While John McCain happily imagines US troops in Iraq through the next century, the Iraq Defense Minister is more optimistic, we'll be there through 2018:

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

I think this might be an issue in the coming election.

Update [2008-1-15 9:28:58 by Big Tent Democrat]:

And the great Charlie Rangel, now is not the time for this nonsense. Kindly can it please.

As Jane Hamsher notes, the Media seems unlikely to take the candidates' graceful truce on the race issue as the final word. Jane excoriates Matt Bai's silly blog post but today in the Washington Post we see two columns trying to keep the fires burning. One is not surprising - Richard Cohen's playing of the Farrakhan card against Obama was as predictable as the sun rising imo. The second piece is surprising to me as it comes from the usually invaluable Eugene Robinson, who irresponsibly accuses the Clintons of playing the race card:

Obama surrogate Senator John Kerry launched a baseless attack on Senator Hillary Clinton. In an interview with Huff Po, Kerry launched an attack on Senator Clinton, claiming she was falsely attacking Senator Obama on his Iraq record, and then basically admitted his own attack was false:

. . . . Asked to respond to Clinton's contention that Obama has been more rhetoric than substance on Iraq -- speaking out against the war before entering the Senate, but voting for funding resolutions while in office -- Kerry said the attack was baseless. . . . "If you're criticisms and/or your attacks are not founded on accuracy, that's an unfortunate tactic under any circumstance, whatever you call it," said Kerry.

But not a moment later, Kerry admits the criticism is completely accurate:

When pressed to discuss how two presidential frontrunners differed on the war since Obama entered the Senate, Kerry did not cite a speech, policy, or vote. Indeed, he acknowledged their virtually identical voting records . . . "I think that he essentially -- in many ways as you go along the road, the votes we've had, they have paralleled each other on the votes," said Kerry. "But I think Barack has been very clear -- I mean they've both been clear that they are going to try and end the war in a way that is responsible. There is a great similarity in their articulation since then."

(Emphasis supplied.) Thanks for making Senator Clinton's point Senator Kerry. Too bad you prefaced it with a baseless attack on Senator Clinton.

Just when Hillary and Obama called a truce on the race issue, the New York Times brings it up again, in the context of the tension between Latino and Hispanics and African Americans.

Shorter version: The article plays to stereotypes and says Clinton has the edge because Latinos are strong on motherhood and identify with Clinton.

Mr. Obama, some party officials and scholars suggested, may face additional difficulty if Hispanic women respond to Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly strong appeal for support based on sex. A rally here Saturday was packed with Hispanic women who shrieked at seeing Mrs. Clinton.

“The Hispanic community is very family oriented, and we respect our mothers,” said Ruben Kihuen, an influential Democratic assemblyman from Las Vegas who supported Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of middle-aged women see her as a mother, a head of the household, and they can identify with this. Especially when they see her daughter, Chelsea, with her.”

On the other hand, it says, Obama, who has taken to joining the crowds' "Si se puede" chants at his campaign appearances, is doing okay.

Fanning the flames is Al Sharpton: [more...]

One of the worst immigration policies we have is that non-citizens, including those present in this country legally, not only face mandatory removal if convicted of an assortment of non-violent crimes, but must first serve their full sentences in U.S. prisons and jails. If we know the defendant is going to be deported, why the cruelty of the double whammy of a prison sentence followed by removal, and why pay to house them for years before sending them back?

The Bush Administration today announced a plan to end the practice, and allow prisoners to shorten their sentences if they agree to removal.

Under current law, immigrants convicted of crimes are deported only after serving their sentences in this country. Foreigners behind bars, Ms. Myers said, include large numbers of immigrants who were legal residents, but lost their legal status as a result of being convicted of crimes.

Ms. Myers said the agency would work with states to devise parole programs allowing immigrants imprisoned for nonviolent crimes to reduce their prison time if they agreed to be deported immediately upon release. [More...]

Who cares who started it? It's time to end the race and gender baiting and get back to issues. Here's Billy Joel and "We Didn't Start the Fire."

