Obama continues to hit just the right note. Last night was pretty incredible, and Obama gave one of the best victory speeches I've ever seen.

I suspect there will be a lot of new support for Obama in the coming days and weeks, but I very much appreciate Larry's early help and endorsement for Obama. Larry was a co-host back in September for our Portland rally and reception, and kept plugging away when the conventional wisdom said Hillary unstoppable. Same goes for my state Rep., Chip Shields, who continues to make me proud.

Thanks for your help and leadership. Go Obama!

The candidate who will win the Democratic nomination has to have the capacity to reach out to Independents and moderate Republicans. Democrats need to expand the electorate and fight for the middle-ground where Independents, Republicans and Democrats can talk and work together. Of the three leading contenders, one stands out as having the ability to win converts. Purely progressive Democrats will likely wrestle with cross party appeal. Great night for Democrats in Iowa and all those who joined with them.

I asked my college age children who they were supporting this year. Without any prompting on my part the oldest son said Obama, my daughter was split between Obama and Edwards, and my youngest was to support whomever was the Democratic nominee. My mother, who is a moderate Republican, will not vote for Hillary, but will support Obama in the general. Same for other moderate Republicans I know.

What I really want from my leaders is not speeches but leadership. I continue to wait for Obama (and Clinton) to actually display their leadership in the Senate while they make their case for a bigger platform from which to lead. So far, they're not measuring up; they're part of the Congressional malaise we suffer under. What they did to Chris Dodd, for example, was disgraceful. At best they cast the right votes but are silent in trying to lead their caucus with a prominent and vocal example.

I'd be satisfied with an Obama presidency (and would tolerate a Clinton one), but his strength has always been rhetoric. I want to see how he'd do the job.

Of all the candidates speaking last night, he alone looked presidential. It was a helluva speech and may have been as important in the future of the campaign as the win itself.

TJ, how do you reconcile your faith in Edwards with his lackluster, centrist job as a Senator? I keep hearing the Edwards folks in the blogosphere talk about how Obama's not a "real" liberal, but the only record we have of Edwards' progressivism is rhetorical.

I watched Hillary and Edwards, but I agree: Obama's speech was what this country needed to hear. I had previously been skeptical of his experience, some of his campaign stuff (not an Axelrod fan), etc., but now I see that he has the intelligence, charisma, and sincerity to stick it to Huckabee in the general (yeah, we've just seen Iowa, but nobody's going to beat Huckabee for the R nomination).

Posted by: DAN GRADY | Jan 4, 2008 10:25:57 AM My departure from choosing Obama in the primary is his votes in favor of the Patriot Act...

What on earth are you talking about?

Obama was still an Illinois State Senator wasn't even in Congress when it passed originally and stood with the rest of the Senate in demanding that the SAFE act provisions (which the ALCU was pushing for) were included in the 2005 reauthorization which passed the Senate 95-4.

Posted by: Religious Institute | Jan 4, 2008 11:51:54 AM Regardless of whether "your" candidate won last night, I think we should all be celebrating -- the huge, historical turnout, the engagement of young people in unprecedented numbers

Agreed.

the important thing about the speech, after the message itself, was the delivery. some people have great speeches and read them well, which undermines the content. Obama not only had a great speech, he spoke it beautifully. he seemed to speak extemporaneously. it was a work of art, to be studied; at the end, as he was wrapping up and making his final points, he knew to keep speaking thru the applause, letting his words and the audience's excitement merge to the conclusion. my comment to a friend after was, "Can you imagine his inauguration speech?" he has the oratorial skill to literally change the world.

of course, we have to do a bit more before booking seats at the inauguration....

g'Obama

We have been a nation adrift too long. We have been without leadership too long. We have had divided and deadlocked government too long. We have been governed by veto too long. We have suffered enough at the hands of a tired and worn-out administration without new ideas, without youth or vitality, without vision and without the confidence of the American people. There is a fear that our best years are behind us. But I say to you that our nation’s best is still ahead. Our country has lived through a time of torment. It is now a time for healing. We want to have faith again. We want to be proud again. We just want the truth again. It is time for the people to run the government, and not the other way around. It is the time to honor and strengthen our families and our neighborhoods and our diverse cultures and customs. We need a Democratic President and a Congress to work in harmony for a change, with mutual respect for a change. And next year we are going to have that new leadership. You can depend on it! It is time for America to move and to speak not with boasting and belligerence but with a quiet strength, to depend in world affairs not merely on the size of an arsenal but on the nobility of ideas, and to govern at home not by confusion and crisis but with grace and imagination and common sense. ... It is time for us to take a new look at our own government, to strip away the secrecy, to expose the unwarranted pressure of lobbyists, to eliminate waste, to release our civil servants from bureaucratic chaos, to provide tough management, and always to remember that in any town or city the mayor, the governor, and the President represent exactly the same constituents.

Barack Obama? Or Jimmy Carter?

Speeches aren't enough. They're important in the election phase, but as with Kennedy and Carter, they aren't necessarily an indicator of how someone will actually govern or the kinds of policies they'll pursue.

I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Clinton, but whoever takes over next year is going to have a tough job rolling back the 15 years of "legacy" the Republicans have piled up since they took the House in '94. It's going to take a lot of partisanship to do that, and I worry that -- as happened with Carter in the post-Watergate era -- that will go by the wayside and a few years down the road we'll end up with something equivalent to the Reagan Revolution.

Yes, Obama can talk impressively (as can Edwards, and Clinton).

We know he can talk, and I'm left with an interesting question -- how powerful is uplifting vague rhetoric in getting the nation to achieve progressive outcomes?

For me, I've always thought that Obama's talk is going to run into the buzzsaw of politics, and he's going to get rolled (except perhaps on his weak health care plan or his effort to expand coal usage).

Talk's important. Rhetoric can help. But the health industry lobbyists are smacking their teeth, and I don't think mere rhetorical skill will overcome them.

Please, convince me otherwise -- remind me about recent efforts where rhetoric overcame hardball politics.

Obama has (as over yesterday) over a half million individual donors. It isn't just a lot of money, it is a lot of small donors which translates into a lot support in the grassroots. Clinton spent way more than Edwards as well and finished behind Edwards. Grossing that money alone won this for Obama is mypoic and not based on reality.

Don't get me wrong, I like the 2008 Edwards and was vacillating between him and Obama, but credit where credit is due. Obama was an unknown to Iowans three years ago, unlike Clinton or Edwards which Iowans have had a long time to get to know.

Well said, Mitch.

I'm still in the Edwards camp, and I think that he would make a great president, but Senator Obama proved to me last night that he can run an awesome campaign in the general, and that he has the ability to also be a great president.

Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Jan 4, 2008 2:31:46 PM Well said, Mitch.

Thanks, especially considering you had to read through several typos.

Obama spent WAY more than Edwards in Iowa. Looks like blueoregon AND the corporate media intend to ignore that fact. Heck, Edwards got second yet is getting almost no ink.

Backbeat, for one, there's a LOT of Edwards love around BlueOregon. Kari is actually on his team, so let's not get too conspiratorial. Edwards is getting less ink because he finished second--not shockingly, the big news is about the guy who won.

And as I said up-thread Dan, "Obama was still an Illinois State Senator wasn't even in Congress when it passed originally and stood with the rest of the Senate in demanding that the SAFE act provisions (which the ALCU was pushing for) were included in the 2005 reauthorization which passed the Senate 95-4."

