One take on the brouhaha by a Times blogger.And another by "The University of California regent who got that institution to dump affirmative action and then spearheaded successful California and Washington ballot initiatives overturning those states' affirmative action policies" who wrote Creating equal: my fight against race preferences.
The comment – made to the authors of a new book on the presidential campaign – is not so different from remarks Mr. Obama has made himself while navigating the complicated intersection of race and politics in America during his rapid rise to the White House.
It was only two years ago, after all, that Mr. Obama was struggling to persuade some African-American voters that he was black enough. His electoral prospects did not rise among many Democrats in the South Carolina primary, where black voters are critical, until winning the Iowa caucuses, where the vast share of voters are white. As Mr. Obama moved from state to state in the long Democratic primary fight, his policy proposals sounded mainly the same. But it was not unusual for his inflection and mannerisms to be a bit different.
When he spoke to some black audiences, Mr. Obama’s consonants tended to linger a bit. He would speak with a certain staccato and rhythm – particularly in churches – that he had not used when addressing white audiences in Iowa or New Hampshire. This, of course, is hardly unique to Mr. Obama.
.
Bubba's and Al Gore's southern twang always seemed to get heavier south of the Line.
Other black politicians have followed a similar pattern. And the same is true for many white politicians – Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example – when a Southern accent suddenly is more pronounced during a campaign speech below the Mason-Dixon Line.
For Mr. Obama, the pattern began well before he started running for president. It was noticeable as he gave speeches across the country as a freshman senator. One day in 2005, after he delivered an address in Detroit at an anniversary celebration of the N.A.A.C.P., I asked Mr. Obama about the differences. “I know if I’m in an all-black audience that there’s going to be a certain rhythm coming back at me from the audience. They’re not just going to be sitting there,” Mr. Obama told me. “That creates a different rhythm in your speaking.”
Throughout his presidential campaign, and during his time in the White House, many observers have suggested that Mr. Obama is uncomfortable talking about race. A more nuanced view, however, finds that he does not want race to be a distraction.
Ward Connerly: I'm still trying to figure out what was offensive about the Senate majority leader's comment. Me too.
WC is a bit more biting in his comments about people: As if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't have enough on his plate—trying to find sufficient cash to buy the 60 votes necessary for his health-care reform package—he's now found himself at the center of a race controversy.
Votes are always bought; that is what political compromise is about.
Leader Reid apologized to as many people as he could. Mr. Connerly has trhis to say: As I have observed coverage of this incident by the media and captains of the African-American community, I cannot help but be reminded of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who made remarks praising Strom Thurmond in 2002. Mr. Lott said of the segregationist: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we [Mississippians] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."
When Mr. Lott's controversy erupted, he apologized repeatedly and sincerely to one and all—even groveling on Black Entertainment Network—all to no avail. Black leaders were unforgiving and persisted in demanding that he either resign from his position or be removed. In the end, they got what they wanted.
All well and good, but the Republicans dumped him. The Bush White House dumped him. It wasn't just political correctness, but political calculation. Still, he does make good points.
For my part, I am having a difficult time determining what it was that Mr. Reid said that was so offensive. Was it because he suggested that lighter-skinned blacks fare better in American life than their darker brothers and sisters? If so, ask blacks whether they find this to be true. Even the lighter-skinned ones, if they are honest with themselves, will agree that there is a different level of acceptance.
Or, finally, could it be viewed as offensive that Mr. Reid suggested that blacks often have a distinctive way of speaking? If that is, indeed, the offense, then I will offend a lot of individuals when I assert that I can tell in probably 90% of the cases whether an individual is black merely by talking to him on the telephone.
No one else has had the nerve to say that openly, except, perhaps, Stanley Crouch.
“We have a certain script in our politics, and one of the scripts for black politicians is that for them to be authentically black they have to somehow offend white people,” Mr. Obama said. “And then if he puts a multiracial coalition together, he must somehow be compromising the efforts of the African-American community.”
