Slate: “Don't you just hate when some upstart comes along and threatens your best-laid plans? We were struck by how well one of Reese Witherspoon's monologues from the film Election fits the narrative of Campaign 2008.”
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Ticking Time Bomb
In light of recent Senate debate on the issue of prisoner detention and interrogation, a group of retired Generals sent the following letter to Senator Hillary Clinton. It provides a thoughtful perspective and some compelling arguments on the “ticking time bomb scenario” that’s always levied by those who have no aversion to allowing water-boarding and similar techniques to be at the lawful disposal of American interrogators.
April 19, 2007
Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Clinton:
Thank you for meeting with us and the other retired general and flag officers last Friday. We appreciated the opportunity to have an exchange of views about U.S. policies on detention and interrogation of prisoners and the implications of those policies for the safety of our troops and the values they fight to defend.
We believe it is important for the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, to ensure that all U.S. personnel adhere to a uniform standard for interrogating and detaining enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful and humane. These are issues that the next President of the United States must face and which every candidate for that office will undoubtedly be asked to address throughout the campaign.
We said we would follow up with you to share some additional thoughts from the group about the issues we discussed. In particular, we promised to explore further a topic that has been ubiquitous in the public discourse around these issues: the question of whether it is ever acceptable or wise for a President and Commander-in-Chief to leave open the possibility that he or she would authorize torture or other unlawful treatment in cases of dire emergency. As you know, this question – commonly referred to as the ticking time bomb scenario – is frequently put to presidential candidates on the campaign trail in an attempt to prompt them into admitting that they would violate fundamental American values in order to save American lives.
We recognize this question as the trap it is intended to be. As Commander-in-Chief, it would be your duty to set a clear policy for everyone under your command, not to make tactical decisions like the one presented by this hypothetical. We also know from experience that a situation like the ticking time bomb is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, as it would require a simultaneous triumph and catastrophic failure of intelligence. In order for the scenario to become reality, we would have to know virtually everything about an impending attack – that it was imminent, that it would be catastrophic, that the person we had in custody knew the one vital piece of information we needed to stop it, that he would divulge that information under torture – everything except that one vital piece of information.
People are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on 9/11 and, fed by what they see on television and in the movies, they are naturally drawn to the collective fantasy that torture in a ticking time bomb situation can spare us from suffering such an attack. Because of that, we understand the need for candidates to address the ticking time bomb question. But we believe you should use the opportunity of answering this question to lead the American people away from the grip of fear that prompts the question in the first place. In that spirit, we offer the following thoughts on how to defuse the ticking time bomb.
While the standard ticking time bomb scenario as presented on television and in hypothetical questions to candidates is a fiction, there is another sense in which the ticking time bomb scenario is painfully real. Our soldiers in Iraq confront ticking time bomb situations every single day, in the form of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). There is no question in our minds that the proper way to deal with people who might have information about these threats is to abide by the law and by our
training. We know what works in these situations. And it is not torture.
We also know that the risks of hitting the panic button in a ticking time bomb situation are numerous and grave. First, torture is unlikely to produce accurate or actionable intelligence; to the contrary, since torture of a determined enemy is more likely to produce lies than the truth, applying torture in a true ticking time bomb situation is the surest way to guarantee that the bomb will go off. Torture does not work, and nothing about the urgency of a ticking time bomb situation – nor any amount of wishful thinking – will change that fact.
The case of captured terrorism suspect Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi underscores the gravity of this risk. After initially cooperating with FBI interrogators, al Libbi was transferred to CIA custody and then to Egypt, where he was reportedly subjected to waterboarding and other torture. Under torture, al Libbi told interrogators that Iraq had trained al Qaeda to use biochemical weapons. It came out later that al Libbi had fabricated the story in order to stop the torture, and all the information he provided was deemed unreliable and discredited. But by that time, we had already used his information as part of the case for going to war with Iraq.
Second, even if one attempts to limit the use of torture only to rare situations of dire emergency – real ticking time bomb situations – it always spreads. Any degree of “flexibility” about torture articulated by the Commander-in-Chief will drop down the chain of command like a stone, and the rare exception will fast become the rule. Every American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine takes an oath in which they swear to obey the lawful orders of the President as Commander-in-Chief. If you become President of the United States, these men and women will look to you not only for their orders but for the guidance and standards that inform those orders. Our men and women in uniform need clear and consistent standards, and the military provides those to them.But if the Commander-in-Chief muddies that message by saying that he or she would be willing to authorize torture in some circumstances, we cannot expect our troops on the battlefield, who face death every day, to eschew it. As military professionals, we can say with certainty that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
Third, permitting torture in any circumstance does grave damage to America’s moral authority and, by fueling jihadist recruitment, undermines our security. Our country cannot hope to lead the world if it forsakes the most fundamental rules and standards it insists other countries uphold. This long war in which we are now engaged is in many respects a war of ideas, and it will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of those in the region who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave and imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This is a recipe for defeat.
And finally, as officers who were entrusted with the safety and moral integrity of the young men and women under our command, we believe strongly that any Commander-in-Chief who would authorize torture under any circumstances must understand the impact of that decision on those who would be ordered to carry it out. When we take young men and women from their parents and train them to be soldiers, we do so with the implied promise that they will be returned to their families better people for having served their country. That is a solemn obligation, and we breach it when we equivocate about the use of torture and other cruelty. We urge that you keep this obligation foremost in your mind when you are asked whether there are circumstances – even the most dire – under which you would authorize the use of torture.
Our country must return to the values our forefathers had the wisdom to set out in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Terrorism is a serious problem that we must confront using all our strength, persistence and ingenuity. But our values – as set out in these founding documents – are an asset in that fight as well, and we forfeit that asset at our peril. We need strong positive leadership that will replace fear with enthusiastic optimism that our Nation’s future is bright and secure. Our citizens and the world are searching for that leadership.
We look forward to further discussions with you about these issues of such importance to our Nation.
Sincerely,
General Charles C. Krulak, USMC (Ret.)
General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn S. Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Veepstakes
In today's Fix, Chris Cillizza provides an interesting run-down of potential nominees for vice-president.
BARACK OBAMA
* John Edwards: The former North Carolina senator's endorsement remains the biggest "get" in the ongoing battle between Obama and Clinton. On one level, he seems like a natural fit as Obama's No. 2; the two were passionate voices for change in the race and both put a refusal to accept money from special interests at the core of their campaigns. Edwards is also still a relatively young man and would help Obama make a generational argument against McCain. Why wouldn't Edwards be the pick? His six years in the Senate don't help Obama address voter concerns about experience.
* Tim Kaine: Kaine, the governor of Virginia, has long been The Fix's dark horse pick to be Obama's running mate. Not only was he among the first major elected officials to back Obama, he hails from a potential swing state. Also, Kaine's deep faith (and willingness to speak about it on the campaign trail) could help the party's outreach to moderate and independent voters. Like Edwards, Kaine has very limited experience in foreign affairs, however.* Kathleen Sebelius: Sebelius is the hot name right now among Democratic insiders buzzing about an Obama pick. Sebelius is currently in her second term as the governor of Kansas - one of the most Republican states in the country. While the idea of the Democratic ticket carrying Kansas is somewhat far fetched (Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to do so way back in 1964), picking Sebelius would add to the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and draw huge amounts of media attention. Plus, Sebelius may have an intangible going for her: Obama's mother is a native Kansan.
* Jim Webb: Webb is a beloved figure among the liberal left who all but drafted him into his 2006 upset victory over Sen. George Allen (R). And he has the military credential few can match as a decorated Marine during Vietnam. His biggest asset and potential liability seems to lie in his unorthodox approach to politics. Webb is blunt to the point of awkwardness. Voters often love it, but such straight shooting may not make an ideal veep pick.
* Tony Zinni: Zinni is not only a high ranking military officer(he served as a Marine for nearly four decades and was the head of U.S. Central Command), but he also is a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq. His foreign policy chops are tough to question and his opposition to the war jibes nicely with Obama's own position. Given the likelihood of McCain as the Republican nominee, Obama might well opt for Zinni (or some other military man) to blunt charges that he is naive when it comes to foreign policy and national security.
JOHN McCAIN* Charlie Crist: Less than two years after winning election as the governor of Florida, Crist is already being talked up in Republican circles as a potential VP. (The St. Petersburg Times even has a Charlie Crist veep-o-meter measuring his chances. In retrospect, McCain's win in Florida was the tipping point in his bid for the nomination, and that victory was fueled in no small part by a last-minute endorsement from Crist. One strike against Crist is that he isn't regarded by movement conservatives as one of them.