Senate passes Patriot Act changes Posted 3/1/2006 11:11 AM WASHINGTON — The Senate added civil liberties protections to the USA Patriot Act on Wednesday, clearing the way for renewal of the anti-terrorism law passed shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 95-4 vote ended months of bipartisan debate centering on privacy rights.

Feingold still had issues with the Conference report and tried to halt the final passage, but my point still stands. If you want to make that out that Obama is the boogeyman so be it, but as I said, Obama stood up for inculsion of the civil liberty issues to get the SAFE provisions into the reauthorization to FIX the problems with the Patriot Act, which is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. If you, like Feingold honestly believe that more needs to be done, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but you seem to be making the perfect the enemy of good and using that good as a negative against Obama.

Good points of discussion to bring up Dave mazza, but there are alot more foreign policy/national security experts and advisors on Obama's team or that are endorsing him than the few you cite:

Clifford Alexander, former Secretary of the Army Ambassador Jeffrey Bader, Former Assistant US Trade Representative for Asia; Ambassador to Namibia Professor Henri Barkey, Lehigh University, former member, State Dept. Policy Planning Mr. Tom Bernstein, Human Rights Expert Ambassador David Birenbaum, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. for Management and Reform Dr. Esther Brimmer, former staff member State Department Policy Planning Mr. Art Brown, former National Intelligence Officer for East Asia and Chief of CIA's East Asian Operations Division Dr. Mark Brzezinski, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser under President Carter Rep. Brad Carson, former Member of Congress; Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Dr. Joseph Cirincione, Author and Nonproliferation Expert Ms. Bonnie Cohen, former Undersecretary of State for Management Mr. Greg Craig, former Assistant to the President and Director of Policy Planning, State Department Dr. Ivo Daalder, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council General (ret.) Tom Daniels, Texas Air National Guard Mr. Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy Senator Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Ambassador Alice Dear, former U.S. Executive Director, African Development Bank Mr. Michael Froman, Chief of Staff, Department of Treasury; Deputy Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Treasury; National Security Council Staff Member Mr. Tony Gambino, former Mission Director, USAID, Democratic Republic of the Congo Dr. Tobi Gati, former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council Ambassador Robert Gelbard, former Presidential Envoy for the Balkans; Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; Ambassador to Indonesia; Ambassador to Bolivia Dr. Matthew Goodman, Former Director for Asian Affairs, National Security Council Dr. Philip Gordon, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council Dr. Scott Gould, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Management General (ret.) Scott Gration, former Director for Strategy, Policy and Planning, U.S. European Command Adm. Don Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy General (ret.) Richard Hearney, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Mr. Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General Mr. John Holum, Former Director of ACDA and Undersecretary State for Arms Control and International Security Ambassador Vicki Huddleston, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mali and Madagascar, Chief of Mission to Cuba and Ethiopia Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy Mr. Jeh Johnson, former General Counsel, U.S. Air Force Mr. Brian Katulis, Author and Middle East expert Mr. Noel Koch, former Special Assistant to President Nixon; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mr. Larry Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense Mr. Anthony Lake, former National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton Mr. David Lipton, former Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs Mr. Robert Litt, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General; US Attorney Mr. Jan Lodal, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Mr. Frank Loy, former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs General (ret.) Lester L. Lyles, former Vice Chief of Staff USAF 1999-2000 Governor Raymond Mabus, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Governor of Mississippi Dr. Michael McFaul, Professor, Political Science, Stanford University General Tony McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force The Honorable Abner Mikva, former White House Counsel under President Clinton; Chief Judge, DC Court of Appeals, Member of Congress (D-Ill) Ambassador Donald McHenry, former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Al Moses, former Ambassador to Romania Professor Michael Nacht, Dean, School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley Admiral (ret.) John Nathman, former Director of Navy Operations and Plans Prof. Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force Professor Samantha Power, Professor, Harvard University - Pulitzer Prize Winner Ambassador Nick Rey, former Ambassador to Poland Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; former Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council Prof. Riordan Roett, Director of Western Hemisphere Studies and the Latin American Studies Program, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University Dr. Barnett Rubin, Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, NY University Ambassador David Scheffer, former Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Dr. Witney Schneidman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ms. Sarah Sewell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mr. Dan Shapiro, former Director, National Security Council Representative Adam Smith, House Armed Services Committee, Chairman, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee Ms. Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council General (ret.) James Smith, former Deputy Commander, Joint Warfare Center, US Joint Forces Command Ms. Tara Sonenshine, former Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council Mr. Theodore "Ted" Sorensen, former Special Counsel to President John F. Kennedy Ms. Mona Sutphen, former Special Assistant to the National Security Advisor Dr. Jim Vermillion, former Mission Director, USAID, Nicaragua Professor David Victor, Stanford Law School The Honorable Pat Wald, Chief Judge, DC Circuit, US Court of Appeals, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, Iraq Intelligence Commission Professor Celeste Wallender, Georgetown University Senator Harris Wofford, former CEO Corporation for National Service (Americorps), United States Senator Representative/Dr. Howard Wolpe, Former Member of Congress and Presidential Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa

Who will he turn to for his version of FDR's brain trust or JFK's "best and brightest?"

Let's hope President Obama doesn't assemble the latter of those.

Just as a point of fact, Dave, I don't think Brzezinksi's been bragging too much lately about the Afghan thing. Most of the references where he dismisses a "bunch of stirred-up Moslems" as not very important go back to pre-9/11 interviews. Since then, it's almost as if he's been trying to keep that little part of his history out of the record for some reason.

I did notice you missed Colin Powell, who said he met with Obama a couple of times this summer. There's some advice I think he ought to avoid like the plague, because Powell's instincts for how to conduct foreign policy -- and even objective truth -- seem to be seriously messed up.

For that matter, I'm still waiting for John Edwards to cut loose the people who told him he ought to give George W. Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq. Because those people ought to be exposed no matter who they're working for now, and put in some sort of dunk tank for the duration of any Democratic administration.

"TJ, how do you reconcile your faith in Edwards with his lackluster, centrist job as a Senator? I keep hearing the Edwards folks in the blogosphere talk about how Obama's not a "real" liberal, but the only record we have of Edwards' progressivism is rhetorical."

I hear a change in the man, Jeff. In 2004 he seemed a little more callow, well-meaning but still caught up a bit in the political process. The revelations of how he arrived at his Iraq vote are revealing; in 2004 he let his consultants overrule his wife and (I believe) his gut.

Of EVERYONE who voted for the war, by far the best job of assuming responsibility and holding himself accountable for it has been John Edwards. That's not as good as voting against the war from the start, but I have a soft spot for someone who admits, "I fucked up--I trusted the President and didn't do my own homework."

I know Obama has a lot of time spent on the streets before his political career, and he gets credit for that, but Edwards truly spent all his time since 2004 building an effort against poverty, and I feel his campaign is simply an extension of his energies there.

What I have heard from Edwards this cycle is "In 2004, I tried to work with the system. I realize now that they won't let you change the system until you make them." I couldn't agree more.

In sum, I'm not sure Obama's seen the light. Edwards has, in my view. The old order must change.

Uh, in 2003 of course, not 2004, on the Iraq vote.

but Edwards truly spent all his time since 2004 building an effort against poverty

I guess it depends on how you define anti-poverty work. From an earlier post by Andrew Simon:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States. Edwards won't disclose how much he got paid as a consultant to Fortress Investment Group, but said he did keep the money.