“To use a street term,” Mr. Obama added, “we flipped the script.”
Few would dispute that Mr. Obama is a far smoother speaker than Mr. Reid. But were they saying essentially the same thing?
Showing posts with label Senator Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Reid. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Light-skinned, no accent
The latest brouhaha involves Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader, quoted in a new book (Game Change) as referring to Barack Obama had a chance of being elected because of his light skin and lack of "Negro" accent. Republicans are equating this incident with Trent Lott's having said a few years back that perhaps the US would have been better off if Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat candidacy for the presidency had been successful.
Equating those two incidents is palpably absurd. But what the Republicans need is a wedge, and they will try everything to get one.
This piece appeared in the Daily Beast website.
Harry Reid Was Right
by Peter Beinart
January 10, 2010 | 11:07pm
Yes, the Senate leader’s “light-skinned” comments about Obama were uncomfortable. But that’s because he spoke the truth about white attitudes—a truth even Colin Powell concedes.
Hell, of course it's true.
There’s nothing Americans love more than demanding “honest talk” about race and then kicking the teeth out of anyone who engages in it. Thus the tale of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is now in political purgatory because he told authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann that white people were more open to voting for Barack Obama because he’s “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect.” Reid’s use of the word “Negro” was, to be sure, unpleasantly retro. But everything else about his statement is undeniably correct. Political scientists have proved it. Famous African Americans have testified to it. So now Reid must be punished, because he said things about the contours of white racism that you’re not supposed to say, except behind closed doors, where everyone knows that they’re true.
First, skin color. White people (and perhaps African Americans and other minorities as well) are more likely to vote for lighter-skinned blacks. In 2007, when Harvard’s Jennifer Hochschild and the University of Virginia’s Vesla Weaver surveyed every African-American governor, senator and member of Congress since 1865, they found that light-skinned blacks were dramatically overrepresented as a share of the black population. Similarly, they found that when light-skinned blacks run for office, they win at higher rates than their darker-skinned brethren.
It has been written about: even many blacks prefer a lighter skin color. But to talk about that is very difficult.
But how do we know that this particular species of racism informs people’s view of Obama? Because in 2009, Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tilburg University in the Netherlands proved it. They showed three pictures of Obama—one lightened, one darkened and one undoctored—to people who planned to vote for him, and to people who did not. The Obama voters were significantly more likely to claim that the lightened photo was the real one. The McCain voters were more likely to claim that the darkened photo was.
How about “black” speech patterns? Yet again, social science is on Reid’s side. In 1999, Thomas Purnell of the University of Wisconsin, William Idsardi of the University of Delaware, and John Baugh of Stanford had people answer apartment-rental ads in the San Francisco area using a variety of dialects. The callers who “sounded black” were substantially less likely to secure an appointment to see the apartment than those who “sounded white.”
Is any of this really a surprise, in a country where the extent of one’s blackness, as well as the fact of one’s blackness, has been the basis of oppression for centuries? In the antebellum South, states like Louisiana even maintained special legal categories for “quadroons” and “octoroons,” blacks whose mixed-race ancestry allowed them rights denied their “full-blooded” brethren. And as African Americans generally understand better than whites, that legacy remains alive today. When asked in 1995 why white people liked him so much, Colin Powell replied that “I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”
So if what Reid said was palpably true, why is he in so much trouble? Yes, his use of the word “negro” was unattractive. But overall, his statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss. But it should be publicly discussed. Because amid the triumphalism that has followed Barack Obama’s election—the insistence, particularly on the right, that his election proves that racism has all but died out—it is worth remembering that while Obama’s election constitutes racial progress, it is also, peculiarly, testament to how far America still has to go.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Equating those two incidents is palpably absurd. But what the Republicans need is a wedge, and they will try everything to get one.
This piece appeared in the Daily Beast website.
