisterous protesters who have been interrupting Democratic lawmakers' events.

"It is a small fringe group," Schumer told the Huffington Post, "and if we let a small group of people who want to monopolize the conversation and not listen to the facts win, you may as well hang it up."

"These town hall meetings have been orchestrated by the tea baggers and the birthers to just be a free-for-alls, make a lot of noise, go on YouTube and show discord," said Durbin. "I mean that is what they are determined to do. But that is not going to accomplish what we need to accomplish: real health care reform."

Likewise, the DNC called the protesters "right-wing extremists funded by K Street" and alluded to the Palin/McCain rallies with the ugly cries of racism and xenophobia. The House Speaker's blog has a pretty comprehensive list of the extremism of the rioters, the links to special interests, and the coordinated strategy to shut down debate. And I've seen every single Democrat on cable news today talking about the Brooks Brothers riot, astroturfing, lobbyist-funded front groups, and the like. It's pretty interesting.

Will this push either the extremism or the astroturf element of this into the conversation, given the obvious evidence of lobby groups strategizing on this? I'm not sure. The media has a depressing tendency to treat a mob like a poll sample of public attitudes. In fact, public support for health care is still very strong. But the various ambushes throughout the country will still get national and (perhaps more important) local ink.

I'm glad that Democrats are fighting back, but I'm compelled to note that their charges also have to get into the game themselves. The ads have largely been garbage, the organizing hasn't gotten the traction from the media, and they have been unable to drown out the shouters. There is a gap here.

Misdirected Activism

Am I the only one who didn't really see a line in the sand from the President in yesterday's health care YouTube address?

That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.

The emphasis of the must is on the insurance exchange, which is actually a very important policy to break regional monopolies in the insurance market. The public option is wedged in there, but mostly Obama demands an insurance exchange so that individuals and small businesses have the ability to choose from a wide variety of plans.

But what this shows to me is that the public option is yesterday's debate. I think we'll get it, if we get a bill. But it's not holding up the process any more. It's too popular to kill the bill over. There are other elements that can sink the bill, most of them to do with cost. The DNC push against recalcitrant House and Senate Democrats just references some horror stories from citizens and states "it's time" for health care reform. No policy is forwarded, certainly not the public option.

The groups pushing back against reform aren't simply opposed to the public option, they're opposed to reform in general. And they see the cost controls and how to pay for the bill as the best way to attack it. Unfortunately, not a lot of people on the progressive side are defending wealth surtaxes or increasing the authority of MedPAC, for example.

You Can Go Ahead And End The Superdelegate Process Any Time

Though in the final analysis, the chaotic and difficult Democratic primary race in 2008 did not impact the general election - and contra Big Tent Democrat, Obama took Florida and Michigan - the campaign, and the role of unelected "superdelegates" in deciding it, embarrassed the Democratic Party and offered little confidence that the will of the electorate in deciding the nominee was being honored. So proposals to do away with that part of the process and reform the primary system please me to no end. Superdelegates are not the only thing wrong with the system - front-loading primaries, the role of unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire, the unnecessarily limiting caucus system which disallows everyone from participating - but they are the most high-profile failing, and should be stricken as an artifact of a top-down structure designed to subvert the will of the people if their passions grew too out of line with the prevailing wisdom. As Elaine Karmack said at the DNC meeting studying the primary process, the superdelegates ended up ratifying the leader in popular votes in 2008 anyway, and so they probably don't need to exist. "Their deliberative role... has in fact been supplanted by a very very public process."

I was worried that, considering the unlikely event of an actual primary in 2012 against President Obama, that the DNC would shy away from fiddling with the primary process. But they appear to have learned the lessons of 2008. Good.

DNC Finally On The Offense

They had to wait until the decision was handed down, but now that a three-judge panel has ruled that Al Franken won the election, and now that the conservative movement is fracturing, they can cleanly come out and tell Norm Coleman to go home.

Gov. KAINE: Norm Coleman lost on Election Day, he lost the recount, now he's lost a stinging rejection in court. My sense is the only reason anybody is prolonging this is they're trying to delay putting somebody in the Senate who will be willing to vote with President Obama to accomplish what is right for this nation. It is time to stop disenfranchising Minnesotans, put a second Senator in for that state, and set this behind us.

