Last night two of the blogosphere's brightest lights posted on the difficulties Obama is facing when it comes to turning around U.S. Afghanistan policy. Digby, who recounted a 1964 conversation between McGeorge Bundy and President Lyndon Johnson about the futility of American policies in Vietnam, seemed aghast that "Democratic strategist" Donna Brazile was on CNN yesterday seemingly reading some leftover talking points from Karen Hughes about the need to stay in Afghanistan and "get the job done." Then last night Daily Kos' most prescient Afghanistan blogger, Meteor Blades, highlighted the controversy over Andrea Mitchell's report on the 500,000 troops needed to do the job in Afghanistan.

But as Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), our No Means No guest today, asked me this morning, "What is the job?"

Blue America's friendship with Eric Massa goes back to the very beginning of our PAC and he was one of the first candidates we ever supported. Ultimately it was his character that moved us to endorse him, although his championing of issues impacting the real lives of working families (like "fair trade" over so-called "free trade"), his dogged support of single-payer health care, and his spot-on analysis of the war in Iraq based on experience as a Naval officer are what first drew us to him. He came close in 2006 and he triumphed in 2008-- in one of the only districts in New York that Obama didn't win! Obama tool 48% in NY-29 while Massa scooped up 51% against a multimillionaire incumbent and Bush tool.

In June, Eric was one of only 32 Democrats to vote against the supplemental war budget -- of the 90 who had pledged to vote no. It was an incredibly courageous political act, particularly in a district with a daunting R+5.48 PVI (one of the most Republican districts in the country represented by a progressive Democrat). This morning Eric told me in no uncertain terms that he would "continue to vote against any supplemental."

We're not going to fund any wars in a way that no one knows about. The Republicans gave the wealthiest Americans the largest tax cut in history and then launched two wars without any idea of how to pay for them. It was the most fiscally irresponsible action they could take-- and they took it.

Eric is fired up and full of fight, as always. He loves his job and told me he's absolutely committed to it. "I'm in the right place in my life doing the right job for the right congressional district. And I'm just getting started." Right now, you hear the lifelong military man in him when he says he's very supportive of what he calls "the president's strategic pause to formulate whatever strategy his administration will implement (in Afghanistan)."

For instance, is this about fighting the Taliban or fighting al-Qaeda -- two distinctly different groups -- or is it about creating a democracy, or is it about protecting the Afghan people? These are very different missions that require very different resources. And until we know what we're doing, we cannot begin to get it done. The first thing a military officer asks is 'What is the mission?' And as of right now, that is a very legitimate question."

As progressives and men and women of common sense, we should demand a strategy that turns the destiny of Afghanistan over to the Afghans so we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the condition of our departure is creating a Jeffersonian democracy, then we are on a fool's errand.

Eric is joining us now (in the comments section) as part of our ongoing series on Afghanistan policy at Crooks and Liars. As MoveOn mentioned in the mailing this morning, "U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there's a big debate happening right now about what to do. Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration -- including John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They're cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge."

Eric Massa is in a unique position to help us figure out a progressive strategy for dealing with this dilemma. He's adamant that if the President asks for more funds for the war, he do it through a normal budgetary process that includes a "clearly articulated strategy with an end game. The Republicans say they're all about fiscal responsibility? Then they should agree we should apply those concepts to wars."

Please take a look at Blue America's No Means No! page and consider donating to Eric and any or all of the 32 other Democrats who have already done the right thing by voting no on the supplemental budget 3 months ago and who we will be counting on to help end the occupation of Afghanistan in the coming months.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1179)

PLAYS: (1442)

George Will thinks that daring to point out the racism at these tea parties amounts to "liberals' McCarthyism. If anyone's playing the role of Joe McCarthy, it's Glenn Beck, not "liberals" who are pointing out the racist element to these protests, and all the "table pounding" on your part isn't going to change that.

CARTER: An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

BECK: We have a former president who says, if you’re opposed to the president’s health care, you’re a racist.

