Poll: Outright Majority of Democrats Back Hillary »
Yepsen: Residual Force Debate Gives Second Tier Candidates An Opening
Influential Iowa columnist David Yepsen says that the refusal of leading Dem candidates Hillary, Obama and Edwards to commit to full withdrawal from Iraq gives second tier candidates like Chris Dodd a big opening in the state:
While it's clear the three front-runners are hedging their bets, trying to be presidential by refusing to get pinned down on a key question, many Democratic activists are looking for something more definitive.That gives those second-tier candidates a chance. That's because the Democratic presidential race has essentially been fought to a draw among the three front-runners in recent weeks. The Clinton-Obama-Edwards camps are deadlocked. Polls show them in a statistical tie for first place. Nobody's breaking through.
As Ben Smith notes, the Yepsen column has put a spring in Dodd's step. Today, after Obama's big speech recalling his early opposition to the war, Dodd sent out a release slamming Obama over an old quote in which he declined to criticize Senators Edwards and Kerry for their pro-war vote in an interview with The New York Times.
This quote is often sent around by rivals whenever Obama brings up his early war opposition. Smith also has some video of Obama addressing this old quote on CNN for what may be the first time. Take a look.
Yepsen also has a bit of "thing" for Richardson lately (see his coverage of the Harkin steak fry). God knows why.
October 2, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Dodd thinks Obama should have criticized Kerry and Edwards right around the time of the 2004 Democratic convention???
Richardson and Dodd are pandering, pure and simple. Richardson's plan has met the approval of basically zero experts or military leaders but it lacks any semblance of realism, and you could tell Dodd was stuck in the debate between being honest and pandering and simply chose to pander (does he even have a plan?).
Not to mention that Richardson is a walking gaffe-machine, and Dodd has the charisma of a wet noodle.
The real problem is the failure of the media (yes, that includes you, David Yepsen) to explain exactly what the candidates' positions are (at least for Obama and I think Edwards, basically protecting the Green Zone and special forces fighting the small number of remaining foreign al Qaeda fighters).
October 2, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob:
It's not the media's job to explain a candidate's position--it's the candidate's job. That's one thing I'll say about Senator Clinton, she's managed the media well. Even though she's equivocated on most issues or simply co-opted her rivals plans, the has consistently reported her version of the stories. Obama took a big step today to try and draw some distinctions, it's up to him and his campaign to continue to do so.
And this isn't a criticism of you, as much as I believe it is a criticism of the Democratic Party. There is this expectation that the media will see through the bs spun by Republicans or their opponents. They haven't (for the most part) and we shouldn't expect them to start anytime soon.
October 2, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm a little sick (so excuse the typos).
instead of "the has consistently" it should be "they have consistently".
October 2, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As any Iowan knows, Jepsen is a right wing hack who loves to pose as a savvy Iowa-based reporter - and the national reporters lap it up. His favorite schtick is to create fights between Democrats where none existed before. On the weekly Iowa PBS political talk show he is a pitbull with Democrats and lapdog with Republicans. Don’t believe a word he says.
October 2, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reading of this is that, being a political animal who breathes this stuff for a living, Yepsen is bored with the status quo in his beloved IA and wants to mix things up a bit. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson aren't going anywhere, especially since they are broke, and Edwards, who's practically lived in IA since the last election, is floundering...
October 2, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with BOTH BobFred and DCS -- Yepsen is a bored hack. I also think that periodic talking-up second-tier candidates is one of the rhetorical strategies professional commentators use to demonstrate their "neutrality." JMHO.
October 2, 2007 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought all of the leading candidates did a decent job setting out their plans at the debate; that's why I think Yepsen is falling down on the job when he (quite possibly on purpose, as others have suggested) fails to report any nuance.
October 2, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this??? I was googling on Dodds, and I see he's married to a Mormon. Must be the year of the Mormons.
October 2, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, Dodd's blast against Obama was pretty strong. Does anyone know if anyone had uncovered that quote before? It is certainly an unfair attack, but it might prove effective!
October 2, 2007 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the quote from the Times article has surfaced before with the attempt to prove that Obama had "changed his mind". Look, this nonsense is easily rebutted--even Dodd's dumba$$ attack.
Democrats in Congress who voted FOR this miserable war in October 2002 were in the MINORITY amongst the Congressional Dems. The MAJORITY position was to vote AGAINST the war. The argument that Obama advanced was one made by this majority of Congressional Democrats.
