A Time To Lead

It is time for decision on the Iraq debacle. The White House is demanding more money to keep the troops in Iraq. The Bush folks have shown their public relations mastery by rolling out a disingenuous campaign to claim "progress" on the ground in Iraq. General David Petraeus, the political general with a notorious record of trumpeting mythical success in Iraq, will seek to retain as many troops in action as he thinks the Army can sustain without disintegrating.

For the moment, Republicans appear to have made the political calculation that they have no choice but to stand with the purblind president and his general. Their leading presidential candidates have toed the line. Their vulnerable senators are keeping their heads down. Their zealots have been effusive about the supposed progress wrought by the "surge" in Iraq.

Democrats in the Congress are signaling preemptive retreat. There's talk about a bipartisan resolution that requires the president to start taking some troops out early next year, but imposes no exit date. This is a recipe for continued occupation, which will squander more lives and resources while bolstering al Qaeda's recruitment across the world.

Antiwar activists are mobilizing both against Republicans who should be leading the way out of Iraq and against Democrats who are backsliding. There's talk about supporting primary opponents against those who disappoint.

What's missing from this picture? The Democratic candidates for president have not yet been heard from. In the run-up to the last showdown with the president, former Senator John Edwards called on the Congress to end the war and mobilized his supporters to push the Congress to stand up. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said little, and did not even reveal how they would vote until the last moment. That won't work this time.

It is time to lead. The person who hopes to capture the Democratic presidential nomination should demonstrate clarity in opposing the war, commitment to bringing the troops home and capacity to lead. It is time not simply to stand and be counted; it is time to lead colleagues that are faltering and to put Republicans on notice that this time, the Democratic nominee means what he or she says.

Leadership by the presidential candidates can rally congressional Democrats while putting conflicted Republican senators on notice that there will be a big price to pay in continuing to support the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.

Leadership in this debate is a central criterion for the nomination, far more important than how a candidate looks in the debates or how much money the campaign raises. Any Democratic nominee will face a pro-war Republican who will charge the Democrats with weakness and with cutting and running. The Democratic flag-bearer will have to make a compelling case to the American people about why this misbegotten occupation must be brought to an end. If a candidate for the nomination doesn't stand up now, then he or she can't be expected to stand up then. If the candidate can't rally his or her colleagues now, then little can be expected in the campaign. If a Democratic contender can't enlist the support of worried Republicans stranded with a most unpopular president in support of a most unpopular war, then any claim that he or she knows how to get things done or can usher in a new era of change is called into question.

Democrats universally want to nominate a candidate who can win. But no Democrat can win unless they can carry the argument against the fiasco in Iraq to the American people. Over the next weeks, we will find out just who is up to that mission and who is not. It is time to lead.

Comments

[RACaplan]

It is now time for Hillary and Barack to step up to the plate. They need to be twisting arms to get the votes necessary to end this war. Either may be the next POTUS. This fact should be stressed while encouraging any Senator, Democratic or Republican, to get on board. After all, who wants to disappoint the next leader of the free world. Political capital is earned. A friend in the White House cannot be overestimated.

On the other hand, if Senators Clinton and Obama sit back quietly and don't get actively engaged in ending this war, they will not be seen as leaders deserving of the Presidency. They will be ceding the nomination to Edwards who does display such leadership qualities.

[HumeSkeptic]

Edwards talks about the need to re-establish America’s moral leadership in the world. Edwards is exactly right. Kucinich, Dodds and Richardson and others feel the same way.

It also seems clear that any of the Democratic candidates, if elected, would end the Iraq Fraud.

But we need more.

After six years of disastrous NeoCon rule, crimes against humanity, pictures of torture committed by us and of phosphorus charred bodies of Iraqi babies, America is in desperate need of a moral compass.

In so far as all morality is fundamentally based on preservation, betterment and continuation of life, there is no higher morality than environmentalism. All religions pale by comparison. Morality, when associated with religion, is limited and parochial. It is primarily focused on preservation, betterment and continuation of humans, but not all humans, only those following a particular belief system. Even when it pretends to extend beyond that parochial realm – for example, “Love thy neighbor” and “Thou shalt not kill”, religious morality is limited to human life. Environmentalism, on the other hand, encompasses preservation, betterment and continuation of all life, and, therefore, is the highest level of morality.

The need to rediscover our conscience and a moral compass is paramount. Without it, the deep wounds inflicted to America’s soul by the fascist Bush-Cheney cabal may take decades to heal.

Al Gore is the only electable leader, from either Party, offering not only sound ideas on other important issues of the day (health care, education, etc.), but the desperately needed moral leadership.

Whatever Gore’s weaknesses might have been in the past, he appears to have overcome most, and he has emerged as an indisputable world leader.

America needs Al Gore, desperately.