LIMBAUGH: The left looks at everything through a racial prism. I’m just -- I’m just -- hey, they hit us, we hit back twice as hard.

PELOSI: In the late ‘70s in San Francisco, this kind of -- of rhetoric was very frightening. And it gave -- it created a climate in which we -- violence took place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The debate not coming down as President Obama called for. Let me bring the roundtable back in. I’m joined by George Will, Peggy Noonan, Bob Reich, Ed Gillespie, and Donna Brazile.

And, George, as we -- as we get to this, let me show two magazine covers from this week. First, Time magazine, Glenn Beck, mad man, and the angry style of American politics. And then in the New York magazine coming out tomorrow, there’s the tattooed face of Barack Obama , big headline, “Hate.”

We -- we heard President Obama say he thinks that a lot of anti- government feeling, the idea that the government can’t do anything right, is behind all this. What’s your theory?

WILL: The president’s right about that. What we’re hearing is the liberals’ McCarthyism, which is, when in doubt, blame people for racism. Litigators have an old argument: When the law’s on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither’s on your side, pound the table. This amounts to pounding the table.

I have yet to see evidence, is there -- does evidence even intrude in this conversation? Is there any evidence that these people are racists? I think not.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Donna?

BRAZILE: Well, George, there’s some evidence that -- not an overwhelming amount of evidence -- that some of -- a small fringe of this movement, clearly there’s some racism. And you don’t have to know the motives of someone’s heart to understand when you see signs, incendiary signs that basically compares him to a witch doctor, an African heathen. We know racism; we don’t have to be told or taught that. That -- that much we do know.

There’s a culture of extremism that has gained mainstream acceptance. And I think the president is absolutely right. When you see it, you have to call it. You shouldn’t duck it. But, on the other hand, you shouldn’t exaggerate it.

This is why we need responsible leaders to denounce it, but more importantly, we need to find a way to have an honest and good dialogue whenever race is a topic so that the president of the United States, which is very busy, does not have to have beer summits all the time.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1123)

PLAYS: (6622)

Here's another prime example of those wonderful compassionate conservatives for you. Bill Bennett on CNN's State of the Union just can't seem to get himself to endorse extending unemployment benefits right now, not because he doesn't care about the unemployed, of course. That would sound uncaring, now wouldn't it? He's just concerned that "they have already spent so doggone much money". When Donna Brazile points out that you didn't hear these complaints from Republicans when Bush was giving away the bank with tax cuts for the rich, war spending and giveaways to the drug companies, check out the look on Bennett's face. He doesn't have to say a word. That expression says it all.

They end up on a hard break, so we never do get to hear just what Bennett's compassionate conservative reply would have been, but I'm sure sure it would have been more of the same similar to his earlier remarks. I just wonder if Bill Bennett has ever had to want for anything in his entire lifetime? From the condescending look on his face while she was talking, I would guess not.

YELLIN: Let me ask you about that today because there are indications that there could be, at least the Treasury secretary is not ruling out the possibility of middle class tax increase. How would that play, politically, for President Obama, if that had to happen?

BRAZILE: Well as we know, that 95 percent of the tax relief that was offered in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went to middle class Americans. So I would hope at a time when middle class Americans and others are feeling the squeeze from the state governments and the local governments and now the federal government with the debt, I would hope that this would not be an issue right now. But if he's talking about putting this in the mix in terms of how we pay for health care reform, we need to take a look at it.

YELLIN: Bill, does that make you think, oh, this is going to look good in 2012 for the elections?

BENNETT: I'm really not thinking about that, but the interesting thing is, it's not so much President Obama and the Democrats versus the Republicans at this point. In many ways, it's President Obama and the American people. And the more they're hearing, the more skeptical they're becoming. Thus you see his polls going down. I don't want to be gloomy, I want to be upbeat. It's always morning in America as far as I'm concerned.