And the DNC is putting its money where its mouth is by running radio ads in Minnesota, saying that Franken is "entitled to receive the certificate of election."

It's well beyond time to put this pressure on, although the ask shouldn't have been to call Norm Coleman but to call Gov. Pawlenty and tell him to sign that certificate immediately.

Overhauling The Primary System

Considering that the Democratic primaries in 2012 won't be much more than a formality, I wondered whether or not there would be a strong urge inside the DNC to just move on and make no meaningful changes to the primary system, despite the epic car wreck of 2008. The other strain of thought is that, because 2012 will have no winners and losers, it's easier than ever to change the system because stakeholders will have less of an impetus to game it. Looks like the reformers won out:

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina will lead the Democratic Change Commission, which is scheduled to report its findings no later than Jan. 1, 2010. The commission, which is largely comprised of Democrats who supported Mr. Obama (and a few who backed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in last year's contentious primary season), will review and streamline the 2008 calendar.

"This commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process," Mr. Kaine said in a statement, "to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate."

Comprised of 37 members, the commission has this mission:

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system.

Let's break down these issues separately. Kaine is setting a marker that no caucus or primary can be held before February 1 of the calendar year, which I think makes sense. Sadly, he's still holding to this front-loaded structure, where a first wave goes between February 1 and March 1. I'd rather see a rotating regional primary rather than a system which encourages practically every state beyond the first tier to go on March 1. Not to mention the fact that the DNC couldn't get Michigan and Florida to hold to these dictates last year.

On delegates, the wording is a little vague, but the resolution provides for "a significant reduction of the number of unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus voters in the presidential nominating process." That's a solid principle, and ultimately I'd like to see the superdelegates phased out, or at least not phased in until a second ballot so that the voters rule first. Delegate allocation formulas will get a makeover as well, and good, because one Congressional district shouldn't be favored over another based on whether or not they have even-numbered or odd-numbered delegates.

Finally, on caucuses, there is talk about maximizing "the opportunity for full participation by Democratic voters," and I agree. Maine has an absentee-ballot system for caucuses, and that should be the model. I know many people believe that caucuses are inherently marginalizing and should be abandoned, but they hold value as party-building events, and that decision should be up to the inidividual state parties.

Anyway, I'm glad we're talking about this very early, to allow for the range of debate prior to the next contested primary election.

The List Is Coming! The List Is Coming!

The buzzing of excitement at the concept of Barack Obama awakening the sleeping giant of "the list" to help him pass his budget seems like a Washington-centric read of things. First of all, Barack Obama isn't doing anything. Organizing for America has a separate organization, and they are making their determinations separately. Second, this isn't the "first" deployment of the sacred list - there were stimulus meetings last month. Third, the idea that off-cycle organizing is novel and interesting is an example of why Washington consultants shouldn't be trusted to run anybody's campaign. Let's look at what the ask is here:

The campaign, which will be run under the aegis of the Democratic National Committee, will rely heavily on the 13 million-strong e-mail list put together during the campaign and now under the control of Organizing for America (OFA), a group overseen by the DNC. Aides familiar with the plan said it is an unprecedented attempt to transfer the grass-roots energy built during the presidential campaign into an effort to sway Congress [...]

(David) Plouffe, who passed up a formal role in the White House but remains a conduit to the army of Obama volunteers, sent an e-mail to the OFA mailing list over the weekend signaling the ramping up of the campaign for the president's budget. "In the next few weeks we'll be asking you to do some of the same things we asked of you during the campaign -- talking directly to people in your communities about the President's ideas for long-term prosperity," he wrote.

That push begins today with an e-mail asking volunteers to go door to door Saturday to urge their neighbors to sign a pledge in support of Obama's budget plan.

