Since I'm not an idiot, I use Open Office. Just like, since I'm not an idiot, I won't be voting for Clinton.

Iraq supplemental funding, basically fighting for a version of the House bill in the Senate. This also would've fit in with his otherwise inept remarks saying Democrats should not get caught up 'playing chicken' with the troops.

I suggested this in a diary 2/3 weeks ago at dailykos and received nothing but flame from Obama partisans. Such an 'absolutely no criticism or pressure allowed' approach is not very helpful to their candidate.

But the problem for Obama, I suppose, is that he doesn't believe in short-leash funding. In other words, (like Hillary and Edwards) he's not particularly liberal on the Iraq issue.

I have long believed that in order for someone other than Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, there has to be a compelling narrative and cluster of ideas in favor of that candidate, even more so than there must be an argument against Clinton. - Chris Bowers

Absolutely.

In another example of successful blurring, Lieberman closed any daylight between Lamont on his signature issue of Iraq troop withdrawal during the general election, stating "If I am honored to be re-elected on Tuesday, I will work day and night, with left and right, to find a way to get our service men and women home from Iraq as soon as possible without compromising America's security."

Couple of things.

One, Clinton's blurring of the Obama/Clinton "voting records" ignores the fact that Obama wasn't in the Senate to "vote" his loud disapproval of the war -- even though he was publicly adamantly against it. This fits a "not-dishonest" Clinton pattern that obscures reality for the Clintons' benefit.

Two, Richardson is simply pandering. It is not possible to remove 145,000 soldiers, plus tanks, armor, munitions, and thousands more logistics and construction personnel, out of a country in even six months (esp one as war-torn as Iraq). Aside from the fact that Richardson's promise in and of itself is not credible, he was the Clintons' foreign policy arm for most of Clinton's tenure. Is that consistent with his (suspiciously convenient) foreign policy?

I would say a year is the shortest possible withdrawal timeframe, at a terrible cost to American credibility, higher American casualties, and so on. Obama is--gasp!--being honest about this.

Thirdly: Clinton draws larger crowds and more activist support?!

Fourthly: Hillary is the Democratic dream candidate for the GOP. This is not a bogus anti-Hillary talking point; it's the hard truth.

I am tired of the GOP being so often blessed by the Democrats' choice of a candidate. To the extent that anyone can say what someone's support ceiling is, Hillary's ceiling is 51 percent, at most. BDM's recent comment that Hillary is the GOP's silent hope was not pure Hillary-bashing, either. You don't have to believe it, let alone care, but that's how it is.

Republicans know Obama is more liberal than Hillary (significantly so). And they can still see themselves supporting him.

As I find myself saying more and more often, if the Democrats choose Hillary as their 2008 nominee, god really is on the GOP's side.

Chris says: " ...  the difference between continuing our involvement the war in a limited form, and just ending our involvement in the war altogether. I have little doubt as to where the vast majority of the Democratic rank and file comes down on that divide."

I agree, but how strongly do we come down on the Richardson side? And what do you mean by 'rank and file,' exactly?

I'm not sure that Democrats as a whole are as strongly against 'leaving a small non-embassy residual force in Iraq under the guidance of a responsible reality-based Democratic President" as you think. Even on the foaming-at-the-mouth leftie blogosphere, that's by no means a overwhelming majority opinion.

Other than that, I agree. I think Obama or Edwards have to realize that they're not gonna win this whole thing playing cautiously. Now, Obama's backup plan, I imagine, is a VP spot: and I don't know if anyone opposes him as VP. But Edwards isn't gonna be the VP pick again, so he's the one who has to truly throw caution to the wind. (Which he's done ... a little. He's thrown caution to the gentle breeze. But there's a long way to go.) Problem is, he leads in Iowa. So it's not like his path to the nomination, while a longshot, isn't pretty damn clear.

I really wish one of the better asterisks--Dodd or Richardson--would transform himself into a perfect progressive candidate. They've got nothing to lose. Vow to end the War on Drugs. Endorse single-payer. Talk--like Richardson--about withdrawing -all- troops except for embassy protection. Elevate government services above tax cuts, and start calling taxes 'community investment funds' or 'homeland support payments.' Go wild! Toss everything in there, short of a Department of Peace ...

