I think there’s an obvious confluence of interests between the Edwards and Obama campaigns in many ways, but this seems pretty odd:

How good was Barack Obama’s speech at the Iowa Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson dinner Saturday night? Long after the event ended, as a scrum of giddy Obama staffers were all-but-forcibly exited from the bar of the Fort Des Moines Hotel, they struck up a spontaneous chorus of the campaign’s newly debuted catchphrase: “Fired up!” Beat. “Ready to go!” Beat “Fired up!” Beat. “Ready to go!” This slightly manic release of tension and elation wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was the person leading it: John Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi, who punctuated each explosive slogan with a pumped fist.

Of course, while it would be inconceivable to me for Trippi to be hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, one could imagine Barack Obama capturing the nomination and hiring Trippi for something or other so maybe Trippi has perfectly good reasons for playing footsie like this. More speculation from Noam Scheiber if you’re interested.

James Kirchick:

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency has a story that should rile all those liberals oddly attracted to the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul: not only have neo-Nazis vocally expressed support for his campaign and form a crucial part of his online spam brigades, but one of their leaders has donated money and the Texas Republican hasn’t decided yet whether to return it.

Siederaski’s got himself a solid story, one that includes the interesting tidbit that Paul was barred from a Republican Jewish Coalition candidate’s forum not for his ties to white supremacists but rather “due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel.”

The question, though, is why Kirchick feels this is a point that ought to be transformed into some kind of liberal-bashing exercise. It’s liberals like Dave Neiwert who’ve done the pioneering work on this issue. Paul, white supremacists aside, has all kinds of positions liberals wouldn’t like. The people attracted to his candidacy are libertarians and conservatives disgruntled with Bush’s war. Liberals have nothing to do with it.

Once again, key members of the House Blue Dog Coalition stand up for the values of their culturally conservative, economically downscale constituents by helping out billionaire hedge fund managers:

The House today passed, 216-193, an $81 billion tax extenders package, including a one-year patch to protect 21 million taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. Eight Democrats voted against the bill, including several who had voiced opposition to offsets used to pay for the package. Democrats voting no were Reps. Tim Mahoney of Florida, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, John Barrow of Georgia, Melissa Bean of Illinois, Nick Lampson of Texas, Jim Matheson of Utah, Harry Mitchell of Arizona, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. No Republicans voted for the bill. The largely united Democratic vote belied more widespread concern in the Caucus about the offsets, though leaders managed to persuade them to support the bill despite misgivings. To offset the AMT patch, House tax-writers included a $26 billion provision to tax the profits of private equity, hedge fund and other investment partnerships at 35 percent instead of the 15 percent capital gains rate as under current law. The bill would also delay implementation of tax cuts for multinationals and yank tax benefits that hedge fund managers enjoy by deferring compensation on offshore income.

Have I mentioned that balanced budgets is the signature Blue Dog issue and they have one of those silly national debt clocks (there’s no point in reporting the debt as a giant, ever-growing nominal sum rather than as a ratio) on their homepage?

Anti-war Iraq veterans were banned from participating in a Veterans Day parade in Long Beach, CA, because “we do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops withdrawal from Iraq,” said one organizer. Brandon Friedman notes that the organizers seem to have no problems with groups advocating staying in Iraq, however.

Digg It!

As Americans observe Veterans Day today, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and former senator Max Cleland note that the federal government has failed in its responsibility to help troops return to civilian life when they come home from battle:

It’s a disgrace that tens of thousands of National Guard troops and Reservists return home and find they’ve been laid off, demoted, or denied salary and benefit increases they should have received. It’s wrong for employers to turn their backs on those who risk their lives for our country. [...]

Today, however, the federal government is failing in this responsibility. It’s not even adequately informing returning service members about their rights, and it’s not protecting them when their rights are violated. A study by the Government Accountability Office this year found that when the Department of Labor decided to refer federal cases for litigation, it took an average of 247 days. [...]

“Support Our Troops” is more than just a slogan. Americans as individuals and as a nation must guarantee that our brave service men and women can resume their lives as much as possible when they return from battle. We hope this hearing will be a turning point for Congress, the President, and the nation in living up to their responsibility.

I’m with Ilan Goldenberg on the political problems caused by unduly timid Iraq plans:

Barry Posen recently noted, the Center for New American Security proposal for Iraq offers no strategic choice to the American public. Democratic candidates that flirt with the vague ideas proposed by Kahl are risking making the same mistakes made in 2002 and 2004 on national security – offering hair splitting difference on policy but no real strategic choice or contrast to Republicans. With the American public’s opposition to the Iraq war at an all-time high, the idea of offering a narrow plan not dissimilar to the policy already being pursued by the Bush administration – one which Kahl admits does not have a high probability of success – is politically tone deaf.

With Bush not personally on the ballot, a debate over who would be the best person to manage a fundamentally similar strategy doesn’t necessarily shake out in the Democrats’ favor. Indeed, I think Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or John McCain could all mount very successful arguments on that score. A debate about strategy, however, is likely to favor the party arguing for a bigger change from the failed policies of the past.