I don't at all begrudge Edwards making money, but his explanation is weak, undercuts his other good work, and feeds into the media's sense that he's not genuine. To say that Edwards has spent all his time since 2004 working on poverty is simply not accurate.

What I find funny is that TJ is A.O.K. with Edwards as a candaite, one who actually voted for and supported the invasion, then claims a do-over with a "oops... my bad", with no credible explanation, yet he goes hammer and tongs at Merkley who was never in favor of invading Iraq, over his voting for the Oregon Leg. non-binding HR2 resolution when he stated at the time he was only voting for it to give moral support to our military personal who were being sent into the line of fire and not for the invasion itself... and TJ has problems with Obama as well who has far more of a record working with in the trenches on social inequity issues and was 100% against war as well before the IWR or the invasion.

Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards 2008, but it is bemusing the pretzel "logic" TJ displays at times.

...candaite...?

ugh:

...candidate...

TJ:

Uh, in 2003 of course, not 2004, on the Iraq vote.

Uh, actually 2002. The Iraq AUMF vote was forced on Congress by the White House in October, before the mid-term elections, five months before the March 2003 invasion.

Mitch:

...yet he goes hammer and tongs at Merkley who was never in favor of invading Iraq, over his voting for the Oregon Leg. non-binding HR2 resolution...

I think the difference there, Mitch, is that Edwards has acknowledged (at least to the satisfaction of some people if not myself, entirely) that he was wrong to have voted for the AUMF. I don't believe Merkley has said anything of the sort about HR2, because he doesn't view it as having been a mistake, no? But if you view both votes as mistakes, and one candidate has said they were wrong about their vote and is now in agreement with your position, and another candidate defends their vote and maintains a position you disagree with, that doesn't seem all that hard to figure out. To me at least.

So, the list of Obama foreign policy advisors you cite, Mitch, how many of them were right about Iraq? Because a long list of advisors who were wrong is pretty much as bad as a shortlist of advisors who were wrong. Who are his primary advisors on Middle East policy? SE Asia? I find it unlikely that they're on an equal footing.

I notice your list has two Brzezinskis. Is that better than one?

Ivo Daalder thought Colin Powell's UN presentation "made the case that war can be justified". Writes a lot with fellow Brooking buddy Robert Kagan.

Frankly, some of those people shouldn't be listened to unless they're suggestions are going to be taken as what not to do.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 4, 2008 11:46:11 PM

What I am getting at is, Edwards makes a colossal real fuck-up, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and making the largest foreign policy disaster in our nations history and say "oops" and TJ is fine and embraces Edwards, but Merkely DOESN'T support the invasion and states clearly he is only voting for a non-binding resolution for the portion praising the professionalism of the people in our military in the line of fire, and so so has nothing to say "opps" about and TJ goes ape-shit.

THAT is what is pretzel logic, that TJ thinks they are even remotely comparable and is ok with the real, actual massive fuck up, but goes hammer and tongs at Merkley for what isn't a fuck-up at all but TJ thinks is.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 5, 2008 12:08:40 AM

More than one, and I know for certain that Gen. McPeak for one was/is adamantly opposed to the Iraq fuck-up and backed Dean in 2004 even though he was a Republican retired Air Force General and was on the Joints Chiefs of Staff... as for most of the other I do not know.

The point of my list however is that Obama has a wide range of advisors which is what a President who wants to hear all the sides of the issues, and not just the cherry-picked ones some might not like.

Mitch, you say that Merkley didn't support the invasion, but in some peoples' opinion, he appears to have wanted it both ways, by voting for a resolution that supported he invasion and saying he had to to support the troops. To some people, that just doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't he have supported the troops even if he hadn't voted for HR2?

I can easily see the logic in that. And I still think Edwards hasn't come clean on his decision-making process regarding his Iraq vote.

I'd also disagree with you about the simplistic goal of having a wide range of foreign policy advisors. You definitely want multiple opinons, but why would you want "experts" who've proven themselves to be clueless over and over again?

Would you want to include racists in a debate over civil rights policy just to get a variety of viewpoints? Some people might, but it shouldn't be something I would advocate myself. I'd rather "cherry-pick" people who believed in the goals of racial equality and had perhaps different strategies for achieving it. But that's just me.

Funny you should bring up General McPeak. In 2000, I thought Bush was a dangerous nutjob with a contempt for international politics who might get the US into a war. General McPeak thought Bush was just hunky-dory. He didn't just vote for the guy, he was co-chair of his Oregon campaign.

Let me just add before someone starts throwing the "purist" word around that I recognize that McPeak did yeoman's work talking about a potential disaster in Iraq just before the war began and in the early days until a point where it seems like CNN just sort of stopped calling him.

But there's a second kind of criticism that says the political run-up to this thing was pretty ugly. The administration has managed to back us into a position where we've lost a lot of friends. Our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are not on our side. Some of our oldest allies, France. And so we've done a pretty good job on splitting NATO, the most successful military coalition in history. And so we've reduced our friends and multiplied our enemies in the political run-up to this, and that I think has enormous strategic consequences. Remember, we never lost a battle in Vietnam, we just lost the war because the politics of it was so clumsily done.

Then again, I'm not so sure he got the memo about Vietnam. You know, the part where we dropped more bombs on a country we were occupying part of, along with its neighbors. It almost makes me think he believes the war in Vietnam was a good thing, just poorly done.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 5, 2008 9:29:04 AM Mitch, you say that Merkley didn't support the invasion, but in some peoples' opinion, he appears to have wanted it both ways, by voting for a resolution that supported he invasion and saying he had to to support the troops.

Again you ignore him saying at the time of the vote he didn't support the invasion, but was ONLY f=voting to support the troops. So only someone intentionally ignoring that could say that he was trying to have it both ways. Hence my criticism of TJ and others who do know this.

Wouldn't he have supported the troops even if he hadn't voted for HR2?

Yes, but would have been criticized for voting against HR2.

But again, the point is that TJ and others give Edwards a pass for actually supporting the war, but go ape-shit against someone who didn't.

Just for fun, people should remember what Jeff Merkley ACTUALLY said when he voted for the resolution supporting the Iraq War:

"Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day.

"Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops.

"I praise our sons and daughters – their courage, their professionalism. I pray now that the fighting will be brief; that the casualties on both sides will be sparse; that international aid to rebuild Iraq will be swift and abundant; that the terrorist repercussions will be few or none; and that there will be a new Iraqi government soon that will rule with wisdom and will provide the opportunity and freedoms for every Iraqi citizen to survive.

"May that be the outcome."

Please note that he did NOT say he opposed the war, only that he was not persuaded that it was the best strategy to fight terrorism.

Unfortunately for Merkley's supporters, his actual words are a matter of public record. The more you and he continue to lie about what he said, the bigger his credibility gap will be if he survives the primary to go up against Smith.

I'm supporting Gordon, of course, but I can't resist calling BS whenever anyone tries to rewrite history for their political advantage.

I didn't like it when Bill Clinton suddenly discovered that he had really been against the war from the beginning and I don't think Merkley should try to pretend that he was.

If he were just honest about his position, I don't think it would be an issue. I think if he keeps trying to pretend that he "made it clear" before he voted for the resolution that he opposed the war, he's going to have a problem. And it will be a problem of his own making.

