Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't
Obama and the domestic political risks of Afghanistan
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
As I've noted twice here recently, President Obama's biggest political challenge is not health care reform. It is Afghanistan. And now that he's reportedly deliberating whether to OK the military's impending request for a sizeable troop hike, apparently with a fair degree of skepticism as to the value of such a move, his potential domestic quandary is coming into sharper focus.
The prime political task of any president is to secure the strong support of his party base. But the Democratic base is strongly opposed to a troop hike in Afghanistan; the new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reports that two-thirds of all Democrats are saying no. So if Obama says yes to the military, and the troop hike fails to improve our prospects for success (which would not be a shock, given the current prowess of the insurgents, and the corruption and perceived illegitimacy of the Karzai government), he risks splitting his own party in ways reminiscient of what doomed LBJ 40 years ago in the wake of Vietnam.
Yet if Obama essentially says no to the military's recommendation, and that decision also fails to improve our prospects for success, the Republicans - 60 percent of whom support a troop hike, according to the aforementioned poll - will work overtime to morph Obama into Jimmy Carter, to roll out the traditional rhetoric about how Democrats are timid and weak on national security, and to complain that this president is losing a war he only recently described as crucial ("a war of necessity") and specifically vowed to win ("to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you").
Of course, the Republicans will do all this (actually, they're doing it already; Newt Gingrich this week referred to the Obama team as "the second Carter administration") while conveniently ignoring the fact that George W. Bush screwed up Afghanistan and thus bequeathed to Obama a steaming pile of dung with few cleanup options. But hey, that's politics.
I talked about the politics of Afghanistan, and the other potential domestic ramifications of Obama's foreign policy agenda, during a guest gig on Philadelphia's National Public Radio this morning, with foreign affairs columnist Trudy Rubin doing the heavy lifting on policy. Not that people care about the international realm; over the span of an hour, a grand total of one person phoned into the show. Nevertheless, you can listen to it here.
------
With respect to this blog's comment section, there was a disturbance in the force earlier today. For technical reasons, comments were blocked. Full venting rights have now been restored.
Comments (58)
No morphing necessary, Obama IS Jimmy Carter.
The big problem with liberal Presidents is that policy decisions are made only with the guidance of public opinion polls. Only a few months ago Obama identified the war in Afghanistan as the necessary war and made know his committment to McChrystal to properly resource the war. And the strategy to surge troops in Afghanistan was put into play. Now in an utterly befuddling move the President wants to make sure the strategy is correct? I guess that wasn't needed many months ago when 20,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan. If Obama truly believes this was a necessary war then public opinion polls shouldn't matter and he should have the backbone to follow through on his policy and sell the merits to the electorate. . But theirin lies the biggest weakness for Democratic Presidents. Public opinion polls are the opiate that drives policy.- Finally, a mercifully concise column! Thank you! I have a suggestion for BO on his Afghanistan decision. Just vote "present."— pj katauskas
Comment removed.- Anyone who was paying attention during the Bush years knows that Bush himself stated that he was leaving the burden to end and any resulting outcome of both Afghanistan and Iraq to "other Administrations". When it became clear to Bush/Cheney that McCain/Palin were going down in flames, they made every move to ensure that any decision made by a Democrat in the White House, Obama specifically, would be a political Catch-22. Too bad for the despicable Repubs, the public has seen through that. Oh yes, those Repubs are War Profits and Party First, Country Second, Troops Never.— In on IT
- Reading the 3rd paragraph about Republicans...Democrats control all the power in Washington and own everything and Republicans are weak, ineffectual and insignificant yet Dick Polman spends most of his time writing about Republicans? Guess Dick's not as interested in speaking "truth to power" now that Democrats are the powerful. Isnt writing bad things about Repbulicans all the time when Democrats own everything the job of Liberal Bloggers at College newspapers and MSNBC?— Frito1
Here DP illustrates the "nuance" that liberals believe is one of their better traits. It's not. This type of thinking can only lead to catastrophe.— jmc- I hope the President doesn't waver in his support of a 'surge' in Afghanistan & the GOP will not waver in their support of him on this issue! Our generals are saying we need more boots on the ground (drones only doesn't cut it) and the President should heed their request. I have always thought the left of the dem party would give this President the most fits and that has been the case on almost every issue:) If he flip flops on Afghanistan and caves to the doves on the left, all that Mr. Polman mocks will be true & the GOP will, ***"roll out the traditional rhetoric about how Democrats are timid and weak on national security, and about how this president is losing a war that he only recently described as crucial ("a war of necessity") and specifically vowed to win ("to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you").*** And they will be right, IMHO!— NEPhilly
