Bob Shrum
I wish Chris would ask all the Republicans on stage who among them is willing to take a pledge to campaign frequently with George Bush. Side-by-side with George Bush during the general election. We know they like the ghost of Reagan, but how are they going to deal with the reality of Bush?
Poor Mitt Romney - actually he's anything but poor given the money he raised; he may never be commander in chief, but he's fundraiser in chief. Anyway, he has to flip on issues without the benefit of a safety net like 9/11 for Giuliani or McCain's national security record. In 1994, when he lost a senate race to Ted Kennedy, he said he was more strongly for gay rights than Kennedy was. Now he's against them. He said he was pro-choice; now he's pro-life. Kennedy was right during their debate: Romney isn't pro-choice -- he's "multiple choice."
Will Giuliani be held to account tonight on social issues? He's trying get right with the Right, but he's behind McCain in the new polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - the only polls that count. As conservatives learn more about him, he will fade. So the maneuvers on social issues don't satisfy them and will damage his sense of strength with the broader electorate.
In 2004, Giuliani said he favored civil unions for gay couples. Now he's against them, artfully explaining that marriage is between one man and one woman - that's from someone who has been married three times, including to his cousin. And he said he didn't know it.
Hillary Clinton was superb in saying what she would do if the US was the subject of a terrorist attack- Attack back.
Note to Barack Obama: When asked about America’s three most important allies, don’t forget about Israel.
Joe Biden had the best moment of the night when asked if he was verbose and whether he could avoid gaffs he gave a one-word answer: Yes. It was sharp, funny, and the time limits were Biden’s friend.
Winner: Hillary Clinton
Winner among the second tier: Joe Biden- seemed genuinely presidential.
Didn’t seem to be there very much: Barack Obama
No hits, no runs, no errors: John Edwards
Hillary Clinton started the debate with a strong clear position on Iraq, that positioned her as an anti-war candidate. It was crisp, almost without a whiff of nuance.
Edwards definitely managed to draw the contrast with Clinton on the war without seeming to attack her. She got a chance to respond, and once again sounded like she would do as much as anyone to end the war.
As a side light to the Clinton-Obama confrontation, everyone’s asking if someone from the second tier can break through tonight. Historically, you need a big issue to do that-McGovern did it with the Vietnam war in 1972; Gephardt broke into the top tier in 1988 running on the issue of foreign trade. A breakthrough has to be powered by an idea- or maybe by the stylistic performance of the century. What the second tier has to do is to make a good impression that outlasts the night, get noticed, inch up, and begin raising some more money.
By the way, the focus on Clinton and Obama also ignores the reality, in my view, that John Edwards is and will be in the first tier because of his strength in Iowa, Nevada, and maybe New Hampshire. For him and for the ultimate outcome the national polls matter a lot less than where the candidates stand in those early states.
With all eight Democratic candidates on stage, the great and the good along with the second tier, it’s difficult for anyone to shine so brightly that he or she will be regarded as the winner—and the media, at least in the first flush of commentary, seldom declares a victor. The real challenge—and opportunity—is to go into a debate like this with one or at most two strategic objectives. Thus, in a 2004 radio debate shortly before the Iowa caucuses John Kerry’s relentless purpose was to nail Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt for proposing to repeal the entire Bush tax cut, including the portion that went to the middle class; Kerry favored repealing only the tax cuts for the top one percent—which Bush being Bush, accounted for the bulk of the money. Kerry had additional lucky advantage; John Edwards, who had the same position he did, didn’t bother to show up.
CONTINUED >>
By Bob Shrum
Brackets indicate what Bush was really thinking.
Italics indicate my sense of what’s really going on here.
BUSH: Good evening.
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home (There were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no al Qaeda connection; there was no terrorist training ground until Bush invaded on cooked intelligence).
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror. [I’m staying the course but calling it something else.]
CONTINUED >>
By Bob Shrum
So Mitt Romney, who couldn’t have been reelected governor of Massachusetts, is running for president. And that’s one reason he couldn’t have been reelected. To cater to Republican primary voters nationally, he decided to get right with the right wing canon. He not only became a crusader against same sex marriage, but adjured his previous professions, in 1994 and again in 2002, that he was pro-choice. It recalls the comment of Ted Kennedy, who defeated him in the 1994 senate race, that Romney was “multiple choice.” The reason he may get away with his transmogrification is that the right wing can credit the notion that this Romney apparition is probably closer to his true self than the moderate clothes he conveniently donned to run for office in Massachusetts. In the general election, however, it would be pushing things for him to raise the age limit on the George W. Bush excuse and say he found his true self at the age of...50.
CONTINUED >>
By Bob Shrum
The dictator is dead - and few will mourn his passing. The process that condemned him was hardly a model of jurisprudence, but few Americans will raise their voices to object. While Saddam Hussein’s execution will be met with joy by the dominant Shiite in Iraq, the danger is that it will inflame the Sunni insurgents, but they are already on the attack everyday.
The bottom line is this: Hanging Accomplished won’t bring us any closer to success in Iraq than Mission Accomplished did. For America, the war in Iraq is over except for the dying. And the toll will go higher, both among our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, as President Bush rejects the Baker Commission recommendations and prolongs or escalates the war.
A surge in U.S. forces is a reckless gamble that treats our troops as fodder in an attempt to redeem a hopeless policy. The generals on the ground advised for months that a surge would just swell the violence. But the president is taking time to cook the advice just as his administration cooked the intelligence before the invasion of Iraq. He’ll extract the counsel he wants, from enough compliant officials, to push ahead with another predetermined decision and twenty to thirty thousand more Americans will be sent to Iraq "temporarily." They will then be kept there indefinitely by this administration as Surge Accomplished fuels instead of ending the insurgency. Truly, this is and will be a case of failure as an excuse for its own perpetuation.
Saddam Hussein will be in his grave. But the United States will be deeper in the quagmire. And the hangman’s noose can’t change that reality.