But the problem is, when people look at these various proposals, like health care or like cap and trade, what they're getting is, they may have additional burdens on them, additional taxes or additional costs. And that doesn't, A, encourage them, B, it doesn't encourage a long-term recovery.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1134)

PLAYS: (1889)

On CNN's State of the Union, John King is shocked, shocked I tell you that liberal groups would want to take out ads against "centrist" Democrats for taking money from the health care industry and not supporting true health care reform.

King: So Donna, what is happening? You know, we had an election in November. What we thought we got was united government, a Democrat in the White House, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Instead it seems that we just have a different kind of divided government. You have a Democratic President that's fighting with wings of his own party in congress, including, this is from Democracy for America. It's an email. It's a liberal organization. It is now sending an email to its supporters essentially saying send us money so that we can "run tough ads pressuring Democratic Senators who've taken millions of dollars from the health and insurance interests while standing in the way of one of President Obama's top priorities".

So now you have Democrats raising money to attack Democrats, at a time Republicans sense a political opening here. What is wrong?

Brazile: Well, first of all, the Republican party is trying to figure out who is leading them and what their charge is. I think there's a very vigorous and healthy debate taking place inside the Democratic party...

King: Including running ads against them though. Accusing them of taking money from health insurance companies?

Brazile: John I...

King: I mean, they all raise money, but they're essentially saying they're being bought to block President Obama.

If John King were doing his job, he'd be pointing out the conflicts of interest to the public rather than acting shocked that someone else is.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (65)

PLAYS: (157)

On The Situation Room, former McCain staffer Nancy Pfotenhauer was brought on to pull out the fear card on any meaningful sort of health care reform. As always the tactics were typical. Be afraid of "government takeover" of health care and be afraid Democrats because if you dare to persue this it's going to be Hillary-care and 1994 all over again. I'm not sure why CNN thinks bringing on two political hacks, one in the form of a former energy lobbyist, is going to get us any closer to some meaningful debate on this issue, but that's never stopped them before and I'm sure it won't in the future.

Note to CNN...can you make this woman along with Dana Perino, Ed Gillespie and Ari Fleischer go away please? You can take James Carville and his Cheney-loving wife too while you're at it. I know you won't listen but I thought I'd ask anyway...lol.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1376)

PLAYS: (2619)

Alex Castellanos has some advice for Republicans on how to lose a few more elections. Hearing this GOP dirty trickster talk about having principles is pretty rich. The only principles I've seen them espousing are how to use the government to enrich themselves and their campaign contributors and redistribute wealth to the have-mores. Talk is cheap Alex. I think most of the public has had a belly full of your type of "principles".

BLITZER: There's a story out there -- Alex, I will start with you -- that Republicans should look to Rahm Emanuel's playbook on how to get members elected, how to get people elected to the House and Senate, and forget about ideology, focus strictly on who can win a district or a state.

What do you think about that strategy?

CASTELLANOS: Well, you know, Rahm Emanuel has certainly been successful, but America doesn't need Republicans to be Democrat-lite. You need to draw a difference.

And Republicans have principles. We don't need to be lite beer. We just need to be a better beer. The way to moderate for Republicans is that you don't moderate. The way to win the middle is to say, look, we have got our principles, but here how -- here's how they work better. And we will lead the country to a better place.

I actually was looking at some election data. And it -- from the American National Election survey, 2008, a very respected survey -- it said that John McCain was closer to the ideological center than Barack Obama was, and that Republicans were closer to the center than Democrats were.

BLITZER: You know...

CASTELLANOS: What -- what -- the reason we lost is, we couldn't take the next step, which is, hey, do you -- how will those principles work?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (114)

PLAYS: (353)

Poor little old Dick Cheney just can't catch a break. It seems we've now got Maureen Dowd and former President Bill Clinton taking shots at Dick Cheney after Lawrence Wilkerson's righteous smack down. Ed Gillespie is the former Bush aide du jour that gets the honors of defending Darth Cheney on The Situation Room. Gillespie doesn't want to acknowledge that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk don't want any moderates in his response to Blitzer.

