Author: idredit

Amb. Chas W. Freeman’s withdrawal of his appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council continues to reverberate.

Via Andrew Sullivan are CNN videos of “Freeman on the Israel Lobby with Zakaria” — former Amb. Freeman, “the man too dangerous to be allowed into the US government:

Glad of it. It’s a welcomed public focus on the Israel Lobby and in particular, AIPAC  – the same group that has denied its own existence.

Robert Dreyfus via TomDispatch posits:

“Is the Israel lobby in Washington an all-powerful force? Or is it, perhaps, running scared? Judging by the outcome of the Charles W. (“Chas”) Freeman affair this week, it might seem as if the Israeli lobby is fearsome indeed. Seen more broadly, however, the controversy over Freeman could be the Israel lobby’s Waterloo.Though Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, strongly defended Freeman, the two men got no support from an anxious White House, which took (politely put) a hands-off approach..”

Is the Israel Lobby Running Scared?

Or Killing a Chicken to Scare the Monkeys
By Robert Dreyfuss

Judging by the outcome of the Charles W. (“Chas”) Freeman affair this week, it might seem as if the Israeli lobby is fearsome indeed. Seen more broadly, however, the controversy over Freeman could be the Israel lobby’s Waterloo.

Let’s recap. On February 19th, Laura Rozen reported at ForeignPolicy.com that Freeman had been selected by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, to serve in a key post as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, the official in-house think tank of the intelligence community, takes input from 16 intelligence agencies and produces what are called “national intelligence estimates” on crucial topics of the day as guidance for Washington policymakers. For that job, Freeman boasted a stellar resumé: fluent in Mandarin Chinese, widely experienced in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and an ex-assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.

A wry, outspoken iconoclast, Freeman had, however, crossed one of Washington’s red lines by virtue of his strong criticism of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Over the years, he had, in fact, honed a critique of Israel that was both eloquent and powerful. Hours after the Foreign Policy story was posted, Steve Rosen, a former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), launched what would soon become a veritable barrage of criticism of Freeman on his right-wing blog.

Rosen himself has already been indicted by the Department of Justice in an espionage scandal over the transfer of classified information to outside parties involving a colleague at AIPAC, a former official in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and an official at the Israeli embassy.

[.]

Before long, staunch partisans for Israel on Capitol Hill were getting into the act. These would, in the end, include Representative Steve Israel and Senator Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats; a group of Republican House members led by John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican Whip; seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and, finally, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who engaged in a sharp exchange with Admiral Blair about Freeman at a Senate hearing.

[.]

On March 10th, Freeman bowed out, but not with a whimper. In a letter to friends and colleagues, he launched a defiant, departing counterstrike that may, in fact, have helped to change the very nature of Washington politics. “The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth,” wrote Freeman. “The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views.”

Freeman put it more metaphorically to me: “It was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.” By destroying his appointment, Freeman claimed, the Israel lobby hoped to intimidate other critics of Israel and U.S. Middle East policy who might seek jobs in the Obama administration.

[.]

 In his interview with me, Freeman noted the propensity members of the Israel lobby have for denying the lobby’s existence, even while taking credit for having forced him out and simultaneously claiming that they had nothing to do with it. “We’re now at the ludicrous stage where those who boasted of having done it and who described how they did it are now denying that they did it,” he said.

Running Scared

The Israel lobby has regularly denied its own existence even as it has long carried on with its work, in stealth as in the bright sunlight. In retrospect, however, l’affaire Freeman may prove a game changer. It has already sparked a new, more intense mainstream focus on the lobby, one that far surpasses the flap that began in March, 2006, over the publication of an essay by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt in the London Review of Books that was, in 2007, expanded into a book, The Israel Lobby. In fact, one of the sins committed by Freeman, according to his critics, is that an organization he headed, the Middle East Policy Council, published an early version of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis — which argued that a powerful, pro-Israel coalition exercises undue influence over American policymakers — in its journal.

[.]

In his blog at Foreign Policy, Walt reacted to Freeman’s decision to withdraw by writing:

“For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful ‘Israel lobby,’ or who admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful ‘Saudi lobby,’ think again.”

What the Freeman affair brought was unwanted, often front-page attention to the lobby. Writers at countless blogs and websites — including yours truly, at the Dreyfuss Report —

[.]

This new attention to the lobby’s work comes at a critical moment, which is why the toppling of Freeman might be its Waterloo.

[.] As a start, right-wing partisans of Israel have grown increasingly anxious about the direction that President Obama intends to take when it comes to U.S. policy toward Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and the Middle East generally. Despite the way, in the middle of the presidential campaign last June, Obama recited a pro-Israeli catechism in a speech at AIPAC’s national conference in Washington, they remain unconvinced that he will prove reliable on their policy concerns. Among other things, they have long been suspicious of his reputed openness to Palestinian points of view.

[.]

Since the election, many lobby members have viewed a number of Obama’s top appointments, including Shapiro, who’s taken the Middle East portfolio at the National Security Council, and Kurtzer, who’s in line for a top State Department job, with great unease. Take retired Marine general and now National Security Advisor James L. Jones, who, like Brzezinski, is seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and who reputedly wrote a report last year highly critical of Israel’s occupation policies; or consider George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, who is regarded by many pro-Israeli hawks as far too level-headed and even-handed to be a good mediator; or, to mention one more appointment, Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell and now a National Security Council official who has, in the past, made comments sharply critical of Israel.