This is great news and I applaud Senator Obama for doing this:

ABC News' David Wright, Andy Fies, and Sunlen Miller Report: Sen. Barack Obama told ABC News Monday there is nothing in Sen. Hillary Clinton's record that would give him any cause for concern about her in terms of racial politics. Asked how Obama interpreted two recent remarks by the Clintons that prompted an angry reaction from some in the Black community, Obama sought to damp down the racial dynamics of the controversy. . . . "I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News. "That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view."

I know many will question Obama's motives, saying the politics had started to run away from him, but I do not care. I am thrilled he has put an end to this from his camp's perspective. I heartily applaud him.

An Obama Nevada precinct captain (Taylor Marsh has a copy of the flier) is circulating a flier with the following language:

You can be a Democrat for one day. Vote for Obama and then return to your voting status as you chose [sic].

Everyone regardless of party is welcome to be a Democrat for one day and vote. Republicans, Independents, Everyone, you can make THE difference. If you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary you can come to the Democratic Caucus and vote for Obama.

As I have said before, Obama is a fighter for Obama. He is not a fighter for the Democratic Party or Democratic values. This flyer is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Obama campaign. Be a Democrat FOR A DAY. For Obama. But not for the Democratic Party or for Democratic values.

(speaking for me only)

This is the type of stuff that makes me want to defend Hillary Clinton. Matt Yglesias approvingly cites David Corn's smear of Hillary Clinton:

Clinton insisted that her support for the war resolution had been merely a vote to pressure the Iraqi dictator to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. She quickly moved on to attack Obama: . . . "His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in." . . . That was one helluva charge. Obama was willing to sit back and let a WMD-toting dictator go along on his merry own way (while Clinton was doing what she could to pin down that snake). Could this be true? . . . Was favoring the continuing containment of Saddam Hussein in October 2002 the equivalent of doing nothing?

Now I reject Hillary's argument that the IWR vote was about getting the inspectors in for President Bush, but Bush DID say that. And indeed, the inspectors WERE NOT in Iraq prior to the IWR. This is worthy of a debate. But Corn does not just decide to agree with Obama's position. He decides to falsely accuse Clinton of lying. And that is a lie by Corn. It is very wrong of Corn to do that and very wrong of Yglesias to approvingly cite Corn for this proposition. Would Corn call it a lie that Obama says Clinton voted for the Iraq War when she says she did not and she can point to her speech saying exactly that? These are opinions about judgments. Obama is expressing his, one I share, and Clinton is expressing hers, one I do not share. [More...]

I'll be in court most of the day and off-line. For those looking for a place to share news and thoughts about matters other than the presidential race and politics, here's a thread for you.

Via Mark Halperin, a good discussion of these matters this morning between Bill Clinton and Obama supporter and radio host Roland Martin. Listen in. It was a very healthy and constructive discussion imo. BTW, Martin plays a cut of Bob Johnson's comments and there is no doubt in my mind, none, that he was referring to Obama's drug use.

Just as Ezra Klein does not get it, fellow Big Media Blogger Matt Yglesias is equally obtuse about the point of Senator Clinton's highlighting SENATOR Barack Obama's record on Iraq. Matt writes:

I don't understand what point her campaign is trying to make. Has Obama been less of a consistent, strong anti-war leader than I would have liked? Unquestionably, yes.

That is one point. Matt continues:

It seems that between the time he entered the Senate and the time he started gearing up to run for President, he adopted a pretty cautious political strategy when I wish he had adopted a bold one.

That is another point.

That said, Russ Feingold's not his opponent. Hillary Clinton is.

The point here is that SENATOR Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton's opponent. Obama is acting as if he has been Senator Russ Feingold on Iraq. He wasn't. He was basically Senator Hillary Clinton. When it came time to do more than talk about opposing Iraq, Senator Barack Obama did nothing. Heck, for 2 years, he did not even talk about it.

THAT is the point.