Obama should fire his advisers. He is sounding more and more like the candidate that can't shoot straight. Why not sign off on the letter? What's there to lose and it sends a strong signal or don't say anything? Legislative proposal, were is the gd proposal? If you're going to submit some legislation, that won't go anywhere anyway, why not sign off on the stupid letter? What an inane statement. It's even more inane since he didn't vote on it. I still don't get that one.

Where's her majesty? Oh, that's right she voted for the amendment to bolster a non-existent diplomatic offensive and to give the king another free pass. If the amendment didn't give him a free pass, in his little mind, why didn't she sign off on the letter?

Every day, I am hoping more and more that webb just throws his hat in the ring for the h*ll of it. It would be interesting to see what would happen. He's about the only dem with any cahones in the gd senate or on the national level at this point.

Where's Feingold??

"Where's her majesty?"

Uh, she's at #10.

Why did HRC sign this, if she didn't think it could be interpreted by anyone as authorizing action in Iran in the first place?

And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy.

My head hurts....

Michael:

I feel you in some respects, but I think you need to put this all in perspective: This is a LETTER to President Bush. It's not exactly the force of law, hell it doesn't even express the Sense of the Senate. Why didn't Webb push for a Sense of the Senate amendment or bill--It would get the Senate on the record clarifying just what KLA means and neutralize whatever power Bush may pretend is in KLA.

As for Obama, I think he was right not to sign it. This is about as flaccid a response as the Dems could put out--short of saying "pretty please". Dems need to stop with this nonsense and actually draft some legislation.

Why hasn't anyone thought of amending the War Powers Act?

A choice not a triangulation

Obama Promises New Relationship With Iran

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?hp

Granted, it's just a letter as others have pointed out.

But I'm a little worried that it says no authority exists for UNILATERAL military action. Does that mean that if Bush puts together another coalition of the "willing" with Vanuatu and Nauru signing on, that's OK? Why not no authority for any military action unless subsequently approved by Congress?

I don't see how anyone who adamantly opposed Kyl-Lieberman could possibly sign off on this letter explaining to Dubya what fewer than half the people who did vote for it now say it they think it means.

And, he's right. A Senatorial armpit fart chorus would more legal significance, and more moral and political impact, than this useless scrap of political butt-coverage.

I have to agree with Senator Obama, a letter to Bush is less than pointless. Given the bellicose bombast that it has subscribed to since the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002, the “provocative statements and actions stemming” from the Bush administration can’t really be a surprise to these Senators??

The fact they are sending a letter to clarify that “no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran” only confirms the ambiguity in the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. The time to seek clarity, Senators, was when the amendment language was initially crafted.

All 30 plus Obama need to co-sponsor a piece of legistlation and submit it to committee tomorrow by 9:00 AM. I offer the text below:

To date, Congress has not provided consent to invade or attack Iran. There is no declaration of war against Iran. No member of the Executive Branch has been authorized to initiate any hostile action against the country of Iran.

Voilation of this law or provisions thereof is punishable by a term in Federal prision not less than 150 years per occurence or act.

Hillary is the one with the contradiction flip flop problem on this.

Her signing onto this letter is an admission that she and the other 75 senators voted for something which was not carefully written.

Deja vu, except she is quicker to recognize the mistake, this time.

should have written "amendment" not "legislation"

Webb wrote letter. Webb did not vote for Kyle/Lieberman. Webb also has written legislation against military action against Iran that is not going to go anywhere. Actually Clinton has co-sponsored it. I think the letter has more co-sponsors than the legislation.

