Today, Maliki was explicit that the legislation was aimed at Muqtada al Sadr, his Sadrist movement, and the Mahdi Army. “Solving the problem comes in no other way than dissolving the Mahdi Army,” Maliki told CNN. “They no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mahdi Army.”

Maliki’s advisors have also been clear the Mahdi Army is the target of the legislation. “We want the Sadrists to disband the Mahdi Army. Just freezing it is no longer acceptable,” said Sadiq al Rikabi, a senior adviser to the prime minister. “The new election law will prevent any party that has weapons or runs a militia from contesting elections.”

The legislation is said to have broad support from the major Sunni, Kurdish and Shia political parties, and is expected to quickly pass through parliament. The details of the legislation were outlined by the Political Council for National Security, which included the Kurdish president, the Sunni and Shia vice presidents, the prime minister, and the leaders from the major political parties. No political parties other than the Sadrist movement have opposed the recommended legislation.

The declaration caught the normally triumphant Sadrist politicians off guard. “We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament,” Hassan al Rubaie, a Sadrist member of parliament said the day the news broke. “Our political isolation was very clear and real during the meeting,” he said, referring to the meeting of the Political Council for National Security, where the legislation was announced.

Rubaie confirmed the Sadrists have now been isolated politically. “Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament,” Rubaie said. “We must go and explain to [Sadr] in person that there’s a problem.”

The Sadrist movement has been caught off guard by the government’s announcement, and is making conflicting statements. One aid said Sadr is rushing to consult senior Shia clerics in Iraq and Iran for guidance. Another aide backtracked. He denied Sadr was seeking advice from senior clerics and the decision to disband was Sadr’s alone.

(excerpt from the long war journal on 4/07/08)

Looks pretty “lose-lose” for Sadr imo. He either keeps his army and gets pushed out of Iraq or he disbands the army and has to play by the same rules as everyone else. My gut tells me that if he chooses the latter, he’ll prove an incompetent civil servant and be voted out by his own in short order after failing to live up to promises.

In any case, McCain is going to have to move to the center and articulate a way out of this quagmire to have any hope of election.

True.

I just don’t think we can get there this cycle. It looks like a Dem tsunami in ‘08. I am betting on the Dems not getting 60 votes in the Senate this round, so there is some moderation, and the reps retaking one house 2010. Your scenario is what I am betting on.

Really? How about the longest economic expansion in U.S. History, elimination of deficit spending, 21 million new jobs, lowest unemployment in 30 years, Welfare reform, NAFTA, WTO, HIPAA privacy laws, brokering Ireland peace accord, coordinating and managing an international solution to an explosive situation in Kosovo, Bonia, Serbia with minimal loss of life and more.

Funny. I thought a great deal of that could be attributed to…drum roll please…divided government. Particularly the elimination of the deficit and welfare reform, neither of which would have happened under single party Democratic rule. I doubt we would have seen free trade survive without Republican help either.

The only way I can see Clinton II having similar results to Clinton I is if another Clinton in the White House focuses the moribund GOP mind so they can exit their death spiral and retake Congress in 2010. Otherwise all bets are off.

Reagan had that going for him, and the country loved him. And I don’t even think he was that spectacular of a president (if you think going into Iraq was pointless, please remind yourself of the invasion of a tiny island in the Caribbean known as Grenada). But the Reagan era is remembered as a generally good one, and I think that Reagan’s ability to not be a constant dick to his opponents made a huge difference. Bill and Hillary don’t have this charm. Yes, Bill too. Remember that Bill’s refusal to compromise with Republicans over the budget led to a government shut down. Newt Gingrich can be blamed equally for this, but he’s of the same divisive school as the Clintons…. a far cry from the friendly nature between Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan despite their political disagreements.

Our perceptions are simply radically different. Hillary Clinton insults my intelligence almost every time she opens her mouth. She puts forward arguments that she cannot credibly believe hold weight presumably believing that most voters are too dim to notice that they are utterly empty. The most notable of these is the claim that it would disenfranchise MI and FL to not seat the delegations based on the ‘primaries’ already held — ‘primaries’ which are not democratic under any reasonable definition of the term. The distortion of logic in service of what is politically expedient for Clinton really is qualitatively different from anything I’ve seen from Obama.

I am not under the misapprehension that Obama will be a pristine politician. Far from it. But when it comes to intergrity Clinton routinely hits new lows. And I think it takes willful partisanship to be blind to her failings in this regard.

Back in the 90’s I did vote for Clinton. At the time it seemed like a good thing to have democratic politicians who could play the game of spin, talking point memos, and triangulation in order to wrest power away from the Republicans. It’s unusual in middle age, I suppose, to drift back towards idealism. But I am sick to death of being disgusted by my leaders.

And while she doesn’t disgust me as much as Bush does, Clinton disgusts me. I just don’t sit well with having my intelligence insulted on a daily basis. (Yesterday’s edition was that she critiqued the war before Obama did; today’s is that Penn is fired, but not really.)

