It is tempting for those of us who wish for an end to the US's Iraq Debacle to make much of statements like this:

Ohio Senator George Voinovich says the US should begin pulling troops out of Iraq and make greater use of diplomacy. . . . His remarks come on the heels of similar comments yesterday from Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. The two say they're still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal. But both are making it clear their patience is gone.

The temptation must be resisted. What this position stakes out is the view that it is acceptable to SAY you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy without actually doing anything about it. Forget for a moment the policy fact that saying you oppose the President's policy and then voting to fund it will effect no change in policy. Consider the crass politics of the situation. If the Lugar/Voinovich/Smith/Hagel position is treated as politically acceptable, even admirable, Democrats will be creating a political safe harbor for Republicans to avoid having to run on supporting Bush's Iraq Debacle. More.

Man, Richard Cohen really is clueless. He is predicting that Democrats will lose the 2008 Presidential election because they want to end the Iraq Debacle. I kid you not.

Antiwar Democrats in key primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, will not vote for a lukewarm antiwar candidate. This explains why Clinton recently reversed herself and voted to end funding for the war. The one Democratic presidential candidate from the Senate who did not was Joseph Biden. He said he opposed the war but saw no choice but to fund the troops. Precisely right, Joe. But more than right, prescient as well. As if to suggest what an issue this will become, Rudolph Giuliani called Clinton and Obama's vote a "significant flip-flop." Since then the Republicans have mostly trained their fire on each other. You can bet, though, that if either candidate gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around Clinton or Obama's neck, and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance for Clinton because she is a woman.

Cohen thinks the GOP will win in 2008 like Nixon won in 1972, by attacking Dems for opposing a war. Cohen is a fool. More.

One of the "issues," and what a sad commentary on our political discourse, has been what is the right kind of "wealthy" for a Presidential candidate. Michael Bloomberg set the hearts of the Broderists aflutter and one of his main claims to fame is being, well, a billionaire. This is not seen as a problem for Bloomberg. Indeed, absent being a billionaire, Blooomberg would not even be discussed.

John Edwards, on the other hand, is by comparison, only modestly rich, with his net worth estimated at somewhere between 35 and 50 million dollars. What is the difference? I wonder how much of it is revealed in this Matt Yglesias post about Edwards' supposedly "tacky" mansion in North Carolina (I've never seen an image of the house so I have no opinion on its "tackiness" Update [2007-6-25 22:55:34 by Big Tent Democrat]: Alien Abductee brought us this link to images of the Edwards "compound":

I read Jay Cost's argument that John Edwards is an amateurish politician. It turns out to focus heavily on criticizing him for building such an enormous house. I know there's a pretty widespread sentiment that this huge house will be politically damaging, but that seems like a mistake to me. The basic reality is that Edwards is a rich man, and there's no hiding that -- big house or small house. Edwards' giant house, however, is not just expensive -- it's tacky. Its tackiness, however, perfectly reflects Edwards' working class roots and his whole "son of a millworker" narrative. I would never in a million years build a house like that no matter how much money I had, but that's because I'm a snob and nobody would ever vote for me.

This reminds me of no one so much as Bill Clinton circa 1992 and during his Presidency. The Washington Establishment never liked the Clintons because, as far as I could see, they were nouveau powerful and, in the minds of the Beltway, tacky. Sort of like they feel about the blogs. More.

So the Sunday shows told me. Yawn. Can Nader match his 0.5% showing of 2004? Does anybody really care?

Since there really is nothing of import or interest to say about Nader, I leave you an Open Thread.

Senator Barack Obama gave another speech on faith and politics. I like this one, as it has been reported at least:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said. "At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

This is the way to discuss the way the Right has exploited religion in politics. Good for Obama. More.

"Lots of people say, 'I want a Democrat,' but when they see the particulars, they say, 'I don't want that Democrat,'" said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University. "The thing that's amazing about the Democrats is that they could still snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The major Democrats are all now well to the left of the median voter."

Matt Yglesias writes about this piece by ABC News that basically argues what Prof. Jeffrey Berry says. Matt comments on the lack of imagination of the piece. I am struck by its inaccuracy. The argument presented was the same one we saw in the runup to the 2006 election from the Media -- the Democrats are moving to far to the Left. As then, the polls belied every statement made in that regard. And of course the election results proved it too.