Harry Reid Was Right
January 10, 2010 | 11:07pm
Yes, the Senate leader’s “light-skinned” comments about Obama were uncomfortable. But that’s because he spoke the truth about white attitudes—a truth even Colin Powell concedes.
Hell, of course it's true.
There’s nothing Americans love more than demanding “honest talk” about race and then kicking the teeth out of anyone who engages in it. Thus the tale of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is now in political purgatory because he told authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann that white people were more open to voting for Barack Obama because he’s “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect.” Reid’s use of the word “Negro” was, to be sure, unpleasantly retro. But everything else about his statement is undeniably correct. Political scientists have proved it. Famous African Americans have testified to it. So now Reid must be punished, because he said things about the contours of white racism that you’re not supposed to say, except behind closed doors, where everyone knows that they’re true.
First, skin color. White people (and perhaps African Americans and other minorities as well) are more likely to vote for lighter-skinned blacks. In 2007, when Harvard’s Jennifer Hochschild and the University of Virginia’s Vesla Weaver surveyed every African-American governor, senator and member of Congress since 1865, they found that light-skinned blacks were dramatically overrepresented as a share of the black population. Similarly, they found that when light-skinned blacks run for office, they win at higher rates than their darker-skinned brethren.
It has been written about: even many blacks prefer a lighter skin color. But to talk about that is very difficult.
Reid’s statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss.
But how do we know that this particular species of racism informs people’s view of Obama? Because in 2009, Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tilburg University in the Netherlands proved it. They showed three pictures of Obama—one lightened, one darkened and one undoctored—to people who planned to vote for him, and to people who did not. The Obama voters were significantly more likely to claim that the lightened photo was the real one. The McCain voters were more likely to claim that the darkened photo was.
How about “black” speech patterns? Yet again, social science is on Reid’s side. In 1999, Thomas Purnell of the University of Wisconsin, William Idsardi of the University of Delaware, and John Baugh of Stanford had people answer apartment-rental ads in the San Francisco area using a variety of dialects. The callers who “sounded black” were substantially less likely to secure an appointment to see the apartment than those who “sounded white.”
Is any of this really a surprise, in a country where the extent of one’s blackness, as well as the fact of one’s blackness, has been the basis of oppression for centuries? In the antebellum South, states like Louisiana even maintained special legal categories for “quadroons” and “octoroons,” blacks whose mixed-race ancestry allowed them rights denied their “full-blooded” brethren. And as African Americans generally understand better than whites, that legacy remains alive today. When asked in 1995 why white people liked him so much, Colin Powell replied that “I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”
So if what Reid said was palpably true, why is he in so much trouble? Yes, his use of the word “negro” was unattractive. But overall, his statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss. But it should be publicly discussed. Because amid the triumphalism that has followed Barack Obama’s election—the insistence, particularly on the right, that his election proves that racism has all but died out—it is worth remembering that while Obama’s election constitutes racial progress, it is also, peculiarly, testament to how far America still has to go.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Reid owns health care overhaul
Senator Harry Reid, left, the majority leader, on Thursday with Senator Christopher J. Dodd at a Capitol Hill news conference.
This one had better work. Defeat is not an option.
Colleagues say Mr. Reid’s extensive knowledge of Senate tactics and well-honed understanding of what drives and divides his Democratic colleagues leave him well positioned to pull off a legislative coup that has eluded seasoned and determined lawmakers for decades.
“I don’t think there are many people in the whole world other than Harry Reid who could do this,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, one of the lawmakers who have been a thorn in Mr. Reid’s side with their reluctance to commit to supporting a preliminary vote to open debate. That vote is set for Saturday evening.
The looming vote is the first of what are certain to be multiple tests of Mr. Reid’s ability to deliver all 60 votes under nominal Democratic control in the Senate — 58 Democrats and 2 independents, and precisely the minimum number needed to overcome Republican blocking tactics.