And I'm sorry but the Democratic Party has not moved to the left. We've got a moderate for a President that a lot of us on the left don't agree with on many issues and a whole bunch of corporate-crats who did as Gillespie correctly noted get elected in conservative districts. How that makes the party moving to the left in anything but Republican fantasy land is beyond me. Ed needs to work on his talking points. He sounds like he's still beating that "Obama is the most liberal Senator" dead horse that failed them the last election and hoping their tired "socialist" canard sticks.

BLITZER: All right, let's talk about the former Vice President Dick Cheney for a moment.

Maureen Dowd, "The New York Times" columnist, Ed, who wrote this in the paper today: "Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as rogue diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing."

Is this whole debate among Republicans right now, who's more beneficial to the party, Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh, is this really helpful to the Republicans? And I ask you as a former chairman of the RNC.

GILLESPIE: No, it's a false debate, Wolf.

The fact is that, if you're going to be a majority party in a country of 300 million people, you're a party that would include people who have a view of -- like Rush Limbaugh, very pure in terms of the philosophical approach, and a view that accommodates people like Colin Powell as well, a little bit more pragmatic in terms of their approach.

I -- you know, I am someone who is, you know, a conservative in terms of my philosophy and my -- my political outlook, but I also am someone who understands that the Democrats have done a very good job of getting candidates in districts where maybe the -- the candidate doesn't agree, the Democratic candidate doesn't agree with the Democratic Party platform on gun control or on abortion.

But, at the same time, they have been able to elect enough candidates to get a majority. I would say, in the -- that process, by the way, the Democratic Party hasn't moved to the right. If anything, it's moved left.

BLITZER: All right.

GILLESPIE: And, so, I think that we should take a page from their playbook.

BLITZER: The former President Bill Clinton was out campaigning for the Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, his good friend. He was out in Herndon, Virginia.

And we caught up with him, Bill Clinton.

Donna, listen to this little reaction we got from him on the whole Dick Cheney business.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I wish him well. It's over.

I wish him well. It's over. But I do hope he gets some more target practice before he goes out again.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: "I do hope he gets some more target practice before he goes out again."

All right, what do you make of that, given the -- I guess it's the implication of the -- the shooting incident when he went out hunting a few years ago, shot a friend in the face.

BRAZILE: Well, I also think the former president was referring to the fact that the former vice president this past weekend made, I thought, an incredible mistake in saying that he would pick one over the other, pick Limbaugh over Colin Powell.

Ed knows this very well. In order for a major political party to survive in the kind of country we live in, you need to have, you know, diversity within your party, a more inclusive party.

I think Dick Cheney is a distraction for the Republican Party as they try to rebrand themselves, reinvent themselves, and to connect with the American people on the values that most Americans care about.

So, it's not always left vs. right. It's right vs. wrong. And the American people have judged the Republicans to be wrong on the issues.

BLITZER: All right, guys, we will leave it there.

Donna and Ed, thanks very much. We will continue, though. Both of you will be back.

DOWNLOAD (32)

PLAY (72)

Damn it, it's a center-right nation, and don't you forget it!

I swear to you that is the editorial slant taken by pretty much all the bobbleheads, but none so nakedly as This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Note the make up of the panel is basically four Republicans to one Democrat (with all their concern trolling, I generously figure that Brazile and Stephanopoulos together equal just one Democrat). What's with that ratio? The American public has soundly and decisively voted against the GOP policies and the Bush doctrine, so what are frightened little Villagers to do but put on some former Bushies, Matthew Dowd and Torie Clarke, along with conservative stalwart George Will.

George Will, the sagest one of all, metaphorically pats Donna Brazile on the head and suggests that perhaps all the doom and gloom on the economy is unnecessary, as if Donna Brazile is the one to blame for the bearish outlook. He suggests that the foreclosure rate isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, that the unemployment rolls aren't that bad (WTF? 94% of the people who want to work are working? WANT to work?) and that this is strictly a financial sector problem, ignoring the fact that if the financial sector cannot lend money, it becomes a disaster to the consumer and small business owner as well. Typical Republican missing the forest for the trees.

