Good for Chris Dodd.
Democrat Chris Dodd stepped out today as the first of the presidential hopefuls also serving in the US Senate to say he will vote against Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey.
Much of the nomination debate has focused on Mukasey's refusal to clarify whether he considers an interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be torture.
Dodd said while he is troubled by that, he is more concerned about Mukasey's suggestion during hearings last month that the president could disregard a constitutional federal law on national security grounds.
Between Mukasey's non-condemnation of the terrifying practice of waterboarding (more on that issue here) and his seeming acceptance of the Dick Cheney theory of executive power, he's looking increasingly like a smarter Alberto Gonzales. So Dodd, as the first Democrat to announce he'll oppose Mukasey (AFAIK, the only other promised “no” vote belongs to Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)) and the first to announce he'd place a hold on, and, if necessary, filibuster, the dreadful FISA bill, is starting to look pretty solid on some pretty important issues. Anyone not satisfied with the frontrunners might consider giving him a serious second or third look.
UPDATE: Obama has announced that he, too, will oppose Mukasey. Welcome aboard, Senator.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama still can't figure out what to do about Donnie McClurkin. Aravosis says it better than I could, so I'm going to use poor netiquette and quote most of his post.
UPDATE: Per the NYT, the anti-gay activist turned the entire final half hour of the concert into an anti-gay harangue:
The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.
He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.
“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support….
Mr. McClurkin's support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama's support for gay rights.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Obama's anti-gay religious right activist used the opportunity Obama gave him last night to preach his hate to thousands of African-Americans. That's just great. And the white preacher who Obama picked to help explain to the audience that gays aren't minions of Satan? CNN reports that he said nothing at all – just a short little prayer, then he left. As for Obama, he did a taped introduction in which he praised McClurkin, the religious right activist, as one of his favorites. That's nice, because the way to help combat homophobia in the black community is to make sure the gay-basher is first endorsed by someone as high-ranking as Obama, who then chooses to say nothing about the gay-bashing.
So, in the end, Obama let his “best” and “favorite” artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign. For them, creating a “dialogue” means the gay-basher gets to spread his bigotry to thousands while the candidate and the token gay STFU.
And let's give a special shout out to the white gay preacher, Rev. Andy Sidden, who was supposed to be there defending our team. Here's how CNN reported his brave act of courage:
Sidden is the white, gay pastor added to the concert bill as a last minute compromise by the Obama campaign. Sidden's appearance was notably brief and anti-climactic: He said a short prayer to the auditorium at the very beginning of the program, when the arena was only about half full, and then he left.
Obama, while not present, appeared on a videotaped message to the crowd, saying, “The artists you're going to hear from are some of the best in the world, and favorites of Michelle and myself.”
McClurkin said during the concert that he had been introduced to Obama by Oprah Winfrey.
Wow, we could have invited a brick to give that heartfelt defense of gay people. Did Obama's people plan for Sidden to give his prayer when no one was there? Was Sidden asked by the Obama people not to say anything in defense of gays? Or did Sidden wimp out all by himself?
“God delivered me from homosexuality.” Honestly, Barack, is this really a guy you want on your team? Unimpressive, to say the least.
Well worth a second look.
<
p>
As for Obama, what can I say? He talks a good game but doesn’t have the judgment or experience to back it up. I’ve been watching that movie the last 6 1/2 years.
Dodd’s second tier right now, with Clinton and Obama first tier, and Edwards strangely still between first and second tier.
<
p>
Second tier candidates must take risks to make up ground. Dodd is doing just that, with much success.
<
p>
Conversely, first tier candidates must not take risks since the upside is far smaller than the downside. Furthermore, with more media attention, eventually some issue will pick up momentum.
<
p>
The fact is that Dodd can’t really find himself in the position that Obama is in now because Dodd isn’t getting the attention and doesn’t have the huge number of events and attendance at the events. With front-runner status comes front-runner scrutiny. Obama is paying the price, and in an attempt to be risk averse, he’s found himself in a quandry where he’s going to lose one of two groups [or both]: black protestants or GBLT advocates. He’s choosing to lose the GBLT advocates. The right choice? Given an early primary in South Carolina, I think it’s strategically the right choice, but philosophically the wrong one.
you might be right that in a strategic sense, obama made the right choice to pander to black religious homophobes at the expense of lgbts. but that is IF his choice only pissed off lgbts. i’m not so sure that is the case. there are a LOT of lgbt allies out there who have been turned off by obama’s multi-layered mistake. it may or may not hurt him in SC, but it surely will hurt him elsewhere. personally, i have always felt unsure about obama. well, no longer. i’m now quite sure that i will not support his candidacy.
