Do Not Forget: 50,000 Troops Will Remain in Iraq

The media is reporting that the last combat brigade will soon leave Iraq. Some commentators are declaring an official end of the war.

Yet, lost beneath the headlines and fanfare is the following fact: around 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq. The government is not describing them as combat troops. Instead, it is calling these soldiers advisers, as the Washington Post reports:

By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops.

The Iraq War will continue to exact financial and physical costs on the United States and the people of Iraq.

Karl Rove's Memoir: Apparently, A Work of Fiction

The Associated Press reports that in his new memoir, Karl Rove continues to use the September 11 attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also blames himself for failing to convince the public that President Bush did not start the war under false pretenses once the hunt for weapons of mass destruction came up dry. Rove insists however, that Bush did not knowingly mislead the public. Rove also praises Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina and claims that local officials are the ones responsible for the terrible response. Rove's memoir should make a splash on the Best-Selling Fiction list.

Why Aren't Self-Proclaimed Fiscal Conservatives Questioning Afghanistan Troop Surge?

Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties approach healthcare reform with a high degree of skepticism. Senator Joe Lieberman, who has received $1 million from the insurance industry over the course of his Senate career, has vowed to oppose any reform package that contains a public plan option. Lieberman explains that he is voting his "conscience" and that he cannot endorse an expansion in government during an economic downturn.

Senator Mary Landrieu has expressed a similar view. Some media outlets report, however, that in exchange for her vote allowing debate on the latest Senate healthcare reform bill, the White House promised to secure an additional $100 million in Medicaid assistance for Louisiana (the state Landrieu represents).

Across the aisle, Republicans are behaving like "born-again budget conservatives." They suddenly embraced fiscal restraint following the election of President Obama, but they recklessly agreed to cut taxes and increase spending during the Bush administration. Their newly found fiscal salvation leads them to oppose healthcare reform and basically any other element of government spending unrelated to wars and cops.

Fighting Wars versus Healing the Sick
After weeks of deliberation regarding a military-endorsed troop surge in Afghanistan, President Obama, according to emerging reports, has agreed to send an additional 34,000 troops to fight the Taliban. The troop surge would take place over the next 9 months. The estimated cost for the war over the next decade approaches $1 trillion -- more than the cost of each healthcare reform package pending in Congress.

Two Democrats in Congress -- Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Representative David Obey of Wisconsin -- have called for a surtax on upper-income earners to finance the troop surge. Self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives, however, have remained virtually silent regarding the expense and deficit-impact of the war in Afghanistan. Most of these individuals strongly endorse the troop surge and voted for the war in Iraq.

Bombing foreign nations and leading young Americans to their deaths in the name of national security (however skeptical the claim) is worth the expense. Funding healthcare for almost all Americans is reprehensible and socialist. Someone please explain this logic.

51 House Democrats Vote Against Obama's Supplemental War Funding Request

RELATED COVERAGE:

They're Baaack. . . .

Kinder, Gentler Military Tribunals? You Betcha. . . .
___________________________________________________________________

Fifty-one House Democrats voted against President Obama's request for additional money to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The supplemental spending measure, H.R. 2346, allocates $81.3 billion for war-related expenditures and $15.4 billion for various other projects, including military construction and flu preparedness. Despite opposition among Democrats, the measure passed by a vote of 368-60. Nine Republicans also voted against the spending bill.

Many members of Congress have expressed concern that Obama's supplemental spending requests could fund the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. According to recent news reports, the Obama administration is considering transferring certain Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States for detention.

In late April, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that between 50 and 100 detainees were too dangerous to release and too risky to prosecute (due to lack of admissible evidence). Rather than releasing the detainees or risking an acquittal (which would lead to a release), the government could possibly detain the individuals indefinitely, a move that would likely cause more tension between Obama and his liberal base.

In light of political opposition to the transfer of suspected terrorists to the United States,the House measure contains an amendment that precludes the use of the allocated funds to facilitate the relocation of inmates from Guantanamo Bay to points in the United States unless the President first submits a report to Congress detailing the national security impact of locating the transferees in the United States. The measure also requires the President to submit a general report on the disposition of each detainee later this year.

Roll Call
The Democratic "nays" include: John Conyers, Barney Frank (7 out of the 10 Massachusetts House Democrats voted against the measure), Luis Gutierrez, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Zoe Lofgren, and Maxine Waters.