I have never heard of Jeffrey Berry and I imagine most of you have not heard of him either. He was chosen to be quoted in the article because the reporters wanted to put their views in the mouths of some semi-authoritative voice. And Berry obliged. But Berry is absolutely wrong based on all the polling on EVERY ISSUE. Let's discuss the particulars on the flip.

Greg Sargent explains. Rudy said today:

"I thought it would work, but then after a month or two I realized the idea that I was possibly going to run for president would be inconsistent with that," he said . . .

Baloney:

Rudy's role with the ISG was announced in March of 2006. That means that Rudy didn't see a problem with being on the ISG at that time. But many months earlier than this, Rudy himself was openly telling reporters that he was a potential candidate for President.

From the Associated Press in October of 2005:

. . . "I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark.

Rudy, as he is on most things, is just making stuff up. Will the Media call him on it? Is a haircut involved? No? Then no.

Q poll for New York:

In a hypothetical all-New York presidential race, Sen. Hillary Clinton wins with 43 percent of voters statewide, followed by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani with 29 percent and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
In a head-to-head matchup, Sen. Clinton tops Giuliani 52 - 37 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

Can we stop the silliness now? These are three pols everybody in New York knows. Bloomie would get 16%. The idea of Bloomberg running for President is a non-starter.

So Michael Bloomberg is contemplating an independent unaffiliated run for the Presidency. The question is why. He has no chance, absolutely none, of even carrying one state, much less winning. So what is Bloomberg up to? Is he starved for attention? Has he lost his mind? Is there some big issue that draws him in?

Let's first state the obvious - Michael Bloomberg has the political charisma of a potato. Even worse for us, he has no entertainment value. Saturday Night Live can't do a funny parody of him. He is fairly nondescript. Indeed, I wager that not 10% of the country knows who he is. This is not the bombastic Rudy we're talking about.

So the question must be, after all the guy made 5 billion dollars or some such obscene amount, what's in it for him?

Whoops. The Treasurer of South Carolina, a 44 year old millionaire and the Chair of Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina presidential campaign, has been indicted on cocaine distribution charges.

Thomas Ravenel, a former real estate developer who became a rising political star after his election last year, is accused of buying less than 500 grams of the drug to share with other people in late 2005, said United States Attorney Reggie Lloyd. Mr. Ravenel, a 44-year-old millionaire, is charged with distribution of cocaine, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Mr. Ravenel, a Republican, is also the state chairman for Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

Mr. Ravenel is innocent unless and until proven guilty. Still, a federal indictment on drug charges is hardly what the Rudy campaign needs right now.

I have seen none of the speeches, but the wonkosphere loved John Edwards, and especially, Barack Obama. Adele Stan writes:

I found myself weeping during Barack Obama's levitational address, during which I found myself embodying a veritable panoply of cliches, including goosebumps and smeared mascara. It's not that the junior senator from Illinois said anything that I hadn't already heard him say: it was the way he made use of the energy that was in the room. He took what the crowd so eagerly wanted to give him, channeled it through, and gave it back to them. He became more preacher than politician -- no, make that faith healer -- as he delivered his standard lines about how hope is the reason he is standing here before us, meaning the hope that the civil rights activists had that they could indeed prevail against racism.

On Edwards, Ezra Klein writes:

Rudy quit the Iraq Study Group last May after he was told he would actually have to show up and work on the issue:

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

Now if Rudy missed a meeting to get a haircut, perhaps the Media would think this a big story. But since it was not for a haircut, but rather in order to travel and collect 11 million dollars in speaking fees, I think Josh Marshall's prediction that this might end Rudy's campaign will be wrong. But the funniest thing is Rudy just plain lies about why he quit:

As someone considered a potential presidential candidate, the Mayor didn’t want the group’s work to become a political football. That, coupled with time restraints led to his decision.

Here's the thing -- Rudy did not voluntarily resign. He was told to show up or quit. He chose to turn his back on working to help the country on the Iraq issue BECAUSE he needed the time to cash in on 9/11.