Couple this business of not speaking up for gays when Donnie McClurkin rants “God delivered me from homosexuality” (yeah, Donnie, and God delivered you from being a Chinese jet pilot, too!) and Obama pushing the false Social Security crisis and he’s rapidly approaching the level of unacceptable. If he is pushing a new kind of politics, then why is he repeating George W. Bush’s fearmongering about a perfectly good program?
<
p>
I know Obama needs to find a way to beat Hillary, but if he’s the intelligent leader he makes himself out to be, he can find a way that does not reinforce Republican ideas, like “something’s not right with them gays” and “we can’t afford to pay for Grandma’s food and rent.”
<
p>
Obama’s current political tactics are the kind of triangulation that he decried in Hillary.
<
p>
Hypocritical. Assinine.
There is going to be a Medicare crisis first, than a Social Security crisis after that, it was never intended as a permanent program for retirees but rather an insurance program for the extreme elderly. Raising the age for collection, raising taxes, closing benefits to the wealthy, or partial privitization are schemes that would all on their own or in some combination make SS solvent. Doing nothing and saying their is no crisis is about as intellectually honest as Bill Kristol saying their is no health care crisis, both views are wrong.
<
p>
On McClurkin its fairly obvious they f***ed up, they thought here is a popular black Gospel singer who will solidify the black vote for us in S. Carolina, oh wait he’s a homophobe well we can’t offend the man by getting him off our tour and having him rescind his endorsement but we can’t accept it either, what should we do? Clearly he will eventually be silenced so they can kill this before it gets big, but its just a campaign screw-up not an endorsement of homophobia by the campaign.
Social Security will have all the money it needs until 2042, when it will have 73% of the money it needs. 35 years down the road is not a crisis.
<
p>
In politics, you can only focus on a few issues at once. This Social Security “problem,” which may not appear (who trusts an economist’s prediction for 2 years ahead, let alone 35?) should not be on any progressive’s top ten list. It is on conservatives’ list because they believe working class people should face punishment for not understanding high-falutin’ investments and finance.
<
p>
When Obama prominently addressed this, he played the game of Republican priorities. Democrats won this battle in 2005, and if Obama starts this again, he gives the Republicans a chance to gut a working program. Obama should know that the real political battle now is how to stop Bush from creating a new war with Iran.
<
p>
When I was in college in 1994, the Concord Coalition was putting out predictions that Social Security would be gone in 2029. I believed those predictions. I was wrong to believe them then. And given the history of these doom-sayers, we would be wrong to waste political energy on their ideas now.
<
p>
Obama’s not finished yet–but he better change directions fast, if he wants to win.
“35 years down the road is not a crisis”.
<
p>
It is if your in your 20s today đŸ™‚
Don’t get me wrong; I am all for younger folks to keep on working to fund my retirement but if your younger it might bear some serious looking at now, rather than later … just saying.
Any-hoo, this isnt going to be a non issue until 2040 something.
I dont reacall the exact dates and the government lies or embelishes everything they release anyhow but demographics dictate the trend and those trends are clear.
Since the government has become accustomed to spending SS receipts to fund everything else but, you need to be real aware of when the deflection point arrives, the point where expenditures for SS payments exceed receipts into the program. Thats the real crisis point. Any projection about solvency beyond that point is pure crap becasue it is based on some theory that a trust fund actualy exists and we all know that they already spent it.
Don’t attempt to shut the barn door until half the horse is out, or don’t extiguish a fire until it it is almost out of control.
<
p>
Seems like that is the standard operating procedure of congress now. You should seriousley consider running for office.
…than a Social Security crisis after that, it was never intended as a permanent program for retirees but rather an insurance program for the extreme elderly.
<
p>
SS was never intended to be an insurance program. It was intended to be an income replacement program to induce elderly to leave the labor market to make way for younger workers. That is the reason for the income cap on payments into SS, and the max level of payments from SS. And that is the reason that increases in payments from SS were based on increases in average wages, not increases in the consumer price index. Furthermore, that is the reason that, if an SS recipient chose to continue to work after starting to collect SS payments, the SS payments would be significantly reduced. The last was changed slightly several decades after SS was instituted, but the fact remains.
<
p>
Regarding Medicare, the problem is that the US’s health care financing system is so screwed up, it is a welfare program for providers and the pharmaceutical lobby.