Pull out complete by Richardson - means no embassy or if not, who will protect the US Embassy if not our own troops?

I think that hillary wins the base.  I think that hillary wins the folks who pay attention 17 months ahead of a general election.  But I don't think it will take much to knock her down to size.  Those negatives come from some place real.  It won't be hard to tap into people's collective liberal gut and remind folks why we want a new face.  Why go after her now when she is only capturing 35%.  If she had 50% or more we would already see the negative ads but she isn't running away with this--she is just holding a 10-12% steady and solid lead.  Just wait.  

Well blurring certainly helps Obama if the effect also carries into believing he has as much and the same experience as anyone else.

I don't think that any candidate out there right now can put together a narrative so compelling as to overshadow Hillary Clinton.  The only chance I see is if Bush pushes on to war with Iran and Hillary Clinton weakly opposes Bush on that front (or fails to oppose him at all).  No one is going to stand out on the dominant issue of the day, Iraq, so either something has to change in Iraq or some other issue has to supersede Iraq, something I don't see happening.

So, I think that the key for Obama or Edwards or anyone else is to drive up Hillary Clinton's negatives among Democratic voters and make the case that she would not be a good president.  If Obama and Edwards fail to understand this political reality and act upon it, I'm not sure that I can trust either to run a good campaign in a general election or to recognize reality if they occupy the office of President of the United States.

There is a point of view that you might want to consider, even if you don't agree.  That is, I am a 42yo male progressive who supports the idea of a residual force.  Further, I know other progressives who feel the same.

I don't think the base is as antiwar as you think.  

Obama more than anyone has the new story. Bill Clinton won by being a "new" Democrat in 1992 despite his obvious baggage. John Kennedy won in 1960 by being a "new" generation. Don't underestimate the hunger among Democrats and Americans in general for a new page, a fresh start, for someone who can authentically bring healing to this country. 1968 was the year of tragedy and national wounds that have yet to heal, the assassination of RFK and MLK. 1968 was the year of the failed Democratic convention, of the beginning of the end of Vietnam, and the election of Nixon. Now 40 years later a new cycle can begin in a man who encompasses black and white, immigrant and non-immigrant, African and European origin, a man of extraordinary talent and leadership potential. We do not need any more dynasties and America will reject the imposition of a Clinton dynasty on top of a Bush dynasty. There is a great fatigue in the land so I reject this Clinton talk and the analysis about blurring. Hillary has reached her ceiling.

Edwards clearly is the candidate who will make real change.

One means of separation would be Iraq, specifically Richardson's Iraq vision of no residual forces. The difference between Richardson and other candidates on Iraq really is the difference between continuing our involvement the war in a limited form, and just ending our involvement in the war altogether. I have little doubt as to where the vast majority of the Democratic rank and file comes down on that divide. However, neither Edwards nor Obama have chosen the path of clear distinction from Clinton on Iraq, as they each want some American troops to stay in Iraq for varying reasons. The problem for Edwards and Obama is exacerbated because we don't know how many troops the Edwards and Obama plans would leave in Iraq. Even if the Edwards plan would leave fewer troops, that is not exactly a rousing claim to make on the stump: "I would probably leave slightly fewer troops in Iraq than Hillary Clinton. Maybe!" The Richardson plan is much clearer and resonates much deeper: "no residual forces." I am certain that if a Democratic candidate kept saying that line for months and got a lot of buzz for doing so, that candidate would really catch on in the polls. The Richardson distinction has a greater emotional and psychological resonance than the many bills being sponsored by Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Obama, and also greater than the call to action currently being pushed by Edwards. Simply put, every candidate currently in Congress is using new legislation and calls to action as a means to demonstrate leadership on Iraq, and Hilary Clinton is no different. Further, every candidate with a functioning campaign is using calls to action as a means of wooing supporters, and Hillary Clinton is no different. The Edwards call to action might be larger, but again, how clear is that distinction ever going to be to a rank and file Democrat? If candidates want to avoid being blurred on Iraq, the Richardson path of no residual forces seems to be the only way to go.