The Onion Nails It: "U.S. Troops In Iraq Excited To Finally Return To Afghanistan"

The Onion continues to prove that satire is relevant social commentary:

Members of the U.S. Armed Forces were reportedly overcome with feelings of joy, nostalgia, and optimism this week after learning they would soon be withdrawn from Iraq and allowed to finally return home to Afghanistan.

"I never thought this day would come," said Cpl. Douglas Robinson, who hasn't seen the barren hills and smoking craters of his beloved Kabul in nearly six years. "Being away from those you left behind, for this long, it definitely starts to take a toll on you."

The amber waves of blowing sand and rubble. Added Robinson, "I can't believe I'm going home again."

In 2003, thousands of American soldiers were unexpectedly uprooted from Afghanistan and sent off to fight in a long and bloody war overseas. After serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq, the vast majority of these troops said they couldn't wait to get back and have their lives return to normal.

Misdirected Outrage: Public Should Bash the Feds for Giving AIG a "Blank Check"

The moralistic grandstanding from all sides of the political spectrum over AIG is nauseating to say the least. After hearing members of Congress propose some very questionable "legal" measures to recoup the $160 million in bonuses AIG paid some of its executives, I am convinced that AIG is the new Saddam Hussein. It is the leader of a financial "axis of evil." As with Iraq, the U.S. needs a smokescreen to mask its own bad decisions and complicity surrounding AIG and other financial institutions and to justify improper remedies for those mistakes. Get ready for a new round of "shock and awe."

Saddam Hussein, Iraq and the U.S.
Long before Bush I's Iraq War, the U.S. covertly (and perhaps illegally) supplied Hussein with weapons and intelligence data -- not because he was such a good guy, but because the government wanted to sponsor his eight-year bloody war against U.S. nemesis (and former regional buddy) Iran. Later, Hussein's own corruption and destabilizing behavior created an excuse for the U.S. to turn against its friend and to engage in imperialistic military action.

The "weapons of mass destruction" mantra became the rallying cry of the war machine. Absent from the political discourse, however, was any sustained conversation about the shady role the U.S. played in empowering Hussein, including tacitly supporting his prior use of banned chemical weapons. The construction of Hussein as an evil dictator with horrible weapons (presumably directed at the U.S.) allowed the government to conceal its own role in making him a supposedly dangerous individual.

Outrage Over Bonuses Masks Government's Role As AIG's Enabler
The Government Failed to Enact Reasonable Regulations to Protect the Investing Public. The U.S. propped up AIG long before the bailout. During the housing boom, AIG made billions of dollars insuring companies' investment risks with instruments known as "credit default swaps." The government, however, failed to regulate these instruments as "insurance," but instead treated them as securities.

Federal law requires insurance companies (and commercial banks) to maintain a certain level of "reserves" proportional to their outstanding risk portfolio. These reserve requirements protect the companies and the public by making sure that the companies can actually cover the risks they insure. These requirements, however, do not apply to investment instruments -- even if the investment instruments effectively operate as insurance and are issued by insurance companies.

AIG made enormous profits during the housing boom because mortgage-related financial instruments proved valuable as housing prices soared, home lending was robust and easy, and home values were skyrocketing. But AIG insured many extremely risky mortgage-backed securities that were formed by bundling subprime and other risky mortgage instruments. When the housing/lending party ended and homeowners started defaulting on their loans, AIG had to cover the losses of those companies with investments it insured.

AIG began losing billions of dollars, but it did not have the reserves to cover its outstanding risk portfolio. To save AIG -- and companies with investments it insured -- the government stepped in to salvage it. To date, AIG has received $170 billion in bailout assistance.

The Government Failed to Place Necessary Constraints on the Use of TARP Funds. During debates over the appropriateness of the bailout, many members of Congress stressed the need for accountability, transparency, and assistance to homeowners. But Congress passed legislation that gave the Treasury Department wide discretion to determine how companies used the money.

In January, some Democrats and Republicans in Congress threatened to block the release of the second $350 billion installment of TARP funds because they wanted more specifics concerning and restraints on the use of the funds. In response, President-Elect Obama marched to Capitol Hill and promised to veto such action. Congress released the funds after the President's veto threat -- an action that would have politically damaged the Democrats.

After his inauguration, President Obama came up with his own plan to create transparency in the use of TARP funds and to prevent wasteful practices among participants in the program. Most industry experts and news media, however, described Obama's regulations as being absolutely toothless. For example, it did not apply retroactively to companies that had already received TARP assistance.

