The Fireside chat for December 18th, 2010 (VIDEO)

President Obama urges the Senate to heed the calls from Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, every living Republican Secretary of State, our NATO allies, and the leadership of the military: ratify the New START Treaty with Russia.



One more victory before y'all hit the road, right guys?

How much did Ben Nelson learn from Blanche Lincoln's @#$-kicking at the Polls?

Apparently, not much.

Remember when Blanche Lincoln tried to convince Arkansas Democrats that she had everything under control, that she was a better candidate than Bill Halter, and still got curb-stomped (electorally speaking) by 30 points?

It's about to happen to Ben Nelson.

There is no point to having Ben Nelson in our caucus. He will stab us in the back every chance he gets.

Tax Cuts Extended. START approved...and we have to depend on John McCain to do it?!?!?

Yeah, because he's trustworthy!

Democrats also are under pressure from Republicans to agree to a long-term resolution to continue funding the federal government into next year. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, who attended the meeting, said of the tax-cut issue: "We've got a path forward." And he said of the treaty: "We have not ruled it out. We're trying to figure out how to work it into the schedule, after we deal with taxes and spending."

One key player in the treaty negotiations is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been the target of heavy White House lobbying in recent days, including from Vice President Biden, sources close to the discussions said. McCain didn't attend the White House meeting but told "Good Morning America" on Tuesday: "What I hope that we could do is agree to the extensions of tax cuts at all levels and also reach some agreement on moving forward with the START treaty as well. I think that is a serious result that could ensue from the meeting today."

Bad Tax Cuts AND Good National Security? This is what things COULD look like for the next two years.

Speculation from Greg Sargent. Then again, I trust his guesses better that most people's (Republicans/Teabaggers) so-called facts:

Is a deal taking shape where Republicans would get a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts in exchange for GOPers allowing a vote on the New START treaty?

Fingers crossed.

Okay Ft. McHenry crowd, how does this sit with you? Personally, I can live with this, especially is the key word is "temporary" when it comes to an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.

But I would have loved to see the President roll into the room and say: "Look, until I see a year-long extension of Unmemployment benefits, your rich friends ain't seeing a single dime of tax cuts. Even when you take over the House, I'll veto every Tax cut until the Middle Class gets theirs! Pucker up, buttercup!"

Like I said, I would have loved to see that.

Andrew Sullivan would not:

I know many want Obama to become a liberal partisan firebrand to defeat the crazed Tea Party rhetoric. I reiterate my view that this would be a terrible mistake, and a massive over-reading of the mid-terms. Obama has to recapture those in the middle, especially Independents (like yours truly) who really do want to see a grown-up in Washington offer a serious plan for eliminating the long-term debt. If Obama can do that - and fight for it more aggressively and specifically than he did for health insurance reform - a slowly reviving economy, bolstered by more long-term confidence, will win him a landslide (and save the country's economic future too).

I agree with Sullivan that a play for the middle is vitally important to the President's re-elect chances. Then again, he's got an obsession with the debt that the rest of us on the Left don't have. (No Andrew, deficits do matter, but I'd rather we grow our way out of debt, and it take longer than your fast, quick, knife-in-senior's-and-poor-folks approach).

As important as those Independents are, it would be an equal, catastrophic mistake to completely ignore the President's base. We on the left feel like we haven't been listened to nearly enough. We lost out on the public option during the Health Reform fight. We lost out on adequate Stimulus. We didn't get Employee Free Choice Act. We're still waiting for DADT Repeal (though, that's starting to look good). We didn't get a Clean Energy Bill, and we didn't get Immigration Reform or the DREAM ACT.

That's not to say the 111th Congress was worthless. It wasn't. It did A LOT!: HCR, Stimulus (some better than none), Wall Street Reform, Lilly Ledbetter, and now apparently, Food Safety. As much as they got on our nerves, those guys and gals did historic amounts of good.

All I'm saying is that the left cannot be left completely in the cold these next two years. We need something, and it doesn't have to be legislative. Just deliver some pain to the right, and we'll be happy. The President shouldn't underestimate what a good, swift kick to the balls (Republican balls to be sure) can accomplish.

In regards to our Nuclear Force Posture...

I read Fred Kaplan at Slate all the time. I depend on Thomas Ricks for the whole picture: getting down into the details of why the Surge worked (the subject of his book, The Gamble), how the Israeli Army had to cancel a planned operation and the bizarre reason why, the possibility of Iraq falling apart in the near term and why we might need to stay longer (which I respectfully disagree with). In effect, I depend on him to make it complicated. I depend on Fred Kaplan to keep it simple. Fred usually takes the Military headline of the day, and breaks it down to be understood by any civilian.

He does it today with Obama's change of our Nuclear Force Doctrine:

The Pentagon released its Nuclear Posture Review today, and those seeking clarity from the major newspapers must have come away more confused than ever.

The New York Times, in a front-page preview of the report headlined "Obama to Limit Scenarios to Use Nuclear Weapon," called the president's new strategy "a sharp shift from those of his predecessors."

Yet the Wall Street Journal, titling its story "U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy," shrugged off the report as "a status-quo document" that makes "only modest changes."

Both stories exaggerate. The actual 49-page report is neither dramatic nor ho-hum. In a formal statement this morning, President Barack Obama said it takes "specific and concrete steps" that "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national-security strategy."

That's the most that can be said for it, but that's hardly trivial.