<
p>
Regarding Obama and McClurkin, Obama’s campaign is toast. I never believed that he was ready for prime time, and this just showed it. I’m sure that Obama could have found a black gospel singer who was not a self-proclaimed “ex-gay” to tour with. And I know full well that they could have found an openly gay black pastor to witness for them–the Rev. Gomes at Harvard comes to mind.
<
p>
There aren’t enough black conservative democrats elsewhere in the US to remedy his debacle. Between his support for fag-bashing, coal, and other issues, he isn’t going anywhere. Maybe he’ll even be defeated when he runs for re-election for his Senate seat.
During the time I worked in management in healthcare the amount of documentaion for medicare was beyond belief. It consumes incredible amounts of time and energy that should be spent on patient care.
<
p>
Unfortunately, what precipitated all of this paperwork was healthcare providers ripping the system off. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Only two years ago, one of the mega labs was nailed for incredible overbilling. Instead of locking up haldf the corporate officers, the feds fined them fifty million and they all went merrily on their way. Again—the taxpayers take another hit. Greed is an unfortunate human foible.
I’m not gay, and I’m not a one-issue LGBT-rights kind of guy either. But this is just disgusting. Between this and the social security attack on Clinton, he’s completely lost any chance of my support.
<
p>
Dodd, though… In a fantasy world, ignoring the fact that he doesn’t stand a whelk’s chance in a supernova, he’s not bad. But I don’t see this ship sailing…
Obama could have picked a different guy that was at least indifferent on gay issues and there never would have been a choice. Gay rights isn’t going to determine how very many black people vote, even among the most socially conservative. Black people care about most of the same issues as anyone else – Iraq, the economy, health care, education, etc. The only person that may shock is Bill O’Rielly. In that type of venue, all he had to do was pick someone who wouldn’t have brought gay issues if he was scared of alienating the most socially conservative African Americans in this country, or worried they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he tolerated gay people… It wasn’t exactly a taller order, in my humble opinion… there are plenty of good preachers out there who also happen to be decent human beings.
<
p>
Stategically, in the end, I think this is going to hurt him. He turned this into an issue – and I’m sure it gave Hillary a good ‘ol chuckle. Obama isn’t going to be elected President; I really wish he’d just drop out and give the other candidates a chance to tackle Hillary, or the chance for a guy like Gore to come in and save us.
Great spot to put him in. He can’t say the administration practices torture without the whole world coming down on the US administration. He can’t say that the administration doesn’t practice torture without being a party to it. This is how truth comes out.
<
p>
A perfect spot for the sharp Democrat. I’ve increased my respect for Dodd. Lost all my interest in the lady that wants to keep troops in Iraq into 2013.
At the last debate, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all declined to promise they’d have all the troops out by 2013. Richardson and Dodd did make that pledge.
I meant as the front-runner that I originally supported. I should have been more clear. Most pols in the national game have too much war money on the table to back away. As the “little candidates” have no chance, we can look forward to many more years of war.
<
p>
Brrr! Does anyone feel the draft?
Is this enough?
The US CANNOT withdraw from Iraq unless there is a peaceful, stable, political situation on the ground.
<
p>
This is not merely right wing spin, leaving Iraq now would cause massive problems. Just look at the Turks for one, the US troop presence is the ONLY thing stopping an incursion, the Iranian military is already active but it would be blatantly active if the US left, it would embolden Al Sadr to consolidate power and try to emerge as the leader of Iraq, Al Malikis government would surely fall, secrtarian divisions abound.
<
p>
The US could have and frankly should have left in 2004 or 2005 when this was a classic counter insurgency i.e insurgents vs US, US leaves, no more insurgents. Now its insurgent vs insurgent vs US in the middle and they will keep fighting on after we’re gone and it will likely intensify since the buffer of US troops is the only thing holding the peace together.
<
p>
To be fair an open ended commitment till 2013 is also a flawed idea, but that is not what Edwards, Clinton, or Obama were advancing. They were instead saying it might take that long but they were committed to leaving the situation stable.
<
p>
Timetables, benchmarks, the Iraq Study Group, all are viable options for Iraq that the Dems in Congress are ignoring for political gains or the President is refusing because he is a stubborn fool. Dodd knew this and supported both the ISG resolution, the Biden proposal which would require significant US troop movements, or the timetables that Feingold proposed. He did not support immediate US withdrawl until he ran for President.
The US CANNOT withdraw from Iraq unless there is a peaceful, stable, political situation on the ground.