Senator Dodd -- himself a recipient of millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector -- proposed an amendment to the stimulus package that would have done much more than Obama's regulations to constrain the use of TARP funds. Specifically, Dodd's amendment would have severely restrained the ability of TARP recipients to pay executive bonuses, and it would have applied retroactively to companies like AIG that had already received TARP funds.

After the measure passed in the Senate, President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Economic Policy Advisor Larry Summers expressed disagreement with the provision, which exceeded the constraints in the regulation that Obama and Geithner had already created. At the time, The Hill published an in-depth report on the Obama administration's disagreement with Dodd's effort to constrain use of TARP funds.

Obama's Senior Advior David Axelrod stated that the administration would have a "dialogue" with Dodd in order to "come up with a good approach," an odd position to take given that the measure had already passed in the Senate. Perhaps Axelrod's statement was an indication of things to occur because the bill that emerged from the conference committee did not contain the retroactivity portion of Dodd's amendment and specifically stated that the bonus and salary restrictions did not apply to any employee contract that predated the passage of the statute.

Dodd denies agreeing to the change regarding retroactivity -- even though he voted for the stimulus package. Whether he did or not, it is clear that the Obama administration negotiated limitations on regulations that would have prevented payment of the very bonuses that Obama now finds so outrageous.

Public Will Be Duped Yet Again
The government, including some of its most outraged leaders, failed to regulate credit default swaps, and it resisted efforts to place stronger conditions upon the receipt and use of TARP funds. Now that AIG has become a political embarrassment for its enabler, the enabler is outraged. Regime change -- or at least "sanctions" -- will definitely follow.

Despite the trail of events that show governmental complicity in AIG's profitable-then-costly behavior, the government is skillfully exploiting populist opposition to corporate excess in order to mask its own actions that enabled AIG to transfer money from taxpayers to its executives and to avoid the consequences of its own financial recklessness.

Similarly, the Bush Administration manipulated the country's fear of terrorism and anger over the 9/11 attacks in order to justify waging a war against Hussein whom the U.S. had previously fed arms and other assistance so that Iraq could battle Iran, which had fallen into disfavor with the U.S.

Rather than scrutinizing the government's wrongful conduct, the public is once again falling for the rhetoric and smokescreen. Instead of focusing on AIG, voters should direct their attention to AIG's enabler: the U.S. government. The government essentially gave AIG a blank check. That action should anger the public more than AIG's subsequent use of the money.

Update: Glenn Greenwald is covering the Treasury Department's attempt to blame Dodd when actually the Obama administration demanded that Congress drop the retroactivity clause. Apparently, the New York Times is digging into the matter as well. The administration's "outrage" could potentially become an embarrassment itself.

Hold Them Accountable Part II: If Conservatives Caused the Economic Crisis, They Had a Lot of Help from Democrats!

Elections and Economic Performance: The Historical Connection
The poor state of the economy helped to secure President Obama's election victory. An abundance of historical research demonstrates that voters typically blame the incumbent or the incumbent party for bad economic conditions.

Prior to the implosion of Lehman Brothers, McCain led or was tied with Obama in many leading opinion polls. But after Lehman and a number of other financial institutions experienced economic meltdowns and after statistics demonstrated that the economy was in a state of sharp decline, the momentum shifted strongly in Obama's direction.

Exit polls reveal that a majority of voters chose Obama because they trusted him to bring about economic growth. Voter preferences follow historical patterns, including the recent past. Poor economic conditions caused many voters to abandon Carter and Bush I in their re-election bids.

Lil' Bush's Fault?
During the presidential campaign, many pundits and commentators blamed Bush for the economic downturn. They often identified "deregulation" as the main culprit. Specifically, many liberals cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a depression-era statute that regulated several aspects of the nation's banking industry. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed a provision of Glass-Steagall that prohibited the consolidation of a commercial bank and an insurance company or investment bank.

Liberal critiques of Gramm-Leach-Bliley reached a fever pitch after several venerable investment banks imploded. Gramm-Leach-Bliley would soon symbolize to many liberals the utter bankruptcy of conservatism and the wisdom of liberalism.

Many liberals also blamed the economic crisis on Bush's tax cuts for high-income earners; others argued that the costly war in Iraq caused the problem. Also, during the Democratic primaries, progressives blamed NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements for the loss of jobs in the U.S., which they believe created the deep problems in the nation's "rust belt." Liberals argued that collectively, these failed "conservative" policies required a "change" of direction and that only liberal-Democratic measures could repair the terrible state of affairs.