Hey idiots, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO in an off-election year, or at least it's what you should do. Keeping in touch with neighbors and having what amounts to precinct captains in every corner of America is standard political organizing, and it's shameful that it has taken until now to get around to it. A pre-cursor to increasing political engagement nationwide is building up trusted networks in communities, so that individuals know where to go to get information and steps for action. This is not transformational, it's righting a grave wrong. Furthermore, the OFA/DNC effort is being asinine by re-starting this process over again and not retaining the on-the-ground organizers that were already implementing the 50-state strategy under Howard Dean. In addition, there are already email and Web-based campaigns that are very sharp, applying pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike - a good example is the Color of Change action to flood South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford with phone calls today for rejecting stimulus money (this enhances a DNC on-air effort to call out Sanford).

The lack of off-cycle organizing that is targeted on principles and explanations for policy is WHY there are so many wayward corporate Democrats talking about defying the President on his mostly progressive budget. The Party has long lost touch with the people who support it at the ballot. And the other side of this is that people who are energized by being instruments of change in the election are not necessarily going to hop to answer the call on whatever issue some folks in Washington decide is the most important. Here in California, I can tell you there is about four times as much energy and organizing going into marriage equality than there is on national priorities. And that focus is different depending on the regional area.

That OFA is deploying its list should not be a cause for joy; it should be a cause for embarrassment.

The Vestigial Organ

OK, let's get to the multiple events of yesterday. First of all, Tim Kaine will be named the DNC Chair, which appears to be the consolation prize for him not being made Vice President. Kaine's most memorable public appearance was an awful rebuttal to the State of the Union Address, but since then he has gotten marginally better, and was not terrible on the stump and in the media for Barack Obama. Typically the President handpicks the DNC chair, and the body is a different animal when the party is in power. Without the White House, the DNC was an activist body the last two cycles. Terry McAuliffe had no electoral success, but raised a crapload of money. Howard Dean implemented the 50-state strategy, got the party's technical chops up to the level of the Republicans, and successfully navigated two campaign cycles. With the White House, it becomes more of an organ of the President.

Kaine did oversee some very good party-building in Virginia, which has 2 more Democratic Senators, 3 more House members and the majority of the State Senate since he became Governor. And Virginia went blue in November for the first time since 1964. Jonathan Singer likes the choice.

Beyond that, in recent years the DNC Chairmanship has been split into two posts while the Democrats have controlled the White House, with a dignitary serving as General Chairman and a strategist running the day-to-day operations of the committee. Under Bill Clinton, this strategy predominated, with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Colorado Governor Roy Romer and then-former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell serving as General Chairmen -- the spokesmen of the party -- while others were left to handle the details. Indeed, this appears to be the thinking of Obama in tapping Kaine, also choosing the director of his battleground state strategy, Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, to run the committee's operations.

So I see the Kaine pick as a fine one and have few quarrels with it.

The key to me is whether he keeps the 50-state strategy in place. Coming from a state that benefited from those efforts, I hope he will see the value in it.

The Strange Disappearance of Howard Dean

This is a great piece by Ari Berman of The Nation about Howard Dean. For all the thoughts in early 2005 that Dean would be an erratic chair of the DNC, he came in with a very tightly focused plan and he enacted it brilliantly. He wanted to strengthen state parties, implement the technology necessary to reach voters, and put organizers in the field throughout the country, surmising that most of life is showing up and that you have to offer Americans everywhere a choice. It succeeded pretty well.

It almost feels like ancient history, but "four years ago the Democratic Party was in a very different condition," Doctor Dean says at the beginning of his talk at the Y. Republicans had just retained the White House, gained four seats in the Senate and three in the House, and held twenty-eight governorships. Bill Frist was Senate majority leader, Dennis Hastert was House Speaker, George Bush's approval rating was at a healthy 50 percent and Karl Rove planned a "permanent Republican majority." It was "not a fun time to be a Democrat," Dean cracks.

How quickly things change. Four years later Democrats elected Obama with 67 million votes. They picked up seven seats in the Senate (with Minnesota still pending at press time)and twenty-one in the House, and they hold sixty of ninety-nine state legislative chambers. Obama's extraordinary campaign and Bush's remarkable mishandling of the country's domestic and foreign policies deserve much of the credit for the Democratic Party's resurgence, but so does Howard Dean. Before virtually any major politician, Dean not only sensed that the era of Republican ascendancy could be stopped but also how to do it, first through his trailblazing though unsuccessful presidential campaign of 2004, and then through his forceful stewardship of the party as DNC chair since 2005. "Dean gave the party a mission and a focus," says Paul Tewes, a top Obama strategist who ran day-to-day operations at the DNC during the general election. "That's a big deal when you're out of power." DNC member Donna Brazile calls Dean "one of the unsung heroes of this moment."

