The Torch Has Been Passed

Whenever a young, articulate and idealistic politician bursts onto the scene, the Kennedy comparisons (however inappropriate) are inevitable. It stems from a yearning to move beyond the destructive political climate of the present that generates only apathy and disconnect, and to return to a time when we were genuinely inspired to greatness by our elected leadership.

But as we know too well, that leadership is incredibly rare. You may sense it with a gut feeling during a speech or maybe a proud moment during a debate, but there’s much more to it than that. It is a feeling that usually fades as quickly as it comes, but sometimes, those rarest of times, it grows stronger as a message begins to resonate. And as that message resonates with more and more Americans, it becomes a movement that transcends the moment. That is Kennedy-esque. And whether you agree with his policies or not, that is Barack Obama.

The implications of the recent Kennedy endorsement of Obama speak directly to that. In the words of Caroline Kennedy (who felt strongly enough to endorse her first candidate in 30 years), “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.” In the words of Ted Kennedy, "I've seen it. I've lived it. And with Barack Obama, we can do it again."

But the implications of the Kennedy endorsement also speak directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Hillary left South Carolina to campaign in Super Tuesday states, the former president was left behind to do his dirty work. He didn’t disappoint. With one horde of media trailing behind Hillary and one behind the former president, it was two against one. The attention grew as the attacks became more outlandish and more personal. When asked if it was inappropriate, the former president turned his guns on the media for taking sides and then inappropriately (and remarkably) refused to answer the question and chose to downplay the appeal of Obama by referring to Jesse Jackson’s success over 20 years ago. It was a blatant inference that race alone was what carried Obama to victory in South Carolina. To once again pull the race card was unbecoming of any campaign surrogate, and it was certainly beneath the dignity of a former President.

Drawn from his neutral seat on the sidelines, Ted Kennedy reportedly grew increasingly angry by the tone of the Clinton campaign and was instrumental in bringing about the truce between the two candidates around the time of the Nevada debate. The remarks of President Clinton in South Carolina likely brought him off the sidelines.

In giving his endorsement, Kennedy – perhaps the only Democrat with the gravitas to go toe to toe with the former President - came out swinging. "From the beginning, (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth." To counter Hillary, Kennedy (one of the longest-serving Members in the history of the Senate) claimed that Obama would be ready for the Presidency on “day one.” He went on to say that "what counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and the best in our world."

In contrast to the Clintons, he claimed that Obama “will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in without demonizing those who hold a different view.”

A growing number of Americans, particularly Democrats, are coming to realize that the Clintons would govern as they campaign – you’re either with them or you’re against them. We long to move beyond the divisiveness that has paralyzed our government and that has filtered down to our communities, but it's becoming clear that we would see no reprieve as the nation transitioned from a Bush presidency to another Clinton presidency.

Rumors of the Clinton campaign reigning in on the former president are inevitable but will not likely lead to much. It raises the question – if Bill Clinton can’t be kept under wraps during the campaign, what role will he - an unelected and unaccountable figure – play if he moves back into the White House? Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Hillary will want it both ways – to portray herself as a strong woman running on her own while essentially cowering behind a husband who continues to wage attacks, spout nonsense, and monopolize the headlines.

With a keen perspective of history, Ted Kennedy knows that America is ready to move on: “There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party. And John Kennedy replied: ‘The world is changing. The old ways will not do. It is time for a new generation of leadership.’ So it is, with Barack Obama.”

The Jerk

Billary has yet again proved that he is deserving of being called "The Jerk" of the 2008 Presidential campaign season. Sensing a shift in support towards Senator Obama, President Clinton is showing his true colors. Some have argued that his negative attacks against Obama are netting results, while some have concluded that it is eroding support for his wife. Most recently, Billary hit a new low while insinuating that Obama's recent victory in South Carolina was small potatoes as Jesse Jackson had also earned two primary victories there in the 1980's. These comments reveal more about Billary than they do about Obama. Billary's actions reveal his lack of humility and demonstrate that he is mean-spirited. Billary's actions also reveal a sense of desperation to win at all costs. While Billary continues to be his wife's attack dog - Obama continues to build momentum and earn support from a wide variety of the electorate - transcending racial, gender, and party lines. I hope that Obama can continue to build upon his successes so that America can close the chapter on the Clinton's and move in a new direction.

The Tanking of Rudy

"Five days before his make-or-break primary, all that last year's national front-runner has to show for the love he's given the Sunshine State is a diminished standing." On the Times blog, Timothy Egan comments on the travails of Rudy Giuliani in Florida. An excerpt:

For 50 days, Giuliani has had the Sunshine State nearly to himself. In advance of the presidential primary on Jan. 29, he’s sucked up to the Cuban vote in Miami, pandered in Cape Canaveral about the space program, tried to scare retirees over early-bird specials in South Florida. There he is riding in a fire truck in a Miami parade, trailed by angry firefighters who blame him for multiple failures when New York was attacked. There he is in the Panhandle, the consummate Yankees fan trying to look down-home on the Redneck Riviera. And every night, his campaign phone bank reaches out to the diaspora of 1.5 million transplanted New Yorkers. Start spreading the news – quick!

Yet, the more they see of him here, the more his poll numbers tank. Even with ol’ Fred Thompson shuffling off the stage for a life of longer naps and witless homilies to more appreciative audiences, Rudy’s campaign is in a meltdown.

Darfur's Best Hope

In a thoughtful piece in the Christian Science Monitor, Nathaniel Myers contends that, to end the crisis in Darfur, we must move to oust the Bashir government in Khartoum. In doing so, we should use the swearing in of a new special envoy for Sudan and a provision in the 2005 peace agreement to our advantage.

The United States and its allies on Darfur have long responded to Khartoum's obstructions with public complaints and reaffirmations of their commitment to the mission. Though well-intentioned, this approach has played into the (National Congress Party) NCP's hands. While American attention has been narrowly focused on the struggling peacekeeping mission, the NCP has been undercutting a potentially dramatic challenge to its rule - and with it, the greatest opportunity for lasting peace in Darfur. With the swearing in this month of a new special envoy for Sudan, Rich Williamson, it is time that America revisits its approach to Sudan – and recognizes that the peacekeeping mission should not be its exclusive focus.