Of all of these figures, Freeman, because of his record of blunt statements, was the most vulnerable. His appointment looked like low-hanging fruit when it came to launching a concerted, preemptive attack on the administration. As it happens, however, this may prove anything but a moment of strength for the lobby. After all, the recent three-week Israeli assault on Gaza had already generated a barrage of headlines and television images that made Israel look like a bully nation with little regard for Palestinian lives, including those of women and children. According to polls taken in the wake of Gaza, growing numbers of Americans, including many in the Jewish community, have begun to exhibit doubts about Israel’s actions, a rare moment when public opinion has begun to tilt against Israel.

Perhaps most important of all, Israel is about to be run by an extremist, ultra right-wing government led by Likud Party leader Bibi Netanyahu, and including the even more extreme party of Avigdor Lieberman, as well as a host of radical-right religious parties. It’s an ugly coalition that is guaranteed to clash with the priorities of the Obama White House.

As a result, the arrival of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government is also guaranteed to prove a crisis moment for the Israel lobby. It will present an enormous public-relations problem, akin to the one that faced ad agency Hill & Knowlton during the decades in which it had to defend Philip Morris, the hated cigarette company that repeatedly denied the link between its products and cancer. The Israel lobby knows that it will be difficult to sell cartons of menthol smooth Netanyahu-Lieberman 100s to American consumers.
Indeed, Freeman told me:

“The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.’ This isn’t really a lobby by, for, or about Israel. It’s really, well, I’ve decided I’m going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It’s the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with.”

So here’s the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be burdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedly running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come.

—“A game-changer?”
—“They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come”

Or could it be….?

that we should

 ….consider l’affaire Freeman the first conspicuous salvo in the effort to sabotage the Obama administration’s outreach to Tehran.”

AIPAC Takes Another Scalp
What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About

[.]  Let me tell you what it all means, MJ. As far as Israel’s lobbying position in Washington, zip.

Israel’s access to buckets of U.S. money and shiploads of arms is secure as long as the grass grows and the rivers run, no matter what it does with settlements on the West Bank or to the people of Gaza.

The real significance of the fight against Freeman takes us away from the traditional need to affirm the right of Israel to exist, enjoy America’s commitment to its continued survival, and consume its yearly entitlement from the U.S. budget. It has everything to do with trying to disrupt Obama’s initiative to engage with Iran — an initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.

Iran has an interesting battery of carrots to offer the United States. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the behavior of the majority Sh’ia against the Sunni, an active Iranian role in Afghanistan could do the United States a world of good, especially in opening some kind of second front against the Taliban in the opium heartland of western Afghanistan and providing an alternative to the risky Pakistan route for U.S. and NATO supplies into Afghanistan.

But rapprochement with Iran is anathema to the Israeli government, since it would replace the current situation–where it is assumed that the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington are identical and, if there is a conflict, Israeli priorities should prevail because it has the most at stake — to a more complicated arrangement in which Israel’s position might be downgraded to that of just another stakeholder, whose interests might be compromised by Washington for the sake of its geopolitical objectives and bilateral dealings with Iran.

The Israel lobby are Masters of the Universe, so nothing will deter as they go from strength to strength.

Let’s take a look at the news out of Israel:

Lieberman inches closer to foreign ministry as coalition deal cements

“Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman, a far-right politician whose policies have raised Arab ire and international concern, was designated on Monday as foreign minister in a governing pact with Benjamin Netanyahu.”

: : : :

Alas, the police —it appears Mr. Avigdor Lieberman’s tenure as FM will be short.

Here’s the real agenda.

Ashkenazi in U.S.: IDF must prepare to strike Iran

“During a visit to Washington, D.C., Ashkenazi met with Dennis Ross, the designated U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the Iranian issue.

The IDF chief told Ross that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. He said that a diplomatic approach to Iran’s contentious nuclear program must be taken first, but said Israel must also prepare for other possibilities.”

{ED: there we go again — dictating American foreign policy. And speaking with forked tongue..}

Pentagon chief: Israeli attack on Iran would endanger Mideast

“On the eve of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s visit to the United States for talks on Iran’s nuclear program, his American counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region’s stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf “who are under the threat envelope right now.”

Asked by interviewer Charlie Rose of PBS television what would happen if Israel attacked Iran, Mullen, referring to the frequent statement that “all options are on the table,” said such an “option generates a much higher level of risk in terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me.”

{ED: But…there’s always a but}

“Mullen commented favorably on President Barack Obama’s plan to begin a dialogue with Iran, but said that if this dialogue fails and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the U.S. might take military action. Though America’s ground forces are “stretched” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has a “very strong” strategic reserve in the air force and the navy, he noted.

Mullen said that he and Ashkenazi are “by and large” in agreement on Iran’s progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons – namely, that it will not happen before 2010 – and that any discrepancies between the Israeli and American estimates are insignificant. He said the two men have been in agreement on this issue for the “better part of the last six months or so. There was a time that we weren’t, but we’ve actually worked pretty hard to understand where we both are and so I think generally, we’re in agreement.”

[.]

: :

Ah, Mr. Dreyfus —  observe, here and now…

Israel’s greatest fear is in being demoted from their Mid-East perch as the superpower bully, armed with over two hundred nukes; Mullen’s doublespeak and Dennis Ross, the gate-keeper and  a co-founder of AIPAC.

Prep the bunkers. Israel has the means to sabotage. They continue to spy.

Just like a spider on the wall.  They’ll know what secretary of defense Robert Gates whispers to President Obama…and that’s before Mr. Gates moves his lips:

Scratch a counterintelligence officer in the U.S. government and they’ll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States. This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S..

We recall the raging debate and slugfest during the campaign on patriotism,.. whether or not candidate Obama was sufficiently patriotic to be elected President of the United States.