* Jon Huntsman Jr.: Huntsman, the governor of Utah, is the dark horse pick of this list. His original endorsement was seen a major coup for McCain - Huntsman is Mormon, thus his support was seen as a slap at Mitt Romney. Huntsman also has significant chops among the Reagan/Bush crowd; he served in both Bush administrations and was a staff assistant in the Reagan White House in the early 1980s. Did we mention he is the son of the wealthiest man in Utah?
* Tim Pawlenty: The two-term Minnesota governor has to be considered the frontrunner at the moment to be McCain's pick. He hails from the electorally important Midwest, is young enough to balance concerns about McCain's age, and he stuck by the Arizona senator in the darkest days of the campaign. The criticism that Pawlenty is an unknown on the national stage may, in fact, be an argument in his favor - voters won't bring any preconceived notions about him to the ticket. Never forget that one of the guiding principles in picking a VP is to find someone who is comfortable being seen but not heard. Want more about the man they call "Tpaw"?
* Mark Sanford: If Tpaw is the top choice these days, Sanford isn't far behind. Term-limited out of office in 2010, Sanford is young (47) and the rare Republican who can bridge the chasm between social and economic conservatives. Sanford was an early endorser of McCain during the latter's 2000 presidential candidacy and, even though he stayed neutral this year, retains a good relationship with McCain. Fiscal conservatives -- led by the Club For Growth -- LOVE Sanford and have already begun lobbying on his behalf.
* John Thune: A rising star in the party, Thune is a hero to conservatives for defeating Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) in 2004. He also hails from the Plains -- a potentially competitive area with Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin up for grabs. Thune, like Sanford and Pawlenty, is in his 40s, helping McCain offset
any concerns about his age.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obama Surges Ahead
As reported today in Reuters:
Barack Obama has surged past Hillary Clinton to open a big national lead in the Democratic presidential race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday. Obama also leads Republican front-runner John McCain in a potential November election match-up while Clinton trails McCain, enhancing Obama's argument he is the Democrat with the best shot at capturing the White House.
The poll showed Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52 percent to 38 percent, after being in a statistical tie with the New York senator last month. Obama's new lead follows a string of 10 wins in February for the Illinois senator, who has moved ahead in the battle for pledged delegates who vote on the party's nominee at the August convention.
"Obama has the hot hand and you can clearly see his momentum in the national numbers," pollster John Zogby said. "This is what happens when you win a bunch of primaries in a row - or maybe this is why you win a bunch of primaries in a row."
Friday, February 15, 2008
Changing Dynamics
The NY Times provides an interesting take on the changing dynamics of the Democratic presidential primaries now that Barack Obama has garned a lead in delegates. An excerpt:
Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.
Neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to claim the nomination by the time the voting ends in June. But Mr. Obama’s campaign began making a case in earnest on Wednesday that if he maintained his edge in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, he would have the strongest claim to the backing of the 796 elected Democrats and party leaders known as superdelegates who are free to vote as they choose and who now stand to determine the outcome.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she could still pull out a victory with victories in the biggest primaries still to come, including Ohioand Texas next month. But Mr. Obama’s clear lead in delegates allocated by the votes in nominating contests is one of a number of challenges facing her after a string of defeats in which Mr. Obama not only ran up big popular vote margins but also made inroads among the types of voters she had most been counting on, including women and lower-income people.
Should the cracks in her support among those groups show up in Ohio and Texas as well, it could undermine her hopes that those states will halt Mr. Obama’s momentum and allow her to claim dominance in many of the biggest primary battlegrounds.
AFRICOM
President Bush can safely claim a positive legacy in Africa, which he tours starting Feb. 15. He increased funds for health and tied foreign aid to reform. But one legacy hangs in the balance: a new American security arrangement there. It's called AFRICOM, a United States military command center for the continent. It replaces a cold-war setup that viewed Africa as secondary to larger security concerns. That's why its oversight was long divided among three US command centers that focus on other global regions.
Did Bill Sink Hill?
The Agitator raises the question “did Bill sink Hill on purpose?” Not likely, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Death by a Thousand Cuts
The Clinton Campaign's “death by a thousand cuts” is receiving more and more public scrutiny. The devolution of the campaign from one internal crisis to another, its lack of a consistent message, and its reaction to various setbacks has only added fuel to the fire. A chronology:
Three more primary losses, not even close. Now it's eight in a row. A slide in the national polls. Staff shakeup: soap-opera-watching campaign manager out, deputy out. Bill's former campaign manager, David Wilhelm, jumps for Barack Obama. Josh Green, in a stunning piece that might be called a meticulously reported notebook dump, says, in The Atlantic, that Mrs. Clinton made personnel decisions based only on loyalty, not talent and skill. (There's a lot of that in the Bush White House. The loyalty obsession is never a sign of health.) The Wall Street Journal reports "internal frictions" flaring in the open, with Clinton campaign guru Mark Penn yelling, "Your ad doesn't work!" to ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who fires back, "Oh, it's always the ad, never the message." (This is a classic campaign argument. The problem is almost always the message. Getting the message right requires answering this question: Why are we here? This is the hardest question to answer in politics. Most staffs, and gurus, don't know or can't say.) On a conference call Tuesday morning, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters Mrs. Clinton simply cannot catch up. It is "next to impossible" for her to get past him on pledged delegates, she'd need "a blowout victory" of 20 to 30 points in the coming states, the superdelegates will "ratify" what the voters do. (I wrote in my notes, "not gloating -asserting as fact.") Within the hour Mr. Plouffe's words were headlined on Politico, made Drudge, and became topic one on the evening news shows. Veteran Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier took a stab at an early postmortem in what seemed a long-suppressed blurt: The Clintons always treated party leaders as "an extension of their . . . ambitions," "pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon." He cited party insiders: Superdelegates "won't hesitate to ditch" Mrs. Clinton if her problems persist. To top it all off, Mrs. Clinton has, for 30 years, held deep respect for her husband's political acumen, for his natural, instinctive sense of how to campaign. And he's never let her down. Now he's flat-footed, an oaf lurching from local radio interview to finger-pointing lecture. Where did the golden gut go? How did his gifts abandon him? Abandon her? Her campaign blew through $120 million. How did this happen?
The thing about that paragraph is it could be longer.
The Clinton response? "She awoke each day having to absorb new sentences in a paragraph of woe." But "her response to what from the outside looks like catastrophe? A glassy-eyed insistence that all is well.... Whether or not you wish her well probably determines whether you see it as game face, stubbornness or evidence of mild derangement."
EJ Dionne provides his thoughts on "what happened to Hillary Rodham Clinton?" Last fall, she was the 'inevitable' nominee whose 'machine' would raise scads of cash and push her to an early victory.... But this narrative was flawed from the beginning" and "her campaign has suffered from profound organizational failures."
Clinton has offered experience and some well-thought-out policies. That might be enough in a different year. But when it comes to a larger theme, her campaign has been all over the lot. You can tell a campaign has difficulty establishing a message when its slogans keep changing. In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has featured one banner after another: "Big Challenges, Real Solutions," "Working for Change, Working for You," "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead" and "Solutions for America." Obama has stuck confidently with the slogan "Change We Can Believe In." Clinton must either get voters to stop believing in the change Obama promises, or make them an alternative Big Offer that they can believe in more.
Hillary Clinton's attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama's eloquence and idealism are dismissed as "abstract" and a "fairy tale" in contrast to Clinton's experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using "inspiration" as an epithet. Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination - and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules. Unlikely - but it would be a fitting contribution to the Clinton legacy of monumental selfishness.
Despite the various opinions on how we’ve arrived at this point, it’s now clear that Hillary Clinton must defeat Barack Obama in both Texas and Ohio next month to survive. And instead of presenting a case for why she is the most experienced and able candidate to bring a different kind of change, she has fallen back on the tired negative attacks of a desperate candidate. The latest - "speeches versus solutions, talk versus action;" "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night;" "I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business."
In defining the differences between their candidacies, she's clearly chosen the low-road. While sure to grab headlines, it’s probably not the message you want to send to an electorate that’s eager for change, fed up with politics as usual, and hopeful for the future. To the record number of Democrats who’ve turned out in support of Barack Obama (many first-time voters, and many independents and moderate Republicans) or those who are considering doing so, it’s a charge that they’ve all been duped by a candidate that’s all style and no substance. That has to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. For those who’ve followed Obama (including those who once complained that he was too “professorial” and "wonkish"), it comes as quite a stretch... and rather insulting. It’s the classic Clintonian self-denial (which has growing Nixon-like qualities)– the “if you’re not with us, you're misguided, and we're going to tear you down until you join us" mindset. It's quite a contrast from a message of hope and unity.