[Steamboater]

Forget Al Gore. He's not running and he's waited too long to declare his candidacy anyway. You can only flirt with the idea with the press for so long and then it becomes very hard on a campaign to surge forward if you do declare you're running. Look at Fred Thomspon. The jerk waited too long and now he's a joke.

[HumeSkeptic]

Thanks for the advice. I don't give up that easily. Too much is at stake.

[Steamboater]

The democrats are sitting on the crest of a wave of support to end this war from the American people and end it fast and bring all the troops home yet these candidates, by their refusal to show any leadership on refuting republican reasons to keep us in Iraq and therefore let that wave drown the republicans in their own blood, have shown they don't deserve the White House. All of them are empty suits catering to what they think people want to hear, yet what democrats for the most part want to hear is a fast withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and speeches so powerful as to make republicans look in the mirror with shame.

[Steamboater]

You want leadership from the democrats? You're better off with a guide dog. The leading candidates e.g., Clinton, Obama and Edwards would rather get crowds cheering with offeres to end the war. They don't say how of course and also leave open the very great possibility that Americans won't leave completely.
As far as leadership to cut these republicans off at the pass this week, all three of them sit back like cowards afraid to open their mouths.

[happytrails]

Read thru these comments and find support for HRC, if you can. She is NOT the front runner either here or among the many dems I talk to. Anyone who has watched her opperate KNOWS she is neither a leader nor a person with an agenda FOR THE US. Her agenda is to get elected. PERIOD.

Please, President Gore, take back the stolen elections!

[Shane]

We need a leader - Indeed
To talk about the harsh brutal
bloody reality that is Iraq -
This is how we got there -
These are the brutal mistakes we made -
This is what we must do now -

This should also must be stated -
At this point there are no good options -
This is the reality of the situation -

We owe the Iraqis bigtime -
millions of Iraqi refugees -
families ripped apart -
We need a leader who understands
that America owes the Iraqis more
then ever can be repaid -


America, your bloody arrogance
and fear has ripped the country
of Iraq apart.
America, open up your heart and tell
the Iraqi people how truly sorry
you are for all the damage you
have done to them.

America, say to the Iraqi people that
if it is possible we will help them to
rebuild the infra-structure of their
country. We will give them money to help
rebuild their schools and hospitals.
America, ask the Iraqi people for their
forgiveness.

[Semper]

And where is Hillary.

[elleng]

Thank you, sir, for calling for A Time to Lead. General Wesley Clark's book of that title has just been released, and it could not have arrived at a better time.

General Clark IS THE NECESSARY CANDIDATE, and we must carry his banner NOW.

Information about General Clark's experience can be found at http://securingamerica.com/

[elleng]

Thank you, sir, for calling for A Time to Lead. General Wesley Clark's book of that title has just been released, and it could not have arrived at a better time. As you have said,

'Leadership in this debate is a central criterion for the nomination, far more important than how a candidate looks in the debates or how much money the campaign raises,' and there is no more suitable person than General Clark for the job. You, sir, have well described the necessary characteristics.

'The person who hopes to capture the Democratic presidential nomination should demonstrate clarity in opposing the war, commitment to bringing the troops home and capacity to lead. It is time not simply to stand and be counted; it is time to lead colleagues that are faltering and to put Republicans on notice that this time, the Democratic nominee means what he or she says.

'Leadership by the presidential candidates can rally congressional Democrats while putting conflicted Republican senators on notice that there will be a big price to pay in continuing to support the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.'

Due to his talents and experience, General Clark IS THE NECESSARY CANDIDATE, and we must carry his banner NOW.

Please read about his talents and experience at http://securingamerica.com.

[ECJLA]

Some recent historical perspective:

In 1984 Gary Hart won the New Hampshire primary by 10% point landslide. The man had a bead on how to be a historical change agent. Basically through a forceful critique of both parties' lassitude and (differing) special interest driven inertia. It was very refreshing and energizing to the public, who rallied to him en masse after 4 years of Carter malaise followed by 4 years of Reagan's dangerous brinkmanship and authoritarianism. Hart "hit a gusher”.

Times change and what was refreshing in '84 is no longer much of a basis for candidacy. Obama is trying to sell a lukewarm version of it in '07-'08, and will get nowhere most likely, hullabaloo re Oprah, etc. aside. Hillary is the Mondale of 2008.

What is called for in '07-'08 and in two terms beyond is an equal but opposite “public interest” version of the Bush “private interest” presidency, using most if not all the tools the right will bequeath via their crackpot unitary presidency precedents to UNDO ALL OF THE DAMAGE of the Reagan revolution, and resume progress on enlightenment ideals.

Had anyone run on this platform he or she would have won both the 2008 Democratic nomination and the general election in a landslide.

Alas, elite Democrats believe that lockstep regimentation is only for Republicans, and that Dems shouldn't emulate Republicans in this respect.