Whatever their opinions, I do not understand how any senator can vote against debate. Senators Landrieu and Nelson appear ready to vote for reporting the bill to the floor. Senator Lincoln's opinion is guarded. Republicans, of course, are opposed as a bloc.
But Mr. Reid, who is known more as a legislative tactician than as a man steeped in public policy, appeared to have succeeded in fashioning a starting point for the health care fight that left most Senate Democrats satisfied even though all have one quarrel or another with the measure.
On Thursday, Mr. Reid traced the bill’s roots to another Harry — President Harry S. Truman, who wrote to Congress on Nov. 19, 1945, urging creation of a national health insurance program.
But at the moment, the legislation and the outcome are clearly in the majority leader’s hands.
This one had better work. Defeat is not an option.
Colleagues say Mr. Reid’s extensive knowledge of Senate tactics and well-honed understanding of what drives and divides his Democratic colleagues leave him well positioned to pull off a legislative coup that has eluded seasoned and determined lawmakers for decades.
“I don’t think there are many people in the whole world other than Harry Reid who could do this,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, one of the lawmakers who have been a thorn in Mr. Reid’s side with their reluctance to commit to supporting a preliminary vote to open debate. That vote is set for Saturday evening.
The looming vote is the first of what are certain to be multiple tests of Mr. Reid’s ability to deliver all 60 votes under nominal Democratic control in the Senate — 58 Democrats and 2 independents, and precisely the minimum number needed to overcome Republican blocking tactics.
Whatever their opinions, I do not understand how any senator can vote against debate. Senators Landrieu and Nelson appear ready to vote for reporting the bill to the floor. Senator Lincoln's opinion is guarded. Republicans, of course, are opposed as a bloc.
But Mr. Reid, who is known more as a legislative tactician than as a man steeped in public policy, appeared to have succeeded in fashioning a starting point for the health care fight that left most Senate Democrats satisfied even though all have one quarrel or another with the measure.
On Thursday, Mr. Reid traced the bill’s roots to another Harry — President Harry S. Truman, who wrote to Congress on Nov. 19, 1945, urging creation of a national health insurance program.
But at the moment, the legislation and the outcome are clearly in the majority leader’s hands.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Senator? Secretary of State?
I happen to think that the Obama organization is managing the news cycle perfectly. Pundits, such as Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, are agonizing over the Clinton drama being played out over the airwaves, in newspapers, and on the electronic news network. Why, they wonder, are the Clintons front and center? What ever happened to no-drama-Obama? This is change?
I believe that they are part of the show that the Obama team is producing and directing with aplomb (complete confidence and self-assurance), and expertly. Who coul dhave failed to guess that the Clintons would leak all over the place? (Last night Chris Matthews remarked with incredulity how much of a source of leaked news the Wall Street Journal has become for Democrtas.) Who would not have known that the Clinton drama would be played out before the world?
Obama and his team would not have been so foolish and naive, now are they. It was not accidentally that the first leak of the Clinton trip to Chicago occured before the G-20 summit; releasing it then was purposeful. As I see it, either an Obama source leaked it, or just as credibly, the invitation was made at that particular time, with the expectation that not only would there be a Clinton leak, but that the Senator would be seen by the media, and the story would inflate rapidly. As it has.
Why involve her? Chris Matthews admitted, he of a thousand opinions and confidence to the point of arrogance, that he is baffled. Others continually talk about The Team of Rivals, the Kearns Goodwin book-inspired discussion of doing as Lincoln did: putting his rivals in the Cabinet, keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer; or, as attributed the LBJ, rather having her inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
But there is little original thinking being done. The same concepts are bandied about, repeated, agonized over, and have become conventional wisdom. The only original thoughts I've heard the last few days came from Richard Wolffe and Howard Fineman, both of Newsweek, whom I see on MSNBC. Matthews hardly lets Fineman, or anyone else talk, without many interruptions.
The opinions of these two are different, and, I think, more accurate, but because they are outside the confines of conmventional wisdom, are not picked up on.