The Question of the Day: from a commenter posting at The Washington Note:

Is loyalty to Israeli preference a litmus test for a political appointment? Apparently it is…..if you challenge any of it, the possibility of being labeled anti-semite is very strong…

american politicians are really quite pathetic in their unquestioning devotion to Israel… need they to be challenged on this around voting time when Americans have the ‘one’ chance to do anything about it…

You may have missed the smearing and hounding of Amb. Chas Freeman from being appointed to chair the National Intelligence Council. Chalk up another win for AIPAC. They’ve succeeded, again.

AIPAC’s two cheerleaders – Senators Schumer and Lieberman – were among those in the front line that led the charge. Schumer and Lieberman happily joined with the leader in-chief, Steven Rosen, “a former director of AIPAC due to stand trial this April for espionage for Israel,

Take a look at the hypocrisy cited by Max Blumenthal

“Rosen’s tactics follow a familiar pattern he has displayed throughout his career, in which he viciously undermined anyone in the foreign-policy community deemed insufficiently deferential to Israel–even his own boss.”

Go figure.

Well, so much for patriotism or my Country first. Whatever Israel wants, Israel gets in double quantities on a golden platter.  In America, no criticism of Israel is allowed. Toe the AIPAC line and STFU.

The Chas Freeman debacle has been covered by TPM, Andrew Sullivan and Steve Clemons.

TPM has Chuck Schumer’s rejoicing on Chas Freeman’s `withdrawal’:

“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.”

“…severely out of step with the administration,” Have you no shame Senator Schumer?

Does Israel own the Obama administration?

Andrew Sullivan has a subtle message for President Obama:

The Humiliation Of Dennis Blair

The one thing I’ve learned about Obama is that he’s smarter – both intellectually and politically – than most of us. He knows that a central test of his time in office will be managing the Middle East. He knows too that any grand bargain will require some push-back on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. But at every time, the Israel lobby has challenged him directly to reassert that no change will occur in the US-Israel relationship, he has backed the AIPAC line 110 percent.

He did so by firing Robert Malley; he did so by hiring Dennis Ross on the Iran question; by hiring Clinton as secretary-of-state; and by humiliating his own intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, on Freeman.

[.]