As Mr. Bashir's latest provocation suggests, the problem in Darfur is one that ultimately cannot be resolved by peacekeepers. That's because its roots don't lie in local grievances or ethnic divisions – though both have fueled the fighting – but in the halls of power in Khartoum. The peacekeeping mission is urgently needed to improve immediate security, but lasting peace will come to Darfur and the rest of Sudan only when the country is led by a government genuinely committed to the cause. Remove the NCP from power and, as a senior UN official in Sudan told me recently, "the
problem in Darfur is over."

In most misgoverned nations, talk of such regime change would seem little more than a pipe dream – but remarkably, improbably, there exists in Sudan today a chance of revolution through the ballot box. Under the terms of an existing but neglected peace agreement, signed in 2005 to end the 21-year civil war between the Khartoum government and southern rebels, Sudan is obligated to hold a national election by July 2009. This peace deal, known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), also promised the south a referendum on independence in 2011. Next year's election is essentially the last chance to stave off what will otherwise be a resounding vote for southern secession, by showing southerners that they will be allowed to compete for national power in a unified, democratic Sudan…

To be sure, it is hard to be optimistic that Bashir will ever permit an election that threatens his grip on power. But any vote, however flawed, will challenge the entrenched political order and give the opposition a chance to organize. Its conduct also represents the only scenario through which Sudan might survive as a unified state past the south's likely secession vote in 2011. And despite provocations such as this latest appointment, recent history shows that even the NCP can be influenced by a sustained campaign of targeted international pressure: Recall its eventual acquiescence to the UN peacekeeping mission.

With its current focus on peacekeepers, the Bush administration risks allowing this critical election to become just another broken NCP promise. The peacekeeping mission in Darfur is surely important, but if the US wants to see long-term peace in Sudan, the new special envoy must place greater emphasis on the implementation of the CPA and the conduct of a free, fair, and potentially regime-shattering election next year.

It Was Only a Matter of Time...

Right or wrong, the parallels between John Kerry and Mitt Romney have been pointed out since the beginning of the presidential campaign. Although one's a Mormon and one's a Catholic, they have come to embody the stereotypical New Engalnd WASP politician for many Americans - the aristocratic man of wealth with the fancy suit and the expensive haircut who tries to appeal to everyday Americans by blowing with the political winds. John McCain is fully aware of the parallels and the gut instinct they generate. His latest ad in Florida:

Then Came Darfur

As a recent PBS Frontline program opens - "The world vowed "never again" after the genocide in Rwanda and the atrocities in Srebrenica, Bosnia. Then came Darfur."

As the LA Times reports, with an upcoming trip to Sudan later this month by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Sudanese President Bashir signaled his disrespect for the institution and its intentions with a political shot across the bow.

It's a bleak day for humanity when one of the architects of the genocide in Darfur gets a promotion. In a gesture of supreme defiance of decency and international law, the Sudanese government announced Monday that it had appointed Musa Hilal, a militia leader who recruited and mobilized the janjaweed militias responsible for the carnage in Darfur, to be a special advisor to the president on ethnic affairs. It gets worse. Hilal is the third alleged war criminal to be elevated to a government post. He is under United Nations and U.S. State Department sanctions; the other two have been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

In an especially cynical move, one of the indicted has been put in charge of humanitarian aid to Darfur. Sudan also has been doing everything possible to obstruct the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers, including shooting at a clearly marked U.N. convoy this month. Appeasement and negotiation from a position of weakness have not and will not stop the thuggery of the oil-rich Sudanese regime. Only muscle will do. But the "civilized" world has done next to nothing to enforce meaningful economic sanctions, hasn't even moved to arrest the indicted war criminals and, disgracefully, has yet to provide even one of the helicopters that U.N. peacekeepers need. It's time to face facts: Unless the U.N. gets far more political, economic and military support from its posturing but so-far feckless members, it may as well pack up its blue helmets and go home.

If there was a time for the UN to live up to its charter - to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights - it is now. The atrocities being committed by Bashir and the janjaweed have been labeled genocide since 2004 by the US government yet President Bush and the UN remain slow to act. It's time for some backbone and it's time to do whatever it takes to get China (who has frequently prevented strong action on Sudan because of trade ties) on board. Multilateral sanctions against those responsible are a nice slap on the wrist but it's time we stop negotiating with a war criminal, do whatever it takes to alleviate the current cycle of genocide, and ensure the prompt prosecution of the Bashir thugs in an international court of justice.

A Must Win?

As David Broder contends, the South Carolina primary may just be a must-win for Obama.

Whatever the outcome of Saturday's Democratic presidential primary here, the Illinois senator has the money and the organization to compete in the nearly two dozen states voting on Feb. 5. But as his first and only victory, in Iowa on Jan. 3, slips further into history, his strategists concede that Obama badly needs to demonstrate broad enough support to slow Hillary Clinton's progress toward the nomination.

And as AFP points out, Hillary may be conceeding as much, choosing to turn her sights toward Super Tuesday. Regardless, she's expected to come out agressively before it's all decided in South Carolina and will undoubtedly claim victory, win or lose, because of the artificially low expectations pushed by her campaign.

The McCain Tight-Rope

As we saw in 2000, the political fortunes of John McCain are balanced on a precarious tight rope. The more he falls to one side, the more he endears himself to right-wing conservatives and establishment Republicans. The more he falls to the other, the more his appeal broadens to independents and moderates from both parties - demographics that are unreachable for nearly every other Republican candidate. As his popularity rises with one, it falls with the other. In this balancing act, McCain has struggled to find a safe middle-ground and we’ve seen him evolve from a straight-talking maverick to a Bush loyalist to somewhere in between. In the Fall, these struggles put him and his campaign on the ropes. Today, he has staked his claim in a political no man's land somewhere above the fray - getting just enough support from both sides to win New Hampshire and South Carolina. It’s unclear how long he can safely occupy this ground but, if he is going to survive the Republican nominating process against opponents perceived as more "traditionally conservative", it surely won't last long.

E.J. Dionne: John McCain is feared by Democrats and liked by independents. That, paradoxically, is why he may yet be rejected by Republicans, even though he has bent over backward to satisfy conservative demands. McCain's politics-be-damned image has proved remarkably durable, even though he more recently cozied up to his right-wing critics in the anti-tax movement and the older parts of the religious right. Where he once bravely opposed Bush's tax cuts, McCain now spouts orthodoxy in declaring they should be made permanent. He speaks of himself as the true Reaganite because of his opposition to federal spending. In South Carolina it was enough - but only because moderates, liberals and independents identified McCain as the best available alternative.

And that’s the thing about McCain… While perceived as “the brave independent willing to confront a Republican political machine that punishes free thinking," his voting record is far from independent. He votes with his party and the president nearly 90% of the time and his departures from the Republican Party on major votes come with much less frequency than his moderate and independent admirers or conservative detractors let on. His leadership on climate change, immigration and judicial nominations is worthy of praise. There's no doubt about that. But the stands he has taken on these issues (often with a number of conservative senators standing behind him) are far from liberal. They may appear liberal when contrasted with the stances of unrealistic Republican ideologues, but, in actuality, they are generally smack-dab in the middle of mainstream public opinion. His opinions and actions may enrage the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world but does that make him a maverick? Not necessarily. After all, if McCain’s Republicanism was truly in doubt, why would he have endorsements by conservative establishment figures such as Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, Phil Gramm, and Jon Kyl?

Nevertheless, the question of McCain’s true “conservative credentials” continues to be debated and as assaults from the right-wing attack machine continue, independents and moderates have rushed to his defense. It has to be an alarming trend for McCain who is approaching a slate of conservative states. As his popularity rises with one group, it falls with the other - that preacrious political tight-rope.

Ann Coulter, who has repeatedly attacked McCain’s integrity over the years, is always quick to point out that McCain’s appeal with non-right-wingers is proof of his evil ways. In fact, she recently blamed McCain’s loss in Michigan on Democrats...and snow storms. “Unluckily for McCain, snowstorms in Michigan suppressed the turnout among Democratic "Independents" who planned to screw up the Republican primary by voting for our worst candidate. Democrats are notoriously unreliable voters in bad weather. Instead of putting on galoshes and going to the polls, they sit on their porches waiting for FEMA to rescue them.” So yes, Democrats are all lazy dependents of the federal government with a fear of bad weather, and John McCain is the GOP's worst candidate. Well, who is the best candidate, Ann? It’s Mitt Romney…and “by a landslide.” Why? Because “the candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing.” As per usual, the logic of Ann Coulter is infallible.

Rush Limbaugh, who shamelessly attacks McCain every chance he gets, went even further, claiming that nominating McCain (or Huckabee) would "destroy the Republican Party . . . change it forever, be the end of it.” Other ideologues like Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay claim that they’d vote for Hillary Clinton before they’d vote for John McCain. Really? What is it that scares them so much?

Is it because, despite his conservative voting record, McCain truly does “confront a Republican political machine that punishes free thinking”? Maybe it’s because of his approach to issues. He may end up in the conservative camp at the end of the day, but he actually seeks solutions to our nation’s problems and doesn’t hate his political opponents. Maybe those who denounce him so vehemently fear they will become increasingly irrelevant during a McCain Presidency that would move beyond the divisive politics of hate. After all, if there was no boogeyman to demagogue, the Coulters and Limbaughs might actually have to defend the merits of their “ideas”.

The question remains, but some answers may be right around the corner.

Dionne: This is also what makes the next stage of the Republican contest so perilous for McCain. In many of the states that vote next - notably Florida, which casts ballots next Tuesday - independents will not be able to come to McCain's aid. In such closed primaries, he will have to emphasize his fealty to traditional conservatism and use his strong support for the Iraq war as a Republican credential.

The balancing act will continue because “the more McCain tries to look like a typical Republican, the more he threatens his standing with middle-of-the-road voters."

McCain thus confronts the most difficult challenge he has faced so far. He made his name as a straight-talker who does not shade his positions to satisfy potential critics. But to win the rest of the way, McCain may have to offer himself as a split personality. He will argue to those on the party's right who mistrust him that they should support him as the one candidate who can appeal beyond the Republican base. But he will also try to ease conservative worries by presenting the most conformist version of himself, thereby giving independents food for second thoughts. At one and the same time, he will have to be the true conservative and the maverick, the loyal font of traditional Republican nostrums and the independent thinker, the candidate of both Fox News and CNN.

Candidates must always walk a fine line in presidential politics and McCain’s tightrope routine will undoubtedly test the best of his abilities. As discussed in the Wall Street Journal – “Ultimately, Mr. McCain doesn't have to make conservatives adore him. But he'll never be president unless he persuades them he's the most conservative candidate available with a credible chance of winning the White House. That shouldn't be too hard a sell."

The Experience Question

As the topic of experience comes to the forefront of the Democratic presidential primary, pundits are scrambling to interpret what it means for each candidate. Among the various prognostications, a common thought is that, in trying to distinguish herself from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is relying way too heavily on the notion that she is the candidate of experience. While polls show that it may be working in the short-term, it's clear that such a strategy could not be sustained through the general election, especially if her opponent is John McCain.

Nicholas Kristof: The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred. In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty...

In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges... Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.

Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him. To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president. That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.

Timothy Noah: Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC - all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus.

He goes on to scrutinize Hillary's claim to be "uniquely qualified at this moment in our history" because of her "deep experience over the last 35 years" and her "firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House."

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience... But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant.

Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy... But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee.

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination.

If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own...

Nevada and South Carolina

The Fix provides a good initial breakdown of the winners and losers from Nevada and South Carolina, and then some additional thoughts on the morning after.

The National Journal provides updates of its Caucus and Primary Results, for both the Republicans and the Democrats.

A Generational Divide

While the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have thankfully moved beyond the topic of race (as much as they're willing to admit), the battle lines have been clearly drawn. What's interesting is that many of the traditional leaders and most powerful voices of the black community are not on the side you would think.

As race alone should not garner support for a particular candidate, it should not come as a surprise that black leaders have yet to unanimously endorse Barack Obama, the first viable black candidate in U.S. presidential politics. But, what is surprising is the growing number of black leaders who have not only endorsed Hillary Clinton, but who have become her attack dogs in a concerted attempt to discredit Obama within the black community. The Washington Post elaborates;

The most amazing thing about the 2008 presidential race is not that a black man is a bona fide contender, but the lukewarm response he has received from the luminaries whose sacrifices made this run possible. With the notable exception of Joseph Lowry... Obama has been running without much support from many of the most recognizable black figures in the political landscape.

The "old guard's apparent aversion to Obama" doesn't seem to come from any personal animosities or skepticism of Obama's many talents, but from a generation divide and political opportunism. They are perhaps driven by a reluctance to crown a new standard-bearer of the cause and a refusal to accept the growing irrelevance that would follow.

That's because, positioned as he is between the black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil rights-era leadership -- or at least the illusion of their influence.

Andrew Young was the first. Young, a former Congressman, mayor of Atlanta, and US Ambassador to the United Nations, mocked Obama by claiming Bill Clinton was "every bit as black." But that wasn't enough. He added that Clinton had probably even been with more black women - "as if racial identity could be transmitted like an STD." Young went on to announce that Obama was too young and should wait until 2016 - a curious statement considering that Young was apprenticed to Martin Luther King Jr., who was 26 when he launched the Montgomery bus boycotts that eventually toppled segregation. So much for the "fierce urgency of now".

And then Al Sharpton. Last spring, Al Sharpton cautioned Obama "not to take the black vote for granted." Presumably he meant that the senator had not won over the supposed gatekeepers of the black electorate. Asked why he had not endorsed Obama, Sharpton replied that he would "not be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate." More recently Sharpton claimed on his radio show that the candidates' recent attention to issues of civil rights was a product of pressure from him.

And then Jesse Jackson, whose criticism of Obama over "Jena Six" drew a public rebuke from his son.

And then Bob Johnson, founder of BET, who, while campaigning for Hillary Clinton, cast Obama as "a guy that says I want to be a reasonable, likeable Sidney Poitier" and then made a thinly disguised reference to Obama's teenage drug use. Soon after, he claimed to be misunderstood. Then he owned up and apologized to Obama. Nevertheless, the damage had been done and the question remains - why did he think defaming Obama was necessary to make the point that Hillary Clinton deserves praise for her work in the black community?

And then Charlie Rangel, Congressman for life in his Harlem district and Chairman of the powerful House ways and Means Committee, who claimed that "Obama was "absolutely stupid" in his part of the exchange over the relative influence of Rev. Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson in passing civil rights legislation."

The Post elaborates: "Taken as a conglomerate, Jackson, Young, Sharpton and Georgia Rep. John Lewis represent a sort of civil rights old boy network" that has "parlayed its dated activist credentials into cash and jobs."

To the extent that the term "leader" is applicable, these four men likely represent the interests of Democratic Party insiders more than those of the black community. Both Young and Lewis have endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton; Sharpton and Jackson have acted ambivalent, alternately mouthing niceties about Obama and criticizing his stances on black issues. It may be that, because they doubt that he can actually win, the civil rights leaders are holding Obama at arm's length in an attempt to build their houses on what looks to be the firmer ground. And there are certainly patronage benefits should Clinton win.

As polls show increasing black support for Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Young begin to look like a once-wealthy family that has lost its fortune but has to keep spending to maintain appearances. Obama's tepid early showing among blacks in the polls had more to do with name recognition and concerns about his viability as a candidate than with Jackson or Sharpton withholding their endorsement.

Ignoring Sharpton or Jackson is not the same thing as taking the black vote for granted. It is a reasonable calculation that neither of them can deliver many votes and certainly not enough to offset the number of white votes that their approval could lose Obama. Jackson and Sharpton might be holding out for a better deal in exchange for their support, but with Oprah Winfrey and Chris Rock among Obama's list of supporters, they have little to bargain with.

If Obama makes a strong showing in the South Carolina primary - the first with a substantial number of black voters - it will become apparent that the black boy network has begun bouncing checks. The irony is that for generations of black "firsts," the prerequisite for entering an institution was proving that you were just like the establishment that ran it. Obama has been vastly successful by doing just the opposite: masterfully positioning himself as an outsider. In the process, he's opened the door even wider for black outsiders. Too bad his predecessors refuse to help push him the rest of the way inside.

The Pandering of Huckabee

As the South Carolina primary has emerged as a battle between McCain, Huckabee and (to a lesser extent) Thompson, it's been interesting to see how the candidates are tailoring their messages in the final days. It appears that McCain is courting moderates and the military crowd (both demographics he should easily carry) while Huckabee and Thompson are fighting it out for the Evangelical vote.

In doing so, the religious pandering of Huckabee is reaching new lows. His tactics may pay off short-term but will only hinder his longer-term chances in both the Republican primaries and the general election. In other words, they may be effective with the Christian Conservative base of the Republican Party but they will not be effective with the majority of Americans who have moved beyond such divisiveness. The pandering of Huckabee is nothing new, as noted in an earlier post:

Sadly, to cement his base of support among Iowa Evangelicals and fend off Romney down the home stretch, he has resorted to the politicization of his faith – a disturbing and growing trend in Republican politics. Americans have almost become resigned to these tactics but we also thought Mike Huckabee was different. He was the Baptist Minister with the theology degree who relied on his faith to bring us together, not tear us apart. Now he is the candidate who plays the religion card to exploit the insecurities of those who hold prejudice against others who may or may not be “Christians.”The temptation for Huckabee to employ these tactics was inevitable but we hoped he wouldn’t take the bait. Now that he has, it has cheapened his campaign and it has cheapened the very faith he espouses.

In South Carolina, intolerance plays well with certain demographics and Huckabee has sought to exploit that as much as possible. When questioned by a religious website about how some of his beliefs could be interpreted as "radical", he responded:

"I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

Give me a break. It remains truly baffling that certain segments of the population (often those who preach acceptance and love for their fellow man) are so threatened by two loving adults who choose to legalize their partnership through the institution of marriage. Doing so would apparently lead to the crumbling of the foundations of "traditional marriage", demean the "sanctity" of this holy institution (with a 50 percent failure rate - an unspoken topic amongst these guardians of marriage), and ultimately lead to a windfall of benefits and privileges such as (gasp) hospital visitation rights.

Huckabee asserts that allowing two loving and consenting adults to marry could lead to government-sanctioned bestiality. Really? How utterly distasteful and offensive is that? As a serious candidate for President of the United States, he has to realize that there are serious implications to his words. The next time he panders to one crowd while demonizing another, I hope he remembers that. Preying on insecurity and bigotry for a few votes is beneath any politician, and is particularly deplorable for someone who boasts of being a "man of the cloth".

Standing on the center stage of American politics, his audience is much bigger than just those directly within the sound of his voice. Failing to appreciate that reality has led to the downfall of numerous political candidates who have sought to pander first and apologize to those offended later. It simply does not work because the American people can see right through it. In this case, Huckabee may never seek the support of the gay community, but he will undoubtedly need the support of their family members, their friends, their loved ones, and the countless Americans who find intolerance and prejudice offensive.

Nevertheless, the path Mike Huckabee has chosen is clear and he is charging full steam ahead - head down and straight back toward irrelevance.

Follow-Up: A Fracturing Alliance

Responding to the controversy ignited by his recent comments regarding NATO allies fighting in Afghanistan (captured in a previous post), Secretary Gates is quickly back-tracking.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates lauded NATO's mission in Afghanistan and heaped praise on Canada and other members of the alliance in a bid to stem the controversy he sparked with critical comments about the allies' ability to fight a counterinsurgency war against the Taliban. Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Wednesday that Canadian, Dutch and British troops are ill-suited for the fierce counterinsurgency war they are waging in southern Afghanistan, setting off international anger and a full-blown, damage-control exercise by the Pentagon.

Gates now claims it was a matter of semantics and that he wasn't singling out any nation.

“We have to acknowledge the reality that the alliance as a whole has not trained for a counterinsurgency operation, even though individual countries have considerable expertise at and success in this arena. Our allies, including the Canadians, the British, the Dutch the Australians and others, are suffering losses as they demonstrate valour and skill in combat."

Gates' ill-advised comments were dangerously provocative and came at a most inconvenient time. While he should be commended for recognizing his misstep (something his predecessor would have refused), he must not further complicate the already tremendous burden of fighting two wars with a military at its breaking point. It is because of this burden that we need our allies more than ever. And to publicly castigate those who sacrifice alongside American troops can only serve as a disincentive for others to join the fight.

Minnesota Senate Race

Gearing up for next month's Minnesota Democratic primary, the Al Franken for US Senate campaign is hitting the airwaves with its first ads. We'll see if voters take him seriously enough to challenge Norm Coleman.

The Washington Times: Polls show Republican Sen. Norm Coleman only a few points ahead of either of his possible Democratic challengers, comedian and left-wing provocateur Al Franken and trial lawyer Mike Ciresi. The two Democrats face off on Feb. 5. Which party will carry this seat must be considered uncertain, particularly when the incumbent is struggling to remain over the 50 percent mark in polls in a "swing state."

Phantom Phoenix

USA Today provides an interesting read about the realities on the ground in Mosul during "Operation Phantom Phoenix." The objective of this coalition operation is to aggressively root out al-Qaeda from the northern provinces of Iraq, primarily Diyala.

A Fracturing Alliance

While the Taliban is undoubtedly experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan and now operates virtually unmolested in the tribal areas of Pakistan, NATO forces appear to be splintering amid US criticisms of the fortitude and effectiveness of non-US forces. These criticisms have sprung from American frustrations over the growing violence in Afghanistan and a reluctance by NATO allies to deploy more forces or take on a greater combat role. To counter an expected offensive by the Taliban this Spring, the Administration recently chose to deploy an additional 3,200 Marines to southern Afghanistan. A move they hope will reassure allies who have questioned our commitment, and increase the likelihood those allies will follow suit.

The Post reports: The U.S. plan to send an additional 3,200 Marines to troubled southern Afghanistan this spring reflects the Pentagon's belief that if it can't bully its recalcitrant NATO allies into sending more troops to the Afghan front, perhaps it can shame them into doing so.

According to the Pentagon Spokesperson, Geoff Morrell: "It is our hope that our allies in NATO and other partners . . . in Afghanistan will see what more they can do to add forces to bring down the shortfall that will exist even after we deploy these additional Marines.” This would include, "at the very least," sending forces to replace the Marines when they leave at the end of this year.”

But this is where American diplomacy gets interesting and a bit wayward… In one breath, US officials castigate our allies for a lack of commitment in Afghanistan. In the next, they publicly criticize the abilities and performance of allies with troops on the ground who are fighting and suffering significant casualties.

The Post reports: What's more, Mr. Gates and other senior Pentagon officials seem to have concluded that the three NATO countries that have been willing to operate in the south -- Britain, Canada and the Netherlands -- have been relatively ineffective. Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times this week that "most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency"; the Pentagon believes they are too averse to casualties, too reluctant to patrol and too dependent on artillery and airstrikes. The Post's Karen DeYoung reported that U.S. commanders criticize British troops for failing to retain control over areas taken from the Taliban and for advancing a "colonial" strategy of backing local militias rather than working with the national Afghan army.

European diplomats and NATO's defenders furiously respond that the American complaints are unfounded. Almost all of the alliance's members have increased their commitment to Afghanistan in the past year, they point out, helping to raise the troop level under NATO command from 33,000 to 41,000. The troubles in the south, they say, are the result of NATO forces penetrating an area that U.S. commanders had neglected, allowing the Taliban to flourish. British officials say their strategy in Helmand province is comparable to the successful U.S. alliances with Sunni militias in Iraq.

This new American diplomatic approach is viewed with increasing disdain by a world community (including many high-ranking US military officials) that believes the US invasion of Iraq was the turning point in the war in Afghanistan – the ultimate contributor to the rising violence and the growing influence of the Taliban. With bin Laden on the ropes, Al-Qaeda in shambles, and the Taliban all but out of business, US military might, attention, and resources were siphoned away from Afghanistan at a time when they were most needed. The ensuing events shouldn’t have come as a big surprise.

“After more than six years of coalition warfare in Afghanistan, NATO is a bundle of frayed nerves and tension over nearly every aspect of the conflict, including troop levels and missions, reconstruction, anti-narcotics efforts, and even counterinsurgency strategy. Stress has grown along with casualties, domestic pressures and a sense that the war is not improving.”

Despite the daunting challenges, our troops continue to perform admirably in Afghanistan. For once, it would be nice if our civilian leadership and diplomatic efforts were more worthy of their sacrifice.

A Recap

CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" from last night's Democratic debate in Nevada.

"While the long series of presidential debates have sometimes acted to ratchet up tensions among the candidates, the faceoff Tuesday night among the three remaining competitive candidates for the Democratic nomination had the unusual effect of quelling a recent controversy."

Meanwhile, the Politico analyzes the fall-out from the Republican primary in Michigan.

"Mitt Romney's decisive victory in Michigan Tuesday throws an already confused GOP race onto the verge of chaos. With an unprecedented three different winners in the first three major contests, the picture now is even more unclear than when Iowans cast the first ballots less than two weeks ago."

Under the Gun

For Obama supporters, one of the most disillusioning aspects of this election has been the tarnishing of what many have long revered - the legacy of the Clinton Administration. While rooting from the sidelines, many of these loyal Democrats have never found themselves at odds with the Clintons - little alone under the gun of the Clinton attack machine. This new perspective on our generation's only two-term Democratic president has shed light on many of the unflattering characteristics of the Clinton style and yes, allows even the most die-hard Democrats to more easily sympathize with the many who have found the traits of each less than appealing.

On the NY Times Politics Blog, Matt Bai discusses some of the tactics recently employed by the Clintons, the deteriorating tone of the Democratic primary, and a possible (yet improbable) next step for Hillary. An excerpt:

"Both Clintons now find themselves in an unfamiliar reality, the kind of all-out war for the nomination that Bill Clinton twice managed to avoid. They will get all kinds of advice from people whose career opportunities are at stake and who will do or say anything to win. They are surrounded by overzealous politicians and interest groups willing do whatever it takes to shut down Barack Obama and deliver their states to Hillary Rodham Clinton...

No one expects Mrs. Clinton to stand down and let Mr. Obama make his case unchallenged. She could, however, send a clear message to the cogs in the machinery she’s built that there is a line she will not cross. She could tell her Nevada allies that the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in is to make it easier for people to caucus, not harder. She could tell Robert Johnson that he needs to apologize, the same way she forced Bill Shaheen, her New Hampshire co-chairman, to resign last month. She can make it plain to all those people trying to get jobs in the next Clinton Administration that there is way to win—a rough and combative way, even—that nonetheless won’t destroy all the good that the Clintons, at least for a lot of Democrats, have come to represent."

A False Choice

As pundits try to simplify the complexities between presidential candidates, the Democratic primary has been defined as a choice between experience and change. While boiling it down to this level does some disservice to Clinton and Obama (who claim they can provide both), it does generally capture the themes of their campaigns and the underlying appeal of their candidacies.

In looking at presidential candidates, supporters are ultimately drawn to the combination of traits that are the most reassuring and the most inspiring. The candidates who are considered most experienced often provide the former, while those who are considered agents of change (and often less experienced by traditional standards) often provide the latter.

Over the years, we've seen candidates use different criteria to justify their claim of being the choice of "experience". It's definitely more ambiguous than they let on. Due to rapidly changing times, unforeseen events, and the unique job responsibilities of a president, is there honestly any definitive job or experience that could adequately prepare a presidential candidate?

The candidacy of Barack Obama raises the question of what the American people qualify as appropriate experience and how they equate Washington experience with life experience? Is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from a Washington perspective and an eye toward formulating policy? Or is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from the perspective of most Americans and with a better first-hand understanding of the impact government policies have on our lives? Is it some combination of both?

Hillary Clinton claims that she's ready. Because of the role she played in her husband's administration (one that remains unclear) and because of her years in Washington, she is the one candidate who doesn't need "on the job training". Therefore, we should turn over the keys to the White House because, from day one, she is capable of being a competent custodian of the nation's best interests?

Candidates of "experience" have long cluttered the list of presidential aspirants. But what good is past experience if a candidate has bad judgement or an inability to adapt - someone who fails to effectively apply the lessons of the past to respond appropriately to the challenges of today? Sometimes the presidential candidate with the most impressive resume becomes a historic failure, and sometimes the small town lawyer with virtually none of the traditional qualifications becomes "one for the ages". It's a hit or miss process - a roll of the dice.

Less frequent are the presidential candidates who truly inspire - those with a gift for articulating the contents of our hearts and minds, and those with the unique ability to reassure us during hard times, and to elevate us to new heights during good times. During a presidential election, these candidates are much more distinguishable. In a time when campaign speeches are overly mechanical and predictable, their rhetoric transcends the moment.

If you ask any bipartisan group of Americans to name the best presidents of the past 75 or 100 years, you will likely hear the names of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan most frequently. What do these presidents have in common? They served in vastly different times, their domestic and foreign policy achievements range from indistinguishable to historic, and each followed a vastly different path to the White House.

But, ultimately, each provided inspiration to Americans at a crucial time in history - Roosevelt instilled hope in those devastated by the Depression and kept America united throughout the second World War, Kennedy reminded Americans of what we could ultimately achieve if we reached for the stars and inspired a new generation of Americans to service, and Reagan renewed our sense of American optimism and strength that remained dormant for too long. And, it just so happens that each became president after beating a candidate with more traditional Washington experience.

Given his life experience and his unique ability to inspire, only Barack Obama has the potential to reach these levels of greatness. During times of historic divisiveness, we can't settle for anything less. Hillary claims that experience is what enables her to be the only candidate capable of enacting real change. The irony of that claim is that her experience is the one thing preventing her from being an agent of substantive change.

Without doubt, she is a particulary competent and capable candidate. Alongside Democratic majorities in Congress, she would undoubtedly roll back many of the wayward policies of the past eight years and restore a good deal of American credibility around the world. But as we've seen throughout history, very little can be accomplished when America is divided. And as unfair as it may be, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. So while she could be a an agent of change, she lacks the ability to enact the substantive change - the transformational change - that we desperately need.

As Hillary pointed out after her victory in New Hampshire, finding your voice is important. But she didn't mention that that voice does not always have to be your own. Sometimes you find a voice that speaks to your hopes, that inspires, that challenges, and that reminds you you're a part of something bigger than yourself. As history has shown, that voice is seldom the voice of experience. Indeed, a growing number of Americans have found their voice, and it's Barack Obama.

Thompson Comes Out Swinging

As Slate reports, the most noteworthy aspect of last night's debate was that Fred Thompson finally came out swinging.

No one got teary-eyed at the Republican debate in South Carolina Thursday night, but Fred Thompson did try to make Mike Huckabee cry. Early in the 90-minute event, Thompson laid out a bill of complaints about Huckabee's heresies on tax cuts, immigration, and foreign policy. He went after him several more times during the night accusing Huckabee of political expediency and cluelessness about the Pakistani military. The governor didn't represent "the model of the Reagan coalition," said Thompson, but the "model of the Democratic Party." That crack may seem a little weak on the page, but given that Thompson normally proceeds like cold syrup, his consistently aggressive posture was as striking as if he'd broken out into jumping jacks.

In the Republican primary, the battle lines are clearly being drawn. With Romney focused on Michigan and Giuliani focused on Florida, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson are left to fight it out in South Carolina. The bad news for Huckabee is that Thompson and McCain are former colleagues and old friends. And as the futility of the Thompson campaign becomes more apparent, he'll undoubtedly throw his support to McCain in an attempt to bolster his old friend's credibility with the conservative establishment. Last night was a good indication that it may already be happening.

Too Little, Too Late?

While the Giuliani strategy of laying low until Florida could still work theoretically, it's going to be tough for him to become relevant again. His opponents have shared the media spotlight for the past month so he's essentially competing in a race in which each of his competitors have a running start. That's why we're starting to see Huckabee close quickly in Florida. To counter, Giuliani unveiled a new ad today.

Diverse Appeal

This week, Barack Obama received a number of Congressional endorsements. What's particularly telling is that they cover such a wide spectrum of individuals - from old-school California liberals to political mavericks to Midwestern moderates - who represent diverse segments of the electorate. The common appeal is represented in their statements.

Rep. George Miller (Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee): "I've watched both campaign and I know both candidates and I believe Obama offers us an opportunity to truly change the way we do business in Washington."

Former Sen. Bill Bradley (Former New Jersey Senator, Presidential Candidate, and NBA Hall of Famer): "Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics. Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. ... His movement for change could create a new era of American politics — truly a new American story."

Sen. Kent Conrad (Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee): "He is somebody that brings people together. He unites rather than divides, and I think that‘s very important for the country right now... He has the unusual ability to inspire and to lift people to be better. ... That is a rare skill, and I think something that‘s much needed."

Sen. Tim Johnson (Senior Senator from South Dakota): “He is bipartisan and insists on bridging the difference between parties.”

Sen. John Kerry (2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Since the birth of our nation change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is not defined by time in Washington and years in office it is defined by wisdom and instinct and vision ... The only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better America. Don't let anyone tell you to accept the downsizing of the American dream."

Clash of the Titans

Apparently, MC Rove isn't the only high-profile political figure to spend some time on the dance floor. In fact, it appears that David Gregory has been making the rounds and shamelessly shaking his groove thing for the world to see. Today, he puts those skills to the test in a dance-off with Barack Obama. It is a true clash of titans and there is video. Who has the best moves...or, more accurately, which makes you think you're watching a train wreck less? You decide, America.

"Why Hillary Won" by MC Karl Rove

The Wall Street Journal published a column by Karl Rove regarding Hillary's recent primary victory in New Hampshire. It is interesting that Rove seems to lend advice to the democratic candidates in his articles. However, I thought he provided a fair analysis of what occurred in New Hampshire - Obama needs to tap into the "beer vote."

Victory in New Hampshire

"I was with them all day. They did not see this coming. No one did." - A Clinton friend who watched Hillary Clinton and her team write the first drafts of her speech in a Concord hotel suite."

A Poignant Message

"I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here."

On January 3, Andrew Olmsted was killed in Diyala. Olmsted, an Army Major, leaves behind a wife, family, and countless friends and loved ones. He also leaves behind a collection of thoughts that he hoped would "contribute in some small manner to the philosophical and political questions of the day."

In the event of his death, Olmsted wrote a "final post" that he asked a friend to post on his blog. He hoped to use it as a means of saying goodbye, but also to ask that politics be kept out of his death. Needless to say, it is a very poignant read. An excerpt:

"This may be a contradiction of my above call to keep politics out of my death, but I hope not. Sometimes going to war is the right idea. I think we've drawn that line too far in the direction of war rather than peace, but I'm a soldier and I know that sometimes you have to fight if you're to hold onto what you hold dear. But in making that decision, I believe we understate the costs of war; when we make the decision to fight, we make the decision to kill, and that means lives and families destroyed. Mine now falls into that category; the next time the question of war or peace comes up, if you knew me at least you can understand a bit more just what it is you're deciding to do, and whether or not those costs are worth it."

Campaign Diplomacy

While some candidates are slowly succumbing to the wear and tear of the campaign trail, it appears that Barack Obama has devoted himself to another cause in what little free time he has these days. As Joe Klein reports, Obama has been working on a daily basis with the U.S. State Department, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and rival Kenyan Leaders to stop the violence in his father's homeland and to bring peace through democracy and the rule of law.

"Reflecting on a Rough Year"

With the second session of the 110th Congress around the corner, the Las Vegas Sun reflects on the success and failures of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It's worth the read.

Hillary Falters

A Kos reader provides an interesting take on the "Hillary Implosion." An excerpt:

"(In 2000), she ran a terrific campaign based on the issues with positive rhetoric and ended up beating a faux moderate congressman named Rick Lazio by ten points. She was charming, endearing, and went out and earned votes. She earned mine. If you had asked me on November 1, 2000 who my first choice for President would have been in 2008, I would have told you Hillary Clinton. But the Hillary of 2008 is not the Hillary of 2000. That's why I won't support her in the primary.

Somewhere along the line, Hillary made a decision to abandon some of her core principles and cast votes not based on her principles but based on what she thought would make her "more electable" in 2008. Her votes on Iraq and Iran were part of the old Washington game of giving yourself political cover by having votes on all side of an issue so you can argue one way or the other depending on which way the wind was blowing x number of years down the road. ...Somewhere inside of her I know she hates herself for doing this because she genuinely knows better and IS better. Her desire to please the Washington Cocktail Party Elitists overtook her common sense.

Gore hated himself for doing this prior to 2000 before his epiphany and John Edwards hated himself for doing this in 2002 and 2003 before he too had a genuine inner transformation. Both men realize that such a strategy keeps tens of millions of Democratic voters home and gives Republicans narrow wins or close losses. Hillary should have known better."

The Anniversary of NCLB

Reflecting on the sixth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act, it's unfortunate that so many are using the initiative as a political punching bag despite the merit of its overall approach and many of its provisions, and despite the progress (albeit modest) we've seen since its implementation. Instead of offering meaningful ways to address the legislation's current shortcomings, more and more politicians are going for the easy applause line by saying we should scrap the entire bill. Republicans hate it because the accountability measures have teeth and are administered at the Federal level, and Democrats hate it because it's a highly-touted Bush domestic achievement and because it's been consistently underfunded (thereby undermining many of its intentions).

The enactment of NCLB is itself a great example of the things we can accomplish when legislators place results over politics. During reauthorization of the bill, these same legislators need to seize upon the opportunity to seriously and honestly assess both the successes and the lessons learned of the last six years. It will also be important for all the stakeholders (particularly the teachers' unions) to be honest brokers and to put the best interests of students ahead of everything else. It is an opportunity that we cannot bypass and it is one that shouldn't be punted down the road. Our children deserve more than that.

Ted Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an original author of the bill, reflects on the 6th anniversary of NCLB.

The Beer Vote

The Sleuth highlights an important question: Which presidential candidate would you most like to have a beer with? Well, the National Beer Wholesalers Association is taking that question to voters. No big surprises - Obama and Ron Paul are leading the way while Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel will apparently be drinking alone. To place your vote, check out their website.

Taliban Resurgence

The Bhutto assassination and the growing instability in Pakistan have cast renewed attention on the Taliban, whose resurgence has steadily picked up steam while U.S. forces have prioritized their attention and resources in Iraq. This weekend's New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on the Taliban's reach into Pakistan and the split between the moderate and fundamental Islamists. Also, Frontline produced a fascinating series (which can be viewed online) on the "Return of the Taliban", along with links to supplemental information such as interviews, maps, etc.

"Iowa's Histrionic Hucksters"

George Will, the Washington Post's conservative sage, wrote a scathing column about the populist rhetoric used by Edwards and Huckabee. Will's best shot was at Huckabee's and Edwards' policy solution to battling the "special interests" that have a stranglehold on our Democracy --

"Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity... The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington, and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."

There are other comments worthy of praise. Read it here.

New Hampshire Debates

If you missed the New Hampshire debates, WMUR provides a great compilation of video highlights. Nothing Earth-shattering, but it's interesting how the two approaches in the Democratic field are solidifying (Obama and Edwards preaching change and Richardson and Clinton preaching experience), and it's interesting how much each of the Republican candidates enjoy taking pot-shots at Mitt Romney (article and video).

CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.

Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:

I Guess You Take Whatever You Can Get

Coming on the heels of what Romney will undoubtedly portray as a tremendous victory in Wyoming, the few Americans who realized these Caucuses were taking place today have to still be shrugging their shoulders and asking "who cares?" Congratulations Wyoming, it was a valiant effort to make yourself relevant. We all wish you better luck in 4 years. If nothing else, at least you were the first state to provide a delegate for Duncan Hunter. It's a dubious distinction but it's a distinction nonetheless.

New AFSCME Mailings in New Hampshire

Remember the anti-Obama mailings circulated in Iowa on behalf of Hillary by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)? Well, the largest public employee and health care workers union in the United States has struck again in New Hampshire. This time, the rank-and-file is not having it and has gone public with a letter recently sent to the AFSCME president. Here are a couple excerpts:

We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.

...We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union - through “independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”

While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of those candidates, Barack Obama.

...We are calling on you to take whatever action that is within your legal purview to immediately end AFSCME’s attack campaign against Sen. Obama. In the event that you are not able to legally compel these staff membersto cease these actions, we are calling on you to immediately take action to discontinue such independent expenditures in order to ensure that no further attacks occur.

One reason for the new mailing - Obama is now up 10 points in New Hampshire.

A Tenuous Peace

It's widely recognized that one of the significant benchmarks toward reconciliation and stability in Iraq is the ground-laying for new elections. The political and security landscape has changed dramatically since the last elections, new players need to be brought in (particularly Sunnis), and local leadership needs to be provided to a growing majority of Iraqis who are distrustful of the current regime that has largely isolated itself in Baghdad. But as Iraq moves toward new elections, jockeying by key players (both Shia and Sunni) could undoubtedly risk many of our recent gains toward peace and stability.

In the south, representatives of Muqtada al-Sadr recently met with members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the largest Shiite political party led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. The Shiite militias controlled by these two factions (Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Badr Organization) have been in a turf battle since the onset of the war but signed a “tenuous peace agreement” following bloody clashes in Karbala that left 52 dead this summer. The subsequent cease fire declared by Sadr gave him time to weed out renegade factions within his ranks and is one of the key factors in the reduced levels of violence in Baghdad and the south. But it’s unclear how long that will last as Sadr will undoubtedly do everything in his power prior to new elections to shore up his support and ensure his interests are represented. Those moves would be countered by Hakim who would desperately want to secure his role as the ultimate political power-broker. The recent meetings between their factions should give us some glimmer of hope that both sides recognize the stabilizing factor a peace between them would bring.

Meanwhile, rivalries amongst Sunnis in Anbar have created a situation just as precarious. While today’s relative stability can be credited to the tribal sheiks (dubbed “the Awakening”) who rose up against al-Qaeda, those same sheiks are responsible for fueling the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqi and Coalition forces in the first years of the war. These sheiks, who boycotted the initial elections, now want a piece of the pie – a move that will be undoubtedly be countered by those Sunnis who participated in the elections and cooperated with Coalition forces from day one. Most of these Sunnis, members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, are viewed as corrupt by the sheiks, who have grown increasingly disgruntled because their communities are not receiving a fair share of reconstruction funds and basic services. The sheiks believe this is happening because they essentially have no representation in the government in Baghdad. Thus they would approach new elections with a different mindset and would seek to “gain back” some of the political influence that has subsequently been accumulated by the Iraqi Islamic Party.

So while new elections in Iraq are essential to any sort of long-lasting stability, we should also prepare for the short-term chaos and violence that they could also bring.

Victory in Iowa!

The Caucus Breakdown: The Morning After

Stuart Rothenberg analyzes the winners and losers from last night:

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused. Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization. Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination. But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney. Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers

1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message. Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama. Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear. Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it. Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”