Keep in mind Comment #1*** that Webb voted for Kyl-Lieberman to begin with. Now they come back and say but it should not be used as AUMF against Iraq because they want that to be clear. Makes me wonder why they signed it to begin with. It was sponsored by Lieberman who would give his right arm to attack Iran. What the hell else did they think it would be used for especially since the public told them this is how Bush would use it.
Demonstrates poor judgment to begin with especially since they should know this administration by now. Has recent history taught them nothing. How could Bush twist it should be their first thought? Second thought should be Lieberman sponsored it probably at the direction of Cheney and that should have sounded an alarm.
Listening to Clinton and others trying to explain or justify voting for the K-L bill is almost laughable as they can give no direct answer to the language that was used in that bill. It clearly was an AUMF against Iran...but at least now these dems are trying to clarify that was not their intention and it shouldn't be used that way.
True, Bush will do what he wants but he cannot use this as an excuse and congress and the senate is making it known that he will be breaking the law and does not have their approval or support for such a decision made by him alone. Good on them...they need that message to be loud and clear.

Obama didn't vote on Kyl-Lieberman because he wasn't present. He wasn't present because the vote tally wasn't scheduled then. The Kyl-Lieberman was introduced, (Obama was present then), then shelved,
but then pulled back out when he was out of the office. At least that's the explanation I heard.

~ Jess

Webb already introduced legislation that would prevent Bush from bombing Iran without congressional approval of which Clinton is a chief cosponsor. If said legislation were to pass, which it won't for obvious reasons, it would require Bush to seek congressional approval in spite of Kyl-Lieberman. Whatever Obama is proposing, which I haven't read yet but intend to, it sounds identical but more specific in terms of its attack on Kyl-Lieberman. That sounds like he's making a political move, okay this is politics, but he could also cosponsor the already existing bill that has been introduced by Webb. Not that any of this will pass. It's all optics.

I believe the letter is an excellent idea. It is easy to read, concise, spelled correctly and most importantly, will be regarded by Bush with the same openmindness and understanding as all the other letters already sent to him...

What morons...

With these folks in charge of our nation... all is definitely lost... IMHO

As much as I agree with Sen. Webb & Co., they should realize the following:

IT IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO TELL AN "UNTREATED/PRACTICING" ADDICT THAT THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING. THIS IS A RED FLAG THEY CAN'T RESIST "CONFRONTING".

Besides, it's Cheney who'se calling the shots.

IMPEACH CHENEY, and Bush will be down to "Laura and the Dog".

Obama attacks the tactics of the other Senators opposed to going to war in Iran - refuses to take steps like signing the letter or co-sponsoring the Webb bill because he is going to introduce his OWN amendment. Is it any wonder he seems to be getting less and less co-operation from his fellow Senators? He is playing politics with this matter and trying to pretend he is different when they all agree on the underlying issue.

Same thing with his opposition to K/L in the first place: if the Senate cannot issue a warning to Iran about unacceptable behavior because Bush will deliberately twist it the United States loses a means of diplomacy. It is better to tell Iran the truth about what we think about their behavior and tie Bush's hands latter than to let Iran think their behavior -- if true-- is acceptable. If Obama should win the primary he will have to deal with Rethug claims that he wouldn't even oppose Iran killling our troops. Clinton cut that manuever off at the pass. K/L was only partly about Iran it was also about the politics of trying to set the Democrats up in the swing states. Better to have the Senate state truly to Iran that these actions of yours are unacceptable and separately to Bush -- you are not to go to war with Iran.

On missing the K/L vote, Reid said 'no vote in the immediate future' and also 'we hope to see more clarity' tonight. That clarity produced the vote the following afternoon. Obama sloppily assumed that this was a guarantee that there would be no vote the following day -- assumed essentially that the evening meeting would not be successful.
Then Obama smears Reid and Reid's kid -- claiming they did it because they support Clinton. True reid's son does work for Clinton but if they hadn't before they would now. I don't believe that the cote was set as a tactic but if Obama allows himself to be taken on such a simple matter he is pretty unwary. Obama just keeps piling up difficulties for himself because he wants to be the star.

Webb has legislation waiting to get out of committee saying no war with Iran. He also has written this letter and gotten some 30 Senators to sign on.

