I’ve been sitting on this post for a long time. Mainly, I didn’t want to call the election too early; I wanted the democratic process to play out and run its course.

At this point, though, the reality is undeniable.

I know a lot of Clinton supporters, and they’re all great people. Smart, engaged, passionate, hard-working Democrats through-and-through. And I know the situation they’re in—I know what it feels like to know that your candidate is losing. I know what it’s like to dig your heels in, to vow to stay in to the bitter end, to sit and wait for every last single vote to be counted and until every last bit of hope is gone.

But it’s time. It’s time to face the facts and acknowledge that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. It’s a painful realization—it would be painful for me if I had to acknowledge that Obama would not be the nominee—but it’s necessary. We have to do this.

Let’s look at how Clinton could—or could not—become the nominee.

(All delegate calculations use Slate’s Delegate Calculator)

• Hillary Clinton wins enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, and thus the superdelegates won’t matter.

This outcome is impossible at this point. Even if Clinton wins every remaining primary with 100% of the vote, she’ll have 1821 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1413. No matter what, the superdelegates will end up choosing the nominee.

• Hillary Clinton wins enough pledged delegates to take the lead, and the superdelegates go along with the popular vote and give her the nomination.

Even if Clinton wins every remaining primary with 60% of the vote, she’ll still trail Obama by 42 pledged delegates. It’s obvious that Clinton won’t win every remaining primary, let alone with a 20% margin of victory.

And there’s Clinton’s problem. No matter how the rest of the primary turns out, she’ll still trail Obama in terms of pledged delegates.

Now, the superdelegates are free to vote how they please. But barring the massive, unprecedented collapse of the Obama campaign, they’re not going to throw her the nomination.

See, if they give the nomination to Obama, he’ll have a certain measure of legitimacy—he won the popular vote, which is why the superdelegates supported him. If the superdelegates were to give the nomination to Clinton, they would be directly contradicting the will of the Democratic electorate, and there would be a massive backlash. The superdelegates know this, and they’re going to do everything they can to avoid that backlash.

The argument that the superdelegates can give the nomination to the loser of the popular vote is inherently undemocratic. It assumes that the electorate are idiots, and that we need elites to protect us from selecting the ‘wrong’ candidate. We are the Democratic Party, and the heart of democracy is that the people decide, right or wrong.

Should Clinton drop out? Yes. She can’t win, and all she’s doing now is hurting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Yes, the long primary means that our base, our activists and our donors are more engaged than ever, and that we Democrats are paying attention to states that almost never get any attention. But those benefits will only go so far, and I think we’ve reached the limit. At this point, Clinton will have to retract a lot of her statements and eat a lot of crow once this is all said and done, and some of her attacks on Obama have left lasting damage.

Some people may allege that I’m saying PA, NC, KY and the other states who haven’t voted don’t matter. No, of course they matter—people voting, participating, and letting their voices be hears always matter. But what I am saying is that they won’t choose the nominee, just like no other state to date has chosen the nominee. That’s just a fact.

This has gone on long enough. Obama is the only one who has any realistic paths to the nomination; Clinton’s paths are all based on assumptions, unrealistic expectations, or outright ludicrous scenarios. It’s time for us to get together and focus our efforts on the real threat to America: John McCain and his supporters in the media.

We already know John McCain isn’t a maverick–he’s a pure Washington insider, steeped in 25 years of D.C. culture.

In fact, not only does McCain have inappropriate relationships with lobbyists, but his entire Presidential campaign is run by special interest lobbyists.

Need proof?Take a look at just how far special interests have infiltrated the McCain campaign (a handy visual analysis is here):

How can thus guy claim to be some maverick standing up for the little guy while paying millionaire special interest lobbyists to run his campaign? How does McCain get away with being so two-faced? Well, because the media lets him get away with it:

The media is particularly fond of the myth that John McCain is the senatorial thorn in the side of Washington lobbyists. This myth is pervasive and it suggests that McCain is the “maverick, moderate reformer” that he claims to be. Despite all of his posturing, McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign is rife with lobbyist connections.

Not only does the McCain campaign have more current and former lobbyist bundlers than any other candidate, but McCain has more current and former lobbyists working on his campaign staff than any other candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

The conservative press loves John McCain. Too bad their skewed representation of one of America’s most corrupt Senators leaves the American people in the dark.

Want to fight back? Demand accountability and honesty here.

Day 1 ♦ Day 2 ♦ Day 3

From the BBC:

More than 130 people have been killed and 350 injured since a clampdown on militias began in Basra on Tuesday.

Today, the Iraqi government extended the deadline for disarmament they placed on the insurgents a few days ago from 3 days to 10.

According to BBC analyst Magdi Abdelhadi, the extension shows either the fighting is proving more difficult than the Prime Minster predicted, or there are behind-the-scenes peace negotiations. The former seems more likely–the Iraqi government can’t put down the armed rebellion themselves, and they don’t know where to proceed after the deadline expires, so they’re extending it in the hopes a solution will somehow present itself.