Had they been more open to the fervent ideas of the activist community, such as Robert's, they could have brainstormed their way to just such an exciting progressive Dem campaign appropriate to the times. Elite Dems must think deep down, that most of their ardent activist liberal supporters are inappropriate close confidants. (Whereas it would never occur to Bush to reject his core conservative cadres.)

While it is too late for 2008, following the Dems likely defeat in the November 2008 presidential election, there is always the possibility Hart, Gore, Dean or someone new can run a well planned militant victorious Democratic presidential campaign in 2012.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[Boadicea]

interesting post, thanks.

I don't think the campaign you suggest could win in this country today. This is a conservative, business-minded country. It's become a lot less public-interest focused, and a lot more me-focused since 1984. Add to that the notion that others are trying to take our American Dream away from us, and you have a country ripe for an anti-socialist campaign to win.

It's interesting to me that so many progressives who spend time online don't understand that they are a minority. The majority supports a progressive agenda to a point, but not to the point that those of us on these blogs seem to think.

[ECJLA]

When conservatives were drubbed in 1964 they persisted and eventually prevailed. When liberals were drubbed in 1972 they surrendered. That was the "original sin" of the contemporary political era. The country has been ready for a staunchly liberal public interest presidency for some time, but nothing and no one of the highest caliber is on offer.
Had FDR's generation similarly sulked following Harding's succession of Wilson, the country would have remained mired in Depression and not have joined the Allies in WW2.

When ideals are not advocated in the public sphere, resignation sets in. Politics at root is about moral choices, including the existence of a balance between self and social concerns to which you allude. The public overwhelmingly supports the liberal view on these moral choices, properly framed.

The right couldn't and wouldn't last 5 minutes in debate with serious liberals, but such voices are not represented in media discussion and haven't been for decades. Commercial television managers in particular are expert gatekeepers and vet alleged exponents of liberalism for weakness and ineptitude. Televised liberals are like sparring partners for rightists to beat up on. Real varsity liberals would punch the blithering idiot rightists' lights out (figuratively speaking of course).

In the 19th century, Emerson observed that American politics alternated between staunch conservativism and staunch liberalism, and considered it healthy. The country wasn't nearly as right-wing as Reagan when he ran in 1980 but elected him partly because he was a blunt reactionary, and the public perceived his platform might remedy Carter's malaise (overlooking that it would be like going from the frying pan into the fire).

Public interest ideals are actually moderate and reformist in substance, but have to contended-for militantly, giving no truck whatsoever to rightist detractors. That is what current contenders for the presidency don't get. And btw, judging from his Huffpost today, a stellar candidate of yesteryear, Gary Hart, still does.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[kjg25171]

There are 3 democratic candidates who have taken an unequivocal stand on Iraq. They are Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Now go and check the experience they have had in the field of foreign affairs.

Bill Richardson wins hands down.

[Boadicea]

If only he could campaign....

[pmfelipe]

There is only one candidate who has been right on this war from the very beginning and that is Dennis Kucinich. Edwards, Obama and Clinton all voted for this war or voted to fund this war. Edwards primarily is talking against this war after he co-sponsored the Iraq Authorization Bill with Lieberman. He said he made a mistake. How can he make a mistake when he's got all the intelligence report that showed that Bush lied because he is in the intelligence committee. Durbin who is also in that committee confessed that they know Bush lied. His voting record runs contrary to his rhetoric. He is just another opportunist.

[elleng]

Thank you, sir, for calling for A Time to Lead. General Wesley Clark's book of that title has just been released, and it could not have arrived at a better time.

'Leadership in this debate is a central criterion for the nomination, far more important than how a candidate looks in the debates or how much money the campaign raises,' and there is no more suitable person than General Clark for the job. You, sir, have well described the necessary characteristics.

'The person who hopes to capture the Democratic presidential nomination should demonstrate clarity in opposing the war, commitment to bringing the troops home and capacity to lead. It is time not simply to stand and be counted; it is time to lead colleagues that are faltering and to put Republicans on notice that this time, the Democratic nominee means what he or she says.

'Leadership by the presidential candidates can rally congressional Democrats while putting conflicted Republican senators on notice that there will be a big price to pay in continuing to support the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.'

General Clark IS THE NECESSARY CANDIDATE, and we must carry his banner NOW.

http://securingamerica.com/

[researcher]

demo's lead it is very hard to lead when they are bent over.

they got a mandate in 2006 to end this illegal war and instead they only are looking at 2008.

hopefully they will get a surprise from we independent voters fed up with them playing politics as usual while american lives and iraqi lives are being lost daily.

[RogerHWerner]

I'm no politician but it doesn't take one to understand that the folks with the most to lose are the current presidential candidates. Are these people so blind that they can't see that prolonging the Iraq debacle means extending it into the presidency of who ever wins in 2008? It doesn't matter who wins then, if the Iraq issue continues to drag on and I expect that is what will occur, and, if the situation actually deteriorates, which is likely to occur, these people are setting themselves up to be a one term president. The hell with what's right...how about reacting in one's self interest?