To be an effective statesman and chief executive, a president must garner the support of the American people if he/she hopes to accomplish anything of substance. It’s hard to do that when, in the quest for that presidency, you alienate more and more people every step of the way.
In the News: Africa
Tonight, the President is scheduled to embark on a six-day, five-country tour of Africa that will also take him to Eastern Europe, Israel, Japan and China. Due to the increasing violence and instability on the continent, it will be far from the "victory lap” of American beneficiary nations (Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia) that was originally intended.
As the NY Times reports: “On the eve of a planned trip to Africa, President Bush thrust himself into the role of peacemaker on Thursday, as his plans to promote American efforts against poverty and disease gave way to a more pressing imperative: addressing the violence and turmoil on the continent.” As a self-proclaimed peace-maker, the President also defended his decision not to send troops to Darfur (despite what he calls a genocide taking place) as a "seminal decision" not to intervene with force, taken partly out of the desire not to send US troops into another Muslim country.
Elsewhere on the continent, Kenya's political rivals agreed to an independent review of the disputed presidential election (to be released within three to six months). As the BBC reports: “The agreement, which also calls for a new constitution, is a clear sign of progress after weeks of violence that have left more than 1,000 people dead.”
Meanwhile, Chadian President Deby declared a nationwide state of emergency, telling citizens that tightened controls are ''measures important and urgent to maintain order, guarantee stability and assure the good functioning of the state.'' NY Times: The Red Cross said more than 160 people were killed and 1,000 wounded in the fighting, which reached the edge of the presidential palace before the rebels were driven out of N'Djamena and back toward Chad's eastern border with Sudan.
As the NY Times reports: “On the eve of a planned trip to Africa, President Bush thrust himself into the role of peacemaker on Thursday, as his plans to promote American efforts against poverty and disease gave way to a more pressing imperative: addressing the violence and turmoil on the continent.” As a self-proclaimed peace-maker, the President also defended his decision not to send troops to Darfur (despite what he calls a genocide taking place) as a "seminal decision" not to intervene with force, taken partly out of the desire not to send US troops into another Muslim country.
Elsewhere on the continent, Kenya's political rivals agreed to an independent review of the disputed presidential election (to be released within three to six months). As the BBC reports: “The agreement, which also calls for a new constitution, is a clear sign of progress after weeks of violence that have left more than 1,000 people dead.”
Meanwhile, Chadian President Deby declared a nationwide state of emergency, telling citizens that tightened controls are ''measures important and urgent to maintain order, guarantee stability and assure the good functioning of the state.'' NY Times: The Red Cross said more than 160 people were killed and 1,000 wounded in the fighting, which reached the edge of the presidential palace before the rebels were driven out of N'Djamena and back toward Chad's eastern border with Sudan.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Voices
"We didn’t put any resources in small states." - Clinton Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee on why Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination.
Losing, Hillary Style
The Politico reports on the Clinton campaign's response to their latest defeats - a strategy somewhere between spin and denial.
Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton will go down swinging and her latest ad in Wisconsin (going negative) should be an indication of what's to come.
Hillary Clinton has had a lot of experience dealing with setbacks in the last five days, losing two of her top campaign aides and eight consecutive contests to Barack Obama in their battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. But she hasn’t gotten any better at acknowledging defeats.
In speeches to supporters in Texas Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, she ignored Obama’s convincing Tuesday wins in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Only in a press conference after a Wednesday morning rally in this dusty border town did Clinton acknowledge the results of the Potomac primary. Even then, she said everything was going according to plan.
“I want to congratulate Sen. Obama on his recent victories and tell him to meet me in Texas. We’re ready,” she said, before brushing off questions about her apparent struggles by saying, “that’s what I always thought would happen. So we are very well positioned to compete in these big states and that’s what I intend to do. This is a long journey to the nomination. Some weeks one of us is up and the other is down, and then we reverse it . . . It’s a long and winding road.”
Clinton also said she wasn’t concerned that Obama on Tuesday cut into her base of Hispanics and white women, and she denied reports that her campaign is in turmoil. “From my perspective this is the exciting part of the campaign,” she said.
Still, the unprompted recognition of Obama’s success was rare for Clinton, who in her speeches neither congratulates Obama on his wins, nor acknowledges her losses, even if only to predict she’d soon turn things around in her March 4 firewall states of Texas and Ohio. And when directly confronted about defeats and stumbles, she normally makes it sound as if everything is going precisely to plan.
Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton will go down swinging and her latest ad in Wisconsin (going negative) should be an indication of what's to come.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Morman? More like More-Man.
If only the Romney campaign had adopted this tone earlier (caution: un-Mormonlike language)...
Random Thoughts...
As the plot of the Democratic primary twists and turns, Barack Obama’s upper-hand is becoming more and more prominent. As he's swept the table the past few weeks, Democrats have turned out in record numbers on his behalf, often dwarfing the turnout of Republicans in the reddest of states. In those states (such as Nebraska and Kansas), Obama is winning and he's winning big - with 7 out of 10 votes cast. If nothing else speaks to the transformational aspects of his candidacy, that does.
Looking to the general election, it’s apparent that Obama brings a 50-state campaign to the table, while Clinton has reportedly planned out her entire 271 electoral vote strategy. Change versus politics as usual. Well, Americans are tired of presidents who only govern on behalf of their supporters. If the Clinton campaign is any indication (victory above all else and damn the consequences), she will govern much the same way. Despite her "vast experience", she fails to comprehend the nation's desperate yearning for change.
To become the president we need – one who leads and truly inspires - a candidate must first have the ability to connect with voters outside of his/her political base. Unity brings strength, pride, and change...remember? Division breeds contempt, apathy, and paralysis. More and more Americans, tired of the latter, are looking to Obama to provide the former. The polls numbers reflect as much.
On the heels of an Obama sweep of the Potomac primaries, the Clinton campaign is in danger of adopting the Giuliani strategic focus on distant goalposts. But as Rudy knows too well, as those goalposts move closer, the subsequent momentum of the Obama campaign could make Clinton's task insurmountable. Thus the firewalls are set in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. At that point, it could very well be all or nothing for the Clinton campaign – a campaign that has recently relied on a $5 million loan from its candidate, and a campaign that must compensate for the resignations of its campaign manager and deputy campaign manger. The writing is on the wall but if we’ve learned anything from this campaign, it is that voters tend to reject the “inevitable” candidate and that Hillary Clinton is at her best when the tide is against her. The tide has officially turned and soon it'll be time to put those lessons to the ultimate test.
Looking to the general election, it’s apparent that Obama brings a 50-state campaign to the table, while Clinton has reportedly planned out her entire 271 electoral vote strategy. Change versus politics as usual. Well, Americans are tired of presidents who only govern on behalf of their supporters. If the Clinton campaign is any indication (victory above all else and damn the consequences), she will govern much the same way. Despite her "vast experience", she fails to comprehend the nation's desperate yearning for change.
To become the president we need – one who leads and truly inspires - a candidate must first have the ability to connect with voters outside of his/her political base. Unity brings strength, pride, and change...remember? Division breeds contempt, apathy, and paralysis. More and more Americans, tired of the latter, are looking to Obama to provide the former. The polls numbers reflect as much.
On the heels of an Obama sweep of the Potomac primaries, the Clinton campaign is in danger of adopting the Giuliani strategic focus on distant goalposts. But as Rudy knows too well, as those goalposts move closer, the subsequent momentum of the Obama campaign could make Clinton's task insurmountable. Thus the firewalls are set in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. At that point, it could very well be all or nothing for the Clinton campaign – a campaign that has recently relied on a $5 million loan from its candidate, and a campaign that must compensate for the resignations of its campaign manager and deputy campaign manger. The writing is on the wall but if we’ve learned anything from this campaign, it is that voters tend to reject the “inevitable” candidate and that Hillary Clinton is at her best when the tide is against her. The tide has officially turned and soon it'll be time to put those lessons to the ultimate test.
Voices
Mike Huckabee, on why more and more Democrats are looking past Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama: “The American people are not looking for someone who can fix a carburetor. They’re looking for someone who can drive the car.”
