President Obama’s Operating Space on Afghanistan Gets Narrower

ABC News' Kristina Wong reports: A month into reviewing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama appears to be operating in an increasingly narrowing space between reality on the ground in Afghanistan and political camps in Washington, with pressure closing in from all sides.

Leading one camp is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is urging the president to make a decision on strategy in Afghanistan as soon as possible, and follow the recommendations laid out by Gen. Stanley McChrystal in his Aug. 30 assessment on how to succeed in Afghanistan, including adopting a counterinsurgency strategy that would strengthen Afghanistan’s central government, and deprive al-Qaida of a safe haven there. McCain is also urging the president to follow McChrystal’s recommendation of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by around 40,000 – the middle option of three recommended in a separate troops request.

“We are not operating in a vacuum now. 68,000 Americans are there already. Eight young Americans were killed in a firefight – one of the reasons is they didn’t have adequate support – just recently,” McCain said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday.

On the other side is Vice President Joe Biden, who reportedly favors a counterterrorism strategy that would scale back the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and specifically target members of al-Qaida with predator drone attacks. With him are liberal Democrats such as Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who said this weekend, he would move to legislatively cut off funds for additional troops should the president decide to order a large number of additional American troops to Afghanistan.

“I am already working with people like Representative Jim McGovern, Republican Congressman Walter Jones, Barbara Lee and others to prepare for that possibility. I have already voted against various spending bills that support this policy. I didn’t even think the addition of the troops earlier this year made sense. So there will be resistance to this if necessary,” said Feingold, who also spoke Sunday on “Face the Nation”.

Another parameter shaping President Obama’s decision-making space is the upcoming Nov. 7 run-off presidential election in Afghanistan, after its first election on Aug. 20 was found by international monitors to be fraught with fraud perpetrated by supporters of the current Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. One camp is urging President Obama to not wait until after the election, while the other deems it necessary to see what type of government the U.S. could be working with.

After Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., returned last week from a diplomatic tour de force to Afghanistan, during which he convinced President Karzai to accept the International Election Commission’s vote count and agree to a run-off election, he urged the president to wait until after the Nov. 7 elections to make a decision on strategy, saying it would “irresponsible” to decide to send more troops before then.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, blasted the idea the president should wait until after the elections to make a decision on strategy.

“I understand why these are tough decisions, but I think it’s taken too long and some people have been hypercritical in suggesting that he’s waiting until after this election because [Democrats] have some tough governorships up for election. I hope that’s not the case,” Hatch said on CNN’s “State of the Union”, referring to the upcoming Nov. 4 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia – where Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine and Democrat Creigh Deeds are facing competitive races.

Asked whether Hatch agreed with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who recently accused the president of “dithering” on Afghanistan strategy and emboldening U.S. adversaries, he said he would never want to call his president “dithering.”

“I know it’s a tough position that he’s in, but why not follow he advice of all of his generals and especially General McChrystal?” Hatch said. “They need these troops, there’s no question about it. And we’re exposing our young men and women over there – a number of them have been killed, I’m not blaming the president for that, but we’re exposing them without the proper help that they’ve just got to have.”

But Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, disagreed, saying the president should be taking his time in getting the strategy right.

“We want to do this right. We should move deliberatively. We should move in a way that the president is doing by making this decision the right way,” Brown said, also on “State of the Union. “The president is doing it right, I think, waiting until the – not the Virginia and New Jersey election, but waiting until the election in Kabul and in the Helmand province and in Kandahar is the right way to go.”

While White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said last Sunday the president was not delaying a decision based on the elections’ outcome, he said that “most important” was that Afghanistan “get a government that is seen as legitimate to the people and has the credibility to be a partner in the effort to secure Afghanistan.”

One element complicating the dilemma of whether to wait for the run-off election results or not is the broad expectation that President Karzai — who is associated with Afghanistan's current corrupt and inept central government — will win. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said one could conclude the likelihood of Afghan President Kharzai “winning a second round is probably pretty high.”

Therefore, on one hand, elections could fail to lend the Afghan government sufficient credibility if the winner is Karzai – and troops would be needed to bolster security in Afghanistan regardless of the elections' outcome. But on the other hand, the elections themselves could lend credibility to Karzai or the winning government, which could provide the U.S. with a credible Afghan partner and help improve the security situation in Afghanistan without a large number of additional troops.

White House officials have downplayed the importance of additional troops as the main determinant of success in Afghanistan, citing governance and economic development as other important determinants. The Wall Street Journal recently reported the possibility of a hybrid strategy, between a 40,000 troops increase, and the scaled-back counterterrorism strategy presented by Biden.

Yet, middle ground for the Obama Administration could be getting scarcer, with President Karzai and his opponent, former foreign minister of Afghanistan Dr. Abdullah Abdullah calling for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan themselves.

“The need for more troops is there in order to reverse the situation. If the situation is not reversed from deteriorating further the security situation, so the future of this country will be at risk,” Abdullah said on FOX’s “Fox News Sunday.”

“This situation requires a sort of dramatic increase in the number of troops in order to stop it from further deteriorating and reversing it. The permanent solution is in a road map that Afghanistan stands on its own feet in a few years down the road, number of troops could be decreased in Afghanistan, finally, and eventually will stand on its own feet,” Abdullah said.

A month after the President began his strategy review, and nearly two months after McChrystal’s assessment, pressure is closing in from all sides, with the same questions are still largely unanswered – what strategy will the president decide on and when? Will he send more American troops to Afghanistan and how many?

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., empathized with the president.

“I’m wrestling with it myself, and boy it’s difficult. There is no good answer,” Schumer said.

Ludacris for President 2012?

ABC News' Kristina Wong reports:

Ludacris 2012?

Not likely, the rapper and actorsays. But with that said, he did come to Washington to campaign.

Rapper Christopher Brian Bridges, better known as “Ludacris,” came to Washington, D.C. this weekend to promote his philanthropic organization, the Ludacris Foundation, which aims to help underserved children and communities in the U.S. and in some places around the world.

Tonight the foundation will host its annual benefit dinner in Washington for the first time, to fundraise and honor its award recipients for community service, includingRep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Speaking to an audience at the National Press Club, the rapper joked about his appearance there today.

“Why would I come here? Why would they invite me here? What would Ludacris have to say?” he asked.

“Running for president in 2012? I'm here to let you know you don't have to worry about that.”

Instead, Bridges called for a new type of “apolitical” leadership in solving problems plaguing American communities today.

“In today's world, we have new issues and challenges. The old way of looking at the issues and challenges have not rendered the outcomes we want,” he said.

“Logical thinking, while necessary, is not sufficient,” he added. “We need lateral thinking outside our current frame of reference. We need a new type of leadership.”

Bridges cited the need for everyone to help underserved children and communities, not just government.

For example, Bridges spoke about how he and rapper “T.I.” raised $80,000 in eight hours, just by calling up friends and colleagues in the “hip hop community.”

In addition, his foundation raised $100,000 for families affected by flooding in his hometown of Atlanta. His foundation has also donated cars to 20 people designated most-in-need from the 5,000 letters it received.

“Some people have started calling me 'Luda-FEMA,'” he joked.

Bridges may seem like an unlikely philanthropist or role model for underprivileged children. His songs, including the infamously titled “Move B****,” often feature explicit lyrics about drinking, violence and women that are unsuitable for children. But Bridges said people should keep in mind that music is a form of art and entertainment, and there are “other sides of Ludacris.”

The rapper said he wrote his first song at 9 and was a good student. Math and English were his best subjects and historywas his worst.

He attributed his philanthropic side to his mother and his love of music to his father, who would play music early in the mornings when he was waking up. He also attributed his drive to his mother, who he said would give him extra homework and make him write his goals down every year as a child — lessons he wants to impart to children.

“Treat people who they ought to be, and they will become who they are capable of being,” he said.

During the 2008 elections, Bridges rapped critically about former President Bush, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

But his message to President Obama?

“Under the circumstances, you're doing a great job,” he told ABC News.

‘Top Line’ — President Obama’s Blogger Problem

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Disappointment from the “Netroots” has been an early and repeated theme of President Obama’s time in office, with sharp disagreements between the White House and the political left over such areas as health care, gay rights, Afghanistan, Iraq, and civil liberties.

Those tensions reached a new blogospheric boiling point over the weekend, after CNBC’s John Harwood quoted an anonymous White House adviser’s reaction to the “Internet left fringe.” The adviser, Harwood said, told him that “those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher (not wearing pajamas) told us that the comment is emblematic of a White House that isn’t respecting the liberal activists who worked to elect Obama president. Many of those same liberals are dismayed to see a White House waffling in its commitment that a health care plan will include a “public option” to compete with private insurers.

“The White House very regularly calls bloggers ‘the left of the left,’ ignoring the fact that the majority of the country, 77 percent, wants a public option. This isn’t some fringe, lefty, loony thing,” said Hamsher, the founder of the liberal blog FireDogLake.

“[I]take it as a mark of pride for my profession that we’re being called Cheeto-eaters this morning,” Hamsher said. “We’re an independent political movement. We’re progressives, and progressives in the House are dismissed, progressives online are dismissed. You know, progressive values, progressive groups are only allowed access to the White House to the extent that they’re willing to torpedo progressive legislation.”

She added, “It’s not that we‘re some part of the Democratic Party that deserves respect. We’ve always had an independent political voice from the Democrats.”

Hamsher’s latest venture will test that proposition. Public Option Please is seeking to harness some of the same online energy that fueled Obama’s campaign to insist to lawmakers that a public option be included in a health care bill.

Marshall Ganz, a legendary figure in political organizing who helped design the Obama campaign’s field program in 2008, is helping Hamsher and her allies at Public Option Please find ways to make sure their voices are heard inside Washington.

“Ganz … said all along that Obama would not have been elected had he campaigned on politics of narrow self-interest,” Hamsher said. “And that that’s where the conversation about health care reform has taken place. We’re talking about bending the cost curve, and what we should be talking about is health care as a human right.”

“So we’re reaching out to young people, and trying to reach them through art, through music, you know, through other means to take hold and shape their own future,” she added. “And Obama, you know, sort of inspired that during the campaign, and then got into realpolitiks very fast. So that emotion had no place to go, and so we’re picking that up.”

Hamsher also promised to bring more pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to bring a vote on the public option to the Senate floor: “This whole idea that they’re going to water down the public option so that they don’t put Democratic senators in the position of having to actually state that they will filibuster is ridiculous. No. If they’re going to filibuster, make them say so. Nobody will say so for a reason. It is unprecedented. So the idea that we’re just going to sell this out to keep them from that uncomfortable position is not going to happen. And Harry Reid needs to start taking people’s gavels away [stripping committee chairmen of their titles] if it does happen.”

Harwood’s reporting sparked widespread anger among liberal bloggers, and prompted the White House to do some damage control today.

White House deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer told Greg Sargent, of The Plum Line blog: “That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

Click HERE for the full interview with Jane Hamsher.

We also checked in with Politico’s Ben Smith (another blogger who, for the record, joined us fully and well-dressed), on the insurance industry’s last-ditch attempt to scuttle a health care bill, and tomorrow’s critical vote in the Senate Finance Committee.

We also got into some handicapping of the mayoral race in New York City, where Democrats have been unable to muster much outrage against Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt for a third term — a move that required him to get the City Council to toss out term limits for city officials.

Watch tht full interview with Ben Smith HERE.

Bill Clinton Says Right-Wing Conspiracy Now After President Obama

ABC News' Kristina Wong reports: Former President Bill Clinton says the right-wing conspiracy that attacked him during his presidency now is after President Obama.

When asked whether the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is still present today, the former president answered without hesitation, “Oh you bet.”

“It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was,” Clinton said today on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

“Right-wing conspiracy” was the term used by former first lady Hillary Clinton to describe the tactics her husband's political enemies used to attack his presidency after revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinski.

“I mean they may be hurting President Obama,” Bill Clinton said of the current attacks. “They can take his numbers down, they can run his opposition up, but fundamentally he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that's not a good prescription for a good America.

“I mean, they're saying things about him just like when they accused me of murder and all this stuff they did, but it's not really good for the Republicans or the country, what's going on now,” Clinton said.

Repeat of 1994?

When asked to compare his administration's unsuccessful attempt at health care reform to President Obama's current push, Clinton said the president has been at a “terrible disadvantage in the law-making phase.”

“He has a better Congress than I did. And he doesn't have a committee chairman that I had demanding that he present a bill,” Clinton said. “So [Obama] said, 'OK, I'll let you develop the bill.' Well, while they're developing the bill, he's set out certain principles and he is vulnerable to whatever anybody wants to say about any of the bills moving through Congress — whether that's his position or not.”

But, Clinton said, the current situation will not lead to a “repeat of 1994”, when Democrats lost 15 seats in the House for the first time in 40 years, crippling progress on his administration's agenda.

“There's no way they can make it that bad, for several reasons,” Clinton said.

For one, he said, “The country is more diverse and interested in positive action.

“Number two,” he added, “they've seen this movie before, because they've had eight years under President Bush, when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad.

“Number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did and they took 15 of our members out … so whatever happens, it will be manageable for the president,” Clinton said.

Hillary 2012?

Clinton said he was content with his current life in the non-governmentalsector.

“I love what I do now,” he said. “And while I can't touch as many lives and things as I did as president, the things I do focus on, we can have a huge impact on,” he said.

Asked whether his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would run for president again, he chuckled.

“That's up to her,” he said. “We're not getting any younger. But I'm proud of what she's doing now. I think she's doing a great job.

“I think it's pretty thrilling that she and the president just have established the relationship they have, and I think it's a good argument for reconciliation and remembering the good things for all the rest of us.”

Bill Clinton Says Right-Wing Conspiracy Now After President Obama

ABC News' Kristina Wong reports: Former President Bill Clinton says the right-wing conspiracy that attacked him during his presidency now is after President Obama.

When asked whether the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is still present today, the former president answered without hesitation, “Oh you bet.”

“It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was,” Clinton said today on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

“Right-wing conspiracy” was the term used by former first lady Hillary Clinton to describe the tactics her husband's political enemies used to attack his presidency after revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinski.

“I mean they may be hurting President Obama,” Bill Clinton said of the current attacks. “They can take his numbers down, they can run his opposition up, but fundamentally he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that's not a good prescription for a good America.

“I mean, they're saying things about him just like when they accused me of murder and all this stuff they did, but it's not really good for the Republicans or the country, what's going on now,” Clinton said.

Repeat of 1994?

When asked to compare his administration's unsuccessful attempt at health care reform to President Obama's current push, Clinton said the president has been at a “terrible disadvantage in the law-making phase.”

“He has a better Congress than I did. And he doesn't have a committee chairman that I had demanding that he present a bill,” Clinton said. “So [Obama] said, 'OK, I'll let you develop the bill.' Well, while they're developing the bill, he's set out certain principles and he is vulnerable to whatever anybody wants to say about any of the bills moving through Congress — whether that's his position or not.”

But, Clinton said, the current situation will not lead to a “repeat of 1994”, when Democrats lost 15 seats in the House for the first time in 40 years, crippling progress on his administration's agenda.

“There's no way they can make it that bad, for several reasons,” Clinton said.

For one, he said, “The country is more diverse and interested in positive action.

“Number two,” he added, “they've seen this movie before, because they've had eight years under President Bush, when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad.

“Number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did and they took 15 of our members out … so whatever happens, it will be manageable for the president,” Clinton said.

Hillary 2012?

Clinton said he was content with his current life in the non-governmentalsector.

“I love what I do now,” he said. “And while I can't touch as many lives and things as I did as president, the things I do focus on, we can have a huge impact on,” he said.

Asked whether his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would run for president again, he chuckled.

“That's up to her,” he said. “We're not getting any younger. But I'm proud of what she's doing now. I think she's doing a great job.

“I think it's pretty thrilling that she and the president just have established the relationship they have, and I think it's a good argument for reconciliation and remembering the good things for all the rest of us.”

In War of the Worlds, Who’s President?

ABC News' Elizabeth Gorman reports:

It's the nightmare scenario.

The Continuity of Government Commission released its report today, “The Presidency,” that includes an 8-page scenario in which the President, his Cabinet, and most of the House and Senate, are all killed by an al Qaeda operative at a State of the Union address, using the same methods as 9/11.

“The current system would be inadequate in the face of a catastrophic attack that would kill or incapacitate multiple individuals in the line of succession,” states the report.

President Bush's former Homeland Security advisor, Frances Townsend, said that scenario is not unfathomable, and “that our enemies understood” from public discussion the debilitating effects an attack would have had during Obama's January inauguration:

“Even out of government a year later I watch the inauguration with pride, but holding my breath waiting for everybody to get off that dais,” Townsend said. “Given that we didn't have Cabinet secretaries sworn in for the new administration, given everybody in the governmental power structure was there [at the inauguration], you can imagine.”

The commission recommends swearing in the Cabinet nominees the day before the Presidential inauguration, to prevent a gap in leadership after an attack, and creating four to five new federal offices located outside Washington — just in case.

“The idea is to have a backstop behind the key people in the line of succession if the worse were to happen and we would have to turn to people outside of Washington,” said John Fortier, a research fellow at AEI on the commission.

In 2007, President Bush signed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive that gave him special powers in case of a “catastrophic emergency” to ensure national continuity. Details are classified.

“The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government,” the policy states.

And the National Continuity Coordinator, a position formally held by Townsend, oversees the plan “to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate.”

“President Obama inherited a far superior . . .by almost any standard of anything else we understand about our allies around the world — a far superior system where his long term and not just his, but a legacy in terms of the continuity of the Presidency that is much stronger than anything that anybody would have contemplated,” Townsend said.

‘Top Line’: Pews, Pirates, and Puppies — a President’s Big Weekend

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:

After a weekend that saw President Obama play action hero — resolving a stand-off with pirates, delivering a puppy to his daughters, and making time for Easter services — we chatted with ABC’s Ann Compton and political comedian Baratunde Thurston about the optics of the presidency today on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line.”

Compton — who regularly attends St. John’s Episcopal in Washington and was there Sunday when the president and his family made their surprise appearance — talked with us about how the White House spread the word about the president’s delicate role in the hostage situation.

Click HERE to see that interview.

And Baratunde Thurston, a comedian and blogger for Jack & Jill Politics, shared his thoughts on the the emerging debate over gay marriage — and what makes (or doesn’t make) Obama funny.

Plus, there’s plenty of discussion about that all-consuming story of the First Puppy, Bo, who makes his public debut Tuesday.

Click HERE to see our interview with Thurston.