Iraq’s progress in the 5 intervening years since the start of the war has been absolutely abysmal. The Iraqi government and military are nowhere near prepared to deal with the deep sectarian divisions in their country, and this most recent uprising shows it. Predictably, when the efforts by the Iraqis did nothing to stop the violence, U.S. forces had to intervene:

American military forces conducted air strikes on targets in Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias in the southern port city.

Two American war planes shelled two targets in Basra, entering the battle at the request of the Iraqi Army, which asked the American and British forces to make the strikes, according to Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British Army in Basra.

The air strikes are the clearest sign yet that the coalition forces have been drawn into the fighting in Basra. Up until Thursday night, the American and British air forces insisted that the Iraqis had taken the lead, though they acknowledged surveillance support for the Iraqi Army.

More from The Washington Post:

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army’s AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.

This has been the story of Iraq, day in and day out, for years. Whenever things get tough, the Iraqi government leans on the United States to solve their problems for them. It’s been five years since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government–five years to negotiate, to build a military, to stabilize the country and begin making progress. Unfortunately, due to George W Bush and the Republicans’ disastrous policies, the Iraqi government hasn’t made nearly as much progress as they should have. And now, whenever violence breaks out, American soldiers end up getting caught in the middle.

That’s why this war needs to end as soon as possible. As long as we’re there propping them up, the Iraqi government and military will never need to actually deal with their country’s problems. They’ll never be independent problem-solvers. And whenever things get tough, they’ll use us as a crutch.

That’s why I’m glad to see that 42 Democratic Congressional candidates have signed onto “A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq.” Iraq needs independence, not co-dependence. Iraq needs to be able to stand up and lead on their own, without the United States holding their hands every step of the way. The sooner we start to withdraw our troops, the sooner we can send a signal to the Iraqi government that we’re serious about leaving and the sooner we can begin preparing them to be independent once and for all.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan puts the present strife in perspective:

The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is “a power struggle” between rival “Shiite party mafias” for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country.

Yesterday, President Bush portrayed the intense fighting in Iraq as a return to ‘normalcy.’  While I agree that massive  amounts of violence and bloody sectarian fighting have become the norm in Iraq, that’s not exactly the kind of progress I would tout if I were him.

John McCain has some problems to deal with.

First, his latest FEC report shows his campaign violating the $54 million fundraising limit set by campaign finance laws. McCain opted into the public financing system months ago; by exceeding this limit, he has broken the very campaign finance reform laws he shepherded through Congress in 2002.

Then again, this isn’t unexpected. On this issue, McCain declared that the laws don’t apply to him–that he’s no longer restricted by public financing limits. Unfortunately for him, this isn’t his decision to make–McCain opted into public financing (receiving benefits such as money and ballot access) and he can’t pull out until and unless the FEC agrees.

A month ago, the FEC sent McCain a letter:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

[...]

The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain’s campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio

[...]

By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party’s nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.

[...]

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

In response to John McCain breaking campaign finance laws, the DNC filed an FEC complaint. In addition, a number of progressive bloggers also filed an FEC complaint; they’re coupling it with a petition, which you can sign here.

Second, McCain gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech yesterday. Unfortunately for him, it was light on specifics, and the policies he actually proposed were more than lacking.

McCain echoed George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq, casting the war as a choice between staying the course and winning or ‘cutting and running’ and surrendering to Al-Qaeda. Middle East expert and former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg had this to say about McCain’s false choice:

The trouble with this set up is that McCain’s core premise is dead wrong. By our own senior commanders’ accounts, Al Qaeda is but a minor player in Iraq, and there is no way the U.S. presence, surge or not, that will keep a lid on sectarian tensions. Just look at what is going on in Iraq at the very tragic milestone of 4,000 Americans killed: the worst sectarian violence in months has broken out with hundreds of lives lost despite a McCain’s surge that he continues to tout as the fire extinguisher that will stop sectarian strife from igniting once again.

McCain proposed forming a ‘League of Democracies,’ a new international institution that would provide political cover for whatever disastrous foreign policies a McCain presidency would come up with.

But the League of Democracies would be the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ by a different name, made up of countries trying to curry our favor by rubber-stamping our foreign policy decisions, no matter how idiotic or ill-fated. In other words, it would be the exact kind of wrong-headed ad-hoc alliance that helped get us into Iraq in the first place.

In addition, the League of Democracies would be a formalized version of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy–it would institutionalize our current foreign policy, which ignores and marginalizes any country that doesn’t follow our foreign policy directives. Much like the Bush presidency, this plan will both galvanize and unite America’s enemies, creating a dangerous, unstable bi-polar world.

Ambassador Ginsberg says it best:

What is so strikingly and inherently wrong with McCain’s world vision is that America’s global leadership will not be restored by ignoring adversaries that, left to their own devices, may further challenge and undermine America’s national security.