<
p>
Of course it can.
<
p>
Apparently, it has escaped your notice that Just look at the Turks for one, the US troop presence is the ONLY thing stopping an incursion the Turks already have made incursions into northern Iraq. Apparently, it has also escaped your notice that the lack of US support for the suppression of the Kurdish PKK is already threatening to tear the Nato “alliance” assunder. The US attack on Iraq, which was opposed by Turkey for obvious reasons, unleashed the Iraqi Kurds’ attacks on Turkey, and on Iran, and on Syria.
<
p>
Apparently, also, it has escaped your notice that “religious cleansing” has been going on in central Iraq under the watchful eye of the US military. It is probably almost complete: the Christians have fled and the Sunnis and the Shiites have been relegated to their respective districts.
<
p>
Your reference to al-Sadr is laughable at best: the US military were going against him, when the faction closest to the Iranians, the Badr Corps (PM al-Maliki’s faction) were far closer to the Iranians than al-Sadr ever was. To put it simply, the US was helping to get rid of the only major opponent to the faction supported by the Iranians.
<
p>
Dumb? You betcha.
I am not disagreeing that we have enabled the situation, the thing is debating what was rignt and wrong to do is simply silly since we have to look forward now.
<
p>
Certainly we have not made the situation better, certainly its awful now, but it will be far far worse if we leave.
<
p>
Tell me Raj in all honestly why will the situation get better if we leave? You give me absolutely no evidence to back that claim, merely that its bad now anyway is not evidence that it won’t get far far worse.
<
p>
Although I consider myself more of a pragmatist the inner liberal in me finds it deplorable that my own party, my own fellow anti-war demonstrators will be endorsing genocide on a large scale, and its worse than Darfur since its a genocide our actions directly caused.
I think it is simply silly that our young people are killed and maimed daily. I think it is simply silly that a country, once a bastion of liberty and law behaves much as a third world dictatorship. I think it is simply silly that our political leadership gorges upon tax coffers to fed themselves and business friends on war profit.
<
p>
I also think it is simply silly for anyone that is for the endless wars to remain a civilian.
<
p>
“Last train to Nuremburg. All on board!”
Ticket for Mr. Rumsfeld, please.
The question isn’t whether or not the situation will get better if we leave. The question is whether the costs of staying justify the benefits of staying. In other words, how bad will things be if we stay, how bad will things be if we leave, and how much will it cost (in lives and dollars) for us to stay. There is likely to be a lot of ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide in Iraq. That does not change if we stay, unless we increase our military presence by about a factor of 10. We can only stop the killing if we impose martial law on essentially all of Iraq. That would not be an easy task.
<
p>
So if you want to justify having the US army stay in Iraq, you should be able to explain what their purpose is and how they are improving the situation. Because right now, as far as I can tell all they are doing is providing more targets for the various militias to practice on. The argument that we should reinstate the draft so that we can provide the military presence necessary to make a difference is rational, even if it is unpopular. But arguing that we should continue to stay with a military force that is too small to make a difference is just stupid.
The Benefit of staying are low and the costs of staying are high, but the benefit of leaving is low (we leave in disgrace, high costs financially and lives lost ends) but the cost is dangerously high. They will shoot our backs on the way, and there will be a massive genocide on US hands.
<
p>
I am not for the war, I am not even for the surge, I am for something along the lines of a Biden plan, a negotiated political settlement that brings peace and stability to Iraq and the region. Leaving will bring instability and widen the war, and with oil not leaving a warzone plunge us into a global recession if not worse.
<
p>
People called me a pessimist when I said going in would destablize the region and cause massive problems, they tended to be conservatives. Liberals are calling me a pessimist now that I am saying leaving now would also cause massive problems and further destablize the region even more.
<
p>
I was a realist both times, the only difference is its now liberals that are refusing to acknowledge the simple truth that we will likely be in Iraq for a long time. Using diplomacy, the UN, the Arab League, the Biden plan, any plan thats not the surge would still take about 2-3 years. Hence why Dodd, Kucinich, Paul, Richardson, etc. are either being selfish or disingenous when they say we can leave in 1 year.
<
p>
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards agree with my assessment so does the Democratic congress or they would cut funding.
Tell me Raj in all honestly why will the situation get better if we leave?
<
p>
One, it would obviously reduce the serious drain on the US treasury–currently to the tune of something on the order of US$200B/yr.
