Shaheen on Iraq

Thank you both (0.00 / 0)

Elwood and Mike, thank you.  I appreciate the opportunity for the whole story to get out there, not just bits and pieces!


Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:58:22 PM CDT

Um (0.00 / 0)

Nice work, but

she was with the Kerry campaign because she opposed the Bush War policy.

She was with the Kerry campaign because she's a Democrat. This seems to imply she'd have broken with the party if the nominee had supported the war. Not the impression you wanted to make, I think.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 13:06:04 PM CDT

There's a difference (4.00 / 1)

between voting for someone, and going to work full-time for them.

I would not go to work full-time for a nominee if I disagreed with him or her on the major issue of the campaign. I would still vote for him or her; I wouldn't have "broken with the party."

I'm not a mindreader but I believe my statement is accurate.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 13:19:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not either (0.00 / 0)

But I feel like my statement is safer.

This is a topic for another day, but I'd argue the war was not the major issue of the 2004 campaign. It's not like Kerry campaigned on withdrawal.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 13:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Top issue in 2004 (4.00 / 1)

I Googled to find a poll.

This claims the top issues were:
1. The economy (26%)
2. Terrorism (22%)
3. Iraq War (20%)

However, I believe the noble attempt to divorce "terrorism" from "the War in Iraq" is unworkable, largely because of Bush's continuing attempt to treat the two as a single issue.

If you combine the two, you get 42%.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 13:44:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unless terrorism means domestic terrorism (4.00 / 1)

But that's weasely of me. To my main point, Kerry's war message ("The war has been mismanaged") was not sufficiently different from Bush's to make it an issue that the election turned on (unlike, say, choice, where if you are a choice voter, Kerry was your only option).

But kudos for grabbing the data. Last word to you.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 14:02:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I generally agree with that (0.00 / 0)

Kerry didn't provide enough contrast to make it the decisive issue in the voting booth -- even though it was the top issue among voters. That's an interesting dynamic...

However, my point remains -- it WAS the top issue among voters, and no once and future candidate would agree to take a top position in the campaign of someone whose views on that issue were significantly different than their own. A Shrum, maybe -- running campaigns is what he does. But a Shaheen can politely decline, citing other commitments.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 17:18:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess I'll use this spot (0.00 / 0)

to comment on the various Shaheen/Iraq threads floating around the site today.

Here's '08 Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen's position on Iraq:

The fact that there is empty space there, or to put it another way, the fact that she has not declared a candidacy at this point, makes articles such as what came out in the Monitor possible.

As the news is chock-a-block with Iraq this summer, as well as with Sununu's ever shifting rhetoric and ever immobile Bush enabling on the issue, that is unfortunate, as I'm sure all of us would love to know what her position is today.

There is a great spectrum of choices in how that empty box could be filled.  Would she have voted with Schumer and Reid  and Sununu in funding the war last spring, or would she have, as Marchand noted he would have, voted with Hodes and Shea-Porter against the funding?  Will she express regret over her support for the invasion, as Dodd and Edwards (and I) repeatedly have, or will she take Hillary's unapologetic stance towards her AUMF vote?  Residual forces, "permanent" bases, etc... these are all critical questions we don't know yet.

As elwood notes, Shaheen's statements as Kerry's 2004 spokesperson are interesting and represent a clear evolution from her 2002 position, which was not only in favor of the invasion, but also of the concept of pre-emptive war, as well as committing to remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize the country (vide my earlier diary on the subject).

But in 2004, in addition to elwood's citation, she also used the term "misled," as strong a word as any in respect to Bush's WMD lies.  As someone officially speaking for Kerry, however, I am very conflicted on how much to gauge this information.

As director of the IoP Shaheen cannot issue policy opinions, which is an additional frustration in light of her non-candidacy.  However, this bit from the diary cited earlier speaks volumes about her political awareness of the issue:

On issues facing the nation, half of young people today (50%) say that either "Iraq," "the War," the "War on Terror" or "domestic security" is the most concerning national issue, with no other issue registering higher than six percent (6%).

"As our new poll shows foreign policy issues - especially the War in Iraq and the crisis in Darfur - are the issues of greatest concern for young people as they consider the next election," said IOP Director Jeanne Shaheen. "Political parties and candidates looking for success at the polls in 2008 should take notice."

That poll and statement were from only two months ago.

If Shaheen runs, it is undeniable that the GOP will try to pair Sununu and Shaheen as being the same on Iraq.  It is the most important issue of the election season, and it shows no sign of abating. That is why her 2007-8 platform will need to be as strong a contrast to his post-2002 Iraq record as possible.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 22:02:43 PM CDT