So unsung, in fact, that he has nothing to do now. Dean was never well-liked by the Beltway press (it's shocking how little he appeared on television despite being the DNC chair) or the Democratic establishment, and with people like Rahm Emanuel (who publicly sparred with Dean) back in power, Dean has basically been nudged out. The organizers in the states are on a leave of absence and nobody knows if that investment will continue. Obama basically emulated Dean's 50-state strategy and he might feel he can do it by himself now without any use of the former chair's strategies (I think the states like having the organizers, and the state party chairs will be very vocal in asking for it to continue).

It would be a mistake. Dean not only has a continued following among the grassroots, but he obviously has the skill to recognize how to pull off a national strategy to take back the country for Democrats and progressive values. That would come in handy as a governing strategy, don't you think?

They're Not Leaving It On The Road

As the election nears, it's clear that we are looking at the potential for not just a victory but a realignment. The House and Senate gains made in this election could sustain a majority for a generation. We can reach upwards of 260 House seats and 60 Senate seats and maybe even more. The candidates hoping to ride this wave need only the funds to get their name out.

The DNC is taking out a $10 million dollar line of credit to fund these close House and Senate races. But the incumbent Democratic lawmakers themselves are not doing their part. Far too many politicians want to hang on to their own campaign money, either as a hedge for a potential higher office or plain old incumbency protection. At this moment, when we are this close to a lasting majority, it's wrong. And progressive Reps. helping members get elected would increase their power. The Blue Dogs seem to understand this. Steny Hoyer understands it. The Progressive Caucus doesn't, at least not to my satisfaction.

Nancy Pelosi is trying to use peer pressure.

Earlier this week, Pelosi sent an e-mail to her Democratic caucus identifying some 30 members who have been tardy in paying their dues to the party's House camapaign arm this cycle.

The message was loud and clear: Badger away.

"Enclosed, please find a list of our colleagues who have only fulfilled 50 percent or less of their dues obligations," Pelosi and her fellow Democratic House leaders wrote in the e-mail. "Please encourage them to be a part of the team. The number of seats we gain will depend on the resources we have to compete in these closing days."

The letter explained that, while House Democrats found themselves in a strong position just two weeks to Election Day, "we cannot take anything for granted."

But at week's end just a few of those tardy members had paid up, according to a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dues sheet obtained by PolitickerCA.com.

The problem is much the same in the Senate.

On the cusp of winning a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority, Democratic Senators are hoarding their personal campaign chests, demonstrating more self interest than a willingness to share their money in order to gain firm control of the Senate.

While sitting on more than $100 million in donations and most facing no contest this year, the Senate's 51 Democrats have given the party's key Senatorial Campaign Committee, the DSCC -- headed by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) this year -- $11.3 million, or just over $220,000 apiece on average. Some 21 members have contributed less than $100 [...]

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is not up for election until 2012 and who has $6.68 million cash on hand, gave a total of $115,000 to the DSCC. Indiana's Evan Bayh, who has $11.3 million on hand and is up in 2010, gave $15,000. Barbara Boxer who has an even $4 million in the bank in preparation for her re-election bid in 2010, donated $30,000.

In fact, if every Democratic Senator who is not up for re-election this year, or who is sure to win on November 4, gave just 10 percent of their cash-on-hand to the DSCC, it would total $10 million for the closing week -- a substantial sum for of television time in key target states.

This is really awful. Even Sen. Obama, who to his credit has sent emails out to his very large list highlighting Democratic candidates, could probably do more, although I get that he's got a race of his own to take care of.

But the Senate and House Dems who have virtually no competition of their own have no excuse. They are protecting themselves instead of fulfilling their obligations. They are sabotaging the agenda they claim to support by not reaching the maximum number of Democratic colleagues that could help them. It's disgraceful.

