Wouldn't it be loverly!

Des Moines Register

Yes, I was an early Richardson supporter. He's got a great resume, and he's a governor. American's seem to prefer governors. But let's face reality. If you're a Richardson supporter at the Iowa caucus you're going to have to make a second choice. That choice can be "uncommitted." But I would be going for Obama. As Bill Clinton says, it's rolling the dice. But what choice isn't?

I love Obama vs. Huckabee. They say with Obama you give up the South. That may be true, unless all the African-Americans come out on election day. But so give up the South. Huckabee won't cloak his true self the way Bush did. And he'll scare the bejesus out of a lot of people.

Here's also why I like Obama: It may be a Quixotic calling, but he is the one person who could change the tone of politics in this country. Also, he's best suited to change the world's view of the U.S. and begin to lessen the threat of terrorism by reducing the irritation that we are.

I hope he chooses Richardson as his running mate. Or if not, makes him Secretary of State.


Note: On the Democratic side, supporters of candidates who receive less than 15% in the first round at any caucus site have to make a second choice. According to the Register poll, that leaves 19% of the vote in flux and I don't believe any poll has asked for or figured in the second choice effect.Read more about the process here.

Sphere: Related Content

What was the purpose...

...of (Democrats in) Congress calling for a report by Gen. Petraeus?

Is it the role of Congress to manage a war? To decide how troops should be rotated? I don't believe so.

Is it the role of Congress to investigate how funds it authorizes are being spent? You betcha.

When it comes to government programs created by Congress, it is up to them to decide whether to change those programs.

I believe when it comes to war Congress has two roles:

1. Authorize military action or declare war
   

2. Fund it. Or not.
   

Thus, if Congress, having authorized war (or not), does not believe it is in America's interest to continue the war as conducted by the Commander in Chief, they need to stop funding it.

Saying that this can't be done without endangering the troops is bullshit. I think if you remove the troops from Iraq, they will be in less danger. We're not talking about taking away their armor (you know, the armor that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't give them).

There is only one candidate for president currently in Congress who has had the balls to vote against funding this war, Dennis Kucinich. Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson have also called for pulling all troops out of Iraq. These are the only candidates for president taking this position.

We know the Democratic leadership can't muster enough votes to end the war. But trying to monkey around with it won't help. This is not a place for pragmatic compromise or tricks to try affecting the conduct of the war. Either take a real position or don't bother.

Sphere: Related Content