Back From England...

It is a toss up as to whether Schumer or Feinstein is the next candidate to be Liebermaned. Why do these disgusting cretins insist on staying in what is supposed to be a progressive party? We already have a party for reactionaries. However, I suppose it is much easier for them to stab Liberalism in the back if they are working on the inside.

Do you mention her cleavage or whether she tips in your article, Joe? That's what your colleagues here have been discussing in your absence. Serious business.

Seriously, though, I just glanced at page one of your article. The reason the Clintons drive the right wing crazy is NOT that they take the accessable parts of the right's political agenda and rework it. The Clintons drove the right crazy before they even took office. Think back to all the crazy conspiracy theories spun by the right wing about the Clintons from the very first days of Bill's term. In other words, those serious, respected folks in Washington like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are, quite simply, nucking futs. The sorry excuse for a media we have is just too sissified to admit that.

Joe,

When you write "The Congress ... can't seem to override the President, or cut a deal, on children's health?" I am foolishly inspired to ask questions of this:

Do you understand that the reason that Congress "can't seem" to override the President, is because they lack the votes to do so? There is no mystery involved, Joe. "Can't seem" is dumb writing.

Nevertheless, why should the intransigent GOPers who are locked in the "Nay" column bother to come to the compromise table at all, considering that they're doing far more political damage to the Democrats by doing nothing? (At least, that's how your colleagues in the media are reporting it. And they're never wrong, right? Plus, it's got you mystified! Get in the Mystery Machine and start looking for some clues!)

But reality aside, just what kind of deal should be cut?

Who should be bending more, and why should they?

Some of us did stop by Schumer's NYC office to ask him that very question:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/10/16234/203

The answer he gave would be worth recounting, Joe. (Not to us, but publicly.) He said that it was either Mukasey or someone worse who would not go through the confirmation process.

It's not like he really was alone on this--that 60 vote majority needed to take any action in the Senate miraculously vanished last week.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

The Democrats can't stop the war because they have been ruined by what the cult of centrists now call pragmatism. They have no spine. Only the Far Left, the extremists, believe in standing up to the right wing fanatics. The centrist cult is happy to muddle along and make excuses for their lack of moral clarity and weakness. In fact, they celebrate the fact that they have no principles. The next poll can show that 99% of the nation wants them to cut off the funds for Iraq and they will still find an excuse for doing nothing, and call those of us who want it done fanatics and extremists. The party needs to find a new mascot that best represents its character under the centrists. I propose a wet noodle.

Glad you are back, Joe. I read your story on Hillary and thought it was good. I particularly appreciated your pointing out that she has taken stands on lots of issues. Your press colleagues are fond of saying they don't know where she stands so frequently that many people now think they don't know either.

I was also interested in your comment that you couldn't find any real person who had watched the 10/30 debate -- although I'll bet all the junkies knew that she had faltered on immigration. Chuckleheaded as the idea might be, I do think it was a gotcha for Russert to raise this complex issue in the game show like "lightening round." I think if it had been a proposal of the governor of PA, she would not have tried so hard to be tactful. As I have said before, he was asking the Democratic senator to trash a proposal of the Democratic governor of her state on a very complex issue. If you read the transcript, what she said was not as terrible as it has been portrayed. Just as what Bill Clinton actually said in relation to swiftboating is very different that what has been portrayed in the press.

And, the water projects bill had no spending authorizations included, so you can dial back your spleen a little on that one. After all, wasn't that an example of the bipartisanship you prize so highly?

Wellfare reform took 2 vetoes before Clinton signed it. Now people are declaring SCHIP dead after only 2 revisions?

In all seriousnes, though, SCHIP is not meant to be passed; it's being used to bludgeon the administration into compliance with other ascpects of the Democratic agenda.

Schumer doesn't seem reactionary to me, Derek. I don't see him railing against stuff, but rather for stuff. Liberman, by contrast, does seem reactionary. When I see him speak, he's generally attacking Democrats, not simply disagreeing on policy.