Here's a story on the http://www.msnbc.msn.com website today:
Just how much 'change' is coming? Nov. 21: A star-studded panel weighs in on how President-elect Barack Obama is handling the assembly of a new cabinet and how much change Americans will see in Washington.
The point is being missed: Obama said change from Bush. If he does not want to form his government with novices and inexperienced folks, then he has to get people who served in the Clinton Administration.
So consider this article's geadline: An Option for Clinton: Enhanced Senate Role. There is so much spin going on that it is easy to get dizzy.
Democratic leaders in the Senate are prepared to give Senator Clinton a still-undefined leadership role there if she does not become secretary of state, Democratic officials close to the situation said Thursday.
And of course it is said this happened before the President-elect approach to Senator Clinton. SO who leaked this one? Smells Clintonite. Could be an Obama ally.
Although advisers to Mr. Obama have said he has not made a formal offer, most Democrats believe the decision is hers to make, and friends said Thursday that she was wavering. One friend said Mrs. Clinton decided late Wednesday to say no, reasoning that she would have more freedom in the Senate. By midday Thursday, the friend said, she was “back in the indecisive column again.” By the end of the day, another associate said she could accept by Friday.
Now there is a Clinton leak: a friend? Sure. And that's vintage Clinton: public drama. But they are not in control, so she is being careful.
At the end of a confused day in which even Mr. Obama’s advisers seemed unsure what was happening, a transition official reached out to reporters Thursday night to say that the president-elect’s team believed things were on track with Mrs. Clinton and that her nomination could be announced after Thanksgiving. The decision could affect the composition of Mr. Obama’s overall national security team as he tries to balance personalities and experience. The formation of that team appeared fluid Thursday. A senior Democratic adviser said Mr. Obama had talked with a retired Marine general, James L. Jones, former commander of NATO, about serving as secretary of state or national security adviser.
A counter-leak. So Washington is pinning in feverish speculation about whether the two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination would team up. Mrs. Clinton was keeping counsel only with a tight circle of confidants, leaving even prominent veterans of the Clinton political operation guessing as to her intentions.
Spinning is a perfect word for the drma playing out in the heart of American politics.
But driving her consideration, friends said, is a sense of disenchantment with the Senate, where despite her stature she remains low in the ranks of seniority that governs the body. She was particularly upset, they said, at the reception she felt she received when she returned from the campaign after collecting 18 million votes and almost becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party.
Another Clinton leak: she was not greeted as a returning conqueror, so she is upset. Yet she is unsure whether she wants to leave the Senate, lose her independence, and become a Cabinet member.
I'd say Obama has her in a quandary, painted into a corner, yet giving her a way out. He is in control.
I believe that they are part of the show that the Obama team is producing and directing with aplomb (complete confidence and self-assurance), and expertly. Who coul dhave failed to guess that the Clintons would leak all over the place? (Last night Chris Matthews remarked with incredulity how much of a source of leaked news the Wall Street Journal has become for Democrtas.) Who would not have known that the Clinton drama would be played out before the world?
Obama and his team would not have been so foolish and naive, now are they. It was not accidentally that the first leak of the Clinton trip to Chicago occured before the G-20 summit; releasing it then was purposeful. As I see it, either an Obama source leaked it, or just as credibly, the invitation was made at that particular time, with the expectation that not only would there be a Clinton leak, but that the Senator would be seen by the media, and the story would inflate rapidly. As it has.
Why involve her? Chris Matthews admitted, he of a thousand opinions and confidence to the point of arrogance, that he is baffled. Others continually talk about The Team of Rivals, the Kearns Goodwin book-inspired discussion of doing as Lincoln did: putting his rivals in the Cabinet, keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer; or, as attributed the LBJ, rather having her inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
But there is little original thinking being done. The same concepts are bandied about, repeated, agonized over, and have become conventional wisdom. The only original thoughts I've heard the last few days came from Richard Wolffe and Howard Fineman, both of Newsweek, whom I see on MSNBC. Matthews hardly lets Fineman, or anyone else talk, without many interruptions.