Worm Turning

It's one thing for Barack Obama to crush John McCain in July fundraising, $51 million to $27 million. That's expected. What's unexpected is that the DNC outraised the RNC. That's actually astounding. Especially considering that the DNC no longer takes lobbyist or PAC contributions. So they've ceded that entire group to the Republicans, and historically the RNC is a money-raising machine. But the DNC did it, edging the RNC by $27.7 to $26 million, for the first time in four years.

Good for Howard Dean and the DNC.

Piecing Together The Puzzle Of Iraq

So I'm still trying to get a handle on the Iraqi leadership's comments about the need for a timetable for withdrawal in the status of forces agreement. Initially I saw it as a political statement designed to curry favor with Shiites opposed to the occupation, with enough caveats and strings attached so that US troops woudn't have to leave for a long, long time. However, if Ayatollah Sistani is involved, as he looks to be, then this could actually be real. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, made his remarks after meeting with Sistani, so his imprimatur may be on this.

I actually thought Bush would jump at the deal for those reasons. But so far, he hasn't, and John McCain has been completely flummoxed over how to react to this. First he tried to dismiss it and claim that success must be dictated by events on the ground. Then, a spokesman conceded that if the Iraqis wanted the US to leave, we ought to do so.

Aides to Sen. John McCain sought on Wednesday to clear up their boss' position on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's recent insistence that a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops be included in any security agreement between the two countries.

"John McCain has always been clear that American forces operate in Iraq only with the consent of that country's democratically elected government," Michael Goldfarb, a McCain spokesman, told the Huffington Post. "The Senator speaks frequently with Iraq's leaders and they have made clear that they share his belief that any timeline for withdrawal must be dictated by the facts on the ground. He met with the foreign minister and President separately within the last month...He met with Maliki on his last trip to Iraq sometime in late March."

The DNC jumped all over this indecision and waffling.



And Sen. Obama is now going around saying that Prime Minister Maliki now agrees with him. Jon Soltz of VoteVets trumpeted this as well on Hardball, and McCain's own quote about how we should leave if the Iraqis want us to is being used against him.

There are still a lot of moving parts here. Today an Iraqi government spokesman kind of softened the message from one that was already pretty soft.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A deadline should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Iraq, and the pullout could be done by 2011, an Iraqi government spokesman said Tuesday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said any timetable would depend on "conditions and the circumstances that the country would be undergoing." But he said a pullout within "three, four or five" years was possible.

"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh said. "We don't have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

The only difference between this and what George Bush says is the listing of an actual date. Which he's not even adhering to. And of course, he can't. Maliki's government cannot credibly claim that violence has ended in Iraq - three dozen Iraqis died two days ago, and yesterday was similarly bloody. He requires US air support to maintain even a semblance of order. I think Eric Martin is on the right track:

There are at least two (perhaps overlapping) reasons for Maliki's recent pushback and sudden demand for clear timetables. First, Maliki and his advisors (never enamored with the prospect of US forces remaining in the country long term) caught a glimpse of the SFA and SOFA that the Bush administration had in mind (or caught an earful from Sistani/the Iraqi people), and balked at the onerous and overreaching terms. Combine this with the Maliki team's knowledge that a new administration is likely on its way in, and Maliki et al may have decided that their leverage has improved to the point that they can dictate the SFA/SOFA terms along the lines of their true preferences (or those of Sistani/the Iraqi people to the extent they differ).

The other possibility, the one McCain has been pushing, goes something like this: details of the SFA/SOFA leaked to the media/Iraqi population, and Maliki et al have been forced, by domestic political concerns (read: the nationalism of the Sadrists), to take a hard line position on withdrawal and the terms of the SFA/SOFA. Behind the scenes, however, Maliki will give the Bush team what it wants. This view is, circumstantially, supported by the fact the Iraqi people (outside Kurdistan) overwhelmingly prefer a timeline for withdrawal, and have reacted in strong opposition to the details of the SFA/SOFA that were made public - though that doesn't necessarily militate in favor of the argument that Maliki wants us to stay, just that there would be public opposition regardless.