Ozzie I would argue that being in favor of torture not only helps define you as a reactionary, it also renders you stupid, since it doesn't even work.

Joe, maybe your "shamefuls" and other questions about Congress' inability to accomplish anything that is part of the progressive agenda would not fall quite as flat were you not constantly trashing the progressive wing of the party.

Congress is doing precisely what you cocktail-weenie eating Villagers demand it do.... find the "middle ground". Of course, that "middle ground" is precisely where "shameful" porkbarrel projects that nobody strong opposes come from, and where the refusal to acknowledge that water-boarding is torture is an acceptable position because principles are irrelevant to you people.

Its the left-wing "partisans" and "ideologues" that you so despise that strongly oppose torture, want to end the war, and want to get SCHIP passed...and its the right-wing partisans and ideologues that you so seldom criticise that are blocking those measures.

So, if you want to know why this cr*p is happening, just look around you at your next weenie-fest, and realize that there is no one there who is willing to risk their social standing by calling out the "moderates" as the enablers of torture, war, and obstruction for the spineless scum that they are.

Or just look in the mirror....

I read you article on Hillary and must disagree with your characterization of her as possibly lacking authenticity, but instead possessing courage (in health care and energy). I really do not see what is so courageous on her plans in those areas compared to other democratic candidates. It's not like she is advocating for single payer or a carbon tax. I am not saying they are bad plans, I just don't see a whole lot of courage in them and many of them have borrowed heavily from other candidates' plans.

You then go on to pivot to discuss her foreign policy decisions not in terms of courage, but in terms of smart politics. And this is where you paper over and spin the biggest reason that Hillary ought not be commander-in-chief: her lack of courage on foreign policy issues. She knew Iraq was the wrong thing to do....but she was reading the polls and not the intelligence and she went on the senate floor and mimed Bush's talking points on Iraq. Her spin that she was voting for diplomacy is just BS. She was voting to burnish her image as tough, even if it meant sending thousands of soldiers to an unnecessary death. BIll Clinton gave away the game plan when she declared that "it is better to be strong and wrong than weak and right." I can't believe he said that....people's lives are hanging in the balance here and they treat this like a game.

That is not courage; it is the most craven, cynical form of cowardice imaginable to put the need to burnish an image of machismo above that which is in the best interests of this country. Many democrats cited HIllary's support for the war as political cover for them to put aside their reservations and support Bush as well, figuring that if smart pols like the clintons were getting on the Iran bandwagon they should too. As the wife of a former president, she could have moved the terms of the debate in 2002, but she caved.

Look, I supported the Clintons in the 90's. The triangulation and the doublespeak were kind of cute back then and they made a nice foil to the Gingrich crowd. But to apply this same sort of politics to matters of war and peace in the post 9/11 era is an entiely different matter. The times are too serious for a president content to be strong and wrong, we need a president who is strong and right.

Welcome back to civilization, Joe. Old Europe sounds rough!

Thanks for the link, this is a good article-- I like the points about her policy proposals, how Iowans vote, and on faking authenticity. And once you've got that faked...

As is my wont, I'll now complain about your article.

(1) I think you're mired in 1990s thinking when you talk about "issues like free trade and fiscal conservatism." There's a real divide among the rank-and-file Dems on those issues.

But the bulk of Dems, and most Americans, all think that we should refrain from torture, we should not "plan" to stay in Iraq indefinitely hoping for something magic to happen, and that we shouldn't give immunity to people for breaking wiretapping laws when there's already a good-faith exemption in the existing law.

The Congressional Dems haven't been strong on these issues, so their popularity is downright Bushian.

To call this a "left vs right" divide is to analyze today's politics through the prism of the 1990s.

(2) How in God's name did Hillary play the gender card?

I just watched the Politics of Pile-On clip on YouTube and read the accompanying press release from 10/31. The only thing that comes remotely close to "playing the gender card" is the press release concluding that she's "One strong woman." Am I missing something?

Watching old white men like Chris Matthews--- who swooned like Peggy Noonan over President Bush's flight suit--- lose their schtuff over Hillary using the word "woman" in a press release, is going to get very old very fast.

What p_lukasiak said.

In addition to the self-contradictions and incoherences P. Luk. has pointed out, I also like how Mr. Klein's article now derides the phenomenon of a politician's "authenticity" as a lazy journalistic cliche.

But I guess it's OK to obsess and make aesthetic judgment calls on perceived authenticity when you're Joe Klein writing an entire book about it called "Politics Lost."

John Milton's ghost is crying...

What constitutes electability? We don't know how well Howard Dean would have done in a national campaign. John Edwards as the head of the ticket? Do you realize, Joe, why that is such a silly term?

Lately, Joe, you seem to sound much more moderate then you have in the past. Why is that?

Is it because your belief system points in the direction of the prevailing wind, or is this really a change of heart (sic)?

I agree with Elvis, it's a good article, and some of the reasoning. I hate to say it though, the '90s throwback in you needs to go away. Elvis has missed this boat, too in the fact that many "white voter" issues are the same issues as are important to other communties, which is a point that you yourself are sorrowfully deficient in understanding - illegal immegration is a GREAT example of something that playss badly in the Black communtity as well.

Republicans as well as Democrats are deeply divided, not just Dems. On the one hand, many R's do take a stand against illegal immegration, and thus seem closer to the ideal of protecting American jobs than do the Dems right now, given their traditional stand. Unions are stuck in the middle, stuck with 'Pat Robertsonian' choices of who to back.

The Dems of course, are split along the lines Elvis mentioned, but illegal immegration is causeing a divide there, too.

Water issues ARE important, so I guess I will wait and see how much of that bill is 'pork' and how much of that bill is really needed as it's a done deal.

Giving in to Bush when he represents only 30% of the US population on the health care issue shouldn't be on the table. Let him block it all he wants. That 70% who are denied right now are just going to get more and more pissed the longer the war and problems with health care drag on.

Bush can't come up with anything other than rhetorical and ideological reasons for stonewalling on these issues. Add to it the global warming issue recently blogged about.

I see a political landscape where the issue boundaries have no relation to the traditional political division of D vs R. Political territory couldn't be more fluid than right now.

The shareholders' revolt continues apace.

Whipping congressional votes into line is normally the province of political parties, but the aggressively liberal bloggers who nip at the heels of the Democratic Party are doing it.

"Agressively liberal" compared to what, though? The netroots don't want torture, social security privatization, war against Iran, warrantless surveillance, and a "unitary executive." That's so incredibly liberal.

Good for Old Europe.

Bad for us.

Actually, I'm going to retract what I said about Elvis on "white issues". He did NOT make any distinction between races other than to use a description.

My mistake for not reading it more carefully!

I am asking this question here because I can't find anywhere on the website to email columnists:

Yesterday was Veteran's Day. President Bush remained at his ranch in Texas, and sent the Vice President to Arlington Cemetery to lay the wreath at the tomb of the Unknowns.

If a Democratic president had skipped this traditional duty, the press would be all over it, dutifully reporting the umbrage of the Republican machine that the Commander in Chief had shirked this sacred responsibility (and I DO believe it is a sacred responsibility), especially during a time of war, as we are so frequently reminded.

Why was there not one word about the shocking inappropriateness of this in the media? Where was the outrage? This President and his administration have put my sons' and other people's children's, siblings', and spouses' lives on the line because of their war in Iraq, and he can't even be bothered to get his ass down to our National Cemetery for Veteran's Day to acknowledge our service members? And the press gave him a pass? I know, I know, business as usual, but it was wrong, wrong, wrong!