- Anyone who was paying proper attention during the Bush years knows that Bush himself stated that he was lazily and cowardly leaving the burden to end (and any resulting outcome of) both Afghanistan and Iraq to "other Administrations". When it became clear to Bush/Cheney that McCain/Palin were going down in flames, they made every move to ensure that any decision made by a Democrat in the White House, Obama specifically, would be a political Catch-22 by manipulating agreements, pacts and military directives. Too bad for the despicable Repubs, the non-sheep public has seen through that. Oh yes, those Repubs are War Profits and Party First; Country Second; Troops Never.— In on IT
- CD75 must be dying that the posts are taking so long to appear ...— LorettaL
- What, no Conse 'Pubs? If Obama is for staying, Geo. Will wants to leave. If Obama wants to leave, Condi Rice can see a mushroom cloud. Ya know, if you squint real hard, you can see it too.— Talvenada
- Politically, then, I'd expect him to approve the surge. Probably won't help. There are about twenty good books on why Afghanistan is the place in which a country should not involve themselves. His line of thinking will probably be appease the right because who else are the left-wingers going to support?— HandNik
- The author's title says it all. I've posted these ideas before. Isn't the Khyber Pass region where empires go to die? Speaking of Carter, he and Brzezinski used military intervention to bring the Soviet Union their own Vietnam (and give rise to the mujahideen). The war in Afghanistan helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. I think more than Reaganomics and the accompanying military buildup did. If military involvement broke the back of the Soviet Union, it won't be easy for Obama. ••• http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html— Phrossty
- The field general asks for more troops, the the liberal loons in Washington tell him no. History redux. I guess the liberal know more than the field general?— CD75
- Obama made the afgan war a poltical issue, now he is reaping what he caused.— CD75
- > The prime political task of any president is to secure the > strong support of his party base. Firstly, in a decision as profound as whether or not to send men to fight and die in a war, I'm not convinced that politics is even relevent. Why not make the decision based on what's best for the country and the world? Secondly, if for the sake of argument we want to look at the issue from a purely political perspective... WHY is the president's prime task to secure support of his party's base? The prime task of a politician is to win elections. This is done by winning a majority among the entire voting population... not merely the party's base. (The party's base may be more important in the primaries... but re-nomination is nearly certain for Obama.) Perhaps Polman is saying that support of the party's base is necessary for the fund-raising? But the politician's prime task re fund-raising is to get money from anyone... not just the party's base. There are many independents and independent-thinkers in the country, who will base their votes and contributions on whether they approve of the president's actions... rather than blindly supporting one party or the other. http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/— RandomStu
- GOP rule #1: Don't do as we do, do as we say. Afghanistan will be the albatross around the GOP and Bush's neck for a long time to come. No way the GOP hangs this one on Obama.— AHiredGun
- Dick, Afghanistan is but the most palpable symbol of Obama's biggest political challenge -- preventing an incipient, silent coup d'etat that is arguably being covertly executed on several fronts. Obama had the opportunity to install his own team at the Pentagon. Instead, he left the Bush-Cheney military hierarchy intact, from SecDef Gates on down to the commanding generals in the field. Most recently, he chose a Republican to serve as Army secretary. With Bush-Cheney "leave-behinds" firmly entrenched and unchallenged, is it any wonder that Obama finds his Afghanistan policy being commandeered by the bureaucracy and the generals? When Harry S Truman was faced with a similar political challenge, he fired the general who defied his presidential authority. And that was famed Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Does President Obama have it in him to so firmly take the reins from those who may seek to usurp his powers as the constitutionally elected Commander-in-Chief? Judging from his tendency to compromise and equivocate, it appears that the Generals will get their way -- discreetly, covertly, the "will of the people" be damned. http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america— aviben
