One after one, the Democrats told the tale during the virtual town hall meeting.
Some quick thoughts on a few of the candidates. MoveOn
has more so check it out for yourself. They’re also taking a vote on the event.
Bottom line: great candidates; all want out of Iraq and are ready to lead. I’d
love to hear your thoughts. Here are mine.
Biden
gets serious points for wading into the MoveOn event, because he knows he’s
not a favorite in the blogosphere. He’s got serious foreign policy game and
it shows. He’s very concerned about the day after we withdraw. “What next”
is a big line for him. It’s a line McCain stole on “60 Minutes” last
week, in fact. The day after we withdraw or start redeploying matters. Biden
is warning everyone to think about that day. He’s got a plan for how he thinks
it should play out. It’s the Biden-Gelb
plan.
Dodd is
the biggest surprise of the group, continually delivering. Public financing
would make a big difference to candidates like Dodd. As it is it will be tough
for him, but if you’re undecided take a look at what he offers. I believe, so
far, he’s the only one who’s signed on to Feingold – Reid.
Richardson has got a great resume, but one comment last night didn’t seem at
all credible.
Here’s my position on Iraq and it’s not on the one hand on the
other hand, benchmarks, etc… if I were President today, I would withdraw
American troops by the end of this calendar year. I would have no residual
force whatsoever. – Bill
Richardson
Al Qaeda is in Anbar Province and though some Sunni tribesmen are starting
to push back and fight them, there isn’t one single serious foreign policy expert who believes
we can walk away from training Iraqis, or the terrorism in Anbar. Even Feingold
– Reid leaves contingency plans for force protection. Richardson jumped
the shark, in my opinion, but he certainly gave some what they wanted to hear.
I just wasn’t one of them.
Obama’s language
changed last night. No more “playing chicken with our troops,”
which was replaced by putting pressure on Bush in “a responsible manner.”
Translation: message has been received. He also committed to trying to override
a possible veto he sees coming, then sending back another bill to ratchet up
the pressure. He blamed those who got us into this war in the first place and
reminded everyone that he was against this war from the start. This came straight at all the senators who voted for the war and are now running for president.
It was a direct hit. Obama’s language on the troops and the continual redeployment
was a winner, especially since he had the numbers and talked about Bush forcing
redeployments on our Guard. He had stats on recent killings and the reality
in Iraq as well. Obama also has over 50 co-sponsors of his bill to get out of
Iraq, which calls for a phased withdrawal to begin in May of this year. Obama
knows what’s happening in Iraq by the numbers and he shared them. The details
illustrated a grasp of reality we’re not getting from Republicans, which is
good to illustrate to people.
Clinton committed
to “no permanent occupation and no permanent bases.” She
said it clearly and emphatically. Clinton also said she thinks it’s wrong to
telegraph strategy to Bush: “I don’t think we should tell President
Bush what we will do if he vetoes this legislation.” There’s not much
doubt that this was directed straight at Mr. Obama, due to prior remarks, which
I’ve talked about many times. However, I still don’t agree with her “cutting off the Iraqi funding” line, if Iraqis don’t show progress. I don’t see how that will help at all, but it’s a hard line that shows toughness. Clinton’s rhetoric on the troops included her “The
Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act.” She admitted the reality that
Democrats may not be able to move the president, but we can then make Bush not
send troops in unprepared. She continues to give great game on troop talk, which
for a female running for commander in chief is critical. Clinton also made the
point that it is Bush who is rejecting the funding. She also applauded Pelosi
on her trip to the region. I don’t think any other Democratic candidate has
done so.
Edwards
was the feistiest, I believe. There was something irreverent in his delivery;
a nothing to lose quality. He stated that Congress must be relentless in sending
Bush bills with withdrawal language over and over again until the job is done.
Edwards did himself a favor by reminding people he voted against the $87 billion
funding bill in ’03, which was the first time he personally used his senatorial
funding power. That’s an important point that has gotten lost. He needs to keep
repeating it and reminding people of it. It’s not insignificant. Edwards also
had specific troop redeployment numbers: I’d propose we begin by capping
funding levels at 100,000 troops to stop Bush’s escalation and force an immediate
withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, which should come out of the north and
the south of Iraq. This is a reasonable proposal. And it was Edwards that
had the best lines of the night.
But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for
political courage. This is not a game of chicken. This is not about making
friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death—this
(is) about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism,
only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush vetoes funding for the
troops, he’s the only one standing in the way of the resources they need.
Nobody else. – John
Edwards
Game over.
Comments are closed.