I actually like Jeff Merkley and I think he's a good candidate for the Democrats. But I think his supporters are pushing him into an untenable position when they push him to pretend that he was against the war from the beginning. Trust me, he will be spending a lot of time defending those words and that vote if he keeps trying to be something he's not.

Jack, do your words of warning concern the general election? It's a bit tough to imagine Gordon Smith's campaign steering the debate to positions on Iraq. Sounds like political suicide to me, considering that Smith was in a position to cast ACTUAL votes on MEANINGFUL bills in support of his newfound position last year, and failed to cast the correct ones.

I'd say Merkley is a rubber ball, and Smith is glue, on that one.

Mitch, he said he wasn't persuaded that it was the right thing to do. He didn't say it was the wrong thing to do. That's a vote of "undecided" not "no".

Yes, but would have been criticized for voting against HR2.

Not by people who opposed the war. I guess it comes down to a matter of whose opinion he cares about.

You're right, Peter, Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley both supported the war at the beginning and later turned against it. Therefore, the war should not be a major issue in their campaign.

Now, if Merkley decides to make the war an issue and brings up Gordon's earlier support of the war, then his vote will be an issue. And if he continues to misrepresent it, he'll have a problem.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"To say that Edwards has spent all his time since 2004 working on poverty is simply not accurate."

Sure looks accurate to me, Charlie. Says there he was indeed building an effort against poverty. And really, it's kind of shameful to ding him for the media's sad and distorted reportage of his campaign, as opposed to what he's actually been doing.

"But again, the point is that TJ and others give Edwards a pass for actually supporting the war, but go ape-shit against someone who didn't."

Actually, the point seems to be that you want to hijack a thread about presidential politics and turn it into a non-sequitur attack on me. As I pointed out, it is my belief that Edwards has changed how he approaches the hard political questions. The fact that Merkley continues to stand by his vote instead of admitting that he was trying to play both ends, if you were to insist on the parallel, creates the difference in situation that you claim isn't there.

Anyone who thinks Merkley was hedging his bets against being tarnished for "not supporting the troops" in a failed war, as opposed to hedging them in case the war turned out well for the US, is trying to create a post-facto defense shield around their candidate, IMO. The vote was to back the war, and the GOP wanted Democrats to back the vote.

Peter, Smith may not bring it up himself, but Merkley will try to--but the distinction between them can be successfully muddied by Smith, many people believe.

I think any honest review would more likely pin the "apeshit" tag on you lately rather than me, Mitch. You've been lashing out pretty indiscriminately on a number of forums.

I don't think there's anything wrong with working for a hedge fund per se, but that's not anti-poverty work. Sorry. You wrote "all his time." That's only true if you accept Edwards's tortured explanation of this post-2004 work.

You're right, Peter, Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley both supported the war at the beginning and later turned against it.

Well, that's just a damned lie, Jack.

Gordon Smith bent over backwards to kiss every part of Bush's posterior in his support for the war. He was so war-happy that he was making phone calls for the Bush campaign in 2004 saying that the socialist French-looking war veteran John Kerry would help al Qaeda into the bedrooms of American children and slit their throats. Or something of the sort. Then, when he realized his former bloodlust might not be so palatable to Oregon voters in 2008 -- particularly after his buddy George's war wasn't the glorious triumph he'd thought it would be -- he tried to look pensive and sorrowful atop the bloody pile limbs he'd helped create.

Jeff Merkley didn't do any of that. He prevaricated on a meaningless bill that praised the war, the president and the troops by saying he only meant the last part of it, but he didn't vote any money, authorize the war, or endorse for years after it started like Gordon Smith did.

No, I think the beef people like myself have with Merkley's vote is a long, long way from the kind of mendacity we see in Smith. What I worry about is Merkley making a similar vote in the future on an actual, meaningful, issue -- much as people like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards did on the Iraq war -- so as not to "look" weak or unsupportive of the military.

With Gordon Smith, you know what the man's already done. And it isn't pretty.

" Sorry. You wrote "all his time." That's only true if you accept Edwards's tortured explanation of this post-2004 work."

OK, but that makes it a matter of interpretation rather than accuracy. And let's be realistic, it was a part time job in 2004, stacked up against the rest of his work since the last election.

But Jack can't be bothered to talk about such things because he only wants to discuss who supported the war--do the veterans of the war not matter?

I didn't respond to your non sequitors because they were non sequitors.

Admittedly, I butted into a side argument about Edwards and Merkley but I just wanted to make a political point about the way this issue is likely to play. I am not defending--and would not defend--the Iraq War or how veterans have been treated. I'm also not going to waste my time defending Gordon Smith to BlueOregon readers.

If you don't think there is any traction to arguments about Merkley's vote on the resolution supporting the war, so be it. We'll see as the election proceeds.

If you don't think there is any traction to arguments about Merkley's vote on the resolution supporting the war, so be it. We'll see as the election proceeds.

Lies from the GOP in a general election painting Jeff Merkley as an Iraq war supporter won't make Democrats vote for actual balls-to-the-wall war supporter Gordon Smith, that's for sure.

At best, those lies might confuse some of Smith's supporters into voting for Merkley if they're unhappy with Gordon's pretend flip-flop on the war.

Merkley's actual stand on the HR2 vote is only going to be an issue in the Democratic primary, and then only for people who think it might indicate a willingness to authorize military action for political reasons rather than necessity.

But anyone who believes that already knows Gordon Smith will do that.

Gordon Smith had a brief moment of expressing opposition to the war following which he has gone back to supporting it uncritically. If he were honest and sincere in his opposition he would have been working actively with Chuck Hagel & others, but he isn't. He is a liar.

John Edwards like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a good many other Democrats voted to give Bush war powers in part out of a calculus that the Rs would hammer them for being "soft" on defense if they didn't. In other words, the classic Democratic roll-over position. I say this as an Edwards supporter.

The context in September 2002 was one in which major ostensibly liberal media like the Washington Post as well as the conservative media were beating the war drums. It was one in which the major media had set up an echo chamber such that anyone who questioned the alleged fact that Hussein had Ws of MD was derided and excluded from the category of serious person. In fact, of course, it was quite false that "everyone knew." Those in the best position to know, like Scott Ritter and Ralf (sp.?) Ekeus had distinctly other views. The McClatchey papers also did excellent reporting showing what was wrong with the conventional wisdom. But most of the Ds were covering their asses.

I don't give Edwards a pass on this. He's better than Clinton. Obama made a clear statement opposing the war ahead of time. It would be interesting to know how his statement as a state senator compares to any Jeff Merkley may have made (see below). But Obama has been very far from an anti-war leader in the Senate, and has been doing very similar ass-covering with respect to Clinton's claims to be tougher on defense to what the Ds in general were doing with respect to the Rs in 2002-03. While he didn't vote for Kyl-Lieberman, he also has echoed the statement that "nothing is off the table" when it comes to Iran, a piece of needless bellicosity.

The comparable question about Jeff Merkley's position on the war is not best asked about a resolution on the day of the invasion. The question is, did he do anything at the time of the vote in 2002? Three of Oregon's reps voted against the resolution, not sure about Wyden. Did Merkley go on record backing them or urging them to vote as they did? Possibly not a state senator's business, at least if not planning a U.S. senate run like Obama was -- but the time it would have mattered for Jeff to take a strong anti-war position was not the day of the invasion but during the run-up to our aggression & esp. around the war powers resolution.

