They Think We're Stupid

Thursday: 2 US Soldiers, 47 Iraqis Killed; 33 Iraqis Wounded

Okay, I'll try to "Respect the Dodd," but Greenwald has a point.

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

It isn't just the Mukasey nomination, but damn near everything.

Okay, Congress finally overturned a Bush veto -- saving precious pork projects for the home team. But this isn't a matter of ignoring versus pandering to the "base" of the Democratic party. 95% of people who call themselves Democrats and a 60% majority of Republicans, along with 68% of Independents have absolutely HAD IT with this spoiled brat of a President in my all important Swing State of Ohio. Those numbers track nationally and Ohio traditionally polls more conservative than average.

You don't indulge a spoiled child when they throw a tantrum -- you ignore it, send him to his room or give him a time-out. If they're really out of control, you spank them. You certainly don't make excuses for him.

But that's what the Democrats, at least enough of them to make a mockery of the word discipline, always seem to do when going up against George W. Bush.

And what do they tell us, what excuses do they make? "The alternative is worse." Or, "The timing isn't right." Or most cowardly of all, "the GOP will use this against us in the next election."

I don't buy this whatsoever. We hate what Bush is doing, hate Congress even more for not stopping him, and yet they fear opposing him because, what? We'll hate them even more? Is that even possible? Could they be more cowardly?

I think the Democratic Party, at least the leadership, is suffering from decades of abuse at the hands of the GOP, who've made sport of abusing them. They're acting irrational, and against the public will (which will get them unelected faster than anything) because they're suffering from a collective post traumatic stress disorder.

Shake it off! Quit running scared. And just stop thinking that you can fool us. We're Democrats because we aren't dumb enough to believe what the GOP has been trying to bamboozle the public with for the last 40 years -- so we aren't buying your bullshit either.

But even more distressing is being smart enough to really know the Democrats are not cowards, and fully understand their motivation for risking the perpetuation of this myth:

The answer is simple: they're not poll-driven cowards; they're cynical electioneering manipulators. -- Spoons

Of all the ranting and raving I've seen on the Intertoobz, from the snarky to the in depth policy analysis -- and even the psycho/sociological examinations of right versus left, nobody has hit it out of the park with a out-of-the-box perception like ThereIsNoSpoon's take on the current political dynamics inside the Capital Building.

In fact, to act at all in such a way that would demonstrate they have real power, would be to take responsibility for the absolute mess this country is currently in--from housing troubles to currency collapses to global warming issues to foreign policy disasters to a host of other troubles.

On the other hand, to fan the flames of public resentment against the current holders of power for perceived wrongs is nothing short of electoral gold. Republicans were brilliant about doing this for years in their role as a minority opposition party: they would successfully trash Democrats while offering no coherent solutions of their own beyond a culture of "I've got mine; screw you." It was only when forced to actually attempt to govern that Republicans ended up sowing the seeds of their own demise.

An important and utterly perverse corollary of these two premises is that, so long as we have an unpopular Republican president and a Democratic legislature, the Executive must be seen as overwhelmingly powerful compared to the Legislative for Democrats to win. So long as the public believes that Bush is driving the train and the Democrats are itching but unable to get into the driver's seat, the public will be so angry by November 2008 that they will toss Bush and anyone associated with him out of the driver's seat and put Democrats in charge. Thus, so long as Democrats keep their eye on electoral victory rather than on their oath of office, Article I of the Constitution is doomed to near irrelevance if not extinction.

Hopefully, that's just in the short term. Frankly, it makes me want to start from scratch. But if it works -- and the reelection of Bush in '04 suggests it is -- then the Republicans are right: We are stupid.

And as long as the Versailles Press goes along with the program, most of America will be none the wiser.

An Edwards Fan's Take On The Debate

The debate was one of the best I've seen, primarily because it was a bit more freeform than previous "joint appearances" we are used to. This time, the candidates were allowed to mix it up more.

But it wasn't exactly equal time. Here's the "Talk Clock" via Booman showing Obama spoke for 16 minutes, Hillary got 14:26, Edwards 11:42, Richardson 10:48, Kucinich 9:02, Dodd 8:28, Biden 7:58, Gravel 5:37.

Informal Question Count: Obama - 18, Clinton - 16, Edwards - 13, Biden - 11, Kucinich/Dodd/Richardson - 10, Gravel - 9.

Obama certainly was given an opportunity to shine -- and given his cult-like following more interested in his promise than his policies, he blew the opportunity to add substance to his style.

There was some "mixing it up" off stage too, where Media Matter's Eric Alterman got arrested for trying to crash a WMUR-TV reception and got belligerent.