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Professional
In the Times this weekend, Fred Kaplan provides a must-read profile of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
“Here’s another lesson I’ve learned. Two of the presidents I’ve worked for got into trouble because of foreign policy: Carter and Reagan. And in both cases” - Carter with the hostage crisis in Tehran, Reagan with illegal arms shipments to raise money for the Nicaraguan contras - “they got into trouble over Iran.” He half-smiled and cocked his eyebrows.
It was a classic display of the traits that distinguish Gates from his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld: caution as opposed to brashness, attention more to particulars than to grand theory and a view of history as a set of warning bells, not an outmoded mind-set to be transcended. Gates is clearly aware of the comparison. “My favorite cartoon from my confirmation hearings,” he said with a laugh, “shows me holding up my hand and saying, I swear that I am not now, and have never been, Donald Rumsfeld.”
Staged Presence
With the policy differences between Obama and Clinton negligible at best (i.e., affordable almost-universal health care versus Hillarycare Part II), it's no surprise that voters and the press are focusing on the stylistic and strategic variances that separate the two candidates. Obama's inspiring, young, grassroots; Clinton's pragmatic, prepared, establishment. This dichotomy is interesting and, at times, telling, but it's not the whole story. The campaigns each strive to show their candidates in a certain light, 'tis true...but the mechanics through which they achieve the spin are worth a look. Voters respond to perceptions, not to reality, and the level to which the Clinton campaign must engineer perceptions is astonishing. Frank Rich's column in the New York Times this weekend tells it like it is. The Obama folks twist results, too, but at least they're spinning based off genuine responses to their candidate.
On the subject of genuine versus staged situations, can someone please tell me why Ann Coulter, who is clearly the fakest of all fakes (hair, nails, outrage), has any following? Does anyone actually believe she has a shred of credibility? Also, why are there no progressive versions of the Ann Coulter type?
On the subject of genuine versus staged situations, can someone please tell me why Ann Coulter, who is clearly the fakest of all fakes (hair, nails, outrage), has any following? Does anyone actually believe she has a shred of credibility? Also, why are there no progressive versions of the Ann Coulter type?
The Iranian Old Guard
In today’s Washington Post, Thomas Erdbrink reports on the diminishing influence of the Iranian old guard. It’s sure to set off a generational struggle to fill the political vacuum in the long-term, while emboldening the Ahmadinejad faction in the near-term.
After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers toppled a U.S.-backed autocracy in Iran, he brought to power a coterie of politically engaged clerics who sought to create the world's first Islamic republic. Nearly 30 years later, a new generation of politicians is sweeping aside those clerics, many of whom had become proponents of better relations with the West and gradual steps toward greater democracy.
The newcomers are former military commanders, filmmakers and mayors, many younger than 50 and only a few of them clerics. They are vowing to carry out the promises of the revolution and to place Iran among the world's leading nations. This rising generation has the support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader in Iran's political system, who backs the government's assertive foreign and nuclear policies.
Last month, local election councils disqualified scores of clerics and their allies -including Khomeini's grandson, Ali Eshragi - from seeking election to parliament March 14. Such candidates have been disqualified before, but analysts said the absence of members of the clerical old guard from other institutions of power in Iran means they will find it difficult to mount an electoral comeback.
"These newcomers are pushing the followers of the imam out of power," said cleric and political veteran Rasoul Montajabnia, using an honorific to refer to Khomeini. "We are being dealt with disloyally." Analysts say the purging of those clerics strengthens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most prominent leader of the new generation, and will result in a smaller political class that is more beholden to the supreme leader and less tolerant of even internal dissent.
The Trouble in Diyala
The LA Times provides an interesting account of the migration of AQI into the Diyala River Valley.
For the last year, U.S.-led forces have pursued the militants from one stronghold to the next in Diyala, a province of winding waterways and abundant farms stretching north and east from Baghdad to the Iranian border. They have captured or killed hundreds of people, most said to be members or affiliates of the militant group Al Qaeda in Iraq. The American-led troops have destroyed weapons caches, training bases, bomb-making factories and torture houses.
Yet the Sunni Arab militants identified by many U.S. commanders as their most lethal enemy and the greatest obstacle to stability in Iraq continue to flow into the province and farther north to the regions of Mosul and Kirkuk. This is not the only place that the militants have established a haven, but the U.S. deems success here as crucial to its efforts to consolidate recent security gains as American troops begin to draw down.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Irony of a McCain Candidacy
As we’ve seen, the inevitable candidacy of John McCain has left the various elements of the Republican Party struggling to mend fences while trying to drown out the voices urging conservatives to sit this one out.
In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger, debates the proper course for Republicans: “McCain or Wilderness”?
In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger, debates the proper course for Republicans: “McCain or Wilderness”?
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham aren't the only conservatives in agony over John McCain. The base is bummed. There are murmurs of heading into the political wilderness. Sit this one out. Rather than sell the party's soul to John McCain, let Hillary have it, or Barack. Go into opposition for four years while the party gets its head together and comes up with an authentic conservative candidate. If this sourness takes hold at the margin, say among GOP anti-immigrant voters, it might happen.
The wilderness is a good place to find yourself, if you're a prophet. There are reasons, though, why a principled political retreat won't make conservative prospects better. The point of a principled retreat would be to rediscover coherence amid doctrinal confusion. The exact opposite is likely to happen.
Most of the distrust of the McCain candidacy is rooted in personal ill will. He's a hard case, and activists are often brittle. The fear is that one of the strongest impulses in a McCain presidency will be payback, and that he might sell out conservatives on taxes and the judiciary. That is possible, though by now it would require an act of deep duplicity by Mr. McCain. Here again, the conservatives should show more self-confidence.
This isn't an apologia for the senator. Unlike Reagan, he is too self-preoccupied. There is a danger his presidency would be mainly about legacy, and therefore disorganized. This is a call to play the cards on the table. Conservatives are not in the wilderness. They should get back in the game.
Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, speaks to why some conservatives have found relief, not contempt, in a McCain candidacy.
The attacks of movement conservatives - particularly the talk radio and blogging crowd - on John McCain have reached a shrill, off-key crescendo. McCain is not only "dangerous" and "stupid," he has "contempt for his fellow humans." His opponents will refuse to vote in the general election, or even will campaign for Hillary Clinton. With McCain now almost the last man standing, it will be interesting to see how, or if, these pledges are fulfilled.
For some conservatives, the frustrations run deeper than resentment for a single, outsized, prickly, infuriating man. Early in this cycle, many elements of the Republican coalition rooted for - and fully expected - a decisive, ideological break from the compromised Bush years on issues such as immigration and foreign policy. Those hopes have been disappointed.
The lessons of the McCain resurrection run deeper than the limits of talk radio: Candidates of unity are more appealing and electable. American ideals are indispensable in the conduct of American foreign policy. Some conservatives have reacted with anger. For others of us, there is only relief.
Gerson is not alone. As Politico points out, “Conservatives have already found something to like about John McCain: They think he can win in November.” Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating elaborates: “The public who wants change is comfortable with John McCain, whom they view as someone who is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush administration." Keating believes the very issues that have estranged McCain from much of the conservative base “have actually strengthened him with moderates.”
That may be. But as McCain treads his political tight rope toward the general election, his balancing act of appeasing conservatives without alienating moderates will continue. With Mike Huckabee and the base tugging from the right and President Bush beginning to embrace his candidacy, McCain could topple. The ultimate irony could become reality - the more popular McCain becomes with conservatives, the more likely he loses that trait that they find most appealing - his electability.
That may be. But as McCain treads his political tight rope toward the general election, his balancing act of appeasing conservatives without alienating moderates will continue. With Mike Huckabee and the base tugging from the right and President Bush beginning to embrace his candidacy, McCain could topple. The ultimate irony could become reality - the more popular McCain becomes with conservatives, the more likely he loses that trait that they find most appealing - his electability.
The Clock is Ticking
Despite the incessant flag-waving of John McCain and claims of victory in Iraq, the American public is growing impatient - understandably so - with the Iraqi government. After all, as the President has stated time and time again, the underlying intention of his so-called “surge” was to provide the Iraqi government with the “breathing space it needs” to take major steps toward reconciliation. That has no happened. With two viable Democratic candidates inching closer and closer to the White House, the Iraqi government knows the clock is ticking on the open-ended commitment of American lives and treasure by the Bush Administration. They are also becoming increasingly aware that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is not up to the job. The LA Times lays out the political dynamics in Baghdad.
Key partners in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government may seek the ouster of the Shiite Muslim leader if he fails to move quickly on stalled benchmark reforms and on sharing in decision making. Threats of a possible parliamentary vote of no confidence have come in recent weeks from the Kurdish Alliance and the Shiite party Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, Maliki's last major defenders, which, along with the largest Sunni political party, have suggested Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi, a Shiite, as a possible alternative.
Voices of the Past
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
- Samuel Adams
After al-Sistani
The diminishing public presence of Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the “godfather and guarantor to the Shiite-led leadership”, has lead to serious questions about his health and the implications of finding a successor. “Al-Sistani, who moved to Iraq more than 50 years ago after studying in Iran, is one of four grand ayatollahs in Najaf, but clearly retains the most prestige and standing among his peers. Yet it's precisely this rare blend of political and religious gravitas that makes him a potential liability. He is a virtually impossible act to follow, leaving open the possibility of a confusing and potentially messy fallout after his death.”
Any change in al-Sistani's role or reach could have far-reaching consequences for both Iraq and the United States, which consider the Iranian-born cleric as perhaps the most powerful figure in Iraq and a vital stabilizing force in the oil-rich Shiite heartlands of southern Iraq. The most worrisome scenario is that - as al-Sistani's vast clout possibly wanes - the majority Shiites could further splinter into factions that could rattle Iraq's Shiite-led government and boost militias openly hostile to Washington. Such an upheaval also would strike a direct blow to U.S. goals in the coming year: shoring up the government and its security forces while trying to consolidate military gains against Sunni insurgents led by al-Qaida in Iraq.
Al-Sistani - whose exact age is not known, but who is believed to be 79 or 80 - has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August 2004, shortly after returning from medical treatment in London for an unspecified heart condition. But even behind the scenes, his mix of religious authority and political sway make him more powerful than any elected leader in Iraq, including the president and his prime minister. Recently, however, al-Sistani has noticeably lightened his schedule, according to a range of officials interviewed by The Associated Press.
al-Qaeda in Iraq
This week, the Post published an interesting article about al-Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) attempts to win back many of the disaffected Iraqi Sunnis who have risen in opposition to its harsh tactics. It provides a good overview of the plight of the terror group in recent months. A couple excerpts:
The Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is telling its followers to soften their tactics in order to regain popular support in the western province of Anbar, where Sunni tribes have turned against the organization and begun working with U.S. forces, according to group leaders and American intelligence officials. The new approach was outlined last month in an internal communique that orders members to avoid killing Sunni civilians who have not sympathized with the U.S.-backed tribesmen or the government.
From internal documents and interviews with members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a picture emerges of an organization in disarray but increasingly aware that its harsh policies - such as punishing women who don't cover their heads - have eroded its popular support. Over the past year, the group has been driven out of many of its strongholds. The group's leadership is now jettisoning some of its past tactics to refocus attacks on American troops, Sunnis cooperating closely with U.S. forces, and Iraq's infrastructure.
The U.S. military says it destroyed much of the leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007, killing 2,400 suspected members and capturing 8,800, while pushing the group almost completely out of Baghdad and Anbar province. Although U.S. officials and their Sunni allies caution that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains dangerous and could find ways to regenerate, they assert that the group now is largely a spent force.
By all accounts, the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq has plunged. The U.S. military said the number sneaking in from Syria has dropped from 110 a month in late summer to about 40 to 50 a month now. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a predominantly Iraqi group, but the U.S. military says it is led by Arabs from outside the country.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Huckabee is still my front-runner. Read about my experience seeing Huckabee and McCain before the Kansas GOP Caucus
Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator John McCain both conducted campaign events in Kansas today (02/08) to rally up support before tomorrow’s Republican Caucus, the first in almost 20 years.
Both candidates’ schedules allowed me the opportunity to attend both events in Wichita. At 11:00 a.m. I joined approximately 1,000 Kansans to see Governor Huckabee. We were all packed in a hangar at the Jabara Airport. Huckabee first took to the stage with the local band Color Blind and jammed out on his base guitar to a song by Lynard Skynard and another one by Stevie Ray Vaughn. Huckabee proved to the crowd that he is musically talented and it was a good way to create energy amongst those in attendance. Huckabee then spoke for approximately 45 minutes about his experience growing up in Arkansas, serving as Lt. Governor and Governor, and his vision for America and his desire to become President. He spoke about being pro-life, supporting the 2nd Amendment, reducing the size of the federal government, and reforming the tax code by supporting the Fair Tax. He also spoke about securing the border, allowing veterans the opportunity to see doctors locally, and maintaining a strong military. He certainly captured the attention of the audience and he very much lived up to the reputation of being the most likeable candidate.
Two hours after Huckabee left the stage I went across town to the Mid-Continent Airport and attended the McCain rally at Hawker Beechcraft. The crowd was noticeably smaller for McCain – approximately 300 people. However, McCain had a larger entourage as he was accompanied by Senator Sam Brownback and other representatives from the State’s GOP. The atmosphere was hardly that of a front-runner and the McCain supporters were not very enthusiastic. McCain also appeared to struggle with his words as he referred to Hawker Beechcraft as “Hawker Cessna” - I wondered at times if McCain knew where he was. His age is a question that should be raised since the job of being President is probably the most grueling and stressful job one could have. The rest of his speech seemed predictable as he continued to try and re-label himself from being a “maverick” to a “true conservative.” He also spoke about how he would personally follow Osama bin Laden to the “Gates of Hell” if that is what it takes to bring him to justice.
Both candidates’ schedules allowed me the opportunity to attend both events in Wichita. At 11:00 a.m. I joined approximately 1,000 Kansans to see Governor Huckabee. We were all packed in a hangar at the Jabara Airport. Huckabee first took to the stage with the local band Color Blind and jammed out on his base guitar to a song by Lynard Skynard and another one by Stevie Ray Vaughn. Huckabee proved to the crowd that he is musically talented and it was a good way to create energy amongst those in attendance. Huckabee then spoke for approximately 45 minutes about his experience growing up in Arkansas, serving as Lt. Governor and Governor, and his vision for America and his desire to become President. He spoke about being pro-life, supporting the 2nd Amendment, reducing the size of the federal government, and reforming the tax code by supporting the Fair Tax. He also spoke about securing the border, allowing veterans the opportunity to see doctors locally, and maintaining a strong military. He certainly captured the attention of the audience and he very much lived up to the reputation of being the most likeable candidate.
Two hours after Huckabee left the stage I went across town to the Mid-Continent Airport and attended the McCain rally at Hawker Beechcraft. The crowd was noticeably smaller for McCain – approximately 300 people. However, McCain had a larger entourage as he was accompanied by Senator Sam Brownback and other representatives from the State’s GOP. The atmosphere was hardly that of a front-runner and the McCain supporters were not very enthusiastic. McCain also appeared to struggle with his words as he referred to Hawker Beechcraft as “Hawker Cessna” - I wondered at times if McCain knew where he was. His age is a question that should be raised since the job of being President is probably the most grueling and stressful job one could have. The rest of his speech seemed predictable as he continued to try and re-label himself from being a “maverick” to a “true conservative.” He also spoke about how he would personally follow Osama bin Laden to the “Gates of Hell” if that is what it takes to bring him to justice.
Going into today’s events I was a Huckabee supporter and after leaving I proudly remain a Huckabee supporter. It was a special day for me and other Kansans as we do not usually have the opportunity to see Presidential candidates. I plan to get out and Caucus for Huckabee tomorrow and it is my hope that he wins the delegates of Kansas and continues to build upon it in the days and weeks ahead.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Best. Day. Ever!
To ensure that this great country of ours does not have to surrender to terrorists, Mitt Romney dropped out of the race for President today. What a brave and patriotic soul! Here's a sample of the feedback of a grateful nation...who says $40 million of your own personal fortune doesn't buy you love?
"Good riddance!"
"Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!"
"Perhaps they’ll enlist you to save the China Olympics."
"I guess this is his final flip-flop… "
"Let’s hope that this man who has no core principles, who will say anything to get elected, will leave the political stage once and for all. "
"Awesome! Now his sons are free to go to Iraq!"
Ah, our valiant hero.
"Good riddance!"
"Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!"
"Perhaps they’ll enlist you to save the China Olympics."
"I guess this is his final flip-flop… "
"Let’s hope that this man who has no core principles, who will say anything to get elected, will leave the political stage once and for all. "
"Awesome! Now his sons are free to go to Iraq!"