If this is the kind of foreign policy insight 25 years in Congress gets you, then I’d say Barack Obama has a point.

Third, McCain’s speech invoked this gem from his childhood:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Good God, John McCain remembers Pearl Harbor. Nothing like reminding the American people that, if elected, you would be the oldest President in American history.

Along those lines, take this quote from a McCain staffer:

If America is looking for a second term of the Jimmy Carter Administration of high taxes at home and weakness abroad vote Obama. I doubt they are.

Looking over the 2000 census numbers, roughly half of the voting-age population in the United States is 40 years or younger. If you’re 40 today, that means you were born in 1967 or 1968; since Jimmy Carter left office in January, 1977, it stands to reason that if you’re 40 or below, you probably don’t remember very much about the Carter administration.

So the McCain campaign is invoking the Carter administration, despite the fact that nearly half of America’s voting-age population aren’t old enough to even remember it. (Hell, I wasn’t even born until the Reagan years)

Of course, there’s a good way to re-work that quote to make it more recent…and more accurate:

If America is looking for a second term of the [George Bush] Administration of [economic devastation] at home and weakness abroad vote [McCain]. I doubt they are.

There. Perfect.

BREAKING: CNN brings us this headline:

A U.S. government official was killed today when militants fired rockets into the Green Zone in Baghdad, the U.S. Embassy says.

Today, violence has continued to rage in Iraq:

Forty-two people were killed Thursday in Kut, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq’s Interior Ministry said, the latest casualties in three days of clashes between militias and Iraqi security forces.

[...]

Since Tuesday, clashes in Basra and throughout Iraq’s Shiite heartland have left more than 100 dead and many wounded in Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya.

[...]

Thursday, a car bomb explosion killed three people and wounded five others near a police patrol in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. There are no apparent links to the violence in the Shiite regions.

Witnesses in Basra report smoke rising and gunfire and explosions ringing out across the city, where Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. and British troops, have been taking on fighters using grenades, mortar rounds and machine guns.

There was fighting Thursday in Jamhouriya, one of five neighborhoods the Mehdi Army controls, and Muqal, according to an official from Basra province and witnesses.

In addition to the recent death of an American official, an Iraqi government official has been kidnapped:

A spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, Tahsin al-Sheikhly, was kidnapped from his Baghdad home by armed men on Thursday, security officials told AFP.

The officials said Sheikhly, who spoke on civic matters related to the security plan launched in February last year, was abducted from his home in Baghdad’s al-Amin neighborhood at around 2:30 pm (1130 GMT).

“Armed men stormed his home at a time when there were clashes in his neighborhood,” a security official with the interior ministry said.

“They burnt his home and stole two cars and weapons before fleeing with him.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is saying that the end of Al-Sadr’s ceasefire and the violent armed rebellion by his Mahdi Army is a good thing:

The fighting in Basra, and rocket attacks on Baghdad’s Green Zone by members of the Mahdi Army militia, have led some analysts to believe the unilateral ceasefire called by the militia’s powerful leader Moqtada al-Sadr is falling apart. Among those analysts is Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of the National Security Network, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.

“It looks like it’s breaking down. If it is in fact breaking down, and not just a temporary blip, then you could have a major increase in violence,” he said.

That’s not how the Pentagon sees it, according to Press Secretary Geoff Morrell. “I do not think at this stage, at this stage, which is mere days into this operation, anyone is prepared to stand here and tell you that they feel as though the gains we’ve made over the past several months are in jeopardy,” he said.

[...]

Goldenberg sees the situation very differently. “Realistically, this is a massive power struggle between the two strongest segments in the country, at least in the Shia’ south. I can’t see this as being a good thing especially since you already see it spreading to other cities, like Baghdad and Kut and Najaf. What you’re looking for here is potentially an all-out breakout in Shia’ civil war. I can’t really see how that’s a wonderful sign,” he said.

That’s the standard Bush administration/Republican line for you: no matter what happens in Iraq, it’s good news.

If violence goes down, they say it means that our strategy is working and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they’re the only thing keeping violence down.

If violence stays the same, they say it means we’re stabilizing the country and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they need to maintain the stability and make further progress.

And if violence goes up, they say it means we’re doing so well that the anti-American forces are desperately lashing out against us (in what is inevitably their ‘last throes) and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home because they have to put down the uprisings and bring stability.

What does this show us? Well, that–in the eyes of Republicans–spin trumps reality.  Right now, though, the reality on the ground is undeniable: violence is going up in Iraq, and it’s bad news no matter who you are.

Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal explains the connection between the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire and the reduction of violence in Iraq:

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasfire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

It’s hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush Administration will tell you it’s all about the troop levels. I’ve tended to believe it’s more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

[...]

If you look at the graph that MNF-I has been using on civilian casualties [available here] it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed

[...]

The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occured on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.

[Emphasis added]

So data from the Multinational Force in Iraq (MNF-I) shows that, to a large extent, the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire played a major role in the drop-off in casualties and violence since the end of summer. Now that they’re once again clashing with both U.S. and Iraqi forces, will violence go up to where it was in August?