The opinions of these two are different, and, I think, more accurate, but because they are outside the confines of conmventional wisdom, are not picked up on.
Here's a story on the http://www.msnbc.msn.com website today:
Just how much 'change' is coming? Nov. 21: A star-studded panel weighs in on how President-elect Barack Obama is handling the assembly of a new cabinet and how much change Americans will see in Washington.
The point is being missed: Obama said change from Bush. If he does not want to form his government with novices and inexperienced folks, then he has to get people who served in the Clinton Administration.
So consider this article's geadline: An Option for Clinton: Enhanced Senate Role. There is so much spin going on that it is easy to get dizzy.
Democratic leaders in the Senate are prepared to give Senator Clinton a still-undefined leadership role there if she does not become secretary of state, Democratic officials close to the situation said Thursday.
And of course it is said this happened before the President-elect approach to Senator Clinton. SO who leaked this one? Smells Clintonite. Could be an Obama ally.
Although advisers to Mr. Obama have said he has not made a formal offer, most Democrats believe the decision is hers to make, and friends said Thursday that she was wavering. One friend said Mrs. Clinton decided late Wednesday to say no, reasoning that she would have more freedom in the Senate. By midday Thursday, the friend said, she was “back in the indecisive column again.” By the end of the day, another associate said she could accept by Friday.
Now there is a Clinton leak: a friend? Sure. And that's vintage Clinton: public drama. But they are not in control, so she is being careful.
At the end of a confused day in which even Mr. Obama’s advisers seemed unsure what was happening, a transition official reached out to reporters Thursday night to say that the president-elect’s team believed things were on track with Mrs. Clinton and that her nomination could be announced after Thanksgiving. The decision could affect the composition of Mr. Obama’s overall national security team as he tries to balance personalities and experience. The formation of that team appeared fluid Thursday. A senior Democratic adviser said Mr. Obama had talked with a retired Marine general, James L. Jones, former commander of NATO, about serving as secretary of state or national security adviser.
A counter-leak. So Washington is pinning in feverish speculation about whether the two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination would team up. Mrs. Clinton was keeping counsel only with a tight circle of confidants, leaving even prominent veterans of the Clinton political operation guessing as to her intentions.
Spinning is a perfect word for the drma playing out in the heart of American politics.
But driving her consideration, friends said, is a sense of disenchantment with the Senate, where despite her stature she remains low in the ranks of seniority that governs the body. She was particularly upset, they said, at the reception she felt she received when she returned from the campaign after collecting 18 million votes and almost becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party.
Another Clinton leak: she was not greeted as a returning conqueror, so she is upset. Yet she is unsure whether she wants to leave the Senate, lose her independence, and become a Cabinet member.
I'd say Obama has her in a quandary, painted into a corner, yet giving her a way out. He is in control.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Friends say Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lack of seniority in a chamber that is run by it has left her somewhat disenchanted.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Jack Reed Gives Obama Cover on Iraq
An interesting profile of the Democratic Senator from Rhode Island (Sheldon Whitehouse - o, yeah, what a name: what if he ever runs for President? He'll be Mr. Whitehouse who lives in the White House). Seib is a WSJ columnist, which almost by definition means conservative. And he is.
He has been mostly a reliable liberal on domestic issues and a low-profile player on defense issues. Slight of build and unpretentious in manner, he has never been a high-profile player. But he began to stand out on Iraq when he was one of 21 Democrats to vote against a resolution authorizing use of force in 2002. Once the war began, though, he adjusted, pushing for more funding for the conflict, and specifically money to ease the strains on his old service, the Army.
A good, reliable liberal from New England. We could use more like him.
He also began a series of regular trips to Iraq, noteworthy for their emphasis on getting out of the protective bubble in Baghdad and into the field for interviews with Army officers, some of whom he knows from his own Army days. After each trip, he composes a lengthy written report and circulates several hundred copies to members of Congress and Army officers.