It is actually quite difficult to determine which narrative is more accurate. Some, such as Swopa, have long argued that Maliki and his UIA allies have simply been biding their time, waiting for the right moment to evict the American interlopers - in which case, the first narrative seems more likely. Others, such as myself at times, have argued that the fragile Maliki/ISCI coalition view US support as essential to maintaining their grip on power (at least for a little while longer) - in which case, the second option would be closer to the truth (unless the pressure from Sistani/the Iraqi people proved irresistible). To clarify, it is been my contention that eventually Maliki/ISCI would want us out, as soon as they deemed their consolidation of power sufficient, but that such a moment might be some years off.

Martin continues that Maliki made the same kinds of unilateral statements about the expulsion of Blackwater after the Nissour Square shooting, and eventually Blackwater re-signed contracts to work in Iraq, and nothing happened to Maliki as a result. And he makes the key point - it is politically popular in Iraq to fight against the occupation. That is simply never going to change, and whether Maliki is blustering or not this has to be seen as the beginning of the end. Whether that will end in an orderly withdrawal or with helicopters off the rooftops of the Embassy depends on how this SOFA is negotiated and implemented - which is why having someone with the judgment to carry this off correctly is so crucial.

The Return Of Rudy

You'd think that when you embarrassed yourself so totally as a Presidential candidate, possibly running the worst campaign in modern history, you'd spend the rest of the year in hiding, dodging the laughter of children on the street. But not so for Rudy Giuliani, who has decided to reappear as a surrogate for John McCain on national security. The ensuing reaction from the Obama campaign and the DNC almost makes me wish that St. 9-11 had won the GOP nomination.

The Obama campaign and the DNC struck back at Giuliani for criticizing Obama for pointing out the handling of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial as an example of how to deal with terrorists in American courts.

In an e-mail, entitled, “Giuliani v Giuliani: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Case,” the Obama campaign points out that in 1993, Giuliani said at the time, per the New York Times, March 5, 1994: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law.’”

Also from that day’s Times: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said he hoped that the verdicts would lessen tensions rather than increase them. ‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”

The DNC takes its shot at Giuliani with an e-mail with a title, parroting Joe Biden’s Greatest Debate Hits: “Rudy, ‘Noun, verb, 9/11’ Giuliani returns.”

“Democrats are not going to be lectured to on security by the mayor who failed to learn the lessons of the 1993 attacks, refused to prepare his own city’s first responders for the next attack, urged President Bush to put his corrupt crony in charge of our homeland security, and was too busy lobbying for his foreign clients to join the Iraq Study Group,” DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said. “Rudy Giuliani, can echo the McCain campaign’s false and misleading attacks, but he can’t change the fact that John McCain is promising four more years of President Bush’s flawed and failed policies on everything from energy security and the economy to the war in Iraq.”

TPM Election Central has been digging up quotes all day from McCain advisers who repeatedly suggested during the primaries that he failed New York City on 9-11 and that he has no revelant national security experience whatsoever. It's been fun.

I don't think the McCain camp expected Rudy to get pounded so effortlessly. But since the campaign, the bloom is WAY off that rose.

The Organization Gap

The difference between the way the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign is approaching the general election couldn't be more stark, and for once, we have the professional operation.

Obama is locking down cooperation with the DNC, moving its operations to Chicago, and involving itself in coordination with the state parties, ensuring a very smooth and cohesive message in the general election as opposed to having everybody fight with one another, the way it was in 2004:

You may recall that the DNC chair in 2004 was one Terry McAuliffe, and in his book, McAuliffe wrote about the back-stage infighting between the DNC and Kerry camps. McAuliffe said that Kerry's aides had wanted to oust him; that relations were chilly throughout the campaign; and that the Kerry camp muzzled him when he wanted to assail George W. Bush's military record.

By contrast, upon securing the nomination, Obama very quickly put out a statement showering praise on Howard Dean; is now moving to put staff in all 50-states, in concert with Dean's approach; and is quite literally moving swaths of the DNC to Chicago to create a unified organization with the sort of party-wide message discipline that has eluded Dems in the past.