As for the resolution on the day of the invasion, did the state senators who voted no actually make strong statements opposing the war? Or did they focus on criticizing the opportunistic (and not very serious about "supporting the troops") tactics of the R leadership?

Who if anyone in elected office did make strong anti-war statements the day of the invasion?

While I don't think this is a good or useful issue for Steve Novick (to whom I have now given money), I do note that in this case it was not the Novick side but Mitch Gore who re-raised the dull old feud in order to take a dig at TJ rather than focusing on Jack Roberts' obfuscations about Gordon Smith.

We need to focus on developing a precise timeline and concise expression of Smith's mendacity with respect to the war.

Democrats and independents can eliminate any problems that Merkley's vote might create by making Steve Novick the candidate to oppose Smith.

Yes. But there are lots of other equally good or better reasons to support Steve, starting with his more progressive positions on some important issues.

...if someone knows firsthand about the reported retirements of Captains and other middle grade officers because they are burned out and tired of the toll of multiple deployments on their family life, I just don't see how theoretical debates on "it might indicate a willingness to authorize military action for political reasons rather than necessity" are going to shape their vote.

Not sure I'm understanding you here, LT.

I would prefer not to send someone to the Senate who would do something stupid like authorize a pointless war and get more military personnel killed and maimed because they were scared of what Republicans and the media would say about them. I certainly don't want my cousin to have to go on another pointless deployment someone votes for a war because -- as Mitch put it in his defense of Jeff Merkley's vote on HR2 -- he "would have been criticized for voting against [it]".

Hell, "medical care"? I think Novick may know a bit more about the challenges in the lives of, say, amputees than Merkley.

You're right, Peter, Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley both supported the war at the beginning and later turned against it. Therefore, the war should not be a major issue in their campaign.

Now, if Merkley decides to make the war an issue and brings up Gordon's earlier support of the war, then his vote will be an issue. And if he continues to misrepresent it, he'll have a problem.

You sure about that, Jack?

I love how you're carrying Gordon Smith's water here, but you don't actually have any facts. Or do you really think that Jeff's statement on March 21, 2003 is the sum total of everything he ever said on the Iraq War?

Of course, the key difference between Merkley and Smith isn't just their political position on the war.... it's that Smith actually cast a vote on it.

And then, in July 2006, he read a book to learn about events he himself was a participant in. When he read that book (Fiasco), he says he realized it had been a grave error to go to war.

But even after he did realized that, he impugned the patriotism of Americans who opposed the war. He stayed silent about his realization while hundreds of Americans (including quite a few Oregonians) were killed in action.

Regardless of what Jeff Merkley said or didn't say, Gordon Smith is the only man running for Senate who has the blood of Oregonians on his hands.

Chris, the resolution was on the House side, but I'm sure you know that. Anyhow, you can see what was entered into the record in the House journal for 2003 {pdf}, page HJ-60 (also pp60 of the pdf, it seems).

Of the five that voted no, I see only statements from Dingfelder and Rosenbaum, and theirs are identical. They both take serious issue with President Bush and his actions, and state outright that the efforts are of an "inept and unilateralist foreign policy", and that the evidence on WMD appeared specious.

Interestingly, both Ackerman and Barnhart voted Yea; they included short and very direct statements of opposition to the war, while using the same rationalization as Merkley for their Yes vote (support the troops). Note that Dingfelder/Rosenbaum statement frames their strong disapproval and inability to endorse HR2 within bookended statements of support for the troops.

I think if you compare these four statements--two from No voters, two from Yes voters--to what Merkley said on the floor, you'll find all four to be more direct statements of opposition to the invasion. Not sure what that means other than rhetorical talent perhaps, but food for thought. I don't see those other four looking to have an open discussion on the prudence of the war "for another day," though. They seem pretty convinced.

All of which is interesting, but rather beside the point now. There have crystallized after all this time two salient, non-GOP talking points referencing Merkley and HR2:

1) What does his vote say, if anything, about how he might respond to similarly insincere legislation with ulterior motives from the Republicans in the US Senate?

2) Will the record of the Yes vote, however moronically and ill-informedly twisted by a man hiding his own lies on Iraq, make it more difficult for Merkley to press what should be a strong Democratic advantage on the war in 2008?

You may well answer "nothing" and "no," and may your God bless you if you do. But any notion that these are unreasonable, impolitic questions to ask should not stand IMO. That WAS insincere trickery legislation from the House GOP, Gordon Smith WILL try to blur the distinction between himself and Merkley by pretending HR2 was a vote for war, and Democrats nationwide SHOULD hammer Republicans into the fucking dust with their responsibility on Iraq. If you don't ignore those truths, you can't ignore the questions.

Gee, LT, here I thought I was telling Jack Roberts he could stick his attempt to equate Gordon Smith's vote for the war with Jeff Merkley's vote on HR2 where the sun doesn't shine and you go and agree with him that the vote Merkley made actually was a referendum on the war but say it should be ignored.

That's what I get for defending Merkley, I guess. Won't bother next time. Sorry, Jeff! LT says your vote was a vote for the war, despite your claim to the contrary.

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jan 5, 2008 2:12:26 PM You're right, Peter, Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley both supported the war at the beginning and later turned against it.

Flat-out untrue statement. Show me where Merkely supported the war in the beginning.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 5, 2008 3:17:29 PM I think any honest review would more likely pin the "apeshit" tag on you lately rather than me, Mitch.

ROFLMAO.

What next, the neener neener defense?

Posted by: notchomsky | Jan 5, 2008 3:21:21 PM The problem is that Obama and Clinton ARE moderate Republicans.

Wow, what a spectacularly idiotic assertion.

"Similarly, Steve Novick used to hold an annual "Tax Day" one-man rally on April 15 each year to celebrate paying taxes. Gordon Smith will certainly use that stuff to say unfair things about Steve Novick and taxes. Can't nominate him either.

We have to find a candidate that's never said anything to anyone about anything. That way, Gordon Smith can't attack him."

If you think "wants to raise your taxes" has anywhere near the political impact as "killed your children in Iraq" this year, you might want to pay closer attention.

LT, I won't call you pragmatic because I think the pragmatic approach would be to take care of the vets we have, not get more service members killed and maimed in pointless conflicts, and I think a lot of people have an interest in making sure that their friends and family members aren't sent overseas unless it's truly necessary. If it takes looking a whole six years back at someone's record to see what kind of decision they might make in the future, so be it.

Are you really going to rule out Merkley or Novick bringing up Gordon Smith's 2002 vote on Iraq or any other part of his Senate record during the general election in the interest of "going forward"? That seems more short-sighted than pragmatic. Lord knows you're always dredging up Vietnam, and that was a lot further back.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 6, 2008 12:38:31 AM You may well answer "nothing" and "no," and may your God bless you if you do. But any notion that these are unreasonable, impolitic questions to ask should not stand IMO. That WAS insincere trickery legislation from the House GOP, Gordon Smith WILL try to blur the distinction between himself and Merkley by pretending HR2 was a vote for war, and Democrats nationwide SHOULD hammer Republicans into the fucking dust with their responsibility on Iraq. If you don't ignore those truths, you can't ignore the questions.