“I look at the Clinton administration from the 90’s and I can’t think of one decent thing they accomplished. – Terence

Really? How about the longest economic expansion in U.S. History, elimination of deficit spending, 21 million new jobs, lowest unemployment in 30 years, Welfare reform, NAFTA, WTO, HIPAA privacy laws, brokering Ireland peace accord, coordinating and managing an international solution to an explosive situation in Kosovo, Bonia, Serbia with minimal loss of life and more.

When Obama supporters engage in this kind of willful ignorance and revisionist history, it is far more damaging to the Democratic party than anything they accuse the Clinton campaign of doing.

I would almost say that it doesn’t matter what Obama does once elected; it is merely the perception of what he should be or campaigned on that people will see. Ultimately however, it does matter, and experience does count, although experience is only one attribute to judge a candidate.

The only thing that I ask for is that everyone vote Democratic in the next election. John McCain will be the next Reagan president; a befuddled, charming old man who the media adore and cover for as his aides continue to commit all sorts of high crimes behind the nation’s back. He and his handlers must be allowed nowhere near the Oval Office.

Clinton lost an unsustainable large lead because Obama emerged as a strong candidate. Part of his effectiveness as a candidate, are the continuous and effective attacks on Clinton, many of which emerged from the Obama campaign and are promoted by a complicit media. So be it. That is the way campaigns work, and Obama has proven to be every bit as tough a cut-throat and knee-capping campaigner as Clinton.

In the continuation of this post on my blog, I invoke another candidate who was elected based on his campaign effectiveness, charisma, and rhetoric. His name was Jimmy Carter and his presidency fell far short of his campaign. In the post I suggest that Obama crib from his nomination speech should he prevail. He could use it verbatim:

“[This] …will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation’s character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.” - Jimmy Carter -Nomination acceptance speech July 15, 1976

The lack of courage, the lack of self-discipline, the feeling of entitlement, the apparent “sliminess” of their business dealings is the things I can’t get past – and believe me I have tried to get past them. The Clintons, for all of their gifts, are a toxic combination for the United States – I look at the Clinton administration from the 90’s and I can’t think of one decent thing they accomplished. I’ve looked for accomplishments and the “bad” greatly outweighs the “good”.

The United States of America needs a clean break from the past. The last 28 years have seen our great country fail on so many levels. The failures are too vast to list here frankly. As a nation we have to get past Nixonian tactics, Regan’s ridiculous economics, Clinton gamesmanship, and Bush law breaking in order to move forward. It’s almost like staying in an abusive relationship…..the longer you stay the worse it gets – only a clean break can help begin the healing process – that is where I think we are as a country.
It is clear that experience before the White House means nothing. Honesty helps, vision helps, inspirational helps, decency helps, knowledge of the domestic problems helps, a flexible foreign policy understanding helps, and lack of Washington DC experience really helps. Clinton doesn’t measure up – as a team they are lacking in so many areas and the arrogance and hubris is just icing on the cake.

Realistically, I am depressed that the best people we can put forward as a nation – that stand a chance of winning – are Obama, Clinton, and McCain. If that’s the best we can do right now I’ll take the likeable, inspirational outsider any day. We know what the other two (3 if you include Bill) can’t or won’t put the nation on a path toward getting better. The American people used to be able to afford blissful ignorance of the world and their countries place in it – we no longer have that luxury – serious change has to occur, and everyone needs to wake up to that fact.

But to be fair, my objections to Clinton II are not centered on this point. I am not nearly as ready as you are to dismiss the cynical, divisive brand of politics practiced by the Clintons. The Penn fiasco is but another example of the sort of scandal-of-the-week we can expect from the continuation of the Clinton regime. Clinton I’s popularity had a lot to do with a tide of economic prosperity that was in turn founded on a stock market bubble. Take away that, and it is not so obvious that the country would or should want a return to the distinctives of the Clinton era.

Finally, you do have a measure of Obama’s executive capacity. The campaign he is running is a model of competency. Contrast the buffoon-fest being put on by Team Clinton, and I think it’s hardly obvious that your central proposition holds. For whatever reason, the managerial skills you impute to Clinton I has not translated into Clinton II’s run for office. That needs to be part of the evaluation. (Indeed, I think it IS part of the present evaluation — the dishonesty, cynicism and lack of transparancy + the incompetency has a good bit to do with why Clinton has blown a commanding lead in public opinion at the start of the process and is now reduced to hoping for an internal collapse in the Obama campaign in order to have any shot at the nomination).

“I’m skeptical.”

Kritter,
Fair enough. But it is a relative measure. I find much more to be skeptical about in Obama’s preparation for the job.

And as I recall, Yoko Ono was not too bad – as long as she was accompanied by John. I submit – give Peace a Chance” for your consideration.

Hillary was the first lady once. Now she’s treating her experience as fungible…important when it comes to some things, and not involved when it comes to the bad things. I question how much her “experience” prepares her for the job. She wasn’t in the cabinet. She wasn’t a lot of things. Nothing springs to my mind when I ponder whether she had a “signature accomplishment.”

Sure, she had some interesting and relevant experiences that give her some familiarity with the job that some others might not have. How much of a leg up this represents is open to question. But her arse wasn’t in the chair, she wasn’t answering the red phone, and her finger wasn’t on the button. So I’m skeptical.