This is streamlined, cost-efficient and offers massive potential for a cross-platform message, with the grassroots and the top-level campaign on the same page.

And then there's McCain's operation. Gerson's op-ed has the usual conservative crap, but I almost can't believe this part.

The style and approach of general election campaigns are often conditioned by the method of victory in the primaries. The Obama team ends the season like a battle-worn Army division -- organized, relentless and skilled at fundraising, registering voters and getting them to the polls. Members of the McCain team feel more like survivors of a near-death experience -- convinced that the virtues of their candidate and the blessings of the political gods matter more than the money, phone banks and door-knocking of traditional politics.

This worries some Republican strategists. One recently described the McCain campaign to me as the political equivalent of a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movie: Every morning a few guys get together and say, "Let's put on a show!" McCain's state campaign organizations, coalition outreach and get-out-the-vote efforts are weak or nonexistent. But McCain campaign officials are convinced that they will win -- if they win -- in a different manner from that of the methodical Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. McCain will either catch fire, or he won't -- and traditional efforts to boost turnout, in this view, are not likely to make the difference. Given its history, the McCain campaign is understandably proud of its stripped-down, seat-of-the-pants, insurgent style. But it may eventually be useful to have a serious campaign organization in, say, Colorado.

He literally has no national campaign apparatus. It's the ultimate in arrogance, a reflection of the man who is dismissive of his opponent as unable to step on the same stage as him. He really thinks his personality and war service will just set everyone running toward him, without having to work at it whatsoever. His predecessor at least had the sense to get out of the way and let Karl Rove run the campaign operation. McCain is the C+ student who blows off the test and goes out to drink in the parking lot.

He's going to try and skate on his reputation and hope his BBQ-stained friends in the media get him into the White House. Organization is for sissies.

This guy's gonna get clobbered.

Open Forum For California DNC Candidates

You wouldn't know this unless you follow these things closely, but this coming Sunday, June 15, is very significant in the future of Democratic politics. On that day at the California Democratic Party executive board meeting in Burlingame, 19 men and women from throughout the state will be voted in as DNC members. Those elected will take their positions after the Democratic National Convention in August, and will serve through the DNC in 2012. Here's the list (it's a PDF) of names who will appear on the ballot - 9 men, 9 women and the 19th-highest vote-getter regardless of gender will win the election.

Now, why is this important? These 19 DNC members will be part of the organization that will need to decide how to reform our completely broken primary process that almost turned a historic nomination season into utter chaos. There is no other issue - not the war, not poverty, not the economy, not health care, nothing - where DNC members will make any kind of a difference compared to primary reform. I know a lot of party members read this site, so let this be a jumping off point for discussion. No California e-board member should vote to elect any of these candidates without knowing their plans for primary reform. And on the flip, here are a few ideas.

Here's a brief sketch of some of the necessary reforms, IMO, that I wrote at The Washington Monthly last week:

Now the next challenge, in my view, is reforming this disastrous primary system entirely, reviewing it from top to bottom and ditching the most undemocratic elements. I would move to a rotating regional set of primaries (decided by lottery on January 1 of the primary year so nobody can park in any one place prior to that), superdelegates with no vote until after the first ballot, which is reserved for delegates picked directly by the voters (so they get to go to the party but not have an undue influence on the process), and all delegates selected proportionately based on their state's popular vote. I would remind those who think caucuses should be thrown out that they are tremendous party-building tools, and many of the states with caucuses this year are swing states (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, even Texas perhaps), and those state parties captured priceless voter contact information on hundreds of thousands of voters who could be turned into volunteers.

Let's go a bit more in depth.

Primary schedule - the reason that we ended up with such a chaotic system for delegate selection is that Michigan and Florida jumped the line set by the DNC, and instead of past years where sanctions would be granted on those states only to be lifted after the winner was chosen and the delegate counts no longer mattered, this was a close race. So that sanction hung over the entire primary season. Yet the DNC must be able to manage their own nominating process. So it seems to me that they shouldn't allow one delegate to be chosen before their set date for the beginning of the primaries, and that states should be grouped by region and chosen by lot. This breaks the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold (and if they don't like it, really, let them secede), eliminates the penchant for 30 visits to the early states on the calendar, and continues to allow for retail politics through the various regions. It's somewhat similar to the American Plan.

