More Endorsements, and the Big Three.

“‘Sen. Obama has been talking about hope and change and improving the morale of this country,’ Mr. Anchia said. ‘Gen. Patton once said that 80 percent of leadership is improving morale. And right now the country is in a pretty demoralized state and looking to get out of it, and I think Sen. Obama has the most compelling message there.’” More recent Obama endorsements of note: Rep. Rafael Anchia (representing Dallas), Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (representing the San Antonio area), and Northern Virginia Rep. James Moran (this last one, it seems, might actually hurt Obama.) Sen. Obama also seems to have made fans across the aisle in former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Senator Lincoln Chafee. Meanwhile, checking in on the Big Three of remaining endorsements (that is, presuming Speaker Pelosi stays neutral until a candidate is decided):

Al Gore: Every few days a rumor circulates from the Clinton campaign side that Al Gore is set to endorse Obama. But, despite “unbelievable” animus reported between the Clintons and Gores, no word from the Nobel Prize-winner yet. Presumably, he’s waiting because either [a] he doesn’t want to endanger his post-partisan cachet or [b] he senses the Democratic Party might need people who seem above the fray to broker a pre-convention deal. Either way, it doesn’t seem like he’ll be getting involved anytime soon. Update: CNN reconfirms: Gore sources say he’s staying out of it.

John Edwards: Here’s where a lot of the attention seems to be at the moment, given that a Thursday meeting between Clinton and Edwards leaked, and a planned Obama-Edwards meeting today was postponed. At the moment, media speculation seems to be that Edwards’ endorsement is truly up for grabs, although as I said here, given his previous statements about Clinton’s “status quo” campaign, I’d think he’d have to be leaning toward Obama (or risk losing quite a bit of credibility.) In their report on the Clinton-Edwards meet, CNN said that two friends of Elizabeth Edwards said she preferred Obama. If that’s true, that would seem to clinch it, but one never knows, and now “sources close to the Edwards family flatly deny that she favors one candidate over the other.“

Russ Feingold: Sen. Feingold, whose endorsement may well carry more weight than that of Edwards (particularly in upcoming Wisconsin) has said he’s planning to endorse after the Feb. 19 primary. He’s previously been very critical of Edwards, and some see that playing a role in the Obama-Edwards discussions at the moment. Again, given the previous dust-ups between Feingold and Clinton, I’d think the Wisconsin Senator would be leaning Obama. But he’s spent a lot of time with both candidates, and he doesn’t look to be moving off the fence before the 19th, after which he may likely just follow the choice of his state.

In short, now that we’re past Super Tuesday, it seems the Big Guns mainly want to see how things will play out. Update: The Man Who Fell to Earth? Greg Sargent’s sources say Sen. Clinton is about to pick up a decently important endorsement in former Ohio Senator John Glenn. Hmm, that’s too bad. I’d have liked to have Sen. Glenn in our corner. Ah well, godspeed regardless.

The Obama Record: Consensus.

“In Washington, Obama continued to work on ethics issues, teaming up with fellow Democrat Russ Feingold after a series of national scandals surrounding GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Their legislation required more disclosure of pork-barrel spending and the ‘bundlers’ who collect large campaign contributions. James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, says Obama deserves much of the credit for the cleanup. ‘I think he was one of the major forces behind the provisions that came out in the act,’ says Thurber, who testified to Congress on the issues. ‘He held meetings, a lot of cross-party ones. He was trying to find support where he could.’” A thoughtful Newsweek piece by Richard Wolfe and Karen Springen examines the consensus-building nature of Obama’s leadership in both the Illinois and U.S. Senate. “Hillary Clinton says Obama’s ethics reforms left too many loopholes…Yet Clinton herself was one of 20 Democrats who rejected the Office of Public Integrity idea.“

Democratic Disgrace.

“‘We’re hugely disappointed with the Democrats,’ said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. ‘The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they’re in control — it’s mind-boggling.‘” Um, why did we put these jokers in office again? Surely not to support such flagrantly unconstitutional intrusions as this. Folding completely to White House pressure, a Democratic Senate voted 60-28 and a Democratic House voted 227-183 to sanction Dubya’s illegal wiretapping procedures. ‘The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the monitoring, under certain conditions, of electronic communications between people on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens, and people ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States,’ without a court’s order or oversight.” The Dems’ fallback position? They included a six-month sunset provision in the bill, so they’ll get a chance to revisit and repeat their capitulation to the executive throne early next year. But can we expect any more leadership from the congressional Democrats then? Really, this is beyond disgraceful. “‘The day we start deferring to someone who’s not a member of this body…is a sad day for the U.S. Senate,’ Feingold said. ‘We make the policy — not the executive branch.’“

Unamid to the rescue?

“The resolution allows the use of force in self-defense, to ensure freedom of movement for humanitarian workers and to protect civilians under attack.” In a unanimous vote, the UN Security Council agrees to send 26,000 peace-keeping troops and police — a UN-AU hybrid force known as Unamid — to Darfur. “Ban Ki-moon , the UN Secretary-General, called the move a ‘historic and unprecedented operation’ that will send ‘a clear and powerful signal’ of help to the people of Darfur.” That being said, many observers — among them Sen. Russ Feingold — feel this version of the resolution has been excessively watered down to appease the Sudanese government: “If this UN resolution is passed as it currently stands, we can expect the Sudanese government to try to evade its requirements and agreements without a single consequence. Should that happen, the toll of the genocide in Darfur will continue to mount — in lives lost, in persons displaced, and in fundamental human values that the international community has failed to uphold.“

A Real “Modern Progressive.”

“The issue: Feingold’s recently signed campaign finance reform bill. Clinton, whose husband’s leasing of the Lincoln Bedroom had helped inspire the new law, was accompanied by an attorney. The attorney’s job: Look for loopholes, loopholes that would allow the Democrats to keep raking in soft money — unregulated, unlimited contributions to the party coffers. When Feingold objected, Clinton scolded him like Empress Livia dressing down a courtier. ‘You’re not living in the real world,’ she shouted. ‘Senator,’ Feingold responded coolly, ‘I do live in the real world, and I’m doing just fine in it.’” Hey, Hillary…want to see what a real “modern progressive” looks like? Writer Edward McClellan reviews Sanford Horwitt’s Feingold, a new biography of the Senator, for Salon, placing him in a long tradition of Wisconsin mavericks dating back to the inimitable Robert La Follette. “As Horwitt puts it, Feingold’s campaign was in the tradition of La Follette’s ‘progressives, who “mostly thought of themselves as perpetual underdogs against the big-money interests.‘”

Far Away, His Well-Lit Door.

“It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. You ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.” Despite having had weeks to prepare, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has a terrible, no-good, very bad day on the Hill, one that results in even ultraconservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) demanding his dismissal. [Transcript: I, II, III.] I only got to hear twenty minutes or so of the hearings today (Feingold-Sessions-Schumer) while in a cab heading downtown, and Gonzales sounded absolutely terrible: He was at turns combative, befuddled, and amnesic. And when even a White House shill like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is giving you a hard time and telling you “your ability to lead the Department of Justice is in question,” it seems pretty clear the jig is just about up.

Remember Mogadishu.

“None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.” In an editorial for Salon, Sen. Russ Feingold invokes GOP behavior on Somalia in 1993 to make the case for Congress cutting funding in Iraq. “Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when.”

Iraq is a Hard Place.

“Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” I’m still furiously playing catch-up, so I’m obviously a day or two behind on blogging this…Then again, Dubya’s just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I’ll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush — sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission — calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what’s being billed as a “surge.” (Re: “escalation.”) When you get right down to it, Dubya’s basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: “Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I’ve dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging…“

Here’s the thing — A massive troop increase would’ve made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then — and a quicker restoration of order and basic services — would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops — many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended — isn’t going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we’ve been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam’s hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything — until now — to rein in Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can’t handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran…who says Dubya isn’t a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn’t having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya’s plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight — While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya’s move (most notably John McCain, who’s been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

The Ethical Senate.

Meanwhile, over in the newly Democratic Senate: With Wednesday’s House cleaning spurring similar ethics reform in the upper chamber, a progressive dream team of Russ Feingold and Barack Obama unveil the Senate Dems’ ethics reform package, which includes a provision for an independent Office of Public Integrity, a key element of reform which failed 67-30 last year on the GOP’s watch.

Russ Opts Out.

“I’m sure a campaign for president would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget committees.” In a letter posted to his campaign site, Senator and progressive standard-bearer Russ Feingold opts out of the 2008 presidential race.

“[W]hile I’ve certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, ‘Run Russ Run’, or ‘Russ in ’08’, I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I’ve taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured.” Oof, I find this turn really depressing. But, he has a point, and this is probably for the best (and at least I’ve been freed from tilting at Bradley-esque windmills for the next 18 months.) At any rate, my vote in 2008 is now officially up for grabs. Update: Salon‘s Walter Shapiro and Glenn Greenwald pay respects to Russ.