Obabma wouldn't sign on and decides now is the time for writing his own legislation?

Heh, who's playing catch up now? Who's playing politics now?

Bill, let me help you on clinton. I'll take over for dcshungu and colon, who I haven't seen for a while.

All the polls show that she is "trouncing the republican potential nominees." In fact, shock of shocks, she is way ahead in NY and Cali. I guess no dem has carried either of those states for a long time, that's a good thing she will be annointed. She is experienced because of the bang up job of the clinton I administration (I have a hard time following this one). Also, on policy issues, just trust her. God forbid, don't ask any questions about anything. Just trust her. She will lead us out of the darkness of the last 7 years into a new day. It will be wonderful.

There now I did dc's job for her.

Thanks, Michael .

I guess here's where I'm coming from. I've been working for Democratic candidates since January 1972, when I started stuffing envelopes for McGovern as a 16-year-old. I understand that politicians are going to disappoint me. I've worked for folks who I had mixed feelings about. I've worked for people I later regretted working for. I don't expect ideological purity.

On Election Day in 2004 (like so many thousands, millions of other people) I got up at 5 a.m. to work for John Kerry. I drove to a battleground state and rang doorbells from morning until the polls closed. I didn't love everything about Kerry. But I knew basically that he was an individual of principle. I knew he would generally try to do what's right.

Most of all, I knew what I would say when I was trying to convince a non-ideological voter to support Kerry. I could do that. I knew I would BELIEVE in the words that were coming out of my mouth.

Looking forward 12 months from this week, I honestly have no idea what I will say to convince someone on the fence to vote for Senator Clinton. That she is right about what matters most? That she is an individual of principle? That she can bring the country together? That she will be a great President? What? What will I tell them that I can actually believe? I truly don't know.

I'll be there, trying to do it. The possibility of 4 more years of Republican rule is too horrifying to contemplate. But that won't be enough. People want to know why you're FOR someone. And I have no idea what I am going to tell them.

How about a letter that says:

Dear Pres. Bush and VP Cheney,

WE'LL let YOU know when it's time to bomb Iran.

Sincere regards,

The Senate

Obama also introduced a bill last February 16th that would have put legislative teeth into dealing with the problems surrounding accountability of Blackwater and other contractors. Just like Webb's bill, Obama's February bill has been languishing 'in committee' ever since.

Seems to me that the fact that these bills.... which reflect a superior grasp and good judgment about what's been needed, but aren't acted upon in a timely way..... says a lot about the 'politics as usual' condition in Washington, about which Obama builds his case for becoming President.

The fact that Obama introduces a new bill NOW instead of just signing that letter, or cosigning the Webb bill held in committee, may be that he is striking while the iron is hot to put some pressure on other Senators to take their places on a line he just drew in the sand. Resolution vs letter.

Bill Carmada;

Thanks. Here are some things.

It's no secret that she's been running for a long time now and that her over- carefulness (often to a fault and frustrating to us supporters) and political calculation is maddening sometimes.

However, it is these things that also make her such a formidable candidate (see definition of "politician") - as the outstanding crop of Dem candidates this year is finding out.

Step One = Stay out in front and above the fray as much as possible.

Step Two = Get elected.

Unlike Obama and to a lesser extent, Edwards, she's already completely vetted by the right-wing Republican slime machine and yet she gathers strength every day. Rudy or Mitt or even McCain (their best bet, I think) won't know what freakin' hit 'em in the GE.

So, the best bet is to look at her record. As I stated, she has a lifetime history of progressive credentials as an activist in many important areas important to us.

Next, and most important, look at her overall record in the Senate. Although, like any senator, even Feingold (who voted for Ashcroft), there are legitimate differences. I hate her vote on Iraq authorization (although I understand it politically), and for the Patriot Act, as examples.