If Liberals Are Correct on the Economy, They Must Criticize Democrats
Many economists dispute some of the more popular arguments that liberals advance as reasons for the sluggish economy. For example, according to economists, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not cause the financial crisis. Instead, the housing bubble and its subsequent explosion, the spread of risky mortgage-based assets through financial and securities markets, and the increase in interest rates from years of historically low levels created most of the nation's current economic problems (for an extended discussion of this issue see FactCheck.Org Confirms What Neither Party Will Admit: Bipartisan Blame for Wall Street Woes).

Democrats Supported the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
I assume, however, for the sake of argument, that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act contributed substantially to the nation's economic crisis. If this is the case, then Democrats are as blameworthy as Republicans. Although the statute is named for the three Republican members of Congress who sponsored it, the legislation passed with wide support from Democrats.

In the Senate, the legislation passed by a vote of 90-8. In the House, the vote was 343-86. President Clinton also supported the legislation, as did his Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin. Although popular liberal discourse portrays the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as the product of a vile and corrupt GOP, the historical record tells a different story: both parties supported the legislation.

Many Democrats Supported NAFTA, Including Party Elites
Economists, including respected liberals such as Robert Reich (Clinton's Secretary of Labor), dispute the role of NAFTA in the erosion of jobs in the rust belt. Reich argues that mechanization and technological advancements caused most of the job losses in this region -- not NAFTA. But, assuming that NAFTA caused higher rates of unemployment in the U.S, Democrats cannot claim innocence.

NAFTA passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38. Democrats split their votes 27-28, with one abstention. In the House, the measure passed by a vote of 234-200. Democrats voted against it, 100-156. Although a majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA, the vote was fairly close. Had more Democrats voted against the measure, they could have helped to defeat it.

Furthermore, many prominent Democrats supported the measure, including Senators Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Bill Bradley, Christopher Dodd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman; Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson also cast votes in favor of NAFTA. President Clinton also lobbied heavily for the legislation, and according to Obama's campaign brochures and advertisements, Hillary Clinton did so as well. Although a slight majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA, the measure still received support from many Democrats, including some of the party's most powerful and respected figures.

Obama: For and Against NAFTA
President Obama very passionately condemned NAFTA as he sought votes in Midwestern states during the Democratic primaries. Obama stated that he would not seek to repeal the legislation but that he would use his authority as president and force Canada and Mexico to "renegotiate" its terms.

After he secured the Democratic nomination for President, however, Obama sharply altered his tone with respect to NAFTA. During a June 2008 interview with Fortune, Obama said that he would not unilaterally seek to reopen negotiations concerning NAFTA. After the interviewer reminded him that he had once described NAFTA as "devastating" and as a "big mistake," he explained that campaign rhetoric often becomes "overheated and amplified."

In March 2008 a Canadian official leaked a memorandum of notes taken during a meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a top economic advisor for the Obama campaign. The notes explain that Goolsbee tried to reassure Canadians that Obama's tough stance regarding NAFTA was simply "political positioning." The Obama campaign, however, vehemently denied this description of the meeting, and some of his Democratic supporters contended that conservatives in Canada were trying to discredit his campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama's comments later that year, however, suggest that the memorandum accurately reflected his views on NAFTA.

In any event, Obama will not seek to repeal NAFTA or even unilaterally to renegotiate its terms. So, if liberals believe that NAFTA helps creates economic distress for Americans, they should criticize Obama for not trying to alleviate the problem.

Bush's Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
Most economists believe that Bush's tax cuts ultimately led to budget deficits, which will only increase over the next few years. Regardless of whether the tax cuts caused the recession, which most economists doubt, Democrats can actually claim innocence on this issue. The measure authorizing the tax cuts passed in the Senate by a 51-50 vote (Vice President Cheney cast the tiebreaker). The vote was highly partisan, with almost all Democrats voting against the measure and all Republicans voting for it. In the House, the vote was equally partisan.

The Costly Iraq War
In a prior post, I analyzed the Democrats' position on the Iraq War. In the House, a majority of Democrats voted against the war, while a slim majority of Senate Democrats supported it. The Democratic support for the war, however, came from some of the party's most powerful figures, such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Harry Reid. The war has indeed cost a tremendous amount of resources, but Democrats cannot claim innocence on this issue, despite passionate liberal anger with the military action.

Conclusion
Although the Bush tax cuts, coupled with greater government spending, squandered the Clinton-era budget surplus, this did not create the deep financial crisis the nation now faces. And while "cutting taxes and increasing spending" is bad policy, it does not explain why the country is now in a deep recession.