The major question is, what sparked the Mahdi Army to take up arms once again after over seven months of a successful ceasefire? Well, Iraqi’s security forces began cracking down on Sadrists for, ostensibly, political & sectarian reasons. Eric Martin explains:

It is no secret that America’s main ally in Iraq (and Iran’s), the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), is likely to lose ground to the more popular Sadrist current in the upcoming provincial elections (the Sadrist current boycotted the 2005 round). Absent some extracurricular activities to level the playing field that is. As Cernig noted quoting an AP article on Friday, ISCI, whose Iran-trained militia (the Badr Corp.) has heavily infiltrated Iraqi Security Forces, has been moving aggressively (in tandem with US forces) to help overcome what it lacks in popular appeal:

A Sadrist member of parliament alleged that the crackdown in Kut and elsewhere in the south was part of a move by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party and [ISCI] to prevent al-Sadr’s followers from winning control of key southern provinces in provincial elections expected this fall.

“They have no supporters in the central and southern provinces, but we do,” Ahmed al-Massoudi told the AP. “If the crackdown against the Sadrists continues, we will begin consultations with other parliamentary blocs to bring down the government and replace it with a genuinely national one.”

So the Iraqi government, fearful of losing ground to the Sadrists in the upcoming election, implemented a crackdown in order to reduce their influence in the upcoming elections, particularly in their strongholds in southern Iraq. Unfortunately, that crackdown pushed the Mahdi Army too far, leading them to violently revolt against the government.

Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki gave the militia three days to lay down their arms:

Clashes continued Wednesday between Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki laid down a deadline for gunmen to surrender and fresh rocket attacks hit Baghdad’s Green Zone.

[...]

According to wire service reports, Maliki issued a statement giving gunmen in Basra three days to give up their weapons and renounce further violence. Those who don’t, said a Maliki aide, will be targeted for arrest in the ongoing security operation.

[...]

In a sign of the offensive’s importance, Maliki flew to Basra on Monday to oversee operations.

By Tuesday evening, Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias had also clashed in the cities of Kut and Hilla, as well as outside Sadr’s Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. Dusk-to-dawn curfews were imposed on at least six cities in southern Iraq, police said.

The head of the Mahdi Army, Moqtada Al-Sadr, hasn’t officially lifted the ceasefire yet, but he has told his followers that they can attack Iraqi and American forces in self-defense. While it’s good news that the ceasefire technically still stands, the bad news is that he gave his followers orders to use violence when necessary. The ceasefire is already crumbling, and it will continue to do so with or without his explicit endorsement–the violence will rage on regardless of what he does.
This is a key test at a critical time in Iraq. While the administration and their Republican allies claim that progress is being made in Iraq, the level of violence remains abysmally high. The fact that Iraq’s security forces went after the Sadrists for political reasons shows that sectarian interests are trumping Iraq’s national interest in the eyes of the government. If Iraq’s security forces can’t put down this armed rebellion, there will be no question that the Republican policies in Iraq have failed.

This is exactly why we need to end the war in Iraq–the Iraqi government has become too reliant on American troops to keep them safe. Five years after the start of the war, the Iraqi government’s crippling dependence on us is shameful; we should have been pushing them towards independence a long time ago. We need to teach the Iraqi government to solve their own problems, and we need to show them that the United States of America isn’t going to stick around and protect them forever.

Iraq has extensive problems and deep divides that can’t be solved with bullets–there needs to be political reconciliation that brings all of Iraq’s major players to the table and charts a course for the future of the country. They need to be able to manage their own factions, to hold their own country together, to provide basic security and stability to their people. Unless we give the Iraqi government a wake-up call and start pushing them in the right direction, every violent flare-up in Iraq will consume more American lives.

UPDATE: More news from the battlefield:

The day saw street battles in Baghdad and Basra, mortar attacks by Shiite rebels against Baghdad’s Green Zone, bombing by U.S. aircraft and encounters that left government tanks in flames. More than 97 people were reported killed and hundreds were wounded since the operation began early Tuesday.

In Baghdad, at least nine Iraqi civilians were killed and 42 were wounded in mortar attacks, police said. The Mahdi Army, loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, opened fire on civilians in downtown Baghdad and clashed with Iraqi security forces in Kadhemiya in north Baghdad.

In Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City neighborhood, clashes between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces supported by U.S. forces left at least 20 dead and 115 were injured. By early afternoon, people took to the streets in protest of the Iraqi government.

Mortar rounds crashed into the heavily fortified Green Zone for the third straight day, injuring three U.S. government employees, all U.S. citizens, said U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.

The Pew Research Center has tracked party identification and the voting patterns of independents over the past eight years; take a look at the most recent trends:

In 2001-2002, nearly as many Americans identified themselves as Republicans as Democrats.  During the same period, independents were favoring Republicans by about 1%. This was the peak of Republican dominance in American government.