<
p>
Two, a US pull-out may very well force the al-Maliki government to put up or shut up. As long as the al-Maliki gov’t has the US military as their proxies, what is there to suggest that they will do either?
<
p>
Three, apparently you are not reading the middle east blogs, such as Marc Lynch’s or Juan Cole’s, but it should be evident that what is currently occurring in the middle east is little more than a relatively slow-motion religious cleansing, particularly in the middle of the country. (The north–the Kurds–has already been pretty much cleansed and cleansing had already occurred in the south.)
<
p>
Four, it strikes me as a bit naive to believe that, if the US military withdraws, the Iraqis would be shooting them in the back. One, Iraqis want the US military to withdraw, and one way to ensure their continued presence is to try to shoot them in the back. Two, it strikes me that the US military would be pretty incompetent if it did not know how to protect their rear flank.
<
p>
Finally, five, maybe, just maybe, the US might perform its obligations under the NATO treaty to help Turkey defend its territorial integrity against the Kurds in northern Iraq. I doubt that the US would do that, but, what the heck.
Ya—-Dodd is a shining example of exemplary conduct as is his his pal from Massachusetts. Two scintillating stars of moral conduct.
Any Bush nomination for AG is probably going to be someone who should be opposed.
…but perhaps you have never heard of a “recess appointment.” If your pResident goes that route, of course it will force his appointment to end at the end of the congressional session.
<
p>
On the other hand, if the Dems had any backbone, they might defund the office of the AG. They won’t, of course, because they are cynical enough to want to use the same tactic against the Republicans.
These people, devoid of any stance on anything cruise through life based upon the pulse of the current perception of popular opinion and then spew forth rhetoric which they think will benefit themselves personally.
<
p>
As far as Dems being useful for anything I think HR 1955 speaks for itself. The Dems have not only taken up the founding principles of PNAC and the neo-cons but have added a new dimension of Orewellain intellectualism in doing so. The courts, should they last that long might be dealing with this for generations.
Personally my vote is that the government doesn’t last that long.
He’s proven to be an inept candidate who’s no real challenge to Hill. He’s not going to defeat Hillary – and at this point, though I’m shocked to hear myself say this, I think I’d rather Hillary win over Obama. Let’s give the other candidates a chance so I don’t have to worry about that scary predicament.
<
p>
I’m still clinging to the slimmest of hopes that Gore comes in and saves us from this dirth of candidates. /sigh
Hillary and Bill were cut out of the same bolt of cloth.
All things to all people. Stand for everything and yet stand for nothing. Chameleons. You can’t believe anything that comes out of her mouth. You may not like what Obama espouses, but he appears to be a man of his convictions.
i think this is the first i’ve heard you say something positive about any major dem pol. could it be because obama has proven to you that he happily tolerated homophobes, or is it simply because it gives you a free and cheap shot at clinton? i’m guessing both, but i’m interested in being proven wrong.
of watching Tweety Bird.
<
p>
If Obama were a man of his convictions, he wouldn’t have given such a ringing endorsement of a complete homophobe. I’m just not impressed.
…no.
<
p>
I’m not about to waste my money on crappola from people who do nothing more than yell at each other in an incomprehensible manner.
<
p>
And that’s aside from the fact that the show’s producers are the gatekeepers that determine who gets to yell at each other.
I hate the complete dual nature of the post in taking that whole side note. It diminishes the importance of the first topic.
<
p>
But the address the second topic: yes, the McClurkin thing is insane and the stupidest thing this campaign has done since (or maybe surpassing) clean coal.
<
p>
Dodd’s been great on this, defending the constitution and common decency, lately. But he was absent, like Biden and Kerry and Clinton and Edwards, in supporting the Constitution and the global community when it mattered the most: in October 2002. I don’t know if its a generational thing, but I’m frustrated that so many politicians try to write off the most defining political event of my lifetime as a mistake or saying the were “fooled like everyone else”. Dodd and Kerry have been better about this lately, which is good, but it’s nothing to brag about. Richardson and Edwards have been recognized this for longer, but it’s still no substitute. And Clinton and Biden clearly still don’t get what was wrong.
<
p>
Mukasey been getting criticism across the board for his refusal to oppose torture, and it’s good that is starting to turn into secured opposition. Dodd’s done a very good job lately proving he’s an effective and conscientious Senator and should stay there, but I haven’t seen anything to say he can be trusted to have the consistent vision and loyalty to the international community to lead this country. I’ve only seen 4 people: Al Gore, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and Barack Obama. And 3 of them aren’t running.