Dodd voted for this war. Perhaps he could explain his own damned reasons for going against the majority position of Congressional Democrats, instead of attacking the only front-runner candidate who made the correct judgment even WITHOUT access to intelligence that our war-supporting candidates failed to even read. Dodd is pandering and is simply providing fig-leafs for these candidates who have BAD JUDGMENT.
October 2, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that a candidate could credibly commit to the absence of all American troops in Iraq by 2013 is ridiculous. A far more interesting gaffe is Hillary's, in being the only candidate who voted for naming the Iranian military a terrorist organization.
This is essentially her Iraq vote revisited. It is stupid and reprehensible. The only real-world effect of her vote is to smoothe Bush's path to an attack on Iran. In other words, she's the only candidate to make that mistake TWICE. If Obama has an instinct for the jugular, it's THAT vote that he should be attacking her for. It's THAT vote that could and should cost her the nomination.
October 2, 2007 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary not-so-secretly covets Georgie's war powers and sees kick up dust in Iran as the way to fiat a corporate plutocracy once she is coronated . . .
Obama gave a middle of the road answer . . . He's a middle of the road guy . . . Plus the debate didn't give him chance to wait three to five days after Kucinich and Edwards spoke so he couldn't "Chime In" by the end of the week as usual.
Edwards said he pull out is a orderly fashion and leave a force designed to support the nation builders . . . Actually a fairly clear and fairly realistic plan.
Dennis is the only one who has never varied. Biden dresses the best. Richardson is a hack and Dodd is a duffer. If only Gravel were sane . . .
October 3, 2007 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
By Congress to you the House and Senate? If you the latter, then please check your facts before making claims in a public forum, because if you are wrong, you come out looking (putting generously) bad. More than 50% of Senate Dems voted for the AUMF.
October 3, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, as we have learned since, those who were privy to more information and actually availed themselves of it (viz., Durbin and Graham) were less convinced. If only more Senators had availed themselves of all the information available to them, rather than make their decisions based on political calculation.
October 3, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I have to define CONGRESS for you, dcs? I use the word as defined: The US Congress is composed of the House of Representatives AND the Senate. The actual votes on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution:
Senate Democrats: Yea - 29; Nay - 21
House Democrats: Yea - 81; Nay - 126
Total: Yea - 110; Nay - 147
I repeat: supporting the Iraq War Resolution was a minority position amongst the Congressional Democrats. I find it interesting that so many leaders of the Democrats in Congress supported the resolution--Reid, Hoyer, Murtha, etc. I also find it interesting that this minority position is over-represented in our Dem candidates--with Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards voting for the resolution and Richardson supporting it.
Defend the Dems supporting this resolution who joined the GOP mob to march in lockstep behind Bush. It was the popular choice....it was the "mob" choice...and it was wrong. Let's take that historic vote and say "it doesn't matter" and reward one of these misguided Dems with the power of the Presidency to showcase future examples of extraordinary bad judgment on the very big problems we face.
You can do that, dcs, but I intend to keep pointing out that the Democrats are not this war-hawks who have poor judgment. Democrats have choices in this primary--and a candidate who had good judgment at the time. There's a reason for Dems to be proud and not stretching logic with the absurd statement that votes on war "don't matter". Tell that to families and friends being impacted by this mess. It's a shallow argument, devoid of any moral or ethical sense.
October 3, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, did you even read the article or are you just spewing. I am beginning to believe you have something pathological against Obama. Your bias is getting more pronounced as Hillary's numbers drop in Iowa.
By the way, in answer to your comment, I refer you to the article you are supposed to be commenting about.
October 3, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
People Of Iowa Should Know That Hillary Clinton And John McCain Are Co-Sponsers Of A Bill Writen,Funded And Lobby For PETA A Group That Said Any Body That Eats Meat Is A Criminal.Iowa Depends On The Live Stock Industry.Are They Going To Let PETA Write All Are LIve Stock Laws.The Bill S-311 Would Also Leed To The Deaths And Injury Of Thousands Of people Including Many Childern.It Would Also Have A Huge Negitive Effect On Are County And State Fairs,Horse Shows And Rodeo's.Some One Needs TO Ask Them Who Comes First Iowa's Childern ,Iowa's Economy Or PETA's Crazy Veiw That WE All Should Be Vegetarian.
December 19, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink