Pure Horserace: War, Who Is It Good For?

White House Candidates Keep Iraq At Arm's Length

(CBS)  Whenever there's a big story, there's usually a politician or two trying to get a little attention out of it all. But as the war in Iraq turns four today, there's at least one breed of candidate keeping a distance — the presidential kind. The media is chronicling this anniversary today but not many of the 2008 hopefuls are rushing to jump in front of the cameras — and for good reasons.

Candidates in both parties have balancing acts to pull off. For Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, the war threatens to overshadow every other issue for voters next year — and unless things dramatically improve in the public's eyes, little else may matter.

Republicans can't afford to directly criticize President Bush's decision to go to war because it remains popular among those crucial activists who will determine the party's nominee. All they can do is what they've done — criticize around the edges. McCain has had harsh words for the post-invasion planning on the part of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example.

Democrats have much more freedom to be critical of both the initial decision to go to war and the execution of it, and they have been. But they run the risk of being pushed too far in that direction. Core voters in their party are increasingly insistent on purity on Iraq. Not only do they want U.S. troops out — now — they want their candidates who supported it in any way to issue public apologies.

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has refused to go as far as the rest of the field and apologize for her vote authorizing the war. She has paid for that refusal with plenty of criticism within her party. Beyond the nomination, however, Democrats don't want to be seen as pure doves. Despite the unpopularity of this war, 9/11 still resonates and voters may reject a pure anti-war party.

No candidate for president can go long without discussing Iraq; that's just a reality of our politics. And for the handful of them serving in Congress, there will be plenty of opportunities to assert themselves on the issue. But for all these candidates, it's safest to let Iraq continue to be the president's problem for as long as they can.


Rage Against The Machine: Her husband is sometimes called "Big Dog" among Democrats, but if Hillary Clinton wants her own giant-sized nickname, she might have to settle for "Big Brother" — if a popular YouTube clip is any indication.

The clip, which artfully inserts Clinton into the role of Big Brother in Apple's landmark "1984" Super Bowl ad and shows a woman in a Barack Obama shirt hurling a hammer at Clinton's visage, has been making the rounds since early March. But it has blown up in recent days thanks to some page one coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle and high placement on The Drudge Report.

Obama's campaign has denied any involvement with the fake commercial. But assuming that’s true, the ad's popularity again raises the question of how campaigns can control their message in the Internet age. In YouTube's case, maybe they'll end up taking a page out of Viacom's playbook — after all, that Obama logo seen in the ad is copyrighted.


Riddles Wrapped In Enigmas: There are two main schools of thought concerning the primary calendar as it appears to be shaping up. Iowa and New Hampshire will almost certainly retain their positions as the lead-off contests, with South Carolina and, Nevada perhaps squeezing in to grab some of the attention.

Then comes what is being called "Super-Duper Tuesday" — Feb. 5, a day that could see 20 or more states voting and possibly end the primary season. With so much at stake that day — delegate-rich states like California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and maybe even New York and Florida — what strategies should campaigns pursue?

Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist who managed Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, told CBSNews.com last week he believes those early contests will remain supremely important. Wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Trippi argued, will give a candidate enough momentum to carry them through those big states. Even those who have resources will have no time to recover, the thinking goes.

The other school of thought cautions against a campaign focused solely on the early states. Some candidates may raise as much as $100 million by next January and, used wisely, that could buy a lot of organization, media attention and TV ads in some of the bigger Feb. 5 states. With that date probably coming just three weeks after New Hampshire, early efforts could establish a firewall of sorts in these larger states that even momentum can't breach.

In the end, most of this "strategery" is probably most useful as a time-killing device for political junkies. We may see a candidate like Rudy Giuliani effectively skip Iowa or another of the four early states but almost certainly campaign hard in the rest of them. The real calculations will probably be a little more simple — those with the resources will spread them as far and wide as they can, while those without will bank on a breakthrough in the first contests.


Lost In Translation: Republican candidates' efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters have met with mixed results, but for decades they have enjoyed success with one group: Cubans. That's why Republican Mitt Romney, to paraphrase famous Cuban Desi Arnaz, might have some 'splainin' to do.

Campaigning last week in South Florida, Romney denounced the regime of Fidel Castro and his brother Raul — hated figures among a Cuban population that has remained loyal to the GOP and its strong anti-communist stance. But the Miami Herald reports that the crowd didn’t exactly shower Romney with applause when he ended his speech with the rallying cry "Patria o muerte, venceremos! "

The phrase, which means "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!" in English, has been used by Fidel Castro to end his bombastic speeches for years. Its prospects for showing up in future Romney speeches are not nearly as bright.

[frankly6]

The President finally has his Iraqi exit strategy in place. After the 2008 elections he's going to Disneyland.

[dallison7]

"We have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!"
That's right, they'll all get in their canoes and paddle across the Pacific Ocean to attack us in our homes... We must give more money to Haliburton so we can be safe!

Posted by huskerarmy

LOL!

One idiot even posted something the other day about how the Islamists are going to be running through our neighborhoods.

LMAO!!

Can't you just see them running down the sidewalk on your block shooting guns in the air and yelling that yell they do...
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

ROFLMAO!!!

[huskerarmy]

"We have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!"
That's right, they'll all get in their canoes and paddle across the Pacific Ocean to attack us in our homes... We must give more money to Haliburton so we can be safe!

[nufsedtc5ive]

What is wrong with civil war? Let them fight and the US can negotiate with the winner. I don't believe the 3 fighting factions, whom are fighting over the power of the reserves, will allow Al' Queda to control the oil. Maybe that is what the Iraqi people need, to unite. I think we should let the "terrorists" have Iraq, if they can beat the Iranian Sunnis, Syrias ****** and Turkeys Kurds. That way American will finally have a target on the "war on terror" and we can know where the "terrorists" live.

[nufsedtc5ive]

What is wrong with civil war? Let them fight and the US can negotiate with the winner. I don't believe the 3 fighting factions, whom are fighting over the power of the reserves, will allow Al' Queda to control the oil. Maybe that is what the Iraqi people need, to unite. I think we should let the "terrorists" have Iraq, if they can beat the Iranian Sunnis, Syrias ****** and Turkeys Kurds. That way American will finally have a target on the "war on terror" and we can know where the "terrorists" live.

[neoconrcrazy]

I find it hard to believe that some people still believe that if didn't go into Iraq, we would be fighting terrorists in our country. Give me a break.

seniorengine


well, it's true. And too many still believe Saddam and Al-Qaeda attacked us on 911.

this is because our pres/vp told the whole country not once, or twice, but dozens of time on national television & radio. We were lied to, pure and simple.

Now to cover up their misdeeds, they tell us - forget about saddam & al-qaeda - we have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!

Baloney!!!

[seniorengine]

j02281----"What were supposed to do after 9/11??? Go into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, just like we started to do. If our country would have spent 500 billion dollars in Afghanistan, I'm certain that Bin Laden would have been killed or captured. I find it hard to believe that some people still believe that if didn't go into Iraq, we would be fighting terrorists in our country. Give me a break. Why do you suppose that as soon as George Bush was informed about Sadam's capture, he immediately called his daddy.

[emhawks]

"When money talks, then truth is silent."
- Russian proverb

[long_rider]

"Republicans can't afford to directly criticize President Bush's decision to go to war because it remains popular among those crucial activists who will determine the party's nominee."

Again, here lies the problem, they want to take care of themselves, rather than do what is right. It makes no difference - Dem. or republican - take care of out political future, and let our men die.

Americans let's do what is right when you vote for these people, make Nixon a write-in candidate.

[clemenhagen1]

SCOTT: Read Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback"...a little dry but absolutely spot on regarding the impact of fifty years of covert meddling in places like the Middle East. Many American struggle to understand the appeal of Chavez and "why they dislike us so in Latin America." Johnson details the results of coups, military funding of unsavory sorts, and other such activities that now have a direct blowback affect on the events of today.