- Not liking what the reliable Nate from 538.com has to say: “Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes. It's still early--and there's a lot of scatter in those scatterplots--but if the generic polls remain this close, the Republican Party looks to be in good shape in the 2010. P.S. Is there any hope for the Democrats? Sure. Beyond the general uncertainty in prediction, there is the general unpopularity of Republicans; also, it will be year 2 of the presidential term, not year 6 which is historically the really bad year for the incumbent party. Still and all, the numbers now definitely do not look good for the Democrats.” And then I agree with the usually right John Aravosis: Forgetting for a moment that the President's and Congress' public display of weakness and fear has gotten us to this point, the President and Congress are now going to tell us that they need to cave even further on their promises to us, and move more to the middle, in order to preserve their hold on power. Which of course, will make both Obama and the Dems in congress even more wishy-washy and timid, and hurt their standing with the public even further. Not to mention, if we do lose the House next year, then all bets are off for all of the President's other delayed promises. There's a real reason in politics why you strike when the iron is hot. We had the chance to do great things at the beginning of this year, and in a very real way, President Obama, who we supported heartily for election, blew it. And our congressional leadership hasn't exactly been bold either. The president has been successfully reining them in. And look where it's gotten them. It's time for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to save their own jobs first.— DisappointedDem
This is not a political football Pollman , troops are dying in increasing numbers . Yes Bush screwed the mission up by going into Iraq , but its Obama's war now , he has to decide soon do we pull out or do we ramp up the troop numbers and fight to win , the allies are losing faith the Italians are pulling out , there is pressure in Britain for them to do the same you lose the British army in this it becomes an American war then what ? . Obama has to forget whats good for the democratic party and do whats good for America whats the chances of that happening ? .— PAEnglish- CD, The field general represents an organization dedicated to endless war. What do you expect him to say.— Chris Landee
- What is good for America now or good for the American future? Sure, it will save some lives if we pulled out now but this situation is not going away. Sooner or later the cowardly terrorists (Al Qaeda, Taliban) will attack us again. Since 9/11, it has been our mission to bring down the "people" (perhaps animals is a better term) that caused the death of thousands back on that terrible day. That mission was sidetracked by the Republicans who led us into a war with a country that did not attack us. I don't like war but this conflict seems justified. Fight them now instead of later.— James TL
- "Since 9/11, it has been our mission to bring down the "people" (perhaps animals is a better term) that caused the death of thousands back on that terrible day." And if scientific evidence reveals that the buildings did not collapse from the impact and the fire (WTC 7 was NOT hit by the planes) but from a high-powered scalar microwave directed energy weapons attack that could only have been mounted using highly exotic and classified hardware, how would that affect the mission to find the REAL "animals"? Are they the ones hiding along the Afghani-Pak border? Just asking the question... These buildings were vaporized in mid-air, and mechanical engineers are unraveling the truth.— aviben
- Ok Aviben, in that case let's pull out of Afganistan and attack Lockheed Martin (or some other 'deserving' military hardware contractor).— James TL
- swede--your claim that only democratic presidents pay attention to public opinion polls is the silliest comment on the blog today. Have you ever heard of Karl Rove? And anyway, it would be utterly foolish for any politician in a democratic country to ignore evidence, however flawed,of public opinion.— liberal
- CD/swmike/NEPhilly: please stop saying that the good general has requested more troops from Obama - he hasn't. It wouldn't be his job to do so, nor has any request been made - yet. The general and his staff are working on a report. It hasn't even been delivered to his superiors in the Pentagon yet. They must review it, ask questions, determine which additional troops (if any) are available, have a TO&E that meets the mission requirements, etc. After all that, it will go up through the applicable hierarchy to the Commander in Chief. All of this has been speculation based upon leaks of a draft of the report. Please try to remember that the military has a chain of command. .... And in any case, Obama would be shirking his duties NOT to question if alternate tactics and strategies are required. The security gains in Iraq would NOT have worked by just increasing troop levels. The adoption of new tactics (and the "Anbar Awakening")were just as important as the additional troops.— still_independent
- Polman's entry of today (basicially saying the war is not winable before it is even fought) and the responses from his liberal ilk (see liberal, tal, and landee) show that a post-Vietnam democrat is totally incompetant to be a commader in chief. Another reasons the repubs will be roaring back.— CD75
- So how's that surge here's still no hope of a government.— SteveMG
- So we were told the war in Iraq was immoral, even though everyine thought the threat posed by Iraq was real. OK Let's concede it was a bad policy choice, adn that Bush wasn't evil, just incompetent-along with everyone else that supported it based on the intelligence. We all agree then, from day 1, the the was in Afghanistan was legitimate. Now, however, our esteemed leader doesn't seem to really want to win there, even though a moth ago he did. But it is OK if he feels that way, because those evil Repubs want nothing than to regain power. The Repubs lost their majority because they supported what was viewed as an unjust war, why should the Dems maintian control when they don't want to win a just war?— sleepy
- Comment removed.