However, looking at her record there overall, she's got a solid 90% liberal rating on her voting record (12th most liberal in the Senate), and her work ethic is second-to-none. Even Trent Lott commented that although he didn't agree with her on nearly everything, he had to admire what a tireless and hard worker she is. Both she and Bill have the deserved reputations of being most well informed on the issues at hand (thoughtful) and for being late-night working political wonks.

I personally think that she will prove to be a better president than Bill was, although I'm sure it will be a similar experience (minus the sexual indiscretions ;-)

Finally, what progressive cannot loudly trumpet to fence-sitters, the opportunity to elect the first woman president in the history of our nation?

Is it me, or did it just get even sunnier just now?

Thanks.

Thanks.

Colonpowpow, you’ve encouraged me to step back and revisit my assumptions about Ms. Clinton. Let me talk aloud for awhile and see where it goes. (This hardly qualifies as a blog post – it’s more like War and Peace. Nor is this the right thread for it. But what the hell: if you stop by, it’ll be here for you. Meanwhile, maybe I can repurpose this for my own blog or somewhere else...)

First, let’s give Senator Clinton her due:

1. She is smart as hell. It has been awhile since someone with a brain inhabited the White House. That would be a nice change.

2. She learns from experience. She learned from her health care fiasco. She learned from Bill Clinton’s presidency. And she obviously has learned from the experiences of other women who have risen to leadership in other countries, from Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi onward. I don’t necessarily like or agree with all the lessons she has learned along the way. I’ll get to that later. But she clearly is capable of learning from experience and empirical evidence. That too would be an awfully welcome change from the bullheaded ignoramus who’s there now (and the even more bullheaded GOP ignoramii – is that the plural? – who are jockeying to replace him.

3. She has become a very tough politician. As you say, the Republicans have thrown everything they can at her and she is still standing. As you’ll see in a moment, I think the story is a little more complex than this, and I don’t think we should leave it at that. But fair is fair. She has survived fully 16 years of full-on Republican sociopathy. This is no small accomplishment. After his performance over the last six months, I don’t believe Obama could do it. I’d like to think Edwards could, but deep down inside, I have very serious doubts. The others? I dunno.

4. She works hard, as you note. Folks like Trent Lott approve of her work ethic. When preparation matters, she is virtually always better prepared than anyone else in the room. That’s why she has done so well in the debates until now. (And it’s why I’m so surprised at how she’s been tripped up this week. It’ll be very interesting to see how she responds to the first really bad week she’s had in a long while. I think she’s going to have more trouble than she may have expected, especially when it comes to promoting herself as the “breaker of the ultimate glass ceiling” vs. complaining that she’s being “ganged up on,” implicitly by the male candidates, etc. But navigating those minefields would be unfairly difficult for anyone seeking to become the first woman president, not just her.)

5. Yes, she has that “12th most liberal” voting record. And, while I don’t think that means as much as some do, I also don’t think it means as little as others do. I think, for example, that it speaks to the kinds of appointments she would make in areas of the government where there is not a huge countervailing political force driving her to the right. And that’s reasonably good news.

Now for the not-so-good news.

1. The lesson of toughness. I think Senator Clinton has concluded, first and foremost, that as a woman – and especially as a woman named Clinton, married to the right’s definitive cultural symbol of baby-boomer countercultural softness – she has to run hard to the right. To establish her toughness, her willingness to use force, her steadfast refusal to pander to the “left wing” of her own party. I’m not saying anything here that hasn’t been said a million times before. But I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think this basic dynamic is going to change when she takes office. The same concerns and incentives will be there. They may, in fact, be stronger. There might be some Democrats, for instance, who could withstand a terrorist attack in the first few months of their administration without launching a wide new war. I don’t think Senator Clinton could.

2. Foreign policy more broadly. I think it’s fair to say that Senator Clinton’s approach to foreign policy is squarely centrist – and the center has moved dramatically to the right in the past generation. Kyl/Lieberman is only the most recent example of this. And, as I said before, supporting this legislation was so profoundly, stunningly wrongheaded that you have to conclude she either buys into the whole right-wing view of the Middle East. or that she is a total opportunist. Wes Clark to the contrary, I still see no defense whatsoever for this.