Ah, our valiant hero.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Ramblings of a Desperate Base
Ann Coulter’s latest hysterical ramblings are only noteworthy because of their growing desperation. With the nomination of John McCain becoming more and more inevitable, watching the talking heads of the hateful wing of the Republican Party self-destruct is becoming more and more entertaining. Here’s a taste of the latest example of Coulter's devolution:
Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party. Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation "Republican." Which is to say, a Democrat…After more rambling about McCain’s liberalism, she finally unveils her ultimate motive…
On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.
- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."
- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.
- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.
- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.
The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.
If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)
If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.
So there it is, Republicans of the "true base." You might as well stay home on election day and concede this one because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are telling you so. You've aimlessly followed them for years...no sense in stopping now.
Dashing for Daylight
In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd takes about the current split in the Democratic party - between those dashing from the darkness and those embracing it. An excerpt:
Hillary Clinton denounced Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, but she did not absorb the ultimate lesson of the destructive vice president: Don’t become so paranoid that you let yourself be overwhelmed by a dark vision…
Darkness seeking darkness. It’s an exhausting specter, and the reason that Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and so many other Democrats are dashing for daylight and trying to break away from the pathological Clinton path. “I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire,” Senator McCaskill told David Gregory on MSNBC on Tuesday. “You know, we’ve had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that’s something that we have to
capture.”
Hillary’s strategist Mark Penn argued last week that because the voters have “very limited information” about Obama, the Republican attack machine would tear him down and he would lose the support of independents. Then Penn tried to point the way to negative information on Obama, just to show that Obama wouldn’t be able to survive Republicans pointing the way to negative information…
Better the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t. Better to go with the Clintons, with all their dysfunction and chaos - the same kind that fueled the Republican hate machine - than to risk the chance that Obama would be mauled like a chew toy in the general election. Better to blow off all the inspiration and the young voters, the independents and the Republicans that Obama is attracting than to take a chance on something as ephemeral as hope. Now that’s Cheney-level paranoia…
The relentless Hillary has been the reticent Obama’s tutor in the Political School for Scandal. He is learning how to take a punch and give one back. When she presents her mythic narrative, the dragon she has slain is the Republican attack machine. Obama told me he doesn’t think about mythic narratives, and Tuesday night in Chicago he was reaching up for “a hymn that will heal this nation and repair the world.”
But, if he wants to be president, he will still have to slay the dragon. And his dragon is the Clinton attack machine, which emerged Tuesday night, not invincible but breathing fire.
Words of Wisdom
"Sadly, great talent and ideas are too often dismissed because those who possessed them were seen as too idealistic, too young, or too unwilling to submit to the same old Washington way of doing things." - Rep. Linda Sanchez
The Dream Ticket
In the Post, Richard Cohen describes why he came to believe in an Obama/Clinton dream ticket:
At the most recent Democratic debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer referred to "a dream ticket for the White House" - either Hillary Clinton for president and Barack Obama for veep or the other way around. Both candidates demurred, giving me the opportunity to describe my own dream ticket: Obama for president; Clinton for chief of staff.
That's the long and short of it. Just about everything Clinton says about herself - her experience, her indomitability, her presumed ability to work long hours - says to me that she would make a swell chief of staff. Beyond that, she either lacks the qualities that would make a great - not merely competent - president or hides them from us...
Election Forecast
The Prince of Darkness offers his political forecast following Super Tuesday.
1. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) late-night Super Tuesday victories in Missouri and then California give him half the convention delegates needed and all but clinch the nomination for him. Once again, Romney's tactics such as pouring $10 million into California worked in theory but not in practice.
2. The anti-McCain barrage from conservative talk show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh did not work. The old GOP tendency to get behind the presumptive leader trumped irritation with McCain. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went on TV last night to say it was time for McCain's opponents to get out and make him the nominee.
3. There is now no clear path for Gov. Mitt Romney to the nomination. The former Massachusetts liberal never was able to sell himself as a conservative, finishing third behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and McCain in Southern states.
4. McCain is still a heartily disliked figure in the Senate, but usually soft-spoken Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), uncharacteristically, was the only anti-McCainiac to speak out. The reason may be that Cochran is the Senate's king of pork while McCain is a leading anti-porker.
5. A test for McCain comes Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event he stiffed last year. He has to repeat what he has been saying lately: First, he will veto any tax increase passed by the Democratic Congress. Second, he will name Supreme Court justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. More than that, he has to say he is one of them.
6. McCain's asset is that there is no genuine conservative left against him. Huckabee is an evangelical, not a conservative (which is one reason he is unlikely to be picked as McCain's running mate). In next week's "Potomac primary" (Virginia, Maryland, and D.C.), it looks like McCain will be the winner, with Huckabee a strong second in Virginia.
7. Thanks to proportional representation, the Democratic fight will stretch out into April. It would have been a very big night for Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) not squeezed out a win in Missouri. The next really big tests come March 4 in Texas and Ohio.
8. The overriding story is that twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted on Super Tuesday, and the gap in enthusiasm was even larger. McCain as nominee faces a massive task ahead.
1. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) late-night Super Tuesday victories in Missouri and then California give him half the convention delegates needed and all but clinch the nomination for him. Once again, Romney's tactics such as pouring $10 million into California worked in theory but not in practice.
2. The anti-McCain barrage from conservative talk show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh did not work. The old GOP tendency to get behind the presumptive leader trumped irritation with McCain. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went on TV last night to say it was time for McCain's opponents to get out and make him the nominee.
3. There is now no clear path for Gov. Mitt Romney to the nomination. The former Massachusetts liberal never was able to sell himself as a conservative, finishing third behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and McCain in Southern states.
4. McCain is still a heartily disliked figure in the Senate, but usually soft-spoken Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), uncharacteristically, was the only anti-McCainiac to speak out. The reason may be that Cochran is the Senate's king of pork while McCain is a leading anti-porker.
5. A test for McCain comes Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event he stiffed last year. He has to repeat what he has been saying lately: First, he will veto any tax increase passed by the Democratic Congress. Second, he will name Supreme Court justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. More than that, he has to say he is one of them.
6. McCain's asset is that there is no genuine conservative left against him. Huckabee is an evangelical, not a conservative (which is one reason he is unlikely to be picked as McCain's running mate). In next week's "Potomac primary" (Virginia, Maryland, and D.C.), it looks like McCain will be the winner, with Huckabee a strong second in Virginia.
7. Thanks to proportional representation, the Democratic fight will stretch out into April. It would have been a very big night for Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) not squeezed out a win in Missouri. The next really big tests come March 4 in Texas and Ohio.
8. The overriding story is that twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted on Super Tuesday, and the gap in enthusiasm was even larger. McCain as nominee faces a massive task ahead.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Wrong Experience
As has been said, the "experience" touted as a virtue by some in this campaign, is viewed as a hindrance by others. The experience that some claim prepares them to confront the challenges of tomorrow is the same experince that leaves them firmly entangled in the ideology and the battles of the past. Fareed Zakaria speaks to "The Wrong Experience." An excerpt:
And yet there are important distinctions between Obama and Clinton - and not simply in the broad, almost gassy talk of inspiration versus experience. They come to today's challenges from very different places. Consider Cuba policy. Almost anyone who is being honest will acknowledge that America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country...
Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up. Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.
This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end.
Partly, this is a generational difference. Bill and Hillary Clinton grew up in an era of Republican dominance. For much of the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been the party of ideas (a point made repeatedly by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Ronald Reagan was seen by much of the country to have rescued America from malaise and retreat. The Clintons' careers have been shaped by the belief that for a Democrat to succeed, he or she had to work within this conservative ideological framework. Otherwise one would be pilloried for being weak on national security, partial to taxes and big government and out of touch with Middle America's social values.
For 30 years this has been the right bet. It's why Bill Clinton was the only successful national Democratic politician in that period. But is it still the right wager? Obama has grown up in a different landscape - with vastly different geopolitics, economics and culture. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been the defining political figures of the recent past. Conservatism has lost its monopoly role. As a result, the new generation is not defensive about its beliefs, nor does it feel trapped into the old categories like hawks versus doves and markets versus taxes.
This is not naiveté. Obama's position on Cuba is not all hope. Most of the older generation of Cuban-Americans are hard-line Republicans anyway, so it's probably pointless courting them. And the younger ones - under 45 or so - are far less wedded to the punitive approach and symbolic battles of the past. So Obama is taking a calculated risk that the time is right. Cuba policy is a microcosm for this difference in attitudes. Obama has spoken in favor of a proposal - made by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn - that in order to get the world more serious about nuclear nonproliferation, the United States should begin to fulfill its end of the treaty and reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Again, for all I know, Hillary Clinton agrees with this approach. But she won't say so. Her long years of experience - in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s - warn her against such audacity.