I sure hope some of the Democratic candidates pick up on this (perhaps using fortune cookies while passing out chicken wings, so there would be a possibility of something of substance being reported).

centristdem, Thank you for that statement. I had the same thought. I guess I would have had less of a problem if Bush had been somewhere else appropriate (can't think of one right now, but say there was a big ceremony on the West Coast.) But he is at Crawford and speaks to a little veterans group in TX?? Particularly since this was the anniversary of the Vietnam Memorial and there was a big celebration in Washington.

I do remember all the fussing on the first Veterans Day after Clinton became President -- How could HE, who never served, represent the country at the Unknown Tomb ceremonies. At least he was there.

Derek,

Liked your first post but, where did you ever come up with this stat.

The next poll can show that 99% of the nation wants them to cut off the funds for Iraq and they will still find an excuse for doing nothing, and call those of us who want it done fanatics and extremists.

The surge has accomplished some major goals despite what everyone would have you believe. Finally the people of Iraq are doing the right thing and turning on the insurgents and turning them in. Not to mention that I think even the extremist seem to be tiring of the bloodshed. They try to kill US soldiers and end up killing 20 of their own. Support for that can not last.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739712/

I have a feeling you are about to see some major shifts in Iraq. Insurgents are leaving for other surrounding countries and we maybe seeing the first signs of a pulse of democracy.

Also remember when James Clyburn of South Carolina, said that good news from Iraq would be "bad news for the Democrats?" Could get interesting.

Fisher House Foundation (rated 4 Stars by Charity Navigator) provides direct housing, educational, rehab, and travel assistance to military service vets and their families:

http://www.fisherhouse.org/support/support.shtml

Judgement the purpose of the Surge was to allow political reconciliation. There has been zero movement on that front so the only conclusion a rational person can draw is that the Surge has failed, given the stated goal.

We are told there is less violence in Iraq. Assuming for a moment that is true what is the real cause. Is it all the result of the Surge? Are there other factors at play? For example, does the end of the ethnic cleansing cycle have anything to do with it? Is it because Moqtada al-Sadr called a 6 month ceasefire? Could that explain the let up in sectarian warfare?

If things are as rosy as you think they are why are you still opposed to getting our young men and women out of there while the ceasefire is still in effect?

Derek,

There can be no political reconciliation in the midst of sectarian violence. What is needed is for both sides to see that it is time to seek peace. That can not be achieved until:

A) They suffer loses militarily and monetarily that will no longer allow them to sustain their objectives.

B) There is a stable enough environment that the people begin to believe in their own government. There is no credibility in a government that can't at the least provide security.

If they can maintain the security, however they achieve it, then they have an opportunity to begin the political process. Sadr called for a ceasefire but, he is by no means the only person that needs to be at the table. He is an important Shitte to have working the process but, he is only one piece in the puzzle.

Pulling soldiers out before the diplomatic process is at least being negotiated, is a show of weakness, and lack of commitment. In negotiations you never operate from a position of weakness because it emboldens the opponent to dictate the terms of the negotiations. It would also only serve as a move that insurgents could symbolize as a defeat and withdrawal. Basically a victory they could claim to further increase their enlistment to their cause. There will be a time to leave and hopefully that is soon. We seem to be seeing more and more things begin to fall into place, granted slowly and painfully but, moving in a favorable direction none the less.

The Army Corps of Engineers is an awful, awful organization. Joe's right about the veto.

Derek: "It is a toss up as to whether Schumer or Feinstein is the next candidate to be Liebermaned."

Does "to be Liebermaned" mean to be re-elected by a comfortable majority?

ivb: "And, the water projects bill had no spending authorizations included, so you can dial back your spleen a little on that one. After all, wasn't that an example of the bipartisanship you prize so highly?"

Sadly, one of the few areas in which we consistently see efforts at cooperation between the parties is in the dispensing of pork. Other areas of cooperation (behind the scenes) include the prevention of meaningful ethics or campaign finance reform. Why? Because the one thing almost all Congressmen have in common is a strong desire to stay in office at any cost.