- Bill @ 4:27 p.m.: No amount of lame psy ops or malicious interference with mainstream media political blog sites will stop the truth from coming out -- because it's in the realm of SCIENCE now, not what you perceive as leftie lunacy. Didn't you get the memo? One more lame "tin foil hat" reference and you're busted! Calling Roz Mazer: Alert the DNI...— aviben
- Still Independent- So General McCrystal has not requested more troops? Then why is Obama commenting on his request for more troops? Perhaps I am being a bit snarky here( its part of my charm) but your making it sound like there has not been a request for more troops. Why would Polman even write this column of there was not a request for more troops?
- James TL @ 3:22 p.m. "Lockheed Martin"? Don't they just make neat stuff, and others decide how to deploy it? Or are the contractors (Blackwater/Xe comes to mind) now running the show? Are you giving people ideas here? Which side are you on? I'm an American who believes in the democratic process and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights... Do you?— aviben
- What exactly is the "war in Afghanistan?" We went in initially because the country was run by the Taliban and they were protecting our enemy al Qaeda. The Taliban were defeated and Afghanistan now has a government that does not support al Qaeda. But we still haven't destroyed the al Qaeda terrorist cells on the Pak border. Our troops are currently occupied in trying to keep the Taliban from coming back. This is a tough war goal and we need more troops to do it. But why is the focus still on the Taliban? Why not go directly after al Qaeda and let the Afghans sort out what kind of government they want? What am I missing here?— liberal
- Liberal- it all seems simple to us because we live in America. But we are dealing with a country stuck in the 13th century. In the summer we have a baseball season; In Afghanistan that is the summer fighting season. It would not matter if we where there or not. Politics aside it is tough war. It would be for any President. I think we should just go into Waristan and get Bin Ladin and get out and declare victory but who knows what happens then? If I were Karzai I would be making sure I had a very loyal military because his days are numbered if we ever pull out.
- If you cannot afford a doctor, you should not burden successful people with your miserable existence. Palin's right about death panels. What's the hurry on health care, Truman was just in office a few years ago, like when I was born.— Talvenada
- Before we spend our money foolishly on undeserving human garbage, we need more nukes, bombs, weapons. Wake up, Libs. We need DICK CHENEY to keep us safe!! We would never have been attacked if he were in the oval office.— Talvenada
- PHROSSTY: That's right. We need a Conse 'Pub in The White House, or there will be terrorists on every corner on Main Street.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- just a few short months ago, Obama reiterated and DECLARED that winning in Afghanistan was "a NECESSITY" - his words!!! There is no new strategy required - he's just waffling on his position.— zen
- I know that no one will read my post as they r too busy writing their opinions given to them by facts(or so called facts) from the media. I personally can tell you from a 1st hand perspective what some of the major issues that are in Afghanistan. 1st off Afghanistan is extremely tribal so trying to unionize that country would be way too time consuming. The majority of the country is extremely rural, spaced out, w/ little infrastructure & it would take decades just to have a solid cohesive society. 2nd some of the people of this country have issues w/ white westerns mostly w/ British & also of Russians that r mainly the results of attempted invasions & isolation. So it will continue to be hard to establish the trust factor now & into the future. 3rd the people who r causing trouble in Afghanistan r not a viable threat to the U.S.. They have about as much ability to strike the U.S. as a Crip or Blood here has of leading a takeover invasion in China. 4th the reason we have more deaths in Afghanistan now is because they copied the tactics used in Iraq. The invasion into Iraq made Afghanistan 10 x's worse as IED's & roadside bombs were not as prevalent & almost nonexistent in Afghanistan. 5th We r spending way to much & giving it to the wrong people. When I was there in 2002 all of the Afghans were either walking or driving old celicas when I left they were driving $80,000 Land Cruisers. We gave out way too much money to the wrong people. We were literally making instant millionaires of town leaders & shady indigenous contractors. So what do I propose? IMO the issue was never Afghanistan but Pakistan. Pakistan was the hub of most the people committing violence in Afghanistan so you start there. This isn't a war that you can win w/ bullets rather it's a war that you have to win by persuasion. We have to persuade this area to police itself instead of trying to force them to police themselves. By continuing to keep combat troops there all we r doing is making more enemies.— Nothing but the truth
- Comment removed.
- Nothing but the truth- What unit where you in?