But the world has changed so much - the cold war is a distant memory, capitalism has spread across the world, new threats come not from states but small bands of people, unilateralism is discredited - that perhaps it is time for America to change as well.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Tuesday Preview
For a closer look at the Super Tuesday states, the New York Times provides a great breakdown. Also, the Fix discusses the dynamics of each race. While conceeding that the Republican delegates are McCain's for the taking, the Democrats are a different story:
Meanwhile, Political Wire provides some of the latest polls:On the Democratic side, it is state by state, hand-to-hand combat with neither Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.) optimistic that tomorrow's vote will decide much of anything. Both candidates have a big state or two he or she is sure to win (New York for Clinton, Illinois for Obama), but they are still fighting for a handful of other key states that could tip the margin one way or the other when the winners are being sorted out. Here's a quick look at five of the biggest battlegrounds:
* Arizona: Symbolic of the rapid gains of Democrats in the southwest, Arizona is the biggest prize in the region tomorrow. Obama has the endorsement of Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) as well as Rep. Raul Grijalva (D), an influential voice in the Hispanic community. Clinton made a stop in Tuscon on Saturday (where she participated in the MTV/MySpace candidate forum). A MSNBC/McClatchy poll shows the race in a dead heat, with Clinton taking 33 percent of the vote to Obama's 31 percent. One fascinating finding from that survey: NBC political director Chuck Todd notes that unlike in other states where Clinton is winning Hispanic voters by a 4-1 margin, it is Obama who is actually winning among that key voting bloc in Arizona.
* California: By virtue of being the biggest state - with the most delegates - voting tomorrow, the Golden State is sure to gets lots of attention. Remember: Democrats give out delegates by congressional district, so no matter whether Clinton or Obama wins the popular vote in the state, both are likely to pick up a considerable number of delegates. An MSNBC/McClatchy survey in California put Clinton in the lead 45 percent to 36 percent; a Field Poll had the margin far closer, with Clinton at 36 percent to Obama's 34 percent.
* Georgia: The crown jewel of the southern states voting tomorrow seems to favor Obama. He has a slight lead in the MSNBC/McClatchy poll in the Peach State (the only state where he currently leads the New York senator) and Georgia's significant black population - nearly 30 percent of the state's residents - makes it prime territory for Obama.
* Missouri: The Show Me State always seems to find itself in the mix in any competitive presidential election. In the last 100 years, Missouri has voted for the eventual president in every election but one - 1956. It's expected to be a battleground yet again in November, and both Clinton and Obama want to show that he or she is the Democratic candidate who can win Middle America back for the party. MSNBC/McClatchy has Clinton up 47 percent to 41 percent over Obama, but this race will go down to the wire and could well depend on how African American cast their votes.
* New Jersey: What once looked like a Clinton stronghold has become more competitive. The latest survey in the Garden State put Clinton ahead of Obama by seven points, but the way the delegates are awarded in the state - not by congressional district but by specially designated delegate districts could aid Obama, his allies believe. Any sort of weak showing in what is arguably Clinton's backyard could have symbolic importance well beyond the raw delegate apportionment.
California: Clinton 47, Obama 39 (American Research Group)
Connecticut: Obama 48, Clinton 46 (SurveyUSA)
Georgia: Obama 49, Clinton 27 (Strategic Vision), Obama 53, Clinton 37 (Public Policy Polling)
Illinois: Obama 60, Clinton 30 (SurveyUSA)
Massachusetts: Obama 46, Clinton 44 (Suffolk)
New Jersey: Clinton 47, Obama 41 (Strategic Vision), Clinton 48, Obama 43 (Quinnipiac), Clinton 52, Obama 41 (SurveyUSA)
New York: Clinton 53, Obama 39 (Quinnipiac), Clinton 56, Obama 38 (SurveyUSA), Clinton 51, Obama 32 (Public Policy Polling)
Tennessee: Clinton 56, Obama 34 (Public Policy Polling)
Utah: Obama 53, Clinton 29 (Deseret Morning News)
Burned Bridges
Today’s Washington Post provides an interesting perspective on how John McCain is viewed by some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate. While his “maverick streak” has earned quite a few enemies amongst the Republican base, it’s apparent that his style and legendary temper have certain Republican Senators a bit uneasy about a McCain presidency.
In a chamber once known for cordiality if not outright gentility, McCain has battled his fellow senators for more than two decades in a fashion that has been forceful and sometimes personal. Now, with the conservative maverick on the brink of securing his party's presidential nomination, McCain's Republican colleagues are grappling with the idea of him at the top of their ticket.
"There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Mitt Romney's who has clashed with McCain.
Many Senate Republicans, even those who have jousted with McCain in the past, say their reassessment is underway. Sensing the increasing likelihood that he will be the nominee, GOP senators who have publicly fought with him are emphasizing his war-hero background and playing down past confrontations… But others have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. McCain could find himself the victim of Republicans who will not go the extra mile for him on legislative issues because of past grievances.
"John was very rough in the sandbox," said former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is outspoken in his opposition to McCain's candidacy. "Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . . He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."
The Obama Opportunity
In today’s Wall Street Journal, three prominent female red-State Democrats - Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill - speak to the “Obama Opportunity.” A couple excerpts:
Once in a generation, an opportunity comes along - not just for the Democratic Party, but for the United States of America - to build a new majority for change. Barack Obama's candidacy offers us that opportunity. As Democrats, and as Americans, we must seize it.Meanwhile, in the Washington Post, Peter Wehner speaks to Obama’s appeal amongst Republicans, despite his liberal ideology.
This moment in history is marked by the magnitude of our challenges. Our nation is fighting a war in Iraq that has made us less safe. Our planet is imperiled by a global climate crisis that we have done little to combat. Our economy is sliding toward a recession. Wages aren't keeping pace, as the cost of everything from health care to college is rising. Whether it's a world-class education, a secure mortgage or a dignified retirement, too many Americans are seeing their dreams slip out of reach…
Mr. Obama has lit a spark that has not been seen in American politics in a long time… In his campaign, Mr. Obama has built a movement for change from the bottom up. He draws enormous crowds. He has shattered fundraising records, with some 650,000 contributors and a seemingly limitless ability to tap small donors. He has inspired a flood of new voters, particularly young Americans. He's reached independents and Republicans who have voted for him by large margins. He's won with a diverse coalition, scoring decisive wins in the demographically different states of Iowa and South Carolina. And as the campaign goes national, polls show that the more voters see of Mr. Obama, the more they support him.
No matter how Democrats vote in this election, they will make history. The choice is not between race and gender. It is between the past and the future. We know the Republicans will try to unite their party by fighting the old partisan battles. If we choose Mr. Obama as our nominee, the Republicans won't be able to make this election about the past because we will have already chosen the future - a nominee who can bring all of us together, push back against the special interests, and offer leadership that is honest, open and inspiring.
For the sake of our party and our country, we cannot let this opportunity pass. Now is the time to build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans that finally stretches across Red States and Blue States. Now is the time for us to have the courage to choose to change. Now is the time for Barack Obama.
What is at the core of Obama's appeal? Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. "You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in "The Fall," "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats.
A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt… A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one." And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign… Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America. In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage…
Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime. If he defeats Hillary Clinton, the question for the general election is not whether he can transcend his race but whether he can reach beyond his ideology.
Africa on Fire
The violence and chaos sweeping across Africa in recent weeks has shown the world that the entire continent is in danger of becoming completely engulfed by political unrest and widespread violence. The ensuing clashes have left hundreds of thousands dead and as each domino falls, the chaos spreads from border to border.
This weekend, “after a three-day advance across the desert, hundreds of rebels fought their way into the capital of the oil-rich nation of Chad.”
As reported, “Some 3700 EU soldiers are on alert for immediate deployment along Chad's eastern border with Sudan under a UN mandate to protect hundreds of thousands of refugees from Darfur. Advance units were meant to begin deploying last week, but the mission's Irish commander, Lieutenant-General Pat Nash, said the operation is on hold until the security situation becomes clearer.”
This weekend, “after a three-day advance across the desert, hundreds of rebels fought their way into the capital of the oil-rich nation of Chad.”
The government of Chad, a former French colony with a population of almost 10 million and a newly booming oil industry, has in recent years battled a variety of rebel groups along its volatile eastern border with Sudan, forcing an estimated 170,000 Chadians to flee their homes for sprawling camps in the scrubby desert.While tonight, Chadian President Idriss Déby, the “cowboy of the sands”, appears to have the upper-hand in the conflict, the outcome is far from certain. Regardless, its implications will undoubtedly have international implications, spreading beyond Chad and likely fanning the flames of the violence in Darfur.