Big Tent Democrat (Armando):

First, from my point of view, it was a good night for putting pressure on the Congress to end the war, through the use of the Not Spending power. It was the early focus of the debate and Edwards pounded on Clinton and Obama on showing leadership in Congress on ending the war through use of the Not Spending power. It was the highlight of the debate.

CNN: Larry King found Elizabeth Edwards first and did a stand-up interview with her that was priceless. He said, "Senator Edwards leading the force in carrying on a very, very, strong presentation". CNN's panel was likewise impressed, even GOP strategist, J.C. Watts for being the only one talking about poverty. Donna Brazille said, "But Senator Edwards, I also believe, came out looking very smart, he was bold, he talked about his distinctions, the differences, with the other candidates." Candy Crowley's piece lead with Edwards' indictment of Obama and Clinton and seemed likewise impressed.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd's take:

John Edwards seemed very engaged and clearly carved out opportunities to engage Clinton and Obama. The press coverage will reflect this which the Edwards campaign will see as a victory. Bottom line, it was Edwards best debate performance to date (and I'm counting the one from this year and the ones from 2003-4).

So far, Edwards was winning the Daily KOS post debate poll and still ahead at MyDD's poll. It's not to late to VOTE, so do so if you haven't.

HuffPost's Arriana believed Edwards was most well briefed and impressed with Edwards’ admissions of past mistakes and overall performance and think it's about time Hillary admitted she screwed the pooch on the war vote and continued funding of Iraq until lately when Edwards pushed her and Obama to meekly vote against the supplemental after everyone else voted -- the performance Edwards blasted them on for not showing any leadership.

Unlike Hillary, who blames bad intel and Bush's mismanagement for what the war has become -- in other words, it's not her fault -- Edwards got applause from the audience for saying simply, he was wrong.

CNN: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards got applause from the audience after saying he regretted voting for the Iraq war. 'I think I had the information I needed,' Edwards said. 'I don’t think that was the question. I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war.'"

The implication is clear, Hillary doesn't think she was wrong, or responsible. If she were simply to say, "I F#$%ed Up, sorry." I might give her a chance.

Evidently she's also not responsible for the increase in terrorism world-wide since she defended the GOP metaphorical frame called the War on Terror. She said it's working to make us safer, but not safe enough. Edwards had rejected that frame as the sham it is -- a "bumper sticker".

Bite me Hillary. How much more of the Constitution shall we shred before you feel safe?

Obama got his licks in too, saying Edwards was "4 1/2 years too late" on his anti-war stance. Fine Barack, but what have you done for us lately? His policy stances are simply timid, votes too calculated, and as John said, "there is a difference between leadership and legislating." Edwards slammed these "leaders" (Clinton and Obama) and Gravel and Kucinich locked the door.

There's blood on the hands of all three of them, four if you count Biden. Edward for sponsoring the AUMF, Hillary for voting for it and defending that vote to this day and supporting every funding measure for the war except the last one. And Obama too has voted for all the funding bills he's seen until Edwards put enough pressure on him and the rest of Congress to vote against the last supplemental funding. Biden has no anti-war cred whatsoever, although he has articulated the best strategy for prosecuting the war throughout -- partition -- other than just leaving.

Only two of tonight's candidates not only voted against continuing the funding -- Kucinich and Dodd (Obama and Clinton come late to this position), but did so proudly. Only one of the four who voted for the AUMF has been a vocal leader in his agreement with Dennis and Dodd that we should not fund the escalation -- Edwards. Biden voted for the funding and Obama and Hillary might as well have phoned their votes in. Only one of the four says his vote for the AUMF was wrong and is doing something to atone for it -- again, Edwards.

STFU Barack. You say everybody on the panel supports the troops. Support them by getting them home, geez. You should be doing everything in your power to pressure your collegues and the President to end this war.

Richardson did nothing to move himself beyond the "second tier." Did you know he's a governor? I really like that guy, and his resume. But he doesn't stand any more of a chance than any of the other also-rans to compete on the same field with Edwards, Obama and Clinton. It's a shame. He's got to get mean to break through, and that's not his style.

Biden killed his chances tonight, and will now be considered just plain goofy for his red-faced rants. America doesn't like to be screamed at. Ask Howard Dean about that.

Senator Chris Dodd was ignored, and until his cheap six dollar haircut grows out, I'm ignoring him too and have already typed his name more than the journalistic style guide permits. He (and his lovely white hair) does not exist -- there is no Dodd. Except of course in New Hampshire where he got a lot of friends.

---

UPDATE: Corrections made to reflect Obama and Clinton's votes against the Supplemental Funding Bill and clear up my sleepy writing from late last night. Thanks Ara.

Observation: The back and forth between Obama and Edward on their Health Care Plans was interesting mainly for the way it put Hillary in the role of spectator at a tennis match. Not what I expected a year ago. She should own the health care debate, and seems like she wants to run from it.