My trouble is that I think they're purposely blurring their position because they all intend to stick to the original plan of permanent occupation by about 50,000 soldiers, and no sovereign Iraq government.  I agree that Richardson makes the strongest sound bite statement, but if you listen to the details, the no residual forces rests on security arrangements made by Turkey, Syria Iran and Saudi Arabia.  This collection of actors will not come to terms easily or quickly, and if the US leaves, there is no national defense in Iraq. No air. No armor. No logistics.

This is a very profound problem, and just as nobody is talking about the bases or the enormous embassy, nobody wants to discuss a stable solution, because there isn't one.  This is a replay of Nixon in 1968, saying that he would get the US out of vietnam, but without losing the war.  

The reasons that the US is still in Iraq, and, ftm, Bush is still in office, is that the Congress has not, and will not, face up to the facts on the ground.   There is no mission objective beyond body counts, no metric for success, nothing to win.

The voters know that, but the politicians won't face it.  

So, yeah, it's good for Clinton if the rest of the candidates won't confront this issue directly and clearly.  But I think we need to realize that the reason they won't is that they don't want to make promises they aren't going to keep.

The only way out is now.  The only ones who can get us out are the Republicans on the Hill.  That's where the pressure needs to be applied.

Hillary is allegedly "in to win" but when she finishes second or third in Iowa, the media focus on her high negatives and weakness in general election matchups will be devastating.

Winning, combined with a focus on strength in the battleground states, puts Edwards over the top.  

Simpler, shorter recipe for candidates: I'm not George W. Bush.

I think Obama should use a strategy where he

1. Highlight the distinction between him and Hillary on the war.

2. Highlight Hillary's electability problems and the disaster that she would be for the Democratic party.

3. Try to win over Edwards-supporters by using a bit more partisan rhetoric and by showing that he is the only one who can beat Hillary.

4. Does everything he can to make the youth turn out and vote.

I'm still rather convinced that Obama will win this in the end. Hillary is just too unlikeable and divisive.

as they each want some American troops to stay in Iraq for varying reasons

Edwards has not said that he wants American troops to stay in Iraq, he has made protection from American troops a pre-requisite for Americans remaining in Iraq in a humanitarian role.

In terms of electoral politics, it would make all the sense in the world to extend that and say, "and given the situation in Iraq, it does not make sense for Americans to remain behind playing a humanitarian role. We will simply have to pick up a larger humanitarian role elsewhere, so that some of our allies can play that humanitarian role in Iraq".

However, in terms of policy, this really is something that should be determined in the peace conference.

So the question raised by this post is whether Edwards should abandon the superior policy position in order to adopt a position that has a distinction which is easier to communicate to voters.

Your only looking at blurring from HRC's point of view because they have been aggressive in doing it early to mute her 2002 Iraq War vote (a clear vulnerability).   Obama can also blur some of his vulnerabilities with her and we'll see that down the road.  And maybe their making a mistake, maybe people this time don't want a stable long term brand.

Hell, after re-reading this piece, she doesn't even sound all that bad too me, at least when compared to Edwards and Obama, and I am a perfect representative of the target anti-Clinton demographic: a highly educated, liberal, secular white dude who blogs way too much.

Aaah there's hope for you yet!

:P

... the distinction with Hillary on trade, because she is very firmly associated in the public mind in states where trade is important ... including Michigan, which looks increasinly likely to be a pre-Tsunami Tuesday state.

Of course, that's for after Labor Day.

Hmm, let me see if I get this right.  When Edwards and Hillary were in the senate, they both voted for the war and their voting records were similar.  Now that Edwards is OUT of the Senate and no longer voting, he has a much more populist platform and is also the loudest of the top 3 on getting out of Iraq.  Obama, BEFORE becoming a member of the senate, was anti-Iraq invasion, but since joining Hillary in the Senate, has an almost identical voting record with Hillary on Iraq and other issues. Obama shied away from the Feingold Bill when it was initially offered, even though it was the most aggressive about ending the war in Iraq.  He wanted,"a responsible way to end the war".  In fact if we look at each of their plans (top 3) on Iraq they are similar.  We want to pin the blurring on Hillary, like she is confusing the record, but when Edwards and Obama has had to vote, they vote like Hillary.

With effective attacks by Obama or Edwards it will kill her, just as electability killed Dean.