Economists question other popular explanations for the recession, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and NAFTA, but regardless of their connection to the nation's financial roles, Democrats and Republicans widely supported both measures.

Finally, the housing and mortgage-backed securities markets contributed most significantly to the financial crisis. But so many different actors were involved in this situation that responsibility transcends party affiliation and government/private-sector status. Although many liberals argue that the economy supports their claim that Bush is the "worst president" in history, the story is far more complicated than this popular script acknowledges.

Editor's Note: This article is the second in a series of essays that examine the extent of Democratic support for Bush's and the GOP's most criticized policies. This essay examines Democratic endorsement of "conservative" policies that liberals argue caused the recession and that discredit conservative political-economic ideology. You can read the first article here: Hold Them Accountable Too: Many Democrats Supported Policies of the "Worst President" (Part I).

Other readings on the economy:

Bah Humbug: Both Parties Are Guilty With Respect to the Economy, But Neither Offers Concrete Solutions

FactCheck.Org Confirms What Neither Party Will Admit: Bipartisan Blame for Wall Street Woes.

The Powell Endorsement: A Good Thing?

Yesterday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama in his presidential bid. Speculation of the endorsement percolated on the Internet for days prior to the official announcement. In a prepared statement, Powell's said that he was upset with the "tone" of McCain's campaign, specifically mentioning its reference to Ayers. Similarly, during the Democratic primaries, many of the people who endorsed Obama over Clinton condemned her "tone." I assume the Obama campaign prepares these statements. They are great political narratives, because they allow others to say that Obama's opponent is, basically, nasty.

Powell's endorsement also comes while some voters debate Obama's recent statement to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." Conservatives have officially gone into "red scare" mode, while Ayers continues to receive attention as well. Recent polls show Obama with a commanding, yet shrinking lead, perhaps due to Joe and taxes. Powell's endorsement could potentially move the public discourse away from these matters. Obama's campaign employed a similar strategy during the Democratic primaries, when it often announced endorsements and superdelegate support for Obama during soft moments for the candidate (including Wright and various primary defeats).

Although it remains unclear whether Powell's endorsement will influence voters, it does present some interesting points of analysis. The endorsement cannot harm Obama politically, but for some progressives, it could raises questions about where Obama will govern as president (center, right, or left).

Powell's Endorsement: The Upside

The endorsement has a lot of potential upside. Powell has even higher approval ratings than McCain and Obama. He is well regarded by persons across the political spectrum. He has great foreign policy and military experience. Because he is a Republican who served in the Bush administration, his endorsement looks like a huge slam to McCain. Powell's endorsement might help comfort moderate voters who doubt that Obama possesses sufficient experience to serve as president. Because of the potential upside, the endorsement serves a lot of strategic purposes.

Powell's Endorsement: The Downside

Although Powell comes with a lot of positives, I think that if people actually probed all of the issues it presents, they could come up with some downsides too. Powell's endorsement -- or Obama's acceptance of Powell's endorsement -- could undermine Obama's credibility regarding his opposition to the war. During the primaries, Obama said that Clinton "lacked judgment" because she voted for the war. He said the same about McCain during the presidential debates. But Powell actually sold the war to a skeptical public and in the process, mislead Americans and the international community about Saddam Hussein's danger to the United States. Powell was in the center of the Bush administration -- a regime that Democrats have long wanted to change.

Obama's antiwar message excited many left-leaning and solidly left Democrats, who thought that Clinton was either too hawkish or a dove who voted for the war due to political expedience. But since the conclusion of the primaries, Obama has picked Biden as a running mate and has humbly accepted Powell's endorsement (presumably after negotiating it). Biden voted for the war, and Powell gave credibility to Bush's demand for authorization to use force against Iraq.

This will not harm Obama politically, because Obama is not Powell, and most people are not focusing on the war at the moment. Also, outside of leftwing blogs, I imagine this aspect of Powell's endorsement will receive very little attention. Nevertheless, it still contradicts Obama's very powerful antiwar/anti-Bush narrative and gives another layer of complexity to Obama as a political figure.