Good luck with that if Edwards or Clinton are at the top of the ticket. Which brings it full circle to why I raised the issue about your going ape-shit over HR2 vis-é-vis Edwards and the frame-grinding problems you and Novick are going to run into.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 6, 2008 12:38:31 AM Of the five that voted no, I see only statements from Dingfelder and Rosenbaum, and theirs are identical. They both take serious issue with President Bush and his actions, and state outright that the efforts are of an "inept and unilateralist foreign policy", and that the evidence on WMD appeared specious.

And both have endorsed Speaker Merkley for the United States Senate, not Novick.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 6, 2008 2:13:12 AM If you think "wants to raise your taxes" has anywhere near the political impact as "killed your children in Iraq" this year, you might want to pay closer attention.

If your kid was killed in Iraq, sure, but almost every voter pays taxes. It is somewhat an apples to anvil comparison.

Good luck with that if Edwards or Clinton are at the top of the ticket.

Well, you do know, Mitch, that Edwards has admitted he was wrong to vote the way he did, while Clinton and Merkley are OK with their votes ("OMG! He might have been criticized!")

And both have endorsed Speaker Merkley for the United States Senate, not Novick.

Apropos of virtually nothing. Rosenbaum's and Dingfelder's votes on the resolution have little to do with their personal support for an influential legislative colleague with the backing of the party apparatus. Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe they know him better and/or think he's the one who's going to win the nomination!

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 6, 2008 2:44:57 AM Good luck with that if Edwards or Clinton are at the top of the ticket. Well, you do know, Mitch, that Edwards has admitted he was wrong to vote the way he did, while Clinton and Merkley are OK with their votes ("OMG! He might have been criticized!")

Since I mention that way up-thread and is a still a huge black mark because he has no valid explanation for his apology, and that since Merkley did not vote to authorize the war and said it was only voting to lend moral support for the troops and not because he agreed with the mission, he has done nothing wrong or made a mistake, let alone one he should apologize for.

Maybe they know him better and/or think he's the one who's going to win the nomination!

Maybe they also know that Merkley can beat Smith and will make a great Senator and that they know and understand what is clear to anyone who is not a partisan hack, that Merkley made clear he did not support the war and voted for HR2 only to support the troops, as he stated at the time.

"If your kid was killed in Iraq, sure, but almost every voter pays taxes. It is somewhat an apples to anvil comparison."

Sorry to hear the death of other people's children doesn't affect you.

Merkley made clear he did not support the war and voted for HR2 only to support the troops, as he stated at the time.

Where did I say that I thought Merkley supported the war? Was it when I wrote:

Lies from the GOP in a general election painting Jeff Merkley as an Iraq war supporter won't make Democrats vote for actual balls-to-the-wall war supporter Gordon Smith, that's for sure.

Your comment exemplifies the basic misunderstanding of the disagreement I have with Merkley's vote for HR2. I don't blame him for the last war. I just don't want him to vote to start the next war because he's afraid to be criticized. I want a senator who is willing to stand up and vote no to an illegal war, even when Republicans (or Democrats) play the "support the troops" card.

If he can't take the heat, he should stay out of the Senate.

"If your kid was killed in Iraq, sure, but almost every voter pays taxes. It is somewhat an apples to anvil comparison." Sorry to hear the death of other people's children doesn't affect you.

Last I heard, I bunch of our taxes were going to support the Iraq war, too. What is it now? $1 trillion? $2 trillion?

And hey, remember all of the uproar about terrorism in the US? I hear tell we went to war with a country or two because of some terrorist thing. How many people in the US were actually affected by that, Mitch? Was it more or less than the number of service people who have died in Iraq, been wounded in Iraq, or are serving in Iraq? I wonder if the population would possibly get worked up about terrorism?

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 6, 2008 10:52:12 AM Sorry to hear the death of other people's children doesn't affect you.

That's because you heard wrong since it for me it does TJ. As someone from a military family, military deaths affect me more than those deaths may affect others. What I am saying that there are many do have an out of site out of mind attitude, but they pay taxes.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 6, 2008 11:12:34 AM Your comment exemplifies the basic misunderstanding of the disagreement I have with Merkley's vote for HR2. I don't blame him for the last war. I just don't want him to vote to start the next war because he's afraid to be criticized.

But your disagreement is based on vapor. You look are HR2 as if it is at all indicative that Merkley might vote for a war because of a GOP trope of not voting for the war is not "supporting the troops" which is NOT a legitimate reading of what the HR2 vote is. If you honestly think that about Merkley it is obvious you know nothing about him or honestly assessed what he has done.

If you think he is afraid of negative GOP tropes, then he never would have pushed for domestic partnerships and nondiscrimination bills, he never would have pushed for getting Measure 49 and 50 on the ballot. You are of course free to disagree, but I really don't see any legitimate rationale for such "concerns".

If you can find evidence for "taxes" being anywhere near as salient an issue for Americans as the war in Iraq in this series of polling results, you let me know.

"If you think he is afraid of negative GOP tropes, then he never would have pushed for domestic partnerships and nondiscrimination bills, he never would have pushed for getting Measure 49 and 50 on the ballot."

Are you sure you want to say that? Because it sounds like you're intimating that Merkley didn't push for solving the child health care and land reform issues in the legislature--he simply pushed for punting and letting the voters decide.

Merkley took GOP bait on HR2. There is legitimate concern about taking much more clever bait at the national level.

Mitch, you were the one who said Merkley was concerned about being criticized for not voting yes on HR2. I think you're right about that and that's why I think the HR2 vote carries some weight.

As you've so capably pointed out, John Edwards stupidly voted for the Iraq AUMF. Insider reports say he was initially against it (although there's some question about that) but let himself get persuaded that he needed to vote for it as a political move. Then Kerry's people say that in 2004 it was Edwards trying to keep Kerry from coming out and saying that the invasion was a mistake (rather than just poorly executed). So I guess they were all just sort of wondering if maybe George W. Bush was right after all. Suckers.

George McGovern made a similar mistake in 1964, voting for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution against his better judgment because he was told that it was necessary so LBJ could look tough in the election against Goldwater. But by the next year he'd acknowledged his mistake with such a fervor that he wasn't invited back to the White House for the rest of LBJ's administration (Nixon wasn't exactly friendly to him, either).

Like I said, I don't think Merkley's vote on HR2 showed he voted for a war. But by your own admission it shows he's susceptible to pressure -- and I have to say it would have been exceedingly minor pressure compared to an actual national security vote in the Senate -- to vote for something that is, on the face of it, complete garbage (as a couple of legislators put it here not so long ago).

Equating Merkley's support for domestic partnership and civil rights with his position on foreign and military affairs is a red herring. There are many, many examples in the Democratic party of politicians who have supported misguided military actions for some ideological reason but were environmentally and socially progressive on domestic issues. I can give you a whole raft of examples if you seriously aren't aware of them, including but not starting with LBJ. People keep telling me Joe Lieberman's an environmentalist, too.

"I thought the goal was to defeat Gordon Smith, not to prove who is right about a 2003 legislative vote."

My goal is to find the best person to assume the seat, who can also win it. It is not to fill the seat with a Democrat and hope for the best. Discussing the policies and positions of candidates is a pretty valid way to go about determining who is best qualified--what method do you use instead, LT?

...and I'd LOVE to see some debating going on, as you suggest. We're all just waiting for Merkley to agree to the proposal the other three Democratic candidates who showed up to negotiate, agreed upon.