Today, 9% more Americans identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans, and independent voters favor Democrats bya margin of 5%.

Karl Rove dreamt of creating a permanent majority, and he got his wish–unfortunately for him, it’s a Democratic majority, not a Republican one.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Yesterday I reported that the self-imposed cease-fire by Moqtada Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army was unraveling, sparking violence in the heart of Iraq:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra

Well, now the violence has spread as the Mahdi Army clashed with Iraqi security forces both inside and outside the capitol city:

Iraqi security forces battled the Mehdi Army militia in Basra on Tuesday in a drive to win control of the southern oil city, but violence appeared to be spreading to Baghdad and other cities.

[...]

In a statement read out by a senior aide on Tuesday, [Moqtada Al-]Sadr called on Iraqis to stage sit-ins all over Iraq and said he would declare a “civil revolt” if attacks by U.S. and Iraqi security forces continued. He also threatened a “third step”, but said it was to early to announce what it would be.

[...]

Pro-Sadr students forced Mustansiriya University in Baghdad to close on Tuesday. Members of Sadr’s movement said the protest would spread to other towns and cities from Wednesday.

Police sources said Sadr supporters seized control of five districts in the southern town of Kut on Tuesday after clashes between gunmen and police.

[...]

Police said fighting erupted in several Sadr City neighbourhoods between Mehdi Army fighters and the Badr Organisation, the armed wing of a rival Shi’ite faction.

Baghdad’s Green Zone, the government and diplomatic compound, was hit by several salvoes of rockets during the day. U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover said they had been fired from Sadr City.

The Guardian also has a video up of the violence erupting across Iraq.

What does this mean for American troops? Well, it’s nothing less than a disaster.

Violence has abated in Iraq in recent months, which Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain have attributed to the 2007 troop surge. Remember that the surge began in January 2007 and take a look at the American troop casualties between then and now:

When the surge began, there were slightly more than 80 troop deaths per month. During the spring, after the surge began, there was a huge spike in violence that began in April, peaked in May and decreased until July. In July and August American troop deaths went back to where they were when the surge began–a little over 80 per month. It was only after August that American troop deaths began to taper off, leading to the the relatively-low levels they’re at now.

What happened in August that was unusual? Well, the Mahdi Army began their voluntary cease-fire, which continued right up until yesterday. Now, I’m not saying the surge had no effect, or that the Mahdi Army is the sole cause of American casualties in Iraq. But Al-Sadr’s militia were responsible for a lot of anti-American violence, and it’s undeniable that the recent reduction in casualties is somewhat attributable to their ceasefire.

This is just one more reason showing why the surge hasn’t–and couldn’t–work. Iraq isn’t a military problem. Unless we’re willing to pour hundreds of thousands more soldiers into Iraq, there’s no way we can quell the violence ourselves.

John McCain and the Republicans think Iraq can be solved through bullets. They’re wrong. Iraq needs a political solution–it needs to bring everyone, including Moqtada Al-Sadr, to the table and come up with a comprehensive political plan for their country’s future. Unless we can get the various factions to agree to stop fighting, they never will. This is what we Democrats have been saying for years, and it’s exactly why the GOP can no longer be trusted with our national security.

The Republicans and John McCain gambled on the surge, and lost. How will they spin this most recent setback in the war? How will they pretend that their failed policies didn’t lead to this increase in violence? What idiotic plan or justification will they come up with now to continue putting our troops in danger? And when will they realize that Iraq’s problems can only be solved at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield?

UPDATE: Basra is an oil-rich city, and there’s word that the Mahdi Army is threatening to set fire to the oil fields:

An official in Sadr’s Basra office, speaking on condition of anonymity said, “The Sadr current [movement] is threatening to set fire to the oil wells in Basra if the Iraqi military continues its security plan.”

UPDATE II: More recent developments in the fighting:

Two rockets landed on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s compound, but did not explode, an Iraqi government security official said

[...]

Al-Sadr’s headquarters in Najaf also ordered field commanders with his Mahdi Army militia to go on maximum alert and prepare “to strike the occupiers” _ a term used to describe U.S. forces _ and their Iraqi allies, a militia officer said.

[...]

Lawmakers from al-Sadr’s movement announced in a Baghdad press conference that a general strike campaign _ which began in selected neighborhoods of the capital and included the closure of businesses and schools _ was being expanded nationwide.

Three police officers were kidnapped from a checkpoint in eastern Baghdad, a police official said on condition on anonymity because he wasn’t supposed to release the information.

Stores and schools also were closed in several other predominantly Shiite neighborhoods in the capital, and armed Mahdi Army members were seen patrolling the streets in some Shiite neighborhoods of the capital.

In Basra, Iraqi soldiers and police battled Mahdi fighters for control of key neighborhoods in Iraq’s second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

[...]

In Baghdad, suspected Mahdi Army gunmen exchanged gunfire with security guards of the rival Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in Sadr City, police said.