As reported, “Some 3700 EU soldiers are on alert for immediate deployment along Chad's eastern border with Sudan under a UN mandate to protect hundreds of thousands of refugees from Darfur. Advance units were meant to begin deploying last week, but the mission's Irish commander, Lieutenant-General Pat Nash, said the operation is on hold until the security situation becomes clearer.”
If (Déby) survives, he will emerge stronger, the crisis emphasising his importance to western strategy in containing the Darfur conflict across the border in Sudan… But if Mr Déby falls, the conflict in Darfur could worsen, plans to deploy European Union troops in Chad may stall, and turmoil could spill into Central African Republic, potentially destabilising a swathe of Africa.A victory for Bashir, one of the world’s worst war criminals, is the last thing we need, given the ongoing futility of our efforts in Darfur.
Although he was originally installed with Khartoum’s help in 1990, his support for Darfur rebels from his Zaghawa community has angered his former friends. Observers say the Sudanese government has adopted Chadian rebels in the hope of ousting Mr Déby and cutting supply lines to fractious insurgents in Darfur... The real winner if Mr Déby falls would be President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s Islamist government in Sudan, who might feel encouraged to try to smash the Darfur rebels and even challenge Mr Déby’s allies in CAR (Central African Republic).
There has been no shortage of outrage in the Western democracies over the genocidal repression of Darfur's African population. Effective action to force Sudan to stop it, however, has been harder to come by. The latest illustration of the gap between rhetoric and action is the proposed joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, which was supposed to be up and running with 26,000 soldiers by Jan. 1 - but isn't. In fact, only about 9,000 poorly trained and equipped soldiers are on the ground, most of them African Union troops left over from a previous, ineffectual force sponsored by that organization...And while the fires burn in central Africa, the New York Times highlights the turmoil in Kenya.
Through administrative harassment and diplomatic obstruction, Sudan's government has thwarted the deployment of other forces, including those from more substantial Scandinavian and Asian militaries. The danger is compounded by the splintering of Darfur's rebel groups, which has made it more difficult to bring all the parties into peace talks.
It is far too easy to become inured to bad news from Africa, a continent of great promise and peril. Kenya’s rampage of ethnically driven killings that is now five weeks long is especially sickening and attention-grabbing because of how much hope the world had for Kenya’s democracy and economic revival - and how fast the country has descended into madness...The United States lack of an Africa policy is compounded by the precarious situation our military is confronting by being overstretched and under-equipped in Iraq. Putting a substantial number of American troops on the ground in Africa may never be practical or politically acceptable in Washington, especially in the aftermath of Somalia. But without the ability to leverage that sword over the head of the Bashirs of the world, we can only expect more of the same.
The vicious tribal violence - condemned by one American official this week as “ethnic cleansing” - has spread with stunning speed since late December when Kenya’s electoral commission hastily handed a second term to President Mwai Kibaki, despite independent reports of glaring voting irregularities. The toll is now more than 800 Kenyans dead, 70,000 driven from their homes and thousands more fled to neighboring countries. The economy is paralyzed.
Instead of trying to calm their supporters and negotiate a political solution, Mr. Kibaki and his principal challenger, Raila Odinga, have called for peace, and then incited more killing, accusing each other of orchestrating the mayhem. For too long, both men have succumbed to their baser ambitions and resisted high-level mediation...
Sustained and robust international efforts are needed to persuade the Kenyan rivals to do the right thing. We are encouraged that United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to personally intervene and that his chief mediator, Kofi Annan, the former secretary general, was able to announce on Friday an agreement on a framework for talks that could resolve the crisis. Major countries, including the United States, which provides Kenya with more than $600 million in aid per year, need to bring a lot more pressure on both Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Odinga to ensure that that happens. If reason can’t persuade them to reconcile, then sanctions and a suspension of nonhumanitarian assistance must be seriously considered.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The People are Hungry for Change?
We're reading a lot of articles these days stating that the American people are "hungry for change." (This comes as no surprise, given the steady diet of mismanagement we've been fed for the past 7 years.) It seems that there has not been much attention paid to exactly the "change" is that we're all wanting, though; change in foreign policy? change in environmental policy? change in partisanship, in rules for lobbyists, in oversight of drug use in professional sports, in tax codes, in our television-watching options (end the writers' strike!), in just how many hours an airline can take to retrieve our luggage? We want something to change, but what?
So...to that end, who would best bring about change? This depends on what the change is you'd like to see. It's rather hilarious that slippery Romney (who, according to the non-striking writers of The Tonight Show, looks like the "guy at a party who'd give you his card"), tired McCain, inspiring Obama, and pragmatic Clinton each presents him or herself as the only one with this ability. This Frank Rich column spells out which of these is actually on the money. (And it's not the MBA who has invested his own fortune in a poorly managed, and losing, effort...hah! Nothing makes this blogger happier than seeing Mitt Romney's fakery exposed for what it is.)
So...to that end, who would best bring about change? This depends on what the change is you'd like to see. It's rather hilarious that slippery Romney (who, according to the non-striking writers of The Tonight Show, looks like the "guy at a party who'd give you his card"), tired McCain, inspiring Obama, and pragmatic Clinton each presents him or herself as the only one with this ability. This Frank Rich column spells out which of these is actually on the money. (And it's not the MBA who has invested his own fortune in a poorly managed, and losing, effort...hah! Nothing makes this blogger happier than seeing Mitt Romney's fakery exposed for what it is.)
Friday, February 01, 2008
An Endorsement's Impact
Since this week's endorsement of Barack Obama by the Kennedys, pundits have been trying to interpret the implications. Here are a couple excerpts from vastly different perspectives:
From the right, David Brooks: The Kennedy endorsements will help among working-class Democrats, Catholics and the millions of Americans who have followed Caroline’s path to maturity. Furthermore, here was Senator Kennedy, the consummate legislative craftsman, vouching for the fact that Obama is ready to be president on Day One. But the event was striking for another reason, having to do with the confluence of themes and generations. The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.
“With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,” Senator Kennedy declared. “With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign - a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,” he said. The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed.
From the left, E.J. Dionne: The South Carolina struggle may have shifted the balance of risk in a way that favors Obama. His candidacy has created excitement that Clinton's has not, and that was palpable at yesterday's rally in Washington, where several members of the Kennedy family offered him their political blessing. As the Kennedy endorsements underscored, Obama has the potential of mobilizing new energies among African Americans, and among young and well-educated voters generally. Ted Kennedy's campaigning could also bolster Obama's standing among Latinos, who have favored Clinton.
In the meantime, Democrats worry far more than they did even two weeks ago that Hillary Clinton will have great difficulty in escaping the negative aspects of her husband's legacy. History teaches that writing off any Clinton is a mistake. But South Carolina has placed large obstacles in Hillary Clinton's way. And Barack Obama, stuck just days ago in a nasty tit-for-tat with the Clintons, has been granted a chance to return to the transformational style of campaigning that was always his best path to victory.
From the right, David Brooks: The Kennedy endorsements will help among working-class Democrats, Catholics and the millions of Americans who have followed Caroline’s path to maturity. Furthermore, here was Senator Kennedy, the consummate legislative craftsman, vouching for the fact that Obama is ready to be president on Day One. But the event was striking for another reason, having to do with the confluence of themes and generations. The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.
“With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,” Senator Kennedy declared. “With Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign - a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,” he said. The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed.
From the left, E.J. Dionne: The South Carolina struggle may have shifted the balance of risk in a way that favors Obama. His candidacy has created excitement that Clinton's has not, and that was palpable at yesterday's rally in Washington, where several members of the Kennedy family offered him their political blessing. As the Kennedy endorsements underscored, Obama has the potential of mobilizing new energies among African Americans, and among young and well-educated voters generally. Ted Kennedy's campaigning could also bolster Obama's standing among Latinos, who have favored Clinton.
In the meantime, Democrats worry far more than they did even two weeks ago that Hillary Clinton will have great difficulty in escaping the negative aspects of her husband's legacy. History teaches that writing off any Clinton is a mistake. But South Carolina has placed large obstacles in Hillary Clinton's way. And Barack Obama, stuck just days ago in a nasty tit-for-tat with the Clintons, has been granted a chance to return to the transformational style of campaigning that was always his best path to victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