I thought the goal was to defeat Gordon Smith, not to prove who is right about a 2003 legislative vote.

Nobody's "proving" anything.

I wouldn't vote for Gordon Smith because he has a record of supporting things I disagree with. Of course Gordon Smith is going to want to talk about the future and not the past. His record is one of disaster and failure. The future is all he's got to talk about.

In a contested race where the supporters of one of the candidates say (purportedly in support of their choice) he was so afraid of criticism from war supporters (because, really, do you think people who didn't support the Iraq war were going to take him to task for a no vote on HR2?) that he voted for a piece of what his fellow legislators and supporters called "garbage", I'm going to take that into account when I consider how he might make decisions on actual, weighty issues in the future. Particularly if he is too wrapped in looking infallible to admit a mistake. I think I've had enough of that from the current administration, I don't want it perpetuated in Gordon Smith's replacement.

Change is about more than simply a new name on the door. Change is about an actual difference. Foreign policy and national security are among my primary interests, and I suspect, given Jeff Merkley's background as a defense analyst, that should he become senator they're going to be high on his list as well. Either Merkley or Steve Novick is going to be an improvement over Smith on domestic issues. What I don't want -- personally -- is someone cut from the same mold as the 60% of the Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq war resolution either because they were so stupid George Bush could trick them, or they were just itchy to take out Saddam Hussein, or they were too scared of what the GOP would say about them if they didn't vote for Bush's little $2 trillion fiasco.

I know the evidence is slim, but maybe you can point me to former defense analyst Jeff Merkley's statement from 2002 or 2003 that the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was complete BS and that the war was a scam. Do that, and I'm open to debate, otherwise I have to wonder whether he's really all that informed.

They can just blog and hope others will agree with them. OR, as has been mentioned elsewhere on Blue Oregon, they can turn off the computer and get active with an actual campaign.

You know, AND works just as well in that paragraph as OR. I'll pretend you weren't trying to imply I am not physically active in political work, and leave you with only the above suggestion of a plausibly alternative conjunction.

1968 was a year of great unrest about an unpopular war. Had just a handful of college students on each college campus understood the real differences between Humphrey and Nixon, history might have been different.

As Nixon would put it: "Damn hippies"!

Except of course, Humphrey was still supporting the war as VP. You place the blame on the college students, but if Humphrey had had the nerve to buck LBJ, or if LBJ had ended the war after people realized it couldn't be won after Tet in Januar, before the assassination of MLK and RFK in the spring, and the riots in the summer, the thin margin of victory for Nixon would almost certainly have gone the other way.

Why blame the college students when the people running the country were at far greater fault and actually had the power to do much more to affect the course of history? Easier, I guess.

But you're right about volunteering.

BTW, I meant to mention that McGovern has an op-ed in the Washington Post today advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html

We're about twenty comments off-track here. This is/was a thread about presidential politics and Obama's victory speech. Peoples' U.S. Senate primary preferences have been well-documented, so could folks please stay on-topic and not rehash yet another Merkley/Novick back-and-forth?

"Except of course, Humphrey was still supporting the war as VP. You place the blame on the college students, but if Humphrey had had the nerve to buck LBJ, or if LBJ had ended the war after people realized it couldn't be won after Tet in Januar, before the assassination of MLK and RFK in the spring, and the riots in the summer, the thin margin of victory for Nixon would almost certainly have gone the other way." A friend of mine who had been an Oregon Young Democrat against the war got to know Humphrey in the last years of the Senator's life when my friend got a job in DC. That was not his impression. I speak from the point of view of someone whose first vote was cast in 1968, and whose friends were not anti-war activists of the kind shown in broadcast stories about the late 1960s. One spoke of flipping a coin to decide how to vote for president.

What was not his impression? That Humphrey was for the war? That Humphrey thought ending the war would have changed the outcome of 1968? Of course your friend flipped a coin, the whole problem was that the choice was between Nixon and the right-hand man of the guy who had started the war in the first place. What kind of choice was that?

You say "how does blaming him [Humphrey] now solve anything?" How does your blaming the students ("Had just a handful of college students on each college campus understood the real differences between Humphrey and Nixon, history might have been different.") solve anything? Humphrey, at least, had the opportunity to affect policy. Or at least to promise to affect policy.

When you talk about winning by being a "totally different person", do you mean that preserving a lie rather than admitting reality and never admitting he'd made a mistake was Humphrey's true nature? Because I'd like to think that if I ever ran for office again, I'd still be willing to admit mistakes, and if I was confronted with evidence that contradicted my assumptions that I could accept it. (It better be well-sourced evidence that holds together logically, though, because I do check figures and I have a head full of useless trivia that sometimes comes in handy.)

The idea that Humphrey couldn't admit that the Vietnam war was a mistake was his problem. According to tapes he made while he was in the White House, LBJ knew it as far back as February 1966.

President Johnson: Well I know we oughtn't to be there, but I can't get out. I just can't be the architect of surrender.... I'm willing to do damn near anything. If I told you what I was willing to do, I wouldn't have any program. [Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett] Dirksen wouldn't give me a dollar to operate the war. I just can't operate in a glass bowl with all these things. But I'm willing to do nearly anything a human can do, if I can do it with any honor at all.

That was when the death toll of American soldiers was still under 2,500.

So give me a break on the "if the college students only knew" story. It's old. LBJ and Humphrey knew the war was a mistake two years before LBJ made his "I will not seek announcement". They had two and a half years before the 1968 election to withdraw, but instead they surged beyond anything George Bush has been able to do, both in terms of deployment and casualties. And apparently, LBJ did it because he didn't want to look weak. 58,000 - 2,500 = 55,500.

If you want to believe that was the fault of the "students" feel free. Actual, documented history isn't on your side, though.

I hope that was on track for a thread on presidential politics. No senate talk (aside from the Dirksen reference in the quote).

They can just blog and hope others will agree with them. OR, as has been mentioned elsewhere on Blue Oregon, they can turn off the computer and get active with an actual campaign.

You know, AND works just as well in that paragraph as OR. I'll pretend you weren't trying to imply I am not physically active in political work, and leave you with only the above suggestion of a plausibly alternative conjunction.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 6, 2008 2:15:51 PM Mitch, you were the one who said Merkley was concerned about being criticized for not voting yes on HR2.

Never said any such thing. I said that the fraudulent GOP meme would have been pushed he didn't support the troops if he voted no, just as they are fraudulently pushing the meme that he supported the war.

What I was pointing out is that it is a bit odd that Novick and his booster are all thumbs up on Edwards who actually voted for the war, and his boosters are up in arms about concerns that Merkley would somehow vote for some war in the future because of HR2 where the only thing he voted for (and said so at the time) was to lend moral support to troops going into combat.

As I said, there is nothing but vapor there.

But by your own admission it shows he's susceptible to pressure

Not at all what I was saying. There is no "admission" of anything in what I said. Re-read it. Furthermore, if you grew up in a military family, you would see that what Merkley did was a legitimate and meaningful statement (of moral support) but not, as most Novick boosters, playing political CYA which is the bullshit crap TJ and others are pushing it as. Nor was it a vote in support of the war as the GOP are trying to spin it as, since Merkely was clear he was not endorsing the war or its rationale at all, but ONLY endorsing he part about the troops as a way to lend comfort and support for them.