Yesterday, John McCain said:

“We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says. I’ve seen the facts on the ground,”

I wonder if he still feels that way…

Disturbing news tonight out of Iraq:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra

While a lot of Republicans–like George W. Bush and John McCain–have been lauding the surge for bringing violence levels in Iraq down somewhat, the voluntary ceasefire by Moqtada Al-Sadr and his militia have played a massive role in reducing Iraq’s violence.

If this ceasefire falls apart, the Madhi militia–now with several months of rest, recuperation and rearmament under their belts–will resume their assaults on American forces, which will lead to another spike in violence.

Al-Sadr and his militia would be very difficult to put down by force; this is why, as we Democrats have been saying for years, Iraq needs a political solution. Throwing more soldiers into the mix hasn’t gotten us anywhere closer to a sustainable Iraq, despite what McCain and Bush tell us.

This is why we need a Democratic President come January 2009, so we can sit down and end this war quickly and intelligently.

The pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made some controversial comments in several of his sermons. This is the church that Barack Obama was baptized into, the one he regularly attends with his family.

When some of those controversial statements got publicized, the resulting scandal dominated the national media for well over a week. Political pundits parsed Wright’s statements, going out and finding more, obsessing over their effect (real or imaginary) on the Obama campaign.

But how did this story become so dominant? These weren’t statements Obama himself made or endorsed–in fact, he specifically denounced Wright’s controversial remarks. And Wright’s symbolic role in the Obama campaign was quickly terminated when these statements came to light. So why did Obama get tarred with these statements? Why was the media so willing to engage in guilt by association?

Why is this even news? There are real issues going on, there are real controversies in this campaign going on, but the media is complacent to try to tar Obama by tying him to the pastor he freely and readily denounced.
While this Wright controversy was burning, Hillary Clinton severely hurt her national security credentials by lying about a trip to Bosnia, making her visit seem far more dangerous than it really was and inflating the trip to make her seem more experienced.

Recently, John McCain ruined his image as an opponent of special interests by fostering inappropriate relationships with lobbyists; most of his top campaign advisers are lobbyists, some whom even lobby their clients while on-board the Straight Talk Express.

McCain also severely hurt his foreign policy credentials by repeatedly making a massive gaffe on Al-Qaeda and Iran; he demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and that he doesn’t understand that Iran is Shiite while Al-Qaeda is Sunni.

Google “Obama Wright” and you’ll get over 1.2 million hits.

Google “‘Hillary Clinton’ Bosnia” and you’ll get 210,000 hits.

Google “John McCain Iseman” and you’ll get 217,000 hits.

Google “McCain Iran Gaffe” and you’ll get 416,000 hits.

This is just an example of our twisted media culture, where mistakes and bad judgment on the part of actual candidates are stuck on the back burner and ignored, while the media obsesses over a muckraking scandal, pushed heavily by biased conservative interests, drummed up entirely to throw dirt on a popular politician.

We need to get ready for more bias like this. We need to be ready to push back against smear stories like this, and we need to be ready to call for fairness and balance in the media. If you haven’t already, bookmark both Media Matters and FAIR; read their websites regularly and keep up with the misinformation being pushed in the media.

UPDATE: I agree with Chuck Todd:

This was not a one-time slip and so, you know, this just shows you how much bank — how much of the foreign policy experience stuff [McCain's] got in the bank, because had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over, and would have absolutely hurt them politically.

Today marked the 4,000th American troop death in Iraq.

4,000 faces. 4,000 names. 4,000 families torn apart. 4,000 brave Americans who will never come home. 4,000 too many.

The 4,000th American soldier to die in Iraq lost his/her life in an IED attack in southern Baghdad, all because of George Bush and John McCain’s mistake.

It’s a busy time in the campaign.

The polls remain mostly unchanged from last time–Pollster shows Obama winning North Carolina and Indiana, while Clinton is leading in Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, it’s been a good few days for Barack Obama.

Today he secured the endorsement of former Presidential candidate Bill Richardson–Richardson is America’s only Hispanic governor, and he boasts an impressive resume which includes Governor of New Mexico, Congressman, UN Ambassador, Clinton administration cabinet member, and many others.   Richardson had this to say about Obama:

You are a once-in-a-lifetime leader…above all, you will be a president who brings this nation together.

[...]

“There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line. he showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”

This is a big blow to Sen. Clinton, whose husband appointed Richardson to a position in his cabinet.  And in the wake of Richardson’s endorsement, there’s word that Obama is planning a string of high-profile endorsements before the PA primary:

Campaign sources indicate Obama hopes to roll out a series of such endorsements and announcements during the long run-up to the Pennsylvania primary April 22 to create a sense of momentum. There’s still former Sen. John Edwards out there and, of course, former senator, former vice president and former presidential candidate Al Gore, who’s not always had the closest relationship with his ex-boss’s wife.