A Final Thought: Powell and Gay Rights

Powell, as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played a very large -- if not the largest -- role in defeating Bill Clinton's plan to lift the ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. Powell said that the military could not maintain troop cohesion and order with gay soldiers, and he singlehandedly rebuked activists who analogized the military's homophobia to racism. The debacle over the anti-gay policy emboldened conservatives to attack Clinton almost neurotically, and it probably made Clinton even more committed to centrist positions than he already was. Because the military question came so early in his presidency and caused such a tremendous amount of outrage, Clinton accepted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise, which perpetuates the silencing of gays and lesbians. Although some recent journalistic accounts suggest that Powell has softened on this issue over time, many gays and lesbians who engaged in advocacy on the military issue might view his endorsement less enthusiastically than other Democrats. Obama, however, does not intend to use Powell's endorsement to secure gay and lesbian and other liberal voters; instead, it is designed to attract uncommitted and undecided moderate-to-conservative voters.

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Rasmussen Reports has released a survey which shows that 55% of voters believe that media coverage of the election is more biased this year than in the last presidential election. Here are some highlights.

* Although 55% of voters believe election coverage is more biased, this depends upon party affiliation. 79% of Republicans perceive greater bias, but only 36% of Democrats do. 54% of independent voters view the coverage as more biased.

* With respect to individual networks, the pollster presents data for MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Here are those statistics:

MSNBC -- 51% biased towards Obama; 28% unbiased; 5% biased towards McCain

CNN -- 46% biased towards Obama; 33% unbiased; 6% biased towards
McCain

Fox -- 39% biased towards McCain; 42% unbiased; 8% biased towards
Obama.

My thoughts: First, the people who view Fox as favoring Obama and MSNBC as rooting for McCain need to turn in their voter registration cards! All kidding aside, I believe that, overall, media reporting of the election has indeed leaned in favor of Obama, but this depends upon the network, individual journalist or reporter, etc. Media bias, however, has gone against many Democrats in the past. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis, for example, were skewered by unthoughtful reporting. And Hillary Clinton was brutalized during the Democratic primaries. So Republicans need to let go of the leftwing conspiracy language.

In addition to unfairly portraying Democrats in the past, the media have also helped Republicans -- including President Bush! Remember that the media were literally "in the tank" during and leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, two constant sources of Republican ire, later admitted that they refused to publish some antiwar material, relegated articles critical of the war to less popular sections (i.e., something other than the front page), or published pro-war stories without seriously scrutinizing their factual claims. If the media can exhibit bias covering a matter so extraordinarily important as this country's decision to invade and slaughter people in another country, then it is not irrational to believe that they can also show bias in a presidential election. Accordingly, when Democrats and members of the media deny the existence of pro-Obama bias in this stage of the election and during the Democratic primaries, they come across as disingenuous.

Perhaps the media are trying to compensate for their shamefully uncritical treatment of Bush leading up to the war, by bashing the war, Bush, McCain and any other Republican. Guilt is a powerful instrument. I cannot accept the narrative that, collectively, the media are suddenly leftist. Regardless of the cause, my fellow Democrats had better enjoy our positive stature in the media while it lasts. History has shown that media bias does not remain on one side of the coin.

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

Does Biden Have a "Sniper" Issue?

Does Senator Joe Biden have a sniper issue? During the Democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton became the laughingstock on nighttime and daytime television, "liberal" blogs, and among Obama supporters for falsely claiming that she was subject to sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as "First Lady." Apparently, Joe Biden may have his own snipergate (look here and here), but so far it has not brought Democrats or the media to a lather.



While he was still a presidential candidate, Biden said during one of the debates that he had been "shot at" in Iraq, a statement he now disclaims. And recently, Biden similarly "mispoke" by stating that a helicopter carrying him, other senators, and a "three-star general" was "forced down" in the "superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan." The helicopter was indeed forced down -- due to a snowstorm, not a terrorist attack. Granted, Biden never claims that terrorism forced the helicpter down, but he never says that inclemanet weather required it to land either. Within the context of his statement, this omission leaves the impression that something sinister occurred.



I have long argued that Clinton received unequal treatment by some Democrats and (especially) the media during the Democratic primaries. This provides more evidence of my conclusion, which many others share. Yet, at the same time, I do not believe that distractions like this should have relevance in an election. But for Clinton, "snipergate" proved to many who already opposed her that she was unfit for president and even mentally unstable. I seriously doubt that anyone will make such claims about Senator Biden.



PS: Biden also voted for the Iraq War, but during the primaries, Senator Barack Obama said that Clinton's war vote showed a "lack of judgment." Obama also grilled Clinton on NAFTA and the pro-business bankruptcy reform legislation, but Biden voted for both laws. Clinton, of course, could not vote for NAFTA because she was First Lady at the time the legislation passed.