What a wonderful thing to do: to write a report, and to distribute it widely. He's been to Iraq 12 times, and gets out of Baghdad. So his perspective is an educated one.
What has emerged from all this has been an intense focus on changing the role U.S. troops are playing in Iraq. He has been more cautious on an Iraq withdrawal than has Sen. Obama. While Sen. Obama has, as a presidential candidate, declared that he would start a withdrawal immediately and complete it within 16 months, Sen. Reed hasn't adopted that fixed timetable as his position.
He sn't running for president, so his stance can be nuanced. I do not understand commentators harping on consistency and flip-flopping: having a nuanced stance condemns candidates to being marginalized; slogans and positions are what get noticed, and it is how people run for office.
Instead, his efforts in the Senate have focused on pushing repeatedly, in an amendment he sponsors with Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, to change the mission for U.S. troops from combat and security to counterterrorism and training. That amendment has been offered in various forms, and in one version called for making this change in mission within nine months, but has focused more on the mission and a phased withdrawal than on a timetable.
A good way to go, something that should've been done two, three years ago, and hasn't been emphasized because the Bush government doesn't know what it is doing.
The tantalizing question is whether any of this might translate into a vice-presidential bid. It doesn't seem highly likely. In electoral-college terms, Sen. Reed would deliver exactly nothing. His home state of Rhode Island is already reliably Democratic, having gone that way in every presidential election since 1984. And Sen. Reed isn't well-known around the nation.
He has been mostly a reliable liberal on domestic issues and a low-profile player on defense issues. Slight of build and unpretentious in manner, he has never been a high-profile player. But he began to stand out on Iraq when he was one of 21 Democrats to vote against a resolution authorizing use of force in 2002. Once the war began, though, he adjusted, pushing for more funding for the conflict, and specifically money to ease the strains on his old service, the Army.
A good, reliable liberal from New England. We could use more like him.
He also began a series of regular trips to Iraq, noteworthy for their emphasis on getting out of the protective bubble in Baghdad and into the field for interviews with Army officers, some of whom he knows from his own Army days. After each trip, he composes a lengthy written report and circulates several hundred copies to members of Congress and Army officers.
What a wonderful thing to do: to write a report, and to distribute it widely. He's been to Iraq 12 times, and gets out of Baghdad. So his perspective is an educated one.
What has emerged from all this has been an intense focus on changing the role U.S. troops are playing in Iraq. He has been more cautious on an Iraq withdrawal than has Sen. Obama. While Sen. Obama has, as a presidential candidate, declared that he would start a withdrawal immediately and complete it within 16 months, Sen. Reed hasn't adopted that fixed timetable as his position.
He sn't running for president, so his stance can be nuanced. I do not understand commentators harping on consistency and flip-flopping: having a nuanced stance condemns candidates to being marginalized; slogans and positions are what get noticed, and it is how people run for office.
Instead, his efforts in the Senate have focused on pushing repeatedly, in an amendment he sponsors with Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, to change the mission for U.S. troops from combat and security to counterterrorism and training. That amendment has been offered in various forms, and in one version called for making this change in mission within nine months, but has focused more on the mission and a phased withdrawal than on a timetable.
A good way to go, something that should've been done two, three years ago, and hasn't been emphasized because the Bush government doesn't know what it is doing.
The tantalizing question is whether any of this might translate into a vice-presidential bid. It doesn't seem highly likely. In electoral-college terms, Sen. Reed would deliver exactly nothing. His home state of Rhode Island is already reliably Democratic, having gone that way in every presidential election since 1984. And Sen. Reed isn't well-known around the nation.
But he does offer genuine national-security credentials and a similar view on Iraq, one rooted in personal and professional expertise. And for a candidate with Sen. Obama's profile, short as it is on personal experience on national security, those wouldn't be bad things to have around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)