While Obama has been trying to get past the Wright controversy, Clinton is becoming ensnared in it.  She criticized Obama for associating with Rev. Wright, but will she have to eat her words soon?

The Obama campaign provided a photograph to the New York Times of Bill Clinton greeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in an attempt “to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign.”

The encounter occurred “during one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton” when he “addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.”

Meanwhile, the release of Clinton’s records as First Lady are receiving a ton of media scrutiny:

While Clinton’s advertisements have boasted that she is best prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis phone call, the schedules contain no evidence that Clinton was at the table during major national security decisions. They do not list her as attending National Security Council meetings or joining briefings in the Situation Room. She did not have a national security clearance. And the documents make clear that at moments of major crisis, Clinton was often busy with her own agenda.

Expect those records to not only raise questions about her claims of having extensive experience, but to dredge up plenty of old demons from Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Finally, Clinton has been having some fundraising issues:

Clinton’s campaign ended the month with $33.1 million cash on hand. But, that’s deceptive. Clinton has been aggressively raising money for the general election, too. As AP notes, $21.7 million is off limits to the primary campaign. That means her cash on hand is really $11.4 million. In addition, the Clinton campaign reports $8.7 million in debt (including $2.5 million to Mark Penn’s firm) bringing her number down to $2.7 million if she pays the debts. Subtract the $5 million loan she made to herself and we’re talking negative cash balance of -$2.3 million.

On the other hand, Obama had $38.8 million cash on hand at the end of February. Only $7 million is off limits in the primary leaving $31.8 million. The Obama camp had debts of $625,000 and no personal loans to the campaign, meaning he had over $31 million available.

[Emphasis Added]

Thankfully, John McBush’s fundraising has been pretty pathetic, too–$11 million in February, $4.3 million of debt, leaving the Republican nominee with just $5.7 million in the bank.  February was when McBush blew his competitors out of the water and became the presumptive Republican nominee; all of those pocketbooks and wallets that were supposed to open to him right after he became the nominee have remained closed.  Considering the huge advantage the Democratic candidates have had in terms of fundraising, McBush is in major trouble.

Of course, that could be why McBush is moving toward public financing:

Sen. John McCain “has taken a step towards accepting public financing in the general election — a move that would provide an $84 million infusion for his presidential campaign, but also limit its spending and potentially put him at a steep disadvantage to a better-funded Democratic opponent,” according to The Politico.

This month, “he filed papers with the Federal Election Commission creating a separate campaign account that would enable him to make the public money go further.”

McBush knows he can’t come close to raising the money that either Clinton or Obama will in the general election.  And he knows he is already tied into the public financing system–his attempts to weasel out of it prompted a rebuke from the FEC chairman and an FEC complaint filed by the DNC.  So his strategy is going to be to opt into public financing while browbeating the Democratic candidate for not doing the same.

McCain-Feingold was a groundbreaking piece of campaign finance reform law.  Unfortunately, it didn’t go nearly far enough in revamping the public financing system, particularly  in providing more funding for candidates who opt into the system.

In addition, campaign donations are a form of free speech–people express themselves through the candidates they choose to donate to.  Setting such unreasonable limits prevents people from exercising their rights and keeps citizens from developing a stake in the political system.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of publicly financing all campaigns, but the current system just doesn’t work and candidates shouldn’t be held to it.

It’s going to be a long slog to PA, so steel yourselves for more finger-pointing and dirt-throwing.  Still, the primary is preparing both our candidates to go up against the Right-Wing Noise Machine; the more primary wrangling they endure, the better prepared they will be for all the GOP will throw at them come the fall.

Recently, we learned that several State Department employees improperly accessed the passport files of all three major Presidential candidates.

First, we learned Barack Obama’s file was breached:

Two State Department employees were fired and a third has been disciplined for improperly accessing Sen. Barack Obama’s passport file, the State Department announced last night.

Senior department officials said they learned of the incidents only when a reporter made an inquiry yesterday afternoon. They said an initial investigation indicated that the employees — all of whom worked on contract — were motivated by “imprudent curiosity.”

Bill Burton, spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, called the incidents “an outrageous breach of security and privacy.” He said this is “a serious matter that merits a complete investigation,” adding that the campaign will “demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

[...]

[Undersecretary of State Patrick F.] Kennedy said that he did not know yet whether any laws were broken or whether the employees shared the information with others. He said that the incidents, which occurred at three offices, on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, should have been “passed up the line” much sooner and that officials were seeking to determine why they had not been disclosed earlier.

Then, we learned that the same thing happened to Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain:

The passport files of U.S. presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, a Republican, were improperly accessed by State Department workers, a U.S. official said Friday.

The official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, declined further comment. On Thursday, the State Department said it had fired two employees and disciplined a third for having snooped in the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat running for president.

What is going on at the State Department? Why are their contractors looking through the confidential passport records of both party’s Presidential candidates? And why wasn’t any of this disclosed sooner? Why weren’t the higher-ups at State–as well as the candidates themselves–informed of these breaches?

And what were the political affiliations of these contractors? The official line is that they were ‘curious,’ but how did State come to that conclusion? And how do they know none of that information has been–or will be–used against any of the candidates?

There has been a shocking lack of oversight at the State Department, which has allowed unauthorized individuals to access sensitive information about Presidential candidates. And the higher-ups at State are so detached they didn’t even find out about those security breaches until months later; once they found out, they failed to inform the aggrieved parties.

This is the kind of government six years of Republican rule gets you–incompetent at best, maliciously harmful at worst. For the love of God, can’t we get some competent adults in charge, for once?

UPDATE: Some information on what’s in someone’s passport file:

A passport record typically consists of applications made by a person for a U.S. passport, together with supporting evidence of U.S. citizenship. The records include details such as date and place of birth, naturalization details, family status, occupation and physical characteristics. Passport records do not include evidence of travel, such as exit and entrance stamps, visas or residence permits.

In other words, it can’t tell you where someone’s been.  But it can tell you vital personal information about someone, and it can also tell you if they lied about or fabricated some aspect of themselves or their political identity.  And that information is far likelier scandal fodder than looking at where someone went and when they came back.

It’s been a busy couple of days; let’s get to it.

Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd–according to Pollster, the Keystone State gives Clinton a 51.2% to 37.7% lead. After that, North Carolina and Indiana vote on May 6th; both of those states give Obama substantial leads (7.3% in NC and 15% in IN).

The mood must be tense in the Clinton camp right now, as plans to hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan–whose delegations were removed after they moved their primaries ahead of 2/5, in violation of DNC rules–have fallen apart.

First Florida:

After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday it will not hold a second primary in the state.

[...]

“We researched every potential alternative process — from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections — but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida,” said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.

And then Michigan:

The subscription-only MIRS service issued a release just before noon today that Senate Democrats “emerged from a closed-door caucus this morning and proclaimed that a fledging idea floated by top Michigan Democrats to create a special June 3 primary election is all but dead.”

The Clinton camp had hoped to use late contests in FL and MI to both close some ground with Sen. Obama and to generate good press going into the Democratic National Convention; with those re-vote plans tabled, the Clinton campaign will face an even steeper uphill climb to the Democratic nomination.

Another blow to Clinton occurred just few days ago, when Obama put to rest the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright by giving what is already being called a speech for the history books; Obama wrote it over the span of two days, and he shared it with only a handful of advisers before it was delivered.

And now the National Archives have released Sen. Clinton’s record as First Lady, which are already being poured over by the media–unfortunately for her, the records are already dredging up memories of the Clinton scandals of the 90’s.

Political Insider has more:

An early example from ABC News: “Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.”

Another example: “In December, 2000, when both of Hillary Clinton’s brothers were involved in trying to broker pardon arrangements for associates, several days of documents show only a long list of ‘private meetings’ at the White House.”

The other big danger is that the schedules will shed some light on some of Clinton’s claims of “35 years of experience,” such as this headline from The Guardian: “Clinton a long way from the White House at key foreign policy moments.”

Or this from the AP: “She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.”

In the coming days, expect the conflict over Rev. Wright to fade away and the controversy over Clinton’s White House records to ramp up.

They were wrong on Iraq then:

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

[...]

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be “weeks rather than months. There’s always the possibility of complications that you can’t anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops.” Cheney also predicted the fight would “go relatively quickly, but we can’t count on that.” That same day on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said, “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle,” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.” Asked if Americans are prepared for a “long, costly and bloody battle,” Cheney replied: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.” Cheney has spoken that way for months.

[Emphasis Added]

They’re wrong on Iraq now:

At a news conference, McCain said Iran has been supporting the Sunni group al Qaeda in Iraq, until he was corrected by a colleague. U.S. officials believe Iran has been backing Shi’ite extremists in Iraq, not a Sunni group like al Qaeda.

None of these people–Bush, Cheney, McCain–know anything about foreign policy. If the past few years have taught us nothing else, they taught us that Republicans don’t know the first thing about keeping America safe.

My University’s spring break starts this week, and I’m going on a roadtrip down the coast.

My internet access will be limited, so posting will be pretty scarce until Thursday or Friday.

Have a good week, and I hope the weather is nice wherever you are,

DS

Some controversy has been brewing over statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama is a parishoner.

In order to cut this off at the pass, Obama has written a column at The Huffington Post explaining his feelings on this:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

The entire ’scandal’ is nonsense. The fact that the pastor at Obama’s church said some controversial things has no impact on Obama’s ability to be President.  Nobody’s required to agree with everything their pastor says–if your pastor says something you disagree with, you just acknowledge that you have a difference of opinion and move on. It’s not a big deal.

This phony ’scandal’ reeks of desperation–Obama’s opponents don’t have anything legitimate to throw at him, so they pull together nonsense ’scandals’ like this and try to tar him with it.

In the end, though, none of these manufactured scandals change the fact that Bar