I hope it would not be inconceivable to you or others to see what Merkley said as something other than political CYA and take it at face value.

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 6, 2008 2:15:51 PM Equating Merkley's support for domestic partnership and civil rights with his position on foreign and military affairs is a red herring.

Not at all a red herring. The issues are wholly different, that is obvious, but if you don't think that equal rights for non-heterosexuals is not an eminently hot button flash-point political issue think again. Granted I think in this election cycle it has lost a lot of its wedge and GOP/GOTV power it once did, but the point I was bringing up was that standing up on principles and for doing what is right and what is needed, despite the potential poltical/talking point blowback might be, is quite relevant.

Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jan 6, 2008 8:08:03 PM We're about twenty comments off-track here. This is/was a thread about presidential politics and Obama's victory speech. Peoples' U.S. Senate primary preferences have been well-documented, so could folks please stay on-topic and not rehash yet another Merkley/Novick back-and-forth?

Can Blue Oregon learn to not try and micromanage discussions?

This sub-thread does not prevent anyone from posting about the Obama speech and the Presidential race at all.

Mitch, way back up the thread this exchange took place:

Me: Wouldn't he have supported the troops even if he hadn't voted for HR2? You: Yes, but would have been criticized for voting against HR2.

Now when I say Merkley was concerned about criticism if he didn't vote for the measure but had simply said he supported the troops, you respond:

Never said any such thing. I said that the fraudulent GOP meme would have been pushed he didn't support the troops if he voted no, just as they are fraudulently pushing the meme that he supported the war.

And I have to ask: So what? If he didn't care about the criticism, if he didn't care about the "fraudulent GOP meme", then he could have just said he supported the troops in a statement. There's no more "moral support" given by HR2 than by an independednt statement. Unless, of course, you're saying that the people who voted against HR2 didn't support the troops as much as the people who did.

And you seem to have missed the point about the domestic partnership/troop support thing, which was that they didn't have anything to do with each other and that Merkley's willingness to suffer criticism for civil unions meant nothing if his reason for voting yes on HR2 was to play both sides on the war. Because it seems to me that the primary source for criticism on the HR2 vote would have been coming from the left, not from Republicans. I mean, unless he came out with a statement denouncing the war. Something like (just trying to stay on threadtrack):

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Did Merkley do one of those?

Posted by: darrelplant | Jan 7, 2008 3:13:59 AM Mitch, way back up the thread this exchange took place: Me: Wouldn't he have supported the troops even if he hadn't voted for HR2? You: Yes, but would have been criticized for voting against HR2.

I know what I said. That is a statement of fact (i.e. the GOP would have falsely attacked Merkley either way he voted), not that Merkley voted HR2 as CYA for fear of such criticism, so the rest of your assertion is predicated on that false assumption.

it really would be more helpful to Steve if those of you who are angry about this devoted your energies to campaigning FOR Steve than blogging against Merkley.

LT, you seem to have missed the fact that it was Mitch -- a supposed Merkley supporter -- who brought up HR2 on this thread in the first place. Direct your comments to him, not the Novick supporters.

I'm more than willing not to mention HR2 unless someone like Mitch brings it up and tries to defend a stupid decision. I'm more than willing -- as I did above -- to state unequivocally that Merkley's vote on HR2 doesn't put him in the same league as Gordon Smith. But if someone brings it up here and tries to whitewash it, I'm going to say that I think it was a mistake.

And I'm still waiting for someone to post a Merkley quote from the pre-war or early days of the war where he shows he knew that it was the wrong thing to do.

2008 really is nothing like 1968.

It wasn't just college students. My parents, liberals on the wrong side of "don't trust anyone over 30" by a good margin, were McCarthy supporters in the primary and had a huge fight over the general, one voting for Humphrey against Nixon, the other abstaining (possibly with a write-in).

Of course, ca. 16% of the electorate voted for George Wallace, mostly Ds on the way to becoming Rs over civil rights, & voting against Humphrey because of his strength on civil rights. Would any of them have switched to Nixon if Humphrey came out against the war sooner & more strongly too? Hard to say.

In 1968 more Americans supported the Vietnam war than opposed it, in polls, though support went under 50% after Tet (low 40s if I remember correctly). But conflict over the war & over extending the civil rights movement against de facto discrimination outside the old Confederacy was tearing the country apart.

Theodore White's version had it that Humphrey wanted to go more anti-war sooner than he did but held back out of loyalty to Johnson. That might or might not be so -- many unions remained hawkish and the D base was deeply divided over the war. Humphrey didn't have any easy path. If McCarthy or some other simply anti-war candidate had been the nominee I think what happened to McGovern in '72 might have happened in '68 (modified to some extent by Wallace). Possibly Robert Kennedy would have had more working class cred (as Humphrey did) & pulled it out against Nixon with an anti-war position.

In 2008 well over 50% of the public oppose the occupation in Iraq, but that opposition is not causing internal conflict in the U.S. in the same way.

Part of that situation is that opponents don't really agree on what "getting out" means. Only some of us mean ASAP without large loopholes on what "possible" means.

<hr/>

Obama proposes withdrawing U.S. troops over 16 months and leaving some residual presence not specified. His reductions would be 1-2 brigades per month from most stable to least stable areas, as advised by military commanders, which appears to leave a possibility for indefinite extension at fairly high levels if things "aren't going well." Obama opposes any "permanent bases".

Clinton proposes to begin bringing troops home within 60 days of inauguration but has no timeline or process specified beyond that, i.e. has even bigger loopholes through which to drive tanks than Obama. She too opposes "permanent bases."

Edwards proposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in 9-10 months after his inauguration, and leaving only a brigade "3500-5000 troops" "to protect the embassy" (some embassy!) plus perhaps a few hundred more to protect humanitarian workers. Again, no "permanent bases" (if you don't count the embassy).

Theodore White's version had it that Humphrey wanted to go more anti-war sooner than he did but held back out of loyalty to Johnson. That might or might not be so -- many unions remained hawkish and the D base was deeply divided over the war.

Humphrey did make some moves to back off of the war in, if I remember correctly, September, but was quickly brought back into line by LBJ. The fact of the matter is, though, that both of them knew well before then that the war was a mistake (see the February 1966 Johnson quote above). Of course there was still popular support for it, politicians on both sides of the aisle were in favor of it, the numbers were cooked to make it look better than it was, the American death toll in 1968 was still well under the toll of the Korean War at the time. Everyone was waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel, as Gen. Westmoreland said that year.

But the people who were supposed to know what was going on (i.e. LBJ and HHH) refused to admit that they had been wrong. Just like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, they kept doubling down on the war, trying to recoup their losses, only their bets were a lot larger.

Humphrey was within 0.75% of Nixon in the popular vote in '68. Humphrey was within 3% in Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, and even Nixon's home state of California. If LBJ and Humphrey had ended the war in 1966, 1967, or even early 1968, there wouldn't have been divisiveness over the war. Sure Nixon would have claimed they were soft on Communism, but as it was he ran as the man who could end the war in '68.

<h2>As for what happened to McGovern in '72, well, the Democratic party and the AFL-CIO screwed George McGovern in '72. By then they were even further entrenched in their inability to admit their mistake on the war, and when the antiwar candidate somehow managed to beat the party's selected front-runners like Muskie and Humphrey, they decided they'd rather have Tricky Dick, who was at least willing to kill lots of Vietnamese.</h2>