Disarmament activists had hoped for more. But, like the single-payer advocates in the health care debate, they were fooling themselves if they expected it.

The big issue—a matter of suspense in arms-control circles—was whether the document would declare that deterring a nuclear attack is the "sole" purpose of nuclear weapons or merely their "primary" purpose.

If it was the "sole" purpose, that would mean the president was declaring that the United States would never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack on U.S. or allied territory. It would signal a "no-first-use" policy.

If it was merely the "primary" purpose, that would mean the United States might use nukes in other circumstances, for instance in response to a chemical or biological attack or to a large-scale conventional invasion of an ally. We would, in other words, reserve the right to fire nuclear weapons first—as we have been doing, and declaring, since the atomic age began.

Obama's strategy carves out a novel, and very intriguing, chunk of middle ground. It rejects "no-first-use," noting that the United States is "not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons."

However, it does declare that the United States will not fire nuclear weapons first at any country that has signed, and is in compliance with, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The distinction may seem semantic, but in fact it's substantial. Throughout the Cold War and in the two decades since, presidents have always maintained a strategic ambiguity about when and whether they might use nuclear weapons. The commonly invoked phrase has been that "all options are on the table," sometimes with eyebrows raised while saying "all."

Obama is now saying that in conflicts with countries that don't have nuclear weapons and aren't cheating on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all options are not on the table. We don't need to brandish, much less use, our nukes. We can launch sufficiently devastating attacks with conventional weapons and defend ourselves against whatever those countries might throw against us.

This declaration has three tangible effects. First, the nuclear war-planners at U.S. Strategic Command are, in effect, ordered to stop looking for targets in treaty-compliant countries—and to stop listing "requirements" for more nuclear weapons to hit those targets.

Second, it provides another incentive for countries—even unfriendly countries—not to develop nuclear weapons (if they believe the U.S. declaration, anyway).

Third, it further isolates those countries that are in violation of the NPT—which is to say, Iran and North Korea.

UPDATE: 4:58pm, Pacific: In case you're wondering, righties. He's another key graph:

...officials agreed that there were strategic reasons for preserving the first-use option under some circumstances against some potential foes. Second, Robert Einhorn, undersecretary of state for nuclear security, added, in the same phone conference, that several allies in Asia and Europe—who were consulted throughout the drafting process—said that they would find a no-first-use policy "very unsettling." The Cold War concept of the "nuclear umbrella"—in which the United States guarantees an ally's security by threatening to use nuclear weapons in its defense—is still alive.

President Obama annouces the new Start Treaty (VIDEO)

Half the time, I'm posting video of speeches and/or Town Halls I don't think are going to get coverage...even on supposedly Democratic-friendly MSNBC.

This speech is one of them. (As I type this, this story is fourth on the Washington Post's headlines, behind the Iraqi Elections, Abstinence Funding, and Bart Stupak's Editorial justifying his vote for Health Care Reform).

Oops, now it's number five, changing the ways of the Senate jumped ahead of it.

The Fireside chat for September 26, 2009

President Obama's and President Medvedev's Press C onference in Moscow (VIDEO)

Admittedly, of a lower priority than any other video item I've posted. The real news was made before Medvedev and Obama took the stage. But since it's been made available...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

From Russia with Nyet...

I guess a Missile Shield is going into Poland after all...

Russia would be willing to discuss a new missile defense structure with the United States but sees Iran's nuclear program as a separate issue, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.

Asked about a report in the New York Times that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to him offering to back off deploying a new missile system in Eastern Europe in return for help with the Iranians, Medvedev said signals from Washington were positive but the two issues were separate.

"If we are talking about any "swaps" (Iran for missile defense), this is not how the question is being put. This would not be productive," Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.

But he added: "If the new (U.S.) administration shows common sense and offers a new (missile defense) structure which would satisfy European (needs) ... and would be acceptable for us, we are ready to discuss it."

"I count on positive signals we are now receiving from Washington translating into agreements," Medvedev said.

I didn't appreciate the common sense crack.

The New York Times put it a little less harshly:

On Tuesday, President Dmitri A. Medvedev offered a measured response, saying that the Kremlin was “working very closely with our U.S. colleagues on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program,” but not in the context of the American missile defense plan.

“No one links these issues to any exchange, especially on the Iran issue,” Interfax reported that Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was visiting to boost economic and political ties.

Uhh...we just did.

Listen, we've put it as plainly as we can put it. I am no fan of the Missile Shield, because in the end any WMD that's sent our way is going to be an Al-Queda suitcase bomb, something a missile shield can't stop. At the same time, I would like to remind our Russian (cough) friends, that the Missile Shield isn't targeting them, it's for Iran, more than likely in the event they try to strike Israel. We're just saying help us make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb, and we don't need a dang missile shield.

But at the same time, the article says that the letter hasn't been recieved yet, and thus...it hasn't been answered yet. You could assume this is posturing on the part of Putin---errrr, sorry, I meant Medvedev, Medvedev!

The power of talking?

Last month, I wrote:

Our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."

I figured this was a big Valentine's Day card to the Russians.

Looks like I may have been right.

Well, according to the New York Times, it went a little further than a hint in Reuters:

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

Moscow has not responded to the letter that was hand-delivered to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, above, three weeks ago.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

This officially falls into the let's take what we can get category.  I'm far more worried about Iran's potential nukes than Russia's current ones.  If we can get them to help us apply pressure, even a bilateral demand for IAEA inspection, good things can start happening.