Dennis Blair has also been humiliated – publicly, by both the Israel lobby and by the White House. He may react to that humiliation by surrendering independent judgment, or by being even more skeptical of the forces that demanded Freeman’s smearing and removal from government. I suspect the latter. Be careful what you ask for …

~~~~~~

Steve Clemons:

I just got word that Chas Freeman has resigned as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, yielding to the attacks on him. This is unfortunate news as it is going to yield a new, long-running battle over what “patriotism” to US national interests means. Is loyalty to Israeli preferences and interests a litmus test for a political appointment?
This will be a big battle and while Freeman has been the first big victim in this struggle for the soul of American foreign policy, I suspect that there will be a slew of similar battles ahead and any Congressman or Senator who regularly puts Israel’s interests before American interests could be in for some rough times.

Wake Up America. Our enemies are within the gates.

Chas Freeman speaks truth to power.

Laura Rozen has Chas Freeman’s statement upon his exit:

Retired Amb. Chas Freeman, who said today that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council, has just sent this message:

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office.  The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue.  I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.  I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government.  Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service.  When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.”  I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”  I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception.  It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service.  I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged.  I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

[.]

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.  

I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

[.]

(my emphasis)

Good on Chas Freeman.  Kudos.

Imo, having loaded up his wagon from the AIPAC crowd, President Obama is hog tied. He will be told where to go and when to return.

More the pity. There was such promise for change.

As the well connected Steve Clemons observes:

This is unfortunate news as it is going to yield a new, long-running battle over what “patriotism” to US national interests means. Is loyalty to Israeli preferences and interests a litmus test for a political appointment?

It’s about time we find the answer

Israel has audaciously gone public with their instructions to the United States of America.  Previously their demands were given in private.

Here is what awaits SoS Hillary Clinton – Israel’s red lines. – Steve Clemons is chagrined. Et moi.

In today’s Ha’aretz:

Israel to present Clinton with ‘red lines’ on talks with Iran

Israel plans to present U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a series of “red lines” it wants Washington to incorporate into its planned dialogue with Tehran about Iran’s nuclear program.

Clinton arrived in Israel Monday night and will meet with various Israeli officials Tuesday.

The red lines were jointly formulated by the Foreign Ministry and the defense establishment, and Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has been briefed on them. The document recommends that Israel adopt a positive attitude toward the planned U.S.-Iranian dialogue, but proposes ways of minimizing what Israeli officials see as the risks inherent in such talks. Its main points are as follows:

1.    Any dialogue must be both preceded by and accompanied by harsher sanctions against Iran, both within the framework of the UN Security Council and outside it. Otherwise, the talks are liable to be perceived by both Iran and the international community as acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program.

2.    Before the dialogue begins, the U.S. should formulate an action plan with Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain regarding what to do if the talks fail. Specifically, there must be an agreement that the talks’ failure will prompt extremely harsh international sanctions on Iran.

 A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a “one-time opportunity” for Tehran.

Timing is critical, and the U.S. should consider whether it makes sense to begin the talks before Iran’s presidential election in June.

The red lines were approved by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak at a meeting with senior defense officials last week. All three plan to raise them at their respective meetings with Clinton Tuesday.

Within the defense establishment, the majority view, led by chief of Military
Intelligence Amos Yadlin, is that Israel should regard the U.S.-Iranian dialogue as an opportunity rather than a threat. The minority view, spearheaded by the Defense Ministry, is that the dialogue entails grave risks.

Where does Israel stop or the more appropriate question is when will Israel stop dictating to the world?

From Steve Clemons, The Washington Note

Israel is Crossing the Line

One of the interesting things to observe after George Bush issued his dictate to the world — “You are with us or against us” — was how some of those nations “with us” began to assume that their importance to and relationship with the United States was “unconditional” and that they could do virtually anything without worry of harming that relationship.

Taiwan and Israel were the two most interesting nations to watch because both suffer types of identity crises. Taiwan wants to be a fully recognized independent state by all parties but knows that China’s ascending power is undermining that fantasy rapidly. Israel, on the other hand, is the only true superpower in the Middle East but lives within borders that are in dispute and with some of its citizens trying to colonize territory that the international community has determined do not belong to it.

To his credit, George Bush instructed his Ambassadorial equivalent in Taipei, American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal, to tell Taiwan’s premier that the US would not countenance any declaration of independent status from China by Taiwan. Bush set his own red line and told Taiwan there were conditions to the relationship — real ones.

Israel, in contrast, seems not to have been given any red lines or conditions by the Bush team — other than perhaps pretending to be interested in the Annapolis peace process. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and even Bush himself complained about the ongoing expansion of settlements by Israelis in occupied territories — but no firm penalties were applied by the US to Israel for these illegal settlements.

Now Israel has gone one better and is issuing instructions to the United States on what America’s red lines with Iran should be. The implication of course is that Israel will take matters into its own hands if these lines are crossed — whether America does or not.

[.]

Israel should be rebuffed by Hillary Clinton. She should listen to Israel’s views on the region of course — and consider proposals. But this kind of instruction manual on what red lines can be tolerated or not is pretty outrageous — and borders on the type of irresponsibility and consequences of what a Taiwanese declaration of independence from China would mean.

In other words, if Taiwan wants to declare independence from China — so be it, but America will not be there as a stabilizer, defender or buffer. And if Israel has the audacity to make America’s strategic choices — particularly in public — then Israel can bomb away — but needs to know that such an act will irreparably harm US-Israel relations. A collision with Iran has nothing to do with Israel — despite Obama’s and Lieberman’s and Cheney’s and Clinton’s and McCain’s rhetoric.

[.]

Israel is crossing the line by instructing the American Secretary of State and President where there lines “should be”.

(emphasis added)

Conveniently, Israel is ignoring secretary of defense Robert Gates’ statement on the weekend:

Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday……”They’re not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time,” Gates said on NBC television’s “Meet The Press.”

Hmmm….but, this leaves much to ponder:

Netanyahu: Clinton and I found common ground

Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu met with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Jerusalem on Tuesday, saying following their meeting that he had “found common ground with Clinton in attaining the common goals of our two countries.”

“We need to think creatively in order to move forward and create a different reality, both in terms of security and politically, and this is a common goal for both sides,” Netanyahu added.

Clinton met with Netanyahu after having met with President Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni earlier in the day as part of a 36-hour visit, her first trip to Israel in her new capacity as secretary of state.

Netanyahu did not offer details on his meeting with Clinton, but mentioned that the conversation between them “was deep, important and good.”

“We spoke about the Iranian issue and the Palestinian issue and we promised to meet again after the establishment of a government [in Israel]. We will work together closely in order to bring peace and prosperity to the region,” Netanyahu concluded.

Questions of the day.

What can be decoded from this diplomaticspeak? Has SoS Hillary accepted Israel’s red lines?

Can this guy be trusted?

When Bibi is satisfied, it’s time to grab a corner in the bunkers.

Memo To Netanyahu: Iran is not the threat. Look in the mirror, the enemy is within — tagged ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, land theft and let’s not forget the pasta, macaroni, medicine blockade.

Not clever by half. Ask the Afrikaans.

I’m amused. Rush Limbaugh is vying to be leader of the Grand Oil Party and he’s going whole hog — not with new ideas or solutions.  It’s the final solution – old Jim Crow, scarecrow, fear mongering.

“” Racism is a problem of the left, not the right” says Limbaugh. “The way to beat them is not with better policy ideas…….liberalism [is a] “psychosis”..and “deranged” “”

Hmmmm — got that?

Beyond oxyC,  Limbaugh has a real problem. He has a skin itch and heartburn over President Obama’s skin tone. And once again, no matter the achievements, skin tone is still a barrier to acceptance. Hidden in plain sight. Coded.

The Washington Monthly – Steve Benen observes via Politico:

Rush: Obama bastardizing Constitution

[note the choice of word – “bastard”]

LIMBAUGH AND RACISM….

The rhetoric sounds so pleasant doesn’t it?

Limbaugh warned [the CPAC audience] that Republicans should not let concerns about racial insensitivities limit criticism of Obama’s policies. “It doesn’t matter to me what his race is. He’s liberal, and that’s what matters.”

“The racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat [sic] primary last year,” Limbaugh said. “We didn’t ask if he was authentically black. What we were asking, was, ‘Was he wrong?’ We concluded, ‘Yes.’ ”

“The racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we are all charged with … doesn’t exist on our side,” he added.

Got it. Limbaugh has always believed that it “doesn’t matter” if Obama is black. It’s never made any difference if Obama is “authentically black.” Racism “doesn’t exist” among conservatives and was “exclusively” in the realm of Democratic politics.

Perhaps Limbaugh’s memory is failing him. I’m happy to help refresh his memory.

February 2007:

On Feb. 13, Rush Limbaugh derided Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) — who is biracial — for saying, “If you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American.” Limbaugh claimed that this statement meant Obama didn’t want to be black and should “renounce it”: “If it’s not something you want to be, if you didn’t decide it, renounce it, become white!”

March 2007:

Limbaugh continued to refer to Obama as the “Magic Negro” throughout the broadcast — 27 times, to be exact — and at one point sang “Barack, the Magic Negro” to the tune of “Puff, the Magic Dragon.”

March 2008:

[.]

August 2008:

[.]

September 2008:

Rush Limbaugh baselessly asserted of Sen. Barack Obama: “Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood?” Limbaugh continued: “He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa…. [H]e’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American.”

For someone who didn’t care about the president’s race, Limbaugh seems to have something with a preoccupation with the subject. I wonder why that is.

And Limbaugh sees his movement threatened by Gingrich!

What’s with this thingy – “Authentically black” !!!?!!!

Hey. Rush, old chap boy, we need only one drop. One drop.

It’s the oxyC. ya think?

From Thinkprogress

Limbaugh Takes On Gingrich: “We’ve Got To Stamp This Out Within This Movement”

In a hour-plus-long speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that was carried live, commercial-free, on CNN and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh directly attacked his rival for the role of titular leader of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich. Gingrich had told the CPAC crowd that the GOP must offer new ideas and policies. “It’s not our job to be the opposition party. It’s our job to be the `better solutions party’,” he said. He was echoing a point he had made last year that the party needed to move forward: “The era of Reagan is over.” (Limbaugh attacked him for the statement at the time.)

Today, Limbaugh came out swinging, insisting that conservatives need not concern themselves with policy ideas whatsoever and slamming conservatives who want to move beyond Reagan.

Everybody asks me — and I’m sure it’s been a focal point of your convention — well, what do we do, as conservatives? What do we do? How do we overcome this? … One thing we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas. […]

UPDATE:  Besides swiping at his competition, Limbaugh sought to prove his leadership bonafides by reiterating his hope that President Obama “fails,” insisting that racism was a problem of the left and not the right, and calling liberalism a “psychosis” and liberals “deranged.”

(emphasis in original)

“Hoping Obama fails.” So much for ‘Patriotism’ and ‘Country First.’

Oh my.

Waiting for Steele and Jindal to demand that Limbaugh STFU?

Will McConnell, Boehner, Norquist, Romney, Gingrich?

Given our demographics, I endorse the comment of Zooey found in the commentary at Thinkprogress:

“I hope Rush succeeds in becoming the face of the Republican party.

Go Rush!”

Rush Limbaugh, the GOP’s defacto leader. 2012 seals a second term.

Send Rush a box of cigars with a note…..you know what’s appropriate.

Via AP: Senator Diane Feinstein after today’s refusal to accept Senator-designate Rolland Burris (D-Ill)has parted with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; on day two she flexes her muscles chairmanship:

Feinstein says Senate should seat Burris

WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has parted with many of her Democratic colleagues and says that the Senate should seat former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Tuesday that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, however tainted by corruption charges, has the right to appoint someone to President-elect Barack Obama’s former seat. The Rules Committee decides whether Burris is qualified to serve.

Feinstein said that blocking Burris would have ramifications for other governors’ appointments.

DiFi has a good point here. Reid is not the Lord of the Senate.

Imo, after all the implications and legal issues are weighed, Senator Reid and Dem colleagues will be on the loosing end.

We live under a judicial regime of innocent until proven guilty. Governor Blagojevich’s responsibilities and power of the Governor’s Office remains valid.

[Update 1]: The Harry Reid Circus:

Burris was rejected by the Secretary of the U.S. Senate on the basis his credentials was not in order — missing is the signature and seal of Illinois Secretary of State.

Oops via Politico

Illinois Secretary of State backs Burris, downplays own role

The Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, downplayed his own role in preventing Roland Burris from joining the Senate, and put the responsibility for not seating Roland Burris on the shoulders of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

He also said he hopes Burris is seated.

“They could have seated him without my signature,” White — previously seen as a key opponent of the pick — told WGN Radio, saying his signature was purely “ceremonial.” Burris was not seated because the Illinois State Seal — which White controls — was not on his credentials.

White’s words put the ball firmly into Reid’s court, and leave Burris on offense in the public fight.

“What the senate did to Roland Burris yesterday…they played a little bit of a game with him,” he said.

The host asked him if he thought Reid had made him a “fall guy.”

“You’re absolutely correct,” he said. “It’s ugly.”

[.]

(highlights added)

BREAKING 12:23 PM ET: Report: Blago To Appoint Roland Burris To Senate

Who is Roland Burris?

Chicago Tribune:

Blagojevich to name Burris to Senate

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor’s support.

UPDATE: It’s official. Mr. Burris says, “I accept.”

And out comes the race card?

Blagojevich snubs Senate, taps Burris for seat

Brushing aside charges that he tried to sell Illinois’ vacant U.S. Senate seat, Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the post today in defiance of Senate leaders who said they would not admit anyone he selected.

It was an abrupt about-face for Blagojevich, who had said after his Dec. 9 corruption arrest that he favored a special election to find a successor to President-elect Barack Obama. But Blagojevich said he acted after the Democratic-controlled General Assembly declined to approve legislation for a special election.

“Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man,” Blagojevich said while introducing Burris at a downtown news conference.

Blagojevich’s move seemed designed to trump fellow Democrats who control the U.S. Senate and have unanimously warned him against making the appointment because of the criminal charges. His choice of Burris, Illinois’ first African-American elected statewide, presents senators with the dilemma of saying no to a replacement for Obama, who was the nation’s only black senator.

That point was driven home at the news conference by Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, who said it’s a matter of national importance that an African-American replace Obama in the Senate.

“Let me just remind you that there presently is no African-American in the Senate…this is just not a state of Illinois matter,” Rush said.

“I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer,” Rush also said. “Roland Burris is worthy.”

[.]

Burris said he spoke with Blagojevich Sunday night about the appointment.

“I was asked if he would appoint me would I accept and the answer is yes,” said Burris, who offered no comment on the governor’s legal situation.

Blagojevich praised Burris for his “unquestioned integrity” and “extensive experience,” calling him a senior statesman.

Blagojevich has not been convicted or impeached. Former Gov. Jim Thompson tells NPR’s, “All Things Considered” .. this (Burris) appointment to the U.S. Senate is perfectly legal.

Well, well, well!

Just as I feared. Obama is bent on following in President Lincoln’s footsteps – tall order – to include opponents in his Administration. I wrote a few days ago that all Obama needs to make the Lincoln experience complete will be a Civil War. I predicted that with the Hillary Clinton appointment to State, a civil war was coming up.

Just imagine, Obama throws his loyal people under the bus and gives away the store!

Hillary plays hardball – The Independent UK

The first sign of friction in the Obama camp as Mrs Clinton demands – and gets – a purge of her critics before accepting Secretary of State role

Before Hillary Clinton has been formally offered the job as Secretary of State, a purge of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy team has begun.

The advisers who helped trash the former First Lady’s foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail are being brutally shunted aside, as the price of her accepting the job of being the public face of America to the world.

In negotiations with Mr Obama this week before agreeing to take the job, she demanded and received assurances that she alone should appoint staff to the State Department. She also got assurances that she will have direct access to the President and will not have to go through his foreign policy advisers on the National Security Council, which is where many of her critics in the Obama team are expected to end up.

The first victims of Mrs Clinton’s anticipated appointment will be those who defended Mr Obama’s flanks on the campaign trail. By mocking Mrs Clinton’s claims to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia or pouring scorn on her much-ballyhooed claim to have visited 80 countries as First Lady they successfully deflected the damaging charge that he is a lightweight on international issues.

Foremost among the victims of the purges is her old Yale Law School buddy Greg Craig, a man who more than anyone led the rescue of his presidency starting the very night Kenneth Starr’s lurid report into the squalid details of the former president’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky were published on the internet in 1998. Despite his long and loyal friendship with the Clintons, Mr Craig threw his lot in with Mr Obama at an early stage in the presidential election campaign. As if that betrayal to the cause of the Clinton restoration was not enough, Mr Craig did more to undermine Mrs Clinton’s claims to be a foreign policy expert than anyone else in the some of the ugliest exchanges of the battle for the Democratic nomination.

Until this week he was poised to be the eminence grise of the State Department, organising as total revamp of America’s troubled foreign policies on Mr Obama’s behalf. Its turns out that Mrs Clinton’s delay in accepting the president elect’s offer to be his top foreign policy adviser had much to do with her negotiating the terms of the job and insisting on the right to choose her own state department staff and possibly even some of the plumb Ambassador postings. She wanted guarantees of direct access to the president – without having to go through his national security adviser. Above all she did not want to end up like Colin Powell who was completely out-manoeuvred by the hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney who imposed neo-conservative friends like John Bolton on the State Department and steered the US towards a policy of using torture to achieve its aims.

More

Does Obama not understand the Clintons can’t be trusted; they have no loyalty to anyone — that they have their own agenda and once they’ve used you to achieve personal ends you’re toast?

Is this Hillary vindictiveness not contrary to Obama’s reaching out? It’s Clinton all the time.

Memo to Barack Obama:

Enjoy the disaster of your own making. Whatever made you think you needed Hillary to take your 3:00 AM calls.

What a collapse of confidence!

Dispicable.

Big Question of the Day. Why is turncoat Joe Lieberman refusing to step down as chair of Senate Committee Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs?

Yesterday Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, had what amounts to a soft ball meeting with Joe Lieberman  – discussions were to relieve Lieberman as chairman of Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

But judging from reports via TPM video Joe not only wants to be forgiven he thinks it’s unacceptable.

By the way Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is said to disagree with stripping Lieberman of his chair. Good thing Senator that you were not selected for the VP slot.

Jane Hamsher, FDL, notes:

Lieberman was offered Veteran’s Affairs, Not a Subcommittee.

Now that’s also unacceptable because as I view it, Joe would be a disaster and does not deserve squat.

Lieberman Opposed Cutting Welfare Spending to Increase Funding for Veterans Health Care

S Con Res 57        Senate Vote 116        R 52-0; D 23-23         5/16/96

Lieberman voted against the Bond, R-Mo., amendment to the Exon, D-Neb., substitute amendment, to increase veterans spending by $13 billion in fiscal 1997-2002, to be offset by reductions in welfare spending.  The Senate adopted the amendment 75-23.

Lieberman Opposed $400 Million in Funding for Veterans Benefits

S 936            Senate Vote 168        R 50-5; D 8-36           7/10/97

Lieberman voted for the Thurmond, R-S.C., motion to table the Wellstone, D-Minn., amendment to require the Defense secretary to transfer $400 million to the secretary of Veteran’s Affairs in fiscal 1998 for veteran’s benefits.  The Senate agreed to the motion 58-41.

Lieberman Opposed $329 Million for Veterans Health Care

S 2057            Senate vote 175        R 5-47; D 33-8            6/25/98

Lieberman voted against the Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment that transferred $329 million from defense accounts to the Veterans Affairs Department for health care programs.  The amendment ordered the secretary of Defense to transfer the funds from defense programs that would result in the “least significant harm” to armed forces readiness and military personnel quality of life.  The Senate rejected the amendment 38-55.  

Lieberman Opposed Cutting Funds for the International Space Station to Fund Veterans’ Health Care

More

But you would think Lieberman would be satisfied with another Committee chair. No. He wants to remain at HSGA.

Steven Benen asked Why the Begging?

Let’s cut the nonsense. Reid offered Lieberman a chance to stay in the Democratic caucus, keep his seniority, and become the chairman of some other committee. Lieberman thinks that’s “unacceptable” and reportedly “begged” to stay on as chairman of Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Bayh thinks this is about “revenge or retribution.” It’s not. For that matter, it’s only partly about holding Lieberman accountable for his betrayals. This is actually about a specific power Lieberman is intent on keeping for a specific reason.

This seems to be routinely overlooked, but take a moment to consider what the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs actually does: it’s the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It’s an accountability committee, charged with investigating the conduct of the White House and the president’s administration.

As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman’s House counterpart — Rep. Henry Waxman’s Oversight Committee — was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn’t used? I’ll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

Lieberman didn’t want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure — holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.

Lieberman doesn’t care about “reconciliation,” he cares about going after a Democratic administration. Why else would he fight diligently to be chairman of one committee instead of another?

(highlights added)

Let Senator Harry Reid know we don’t trust Joe Lieberman.

Joe must go.

Please join the campaign at Bold Progressives to urge Senator Reid, “Joe Must Go!”

Put on the brakes.

Huffpost reporting

Obama Wants Lieberman To Remain In Democratic Caucus

President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.

Aides to the president-elect did not return requests for comment. Senate officials were unclear whether Obama would be comfortable with Lieberman maintaining his current committee post.

[.]

If Lieberman were to continue caucusing with the Democrats without being punished for his campaign conduct — Democrats say he broke a promise not to campaign negatively against Obama — the progressive community will undoubtedly be up in arms. For Obama, however, the move may be a shrewd gesture towards reconciliation, in the process taking a potentially taxing political fight off the table.

Fellow Connecticut Senate Chris Dodd, who has spoken out in favor of Lieberman remaining in the party, explained as much to reporters on Friday:

“What does Barack Obama want?… He’s talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don’t think he’d necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense.”

A Democrat close to Lieberman, meanwhile, said he thought that keeping Lieberman in the fold “would be a good move for Obama as a way to make real his promise of new politics, a less partisan Washington and more unity. He would do so at some risk. Obviously there is a liberal wing of the party that wants Joe punished…”

Oh yes, considering what’s at stake, we’re are interested in the outcome.

Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The fate of a convicted felon will help determine the size of the Democrats’ expanded power in the U.S. Senate, and may provide a new job opportunity for failed vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

After being found guilty of political corruption last month, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, 84, of Alaska clung to a narrow lead on Thursday in his bid to win an eighth term.

With state election officials sorting through thousands of absentee ballots, a winner was not expected to be announced for at least several days.

If challenger Mark Begich pulls it out, it would increase to seven the number of Senate seats Democrats have gained from Tuesday’s national election, boosting their majority to 58 in the 100-member chamber.

(highlight added)

Say it ain’t so. If Stevens pulls this out and in turn is expelled from the Senate, there will be a special election.  

Can you see the movie “Sarah goes to Washington.” ?!!?

Be still.

As the count continues, something smells and it isn’t rotted fish. Two + two does not make four. Questions are being raised:

So what really happened in the Alaska election?  

 – an Andrew Sullivan catch

STOLEN ELECTION IN ALASKA?

Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election-a 66% turnout. Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%.

 That’s a decrease of more than 11% in voter turnout even though passions ran high for and against Obama, as well as for and against Sarah Palin! This year, early voters set a new record. As of last Thursday, with 4 days left for early voting, 15,000 Alaskans showed up-shattering the old record set in 2004 by 28%!

Consider the most popular governor in history-and now the most polarizing-was on the Republican ticket.

Consider the historic nature of this race; the first African American presidential candidate EVER! The second woman to ever make a presidential ticket; and she’s one of our own. Despite that, we’re supposed to believe that overall participation DECREASED by 11%.

Not only that, but this historic election both nationally and for Alaska HAD THE LOWEST ALASKA TURNOUT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RACE EVER!!! That makes sense. REALLY??? Something stinks.

But wait, there’s more…

[.]

AND

Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight examines the claim.

What In The Hell Happened in Alaska?

Although Ted Stevens holds a small lead in Alaska and is the favorite to retain his seat, the outcome is not as inevitable as it might appear to be. Stevens currently holds a lead of 3,353 votes, or about 1.5 percent of the votes tallied so far. But, there are quite a large number of ballots yet to count.

According to Roll Call, these include “at least 40,000 absentee ballot, 9,000 early voting ballots, and an undetermined number of questionable ballots”.

    Indeed, it seems possible that the number of “questionable” ballots could be quite high. So far, about 220 thousand votes have been processed in Alaska. This compares with 313 thousand votes cast in 2004. After adding back in the roughly 50,000 absentee and early ballots that Roll Call accounts for, that would get us to 270 thousand ballots, or about a 14 percent drop from 2004. It seems unlikely that turnout would drop by 14 percent in Alaska given the presence of both a high-profile senate race and Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket.

But even if Begich were to make up ground and win a narrow victory, this would seem to represent a catastrophic failure of polling, as three polls conducted following the guilty verdict in Stevens’ corruption trial had Begich leading by margins of 7, 8 and 22 points, respectively.

The emerging conventional wisdom is that there was some sort of a Bradley Effect in this contest — voters told pollsters that they weren’t about to vote for that rascal Ted Stevens, when in fact they were perfectly happy to. Convicted felons are the new black, it would seem.

The problem with this theory is that the polling failures in Alaska weren’t unique to Stevens. They also applied to the presidential race, as well as Alaska’s at-large House seat. In each case, the Republican outperformed his pre-election polling by margins ranging from 12 to 14 point:

[.]

There are three plausible explanations I can think of to explain this discrepancy…..

[.]

    The second possibility is that a substantial percentage of the Democratic vote is tied up in the early and absentee ballots that have yet to be counted. We know that Barack Obama overperformed among early voters in many states, and Alaska may be no exception. (Although, I would guess that the absentee vote is predominately rural, whereas Begich’s base is in Anchorage).

    The third possibility is that a lot of those “questionable” ballots are Democratic ones, and that there have been irregularities in the voting tally. Although this is the least likely possibility, Alaska is a provincial state with some history of corruption, and Democrats ought to be making sure that too many of their ballots haven’t been disqualified.

(highlight added)

A Serious question indeed.

 

I’d be tempted to think we’ll be told by Sarah Palin’s appointees

a hungry Moose ate the ballots.

[UPDATE: Friday, November 7, 2008]

While the stats smells, Nate Silver is not ready to give Stevens the lead forever…Nate sees a glimmer in those early votes – all 9,500 to be counted….it’s looking good for Begich.

Uncounted Votes May Push Begich Past Stevens

Although Ted Stevens currently holds a lead of approximately 3,200 votes in ballots counted to date in Alaska’s senate contest, there is good reason to believe that the ballots yet to be counted — the vast majority of which are early and absentee ballots — will allow Mark Begich to mitigate his disadvantage with Stevens and quite possibly pull ahead of him.

The reasoning behind this is simple: some early ballots have been processed, and among those ballots Begich substantially leads Stevens. A tally of Alaska’s 40 house districts as taken from Alaska’s Division of Elections webpage suggests that Begich has won about 61% of the early ballots counted so far, as compared with 48% of ballots cast on Election Day itself.

More..read the whole article for tables and charts

In Vermont, we’re pushing our chests out – over the airwaves – that this Victory on Tuesday was crafted here in Vermont. The once maligned fifty state strategy of former governor Howard Dean, current chairman of the Democratic National Committee, went a long way to reviving the party at the state and national levels.

from Steve Benen’s jottings:

I do think it’s fair to credit Dean with coming up with the game plan. He needed a candidate who was committed to “stretching” the map, and capable to taking the Democratic message to areas that usually don’t give Democratic candidates a second look. And Barack Obama fit the bill nicely.

DEAN CAN TAKE A BOW

…. As is often the case after an election, there are plenty of lists being published noting the various “winners and losers.” If Howard Dean isn’t very high on the list of winners, it’s a dramatic oversight.

    The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Wednesday touted its 50-state strategy, which sought to expand the party’s competitiveness deep into red states, as one of the reasons for Democrats’ success on Election Night.

    DNC Chairman Howard Dean said at the National Press Club that President-elect Barack Obama “was right in 2004, when he said there are no red states and no blue states; there are only American states, and we all share the same values.”

    “You cannot be a national party if you are willing to write off entire parts of our country,” Dean stated. “Based on that pretty straightforward idea, we changed the way our party ran campaigns and reached out to voters.”

    In a memo, the DNC touted Dean’s strategy, which was often maligned at its inception. “Through the 50-state strategy the DNC put paid staff on the ground (2-4 per state) in every state from Alaska to Mississippi, New Mexico to Indiana,” the DNC memo said. “When Obama became the nominee there were 183 people on the ground who have been there, been trained, and were working for the nominee. Through the course of this campaign, those staff worked to organize at least 892 field events around McCain-Palin events.”

Dean also deserves credit for focusing heavily on the West, which included moving Nevada up in the primary process and choosing Denver as the host city for the convention. The results speak for themselves: Obama won New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, and Democrats made gains up and down the ballot throughout the region, including Brian Schweitzer’s landslide in Montana and a key victory in a House race in Idaho.

Two weeks ago, J. Patrick Coolican wrote in the Las Vegas Sun, “Dean, who wears an ill-fitting suit I’m pretty sure I’ve seen at Target, also wears a smart smirk, the look of a guy who knows more than he lets on, and more than anyone gives him credit for. He’s usually associated with the loony wing of the party, the MoveOn crowd and the liberal bloggers. But in reality, he had a vision for Democrats capturing the center, and it’s coming to pass.”

Take a bow, gov.

~~~~~~~~

more from The Hill

DNC touts success of 50-state strategy

Dean said following an election that saw Democrats take the White House and make substantial gains in both chambers of Congress that he “always believed that our party’s message and values are core American values.”

“What we have lacked is a full-time professional party to help communicate those values every single day and organized around them,” he said. “And what we have lacked is a leader to inspire people to that cause. And in Barack Obama, we have found that leader.”

The memo also praised Dean’s decision to seek votes in the West, saying that the chairman “believed that the future of our party and the road to the White House runs through the West.”

The document touts Dean’s decision to move up Nevada in the Democratic primary process and to hold the Democratic convention in Denver.

Western Democratic leaders on Wednesday said the election had shown that the West has turned blue.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) joined Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter to trumpet the party’s gains. They pointed to Obama’s wins in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, and Reid also reminded reporters that Democrats now control governor’s mansions in five of eight states in and around the Rocky Mountains.

In addition to those gains, Democratic Rep. Tom Udall captured the New Mexico Senate seat with 61 percent of the vote, and his cousin, Rep. Mark Udall, won the Colorado Senate seat with 52 percent.

“We all have looked forward to this moment,” Reid said. “Just six years ago, Republicans held every governor’s mansion in the West and seemingly had a lock on congressional elections.”

Let’s not overlook Dean’s breakthrough – the internet platform for fund-raising – expanded by President-elect Obama. Just spectacular!

And together with Obama, Governor Dean resurrected the youth and this bodes well for the future.

So Howard Dean, you’re looking good in a Target.