Friday, November 09, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been engaged in a multicycle slapfest over whether their plans for American combat troops in Iraq constitute “continuing the war.” Edwards says he would withdraw all combat troops from Iraq but would keep a small force of 5,000 or so nearby—in Kuwait, say, or Afghanistan—to carry out “expeditions” against terrorists in Iraq. Hillary would also withdraw, but she would keep the counter-terrorist combat troops stationed in Iraq instead of outside. That’s the difference.
But to hear Edwards talk about Hillary’s plan, you’d think there was a huge gulf between them. “Senator Clinton says she will continue the occupation, keeping combat troops stationed in Iraq for combat missions," said Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis in a statement. Keeping them there, Edwards told the Boston Globe, is “like putting a target on the foreheads of American combat troops.”
The fact is, the U.S. will continue to have a large presence in Iraq after the 2008 election no matter what. Assuming we maintain an embassy and keep aid workers stationed there, those units will need to be defended. If the troops defending them get attacked, the president won’t have any choice but to retaliate. And that means combat troops. Sure, military units make fat targets, as the forces currently stationed there have learned. But if attacks on noncombat troops continue, will it really matter where the intervening combat troops are officially stationed? For Edwards to act like fighting terrorists in Iraq from outside Iraq is better than fighting terrorists in Iraq in Iraq seems like a thin distinction. I know it's a candidate's job to tease out the differences between him and his opponents, but I don't think this angle is working for Edwards.
Symbolically, of course, it’s a powerful distinction. Having bases in Kuwait rather than Baghdad would allow him to say the occupation is over. But, whether we hear about it or not, any future president will be forced to keep combat troops operating in Iraq. He (or she) would rather be accused of continuing an occupation than of failing to go after al-Qaida. To suggest that any two Democratic candidates (except maybe Richardson) diverge this point seems to be manufacturing differences.
-
sponsorship
For the past few months, Rudy Giuliani has been repeating the same refrain. Some variation of "I'm not a perfect candidate" has become the Giuliani motto. He uses it as a blanket mea culpa to convince conservative voters worried about his social positions that he's the best they've got. It seems to be an effective hedge—Pat Robertson's recent endorsement is just the latest sign that religious leaders are willing to place Rudy's terrorism toughness ahead of his conservative drawbacks.
The refrain appeared again this week after Rudy's former driver, police chief, and business partner, Bernard Kerik, was indicted on conspiracy charges. Giuliani had lobbied for Kerik to become the next secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, a bid that ended in Kerik's disgraceful withdrawal. Today's New York Times story ends with Rudy's trotting out of the old standby: "I am not running as the perfect candidate."
Prior to this week, Giuliani has used the phrase to imply that he's imperfect in his personal life but that he is strong where it really matters: in the fight against terrorism. But this time, the imperfection is security-related. If Giuliani once trusted Kerik enough to put him in charge of the entire country's security, then whom else will he mistakenly trust if he's president? The ghosts of Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld loom large.
Two of Giuliani's rivals were quick to attack. John McCain said Giuliani shouldn't have trusted Kerik after his disappointing stint training Iraqi police forces in Baghdad. Mitt Romney's campaign sent a memo to reporters trumpeting Romney's commitment to a clean government.
But Kerik's indictment could actually hurt Giuliani most if he ends up as the nominee. The corruption trial may take place during the heart of the general election's campaign season. There's even an outside chance that Giuliani may have to testify. For Giuliani, that's an imperfect scenario.
-
sponsorship
Mike Huckabee sat down for two separate interviews Wednesday night to respond to Fred Thompson's charge that, outside of his pro-life beliefs, Huckabee isn't a true conservative.
To Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:
Let’s face it.. the Writers' Guild is on strike and Fred is kind of
struggling to get some lines..whoever put that line together is writing
for comedy and not for a serious political drama…
To Salon's Michael Scherer:
With the Writers Guild on strike, I mean it's obvious that Thompson is in need of some better lines.
-
sponsorship
John Dickerson points to a new myth that’s been dogging Barack Obama on the campaign trail: the claim that he refused to put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. E-mail chains making this claim have circulated for the past few weeks, marshaling this photo as evidence. But as Obama has repeatedly said, the photo was taken during the National Anthem, not the pledge of allegiance. (His spokesman sent out several photos of Obama covering his heart for the pledge.) Still, Dickerson writes, audiences keep asking him about it day after day.
It’s just the latest example—along with lapel pin-gate and rumors that Obama is Muslim—of a myth that it doesn’t necessarily help to deny. The Post’s Shankar Vedantam wrote a fascinating piece a couple months ago about how refuting myths only reinforces them. A University of Michigan study gave people a list of commonly held views and labeled them “true” or “false.” After several days passed, young people remembered about a third of the myths as factual, whereas for older subjects the number was as high as 40 percent. Another study found that over time, people often confuse where they heard the myth first. As a result, the myth-denier sometimes ends up being remembered as the propagator. (An anonymous e-mail chain is particularly pernicious, since it’s not a source that sticks in the mind.)
This doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t address the issue. He doesn’t want to look like he’s dodging the question. But as Vedentam points out, denials require that you repeat the initial falsehood, and repetition is often enough to further embed a notion. It's lose-lose. So far, Obama has had to deal with this type of allegation more than the other candidates. Imagine how they would multiply if he actually got the nomination.
-
sponsorship
Ah, the rigors of the campaign trail. From The Caucus, today's campaign agendas:
* Barack Obama holds town hall meetings in Des Moines and Sioux
City, Iowa. ...
* Chris Dodd holds a news conference with the Iowa Democratic Party
Veterans Caucus and speaks at a fund-raiser for Fayette County
Democrats in Oelwein, Iowa.
* Mike Huckabee speaks at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., holds private meetings in Concord, N.H.
* Mitt Romney meets with locals in Atkinson, N.H., and holds a town hall meeting in Hudson, N.H.
* Dennis Kucinich attends an Ani DiFranco concert in Boston. [EA]
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?