Meanwhile, former Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke rings the warning bell that all these bailouts (not questioned when AIG and BearStearns came a-calling, mind you) are going to cause us to "out-France France"! Quel horreur! And Matthew Dowd insists that if Obama really wants to represent change from how things are done in Washington, he's going to have to reject a Democratic party-led program.

Um, huh? The logic of this escapes me. The American public has rejected GOP policies and rule and so therefore, Obama must reject a Democratic program? I have an idea for you, Matt (along with all of the ABC news bookers): how about we give a Democratic program (and a Democratic panel) a try for once? THAT would be a change.

DOWNLOAD (56)

PLAY (75)

From The Situation Room Oct. 30, 2008. While discussing the response of Kay Hagan to the Elizabeth Dole ad calling her Godless, Wolf Blitzer actually asks Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett if it's okay for candidates to be associating with atheists. I'm not sure what's more disturbing, his question, or their answers.

Blitzer: But did she make a mistake Donna by going to that fundraiser at the home of the woman who professes that there is no god?

Brazile: You know Wolf there are a lot of believers. I'm one of them. And there are people who just don't believe in an existence of a god. I don't know why because clearly there's strong evidence that there's a god but I believe that you serve all the people. Not just those that profess to have faith but those with little or no faith. That's how you convert them.

Blitzer: Is it a problem Bill to associate with atheists?

Bennett: Well this is an active atheist. This is a woman, ah, people who are campaigning to get "In God We Trust" off the currency. You know it would have been sensible for Kay Hagan or Kay Hagan's advisers to say let's just pass on this one. That's just going to get you into the association game. You know the "house of" like Barack Obama's been tagged with for the last six months or six years.

This is just so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. First of all Donna Brazile, yes if you hold a public office you should serve all and not just those who profess to have faith, but that's not how you convert them!! Are you kidding me??!! There are plenty of people out there who don't care to be converted thank you. I know George Bush and the GOP have blown a hole right through this but we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, and we don't need to have two theocratic parties. One is one too many already. And Wolf, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist or heaven forbid associating with them. There's nothing wrong with atheists that might want to..gasp.. run for office. Just like there's nothing wrong with Muslims who want to run for office, or agnostics, or Jews, or Catholics. And Bill Bennett, we do still have a thing called free speech in this country and if someone doesn't like the words "In God We Trust" on the currency, they have every right to express that view without being treated like commie pinkos. Shame on all of you for this interview.

DOWNLOAD (28)

PLAY (61)

I've complained about the Democratic TV surrogates before so this is just a follow up. Donna Brazile, you have to do better. Please, Obama needs your help. The Newties are trotting out their "Pelosi-Reid" liberal deck of cards to try and intimidate Americans to not vote for Obama. "Don't vote for Obama because the Democratic Party may control the White House and Congress and America can't afford that!" Right, because as we've seen, Conservatives really know how to govern this nation. Gingrich---for the most part is running McCain's campaign already (with Hannity's help of course) and gets enough time on FOX already so whay is he on ABC? OK, let me stay on point. When I watched ABC's THIS WEEK, I wondered why Donna was already throwing cold water on Obama's head if he actually does win the election in November.

Newt Gingrich: If Obama won and had a moderate House and a moderate Senate, he would probably be a moderate president. His temperament would lead him to be much more like Richard Daley than like Reverend Wright. He's not gonna have that. he's gonna have card check to take away your right to a secret ballot. He's going to have an effort to eliminate freedom of speech for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He's going to have a congress that wants to raise taxes, that wants to increase government --- is he really going to veto and fight with Pelosi and Reid? ... As the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, here is what their promising their allies they're going to do.

Donna Brazile: Yeah, but they're not in office Mr. Speaker. Senator Obama will inherit a 10 trillion dollar deficit and he's going to have to put things on the table that perhaps many of us would not like to see a Democratic president put on the table in terms of cutting back on spending, freezing hiring and making some real tough decisions. So, I think he will be constrained by the deficit and also by the fact that we're still in two major wars.

Continue reading »