Someone, quite frankly, needs to be saying that we need a radically new foreign policy – not at the superficial level, but down to the very roots. Someone needs to make the case, loud, clear, and repeatedly, that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Giuliani and his next generation of madmen have made us profoundly less safe. Because if our candidates do not begin to show the courage needed to say these things, only one coherent view of the world will remain visible to most Americans: that of Bush, Cheney, and Giuliani. (Only now that it is essentially too late for him – i.e., now that he has little to lose – Obama has started to say some of the things that need to be said.)

3. The lessons of triangulation and incrementalism. I think the healthcare fiasco – and President Clinton’s subsequent success with “micro”-level initiatives (e.g., promoting school uniforms) taught Senator Clinton not to try anything too great. She certainly has remained relentlessly small bore. I think, implicitly, that some people believe she will change if and when she becomes President. The hard-core right certainly expects that. But, again, I don’t see the evidence. It seems to me that she has concluded that great things cannot be achieved. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, great things have become desperately necessary.

4. Executive power and secrecy. You don’t hear Bill Clinton focusing on these issues. And, until recently, when the netroots started to howl, you didn’t hear Senator Clinton talking about them either. I think the Clintons’ experiences in the Oval Office actually work against the country here. It’s all too easy for them to see the reasons why a President should have maximum power, and to discount as paranoid the reasons why presidents should be restrained. For those of us who actually believe in the separation of powers as a principle of American democracy, and not just a way to hamstring one insane administration, this is worrisome. The first thing the next President should do is repeal the Bush administration’s executive order keeping former presidents’ papers secret nigh onto forever. That is most assuredly not the first thing Senator Clinton will do.

5. A movement-free Democratic Party. We have worked so hard to awaken the Democratic party from its generation-long slumber. I don’t see that Senator Clinton has learned (or wishes to learn) any of those lessons. Sure, she’s hired a few bloggers, but the heart of her campaign has been the huge donations, the party’s traditional, centralized loci of power: the very people who crippled the Democratic party by making it appear utterly indistinguishable from its opponents, either politically or ethically.

Mark my words, the first thing she will do upon being nominated is to fire Howard Dean. Then the 50-state strategy will go away. Then the Mark Penns and Terry McAuliffes will walk back in, their rolodexes packed with corporate honchos and big-money bundlers. The idea that a Democratic candidate for President can hold an event “for rural America” in the offices of Monsanto tells you all you need to know!

Since they’ve been candidates for office, the Clintons have never, ever, been about building a domestic political movement for anything broader than themselves. Please, don’t misunderstand me: I am not attributing any special selfishness to the Clintons. This is true of 98% of politicians. (Moreover, Bill -- bless his thankfully repaired heart -- is traveling the world trying to do some good while George Bush rubs his hands thinking about “replenishing his coffers.”)

But, just as Reid and Pelosi have clearly concluded, to Senator Clinton, we “advocates” or more trouble than we’re worth. Those of us who are in the Democratic party because of our beliefs will continue to receive carefully-crafted direct mails and emails that speak to our passions and stoke our anger. We will be carefully managed, co-opted when necessary, ignored most of the time, until we can safely be ignored all of the time. If you doubt it, try asking Senator Clinton a tough question at one of her events – if you can find an event these days where you can actually ask her a question.

Who might do better? On some level – again, perhaps because he has no other choice -- Edwards seems to understand the importance of a grassroots that stays passionate year-round, long after the candidate’s been put into office.

So these are my thoughts. (I was going to get more deeply into the question of Senator Clinton's electability, but I know you'll agree -- enough is enough!)

To me, Senator Clinton’s positives, while not inconsiderable, are far outweighed by her negatives. But I would truly appreciate your thoughts -- on what has indeed been a gloriously sunny autumn day!