- swedesboromike I was a 96th Civil Affairs soldier that was that was attached to the 82nd ABN in Bagram.— Nothing but the truth
- If 40% of R's are against a troop hike in AFG...and "Democratic base is strongly opposed" to the hike...WHERE IS THE RISK politically for Obama for not increasing the tropp levels? Oh, there's just that pesky little fact that Obama and the D party for years has been calling Afghanistan "the good war" and Iraq "the bad war" - for political gain. So...why isn't AFG the good war anymore?!?!— rbpeeple
- no hesnot reaping what HE caused...u serious !!? This was an issue for years before he was elected ! No to more troops..pull them OUT ! It has been nothing but lost american lives and NO progress..End this war asap! If there was actual progress id say go for it maybe, but it hasnt and we all know this. Obama— Will.i.Am
- - needs to stick with his party and say NO, and better yet, get them all out of there maybe keep a couple thousand for monitoring, thats it !— Will.i.Am
- Obama appoints a new commander in Afghanistan, then implements a new strategy for Afghanistan, and now may deny the new commander he appointed the troops his generals deem required to successfully implement his new strategy. All for what he called the war of necessity. As for the Taliban, weren't they the ones who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda and refused to turn over Bin Laden after 9/11, which caused us to go in there in the first place? If we now leave, and the Taliban regain control, might that not start all over again? Lastly, Obama and Dems have said with healthcare we can keep our current plan and keep our doctor. So, Republicans offered an amendment that the new legislation will not require anyone to change their current plan or change their current doctor. The Democrats voted it down and it did not pass. Interesting way to back up their words.— tom - wilmington, de
- President Obama assumed a responisbility that was originally a child of Clinton-era failures. You need to point that out, Dick, instead of dumping this into W's lap. Clinton to solve the problems of OBL and Afghanistan as well as Iraq. W & Co. decided to act post 9/11. Quit the misguided finger-pointing. And for all the anti-Bush "he lied about WMD" folks, please recall that Clinton, et al REPEATEDLY cited Saddam and his weapons as the number on proble facing the UC in the 90's.— Dopespotter
- Rbpeeple- That's the problem with liberal leadership. Everything is viewed through the prism of poll numbers. Afghanistan should not be looked at as a political risk. Leadership that simply follows the latest focus group poll is not leadership at all. I would hope that this President has the courage of conviction to back up is campaign rhetoric on Afganistan. Or for that matter his tough talk on Afghanistan from as recently ast April.
- janann, you are incorrect! 60% of repubs support the President's proposed 'surge' into Afghanistan and will support the President when his ideas are compatible with ours:) We will fight him 'tooth and nail' when his ideas are not compatible with ours, simple as that!— NEPhilly
- War is serious business. If we choose to engage, we need to be "in it to win it", otherwise we need to get out. There is no middle ground here. Compromise does nothing but cost lives and prolong the horror and agony of battle. America need to be all in or all out. We owe our troops and their families nothing less.— Mark Glaeser
- Did anyone see this story? ***Video of the students at the Burlington, N.J., school shows them singing songs seemingly overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again." One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama." *** Can we wait until he actually accomplishes something before we cannonize him? Sheesh! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/— NEPhilly
- Well, well: If Barack Obama had to stand for reelection today he'd win by as much as he did last year, if not more. He leads Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Sarah Palin by anywhere from 7-15 points in hypothetical 2012 contests. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_9241023.pdf— CurryFavor
- NEPhilly-I did see that,visions of Chinese children singing songs praising Chaiman Mao popped into my mind.— (reeducated)Yankee Air Pirate
- zwarte piet: That's brilliant. Imbecile.— p-diddy
- yankee, add that to this and it gets kind of Mao-ish, doesn't it? ***Sergant, who helped make artist Shepard Fairey's "Hope" image ubiquitous as an organizer of Obama campaign support from artists, had seemed to mix the NEA's work -- essentially non-partisan politics -- with the administration's legislative agenda on a conference call reported on by Andrew Breitbart's new conservative site, Big Government. "I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service," Sergant told artists on the call, which he reportedly invited some of them to attend. "My ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table," he said. Texas Senator John Cornyn, among critics, complained that the call politicized subjected the agency to "political manipulation, though the NEA initially defended the call. NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman later said the call "inappropriate" and that Sergant had acted "unilaterally" in helping to organize it.*** http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Another_conservative_target_resigns.html— NEPhilly
- xi_lives 07:33 PM, 09/24/2009 - Obama doesn't need to be loved - he IS loved, VERY, VERY Loved. By a MAJORITY of this country - and he didn't need a 9/11 to get there!!! BTW - it was Bush who didn't have the courage or competence to end either of his TWO wars - which the VERY LOVED, VERY COMPETENT Obama is now having to deal with. Sniff that!— let me in
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: