On the front page of The Huffington Post:

ABC: OBAMA HAS MORE SUPERDELEGATES THAN CLINTON

Obama has won more states.  Obama has won more votes.  Obama has won more pledged delegates.  And now Obama has won more superdelegates. Even if you count Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins every conceivable metric of success.

The Democratic Primary has been effectively over for weeks now; this is just one more nail in the coffin.  It’s time for us to unite behind our nominee, Barack Obama, and start making the case as to why he should be the nest President of the United States.

Wow.

Polls just closed in North Carolina and already the networks are calling it for Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Indiana’s polls closed a half hour ago and the outcome is still up in the air. CNN has it as 57% for Clinton and 43% for Obama with 18% of precincts reporting.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: If Barack Obama’s an elitist, then so are the good people of Indiana; take a look at this exit poll result posted on Daily Kos:

Indiana:

Does Clinton share your values?

Yes 62
No 37

Does Obama share your values?

Yes 65
No 33

Let’s put this elitism garbage to bed once and for all, shall we?

And with 20% reporting, Indiana is still 57-43 Clinton-Obama.

UPDATE II: With a quarter of all districts reporting, Indiana’s percentages haven’t budged–we’re still at 57-43.

UPDATE III: CNN is showing nearly a third of Indiana’s precincts are reporting and the percentages are still 57-43 Clinton-Obama. If Obama’s going to make Indiana close, he’s going to have to start showing some movement pretty soon.

UPDATE IV: With 38% of Indiana precincts reporting, there has been some movement–now the totals are 56-44 Clinton-Obama. The start of a trend, or just some electoral static?

UPDATE V: Now CNN is showing Indiana as 55-45 Clinton-Obama. CBS has called it for Clinton but the other networks are holding off. Will Obama knock Clinton down to a single-digit victory in The Hoosier State?

UPDATE VI: CNN is showing Indiana at 54-46 Clinton-Obama with just over half of all precincts reporting. Looks like most networks were right to hold off calling this one just yet…

UPDATE VII: With 65% precincts reporting, Indiana is now at 53% Clinton and 47% Obama. In the past hour or so Obama has cut Clinton’s lead nearly in half; this is now a 6-point race.

UPDATE VIII: With 76% reporting, Indiana is now down to a 52-48 Clinton-Obama split. This is a huge blow to the Clinton campaign no matter how you cut it–IN was supposed to be her state, and for it to get so close is a bad omen in general. Tonight may very well erase any benefit she got from winning PA two weeks ago.

UPDATE IX: With 83% reporting, it’s still a 4-point spread, 52-48. Lake County–which is near the Indiana-Illinois border and where the Obama stronghold of Gary is–won’t report until 11:00 PM EST.

UPDATE X: With 91% of precincts reporting, it’s now Clinton with 51% and Obama with 49%. Even if those are the final percentages this will represent a huge coup for Obama. If he manages to win Indiana it will be an even bigger blow to Clinton, particularly considering the significant negative press he’s received since PA.

Stay tuned…

UPDATE XI: 92% in, still 51-49. Obama is down by more than 20,000 votes, but many of the outstanding areas are his strongholds. Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Even if Obama doesn’t pull out a victory, tonight will still be remarkable. Conventional wisdom said that working-class Indiana was Clinton’s–Obama wiped her lead out in a matter of days, despite several bad news cycles. If nothing else, tonight will be a testament to Obama’s ability to weather bad press and come out better in the end.

UPDATE XII: Kos brings us this line from Tim Russert:

Russert: Hillary Clinton has cancelled all her morning appearances.

That’s perhaps the most telling part of this. Despite her campaign’s spin, Clinton knows this is a huge blow to her Presidential ambitions. She’s far behind in the popular vote and the delegate count; being handed a humiliating defeat in what was widely considered a safely-Clinton state puts the Democratic nomination that much more out of reach.

Still 92% reporting, still 51-49.

UPDATE XIII: 95% of precincts are reporting. It’s still 51-49, but now Obama is behind by only 16,609 votes. In other words, the last 3% closed the gap by about 4,000 votes.

FINAL UPDATE: With 99% of the precincts remaining, it’s still 51-49. Clinton won Indiana, but by the slimmest of margins–out of 1.25 million votes cast, her margin of victory is just over 22,000 votes. That’s a less than 1% victory.

Indiana wasn’t supposed to be close–the last Pollster composite showed Clinton winning The Hooser State by more than 4%. In other words, despite weeks of bad press, Obama managed to whittle Clinton’s sizable lead to basically nothing. In addition, he picked up a sizable number of delegates by winning NC in a landslide.

The Democratic primary, for all intents and purposes, has been over for weeks now. But perhaps tonight will be the night that finally cements this fact into the DC conventional wisdom. Personally, I hope it does.

Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

Mickey Kantor’s words–if they are what they appear to be–are going to cause some trouble…

Can this primary just end already?

UPDATE: Already this video’s veracity is being called into question. The original source for it appears to be War Room, the documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. The part in question is this, about 4:15 in:

If you turn the volume up, the first subtitle is clearly wrong–there’s an extra syllable there; it sounds like Kantor is saying “those people are shitting.” As for the second line, though, the subtitle seems to reflect what he says.

You could argue that he’s not talking about the people of Indiana; that’s possible, since the topic at hand is the polls, not necessarily the states. A few people who heard it also claim to hear the name “Charlie Black” in Kantor’s whispering (Black was George H.W. Bush’s spokesman at the time) after the supposed slur. But as far as I can tell, the subtitle appears to be accurate.

UPDATE II: D.A. Pennebaker–an ally of the Clintons and the director of War Room–says the video is a fake.

Here’s Atrios’ take on it:

I’m not going to try for a complete transcript, but basically Kantor gets polls from Indiana. They’re close. He says even if they don’t win the White House has got to be shitting themselves. Then what I think he says is something along the lines of “how would you like to be beaten by a worthless white n*****,” presumably meaning Bill Clinton himself and referencing the Bush I campaign team’s likely view of Clinton.

John McCain and George W. Bush’s Iraq war: 5 years down, 95 years to go.

Tonight’s outcome won’t change the election, but the margin of victory will determine how the delegates are distributed.

From CNN.com, 8:37 PM EST:

_________________________________________________

UPDATE: From CNN.com, 8:51 PM EST:

_________________________________________________

UPDATE II: MSNBC and FOX News are both calling it for Clinton. A Clinton win is expected, but what matters is her margin of victory–if she doesn’t get at least 60% of the vote, PA’s delegates will be split nearly evenly, leaving Clinton more than 150 pledged delegates behind Obama.

UPDATE III: CNN has also called it for Clinton, but the gap is narrowing.

From CNN.com, 9:04 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE IV: Now we’re back to where we were 20 minutes ago.

From CNN.com, 9:12 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE V: From CNN.com, 9:22 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VI: From CNN.com, 9:39 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VII: Up then down and up again…

From CNN.com, 9:49 PM EST:

__________________________________________________

UPDATE VIII: From CNN.com, 10:05 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE IX: From CNN.com, 10:17 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE X: From CNN.com, 10:29 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE XI: From CNN.com, 10:59 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE XII: From CNN.com, 11:27 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

Progress Media USA–the independent progressive organization headed by Media Matters for America’s David Brock and Democratic strategist Paul Begala–is out with their first ad, called ‘Out Of Touch’:

More from Talking Points Memo:

The ad, called “Out of Touch,” will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it’s a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

With the Democratic primary dragging on, progressives are going to have to tell the truth about McCain on their own.  Personally, I’m glad groups like Progress Media USA are out there to set the record straight.

Pollster shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, 40.2% to 51.4%.

But SurveyUSA shows Clinton’s lead shrinking from 19% to 12% in the span of three weeks. Rasmussen is even more ambitious, showing Clinton now leading Obama by just 5%.

There’s also this quote from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO):

“If I had to make a prediction right now, I’d say Barack Obama is going to be the next president. I will be stunned if he’s not the next president of the United States.”

And Rep. Cleaver is a Clinton supporter.

Also, there’s this:

Hillary Telling Local Media In Future Voting States That Obama Wants Race To End

Followed by:

Obama: Hillary “Can Run As Long As She Wants”

Oops. Seems like Clinton isn’t telling the truth.

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.

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 of