Last week, it was Bill Richardson to make a big hire, this week it was Chris Dodd. Dodd, who was in Iowa earlier this week, hired Marc Beltrame, a former longtime Boswell staffer, to be his state director. Interestingly, according to GWU’s Democracy In Action site, Dodd has also hired two former Loebsack staffers as well. It seems like he’s building a good foundation with these hires by tapping into the networks of incumbent Democratic Congressmen. It’s still an uphill fight for Senator Dodd in Iowa but he’s off to a solid start.
All over Iowa, students are working through their student governments to pass resolutions opposing President Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. They want to send a message: students will no longer tolerate fumbling or equivocation from elected representatives on the Iraq war. Too much is at stake to be sending more troops to Iraq without an end in sight, benchmarks by which to measure success or failure, or a clear definition of victory.
Here at Grinnell, we’re proud to be the first school in Iowa to pass a resolution against the President’s gamble. Yesterday, our student election board certified the results of the vote—81% of students voiced their opposition to Bush’s plan with over half of the student body participating. Today, the text of our initiative was sent to our Members of Congress. It is our hope and faith that they will realize that there are better options in Iraq than a senseless surge. It’s time for our President and his party to reappraise the war.
If you would like to learn more about our student campaign against Bush’s plan, or receive any help passing a resolution at another college, email democrat@grinnell.edu
It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.
Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.