Real proportional representation - the current system is kind of a joke, in that congressional districts which allocate even-numbered amounts of delegates have quite a bit less influence on the overall result as districts which allocate odd-numbered amounts. Simply put, it's easier to gain an advantage in an odd-numbered district, needing only 50% plus one, as it is in an even-numbered district, needing as much as 63% of the vote. There is absolutely no reason why the delegate allocation can't be proportional based on statewide popular vote, with the congressional allocations included later. Furthermore, the states need to be proportionally represented relative to one another - the system of add-on delegates and rewarding states that kept their primaries later in the process and giving Puerto Rico more delegates than 27 states simply has to end.

Dealing with the superdelegates - all of these DNC members elected will then become so-called "superdelegates," so I recognize that asking them to renounce their own power and influence is kind of dicey. But nothing had a more damaging impact on the party than the perception that the process was controlled by party insiders who could subvert the will of the people. That it "worked out" in the end is of no consequence. Superdelegates really shouldn't have such an outsized impact on the nominating process. I suggest that their votes for President and Vice President at the DNC don't count on the first ballot, ensuring that they get a ticket to the event but the voters have the first crack at choosing the nominee. A standard of 50 or even 55% could be set as the necessary threshold to get the nominee over the top, if superdelegates want to hold out the option of having their wise counsel be determinative.

There are probably dozens of other ideas, but I want to open this up to discussion. How would you reform the primary process, and what can potential DNC candidates do to assure you that they will adequately represent the interests of California voters to see the process reformed?

Big Moves At The DNC

It's very encouraging that Barack Obama recognizes the job Howard Dean has done as the architect of the 50-state strategy and building Democratic infrastructure nationally, and that he's going to keep him in the job through the election. It's also encouraging that he's bringing the same reformist style to the DNC and branding the Democratic Party as the one which doesn't take lobbyist or PAC money.

NEW YORK - Acting swiftly as his party's presumed presidential nominee, Barack Obama is keeping Howard Dean at the helm of the Democratic National Committee, while bringing in one of his top strategists to oversee the party's operations.

The campaign also announced that the DNC will no longer accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees, to comply with Obama's campaign policy. Party officials say they expect the DNC's staff to quickly expand to run an aggressive general election campaign.

Campaign adviser Paul Tewes was dispatched to help lead the changes Thursday.

"Senator Obama appreciates the hard work that Chairman Dean has done to grow our party at the grass-roots level and looks forward to working with him as the chairman of the Democratic Party as we go forward," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

I expect Obama to do some major fundraising for the DNC, perhaps pushing out to his list, over the next few days. It's also worth mentioning that Obama actually had to buck conventional Washington wisdom and take the side that building infrastructure across all 50 states is preferable to trying to win a narrow set of swing states and just make it across the line every election. This is an endorsement of a national campaign strategy that Dean has spearheaded since 2005.

And the contrast of one party united in not taking lobbyist or PAC money and the other party's nominee having a campaign full of lobbyists is pretty stark, and Obama knows it:

"I've sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs," Senator Obama said. "And today, I'm announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won't take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President of the United States."

It really feels like a weight has been lifted, the internecine bickering is over, and now the fun can begin.

Wankfest '08

I'm watching live coverage of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, and having sat through a lot of these kinds of meetings in the California Democratic Party, let me say that I am pretty thrilled that I have a channel changer. There's no "fair" answer to this, as I've been saying for a while. The flaw is the entire system, and as such every wanker and partisan supporter can very easily argue the position favorable to their side and pretend they have full authority and legitimacy - which they actually do. Chuck Todd explains this in kind of a loopy way, and he uses estimates and projections which I believe is out of bounds. But if you seat Florida and Michigan fully you disenfranchise those who may have voted but didn't, and if you don't seat them you disenfranchise those who did vote. So it's not like there's a good answer here, and people are only pretending there are because they want a particular candidate to be victorious.

This is a circus, it's nuts, and it's entirely the fault of a shortsighted approach to delegate selection by the DNC which must not happen again.