Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright

A thoughtful commentary in today's NY Times.

It took more time than it should have, but on Tuesday Barack Obama firmly rejected the racism and paranoia of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and he made it clear that the preacher does not represent him, his politics or his campaign.

Senator Obama has had to struggle to explain this relationship ever since a video surfaced of Mr. Wright damning the United States from his pulpit. last month, Mr. Obama delivered a speech in which he said he disapproved of Mr. Wright’s racially charged comments but said that the pastor still played an important role in his spiritual life.

It was a distinction we were not sure would sit well with many voters. But what mattered more was the speech’s powerful commentary on the state of race relations in this country. We hoped it would open the door to a serious, healthy and much-needed discussion on race.

Mr. Wright has not let that happen. In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of “terrorism” and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.

This could not be handled by a speech about the complexities of modern life. It required a powerful, unambiguous denunciation — and Mr. Obama gave it. He said his former pastor’s “rants” were “appalling.” “They offend me,” he said. “They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

He said he was angry that Mr. Wright suggested that he was insincere when he previously criticized the pastor’s views. “If Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well,” Mr. Obama said. “And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.”

In March, Mr. Obama tried to walk a fine line — seeking to dispel any sense of a political relationship with Mr. Wright, while trying to preserve a personal tie that was clearly important to his religious development. On Tuesday, he abandoned that.

“I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this,” he said, adding that if Mr. Wright speaks out again, he will not represent the Obama campaign.

It was the most forthright repudiation of an out-of-control supporter that we can remember. We would like to say that it will finally take the racial charge out of this campaign. We’re not that naïve.

It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation’s history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.

Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.

If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright’s outbursts many more times.

This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama’s repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops.

Downticket Races

While the Democrats bicker about whether Clinton or Obama would be the better general election candidate, the issue of downticket races seems to have taken a back seat. Politics is, after all, a sport, and a strong bench is critical.

Democratic Windfall

Call it the "Obama effect." It could give Republican candidates a run for their money, even in the reddest states.

The senator's campaign announced Friday a 50-state "Vote for Change" registration drive aimed at boosting turnout for Democratic candidates in November. But Obama's grass-roots juggernaut is already rippling through early-primary states, helping local Democratic candidates raise money and identify new voters. In South Carolina, for example, a record-shattering 530,000 Democrats voted in the Jan. 26 primary, topping Republican turnout in this GOP stronghold by 85,000. Obama beat Clinton in South Carolina 2 to 1. But both candidates, along with former senator John Edwards, drew out droves of new Democrats, and after Election Day turned over about 80,000 new e-mail addresses to the state party, which added them to the Democratic National Committee voter file.

One beneficiary is Anton Gunn, Obama's South Carolina political director (and a former Gamecocks offensive lineman), who announced his candidacy for a seat in the state House on Feb. 4. Gunn narrowly lost a 2006 bid for the District 79 seat, but the Republican incumbent, Bill Cotty, is retiring. This time, given the influx of new residents to the area and the strong Democratic primary turnout, Gunn "has a really good chance of winning," said Joe Warner, executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Democratic candidates for House seats in Districts 1 and 2 also have more funding for their campaigns and are reaching more people, thanks to the expanded DNC file. "We feel like we're very competitive in those seats," Warner said. "That voter file, it's so easy to use it's giving our county parties, our precinct presidents, access to information that they've never had before."

As a sign of potential gains to come, Warner pointed to the special House election on Tuesday in Mississippi to pick a successor for Rep. Roger Wicker, who was appointed in January to Trent Lott's Senate seat. Democrat Travis Childers nearly won the deep-red Wicker seat outright but fell just short of the 50 percent of the vote needed to avoid a runoff against GOP candidate Greg Davis. The two will meet again on May 13.

Centrists

While the Democrats continue to slog (and slog) it out, McCain's taking the time to burnish his centrist credentials. Seems like independents, as their occupational hazard, are the swing voters in this race. Which Democrat does better with swings? Primary wins are telling. Matt Bai elaborates in a must-read column.

Having regained some force in Pennsylvania, the tornado of insult and innuendo that is the Democratic Party’s nomination fight will now touch down in four more states. But while Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama regroup this week, John McCain is off doing something that, while lacking the same kind of drama, has a significance of its own. Mr. McCain and his advisers decided this week to embark on a tour of some of the places that symbolize the fragility of America’s promise, even if they aren’t the kind of places that Republicans often go: Selma, Ala.; Youngstown, Ohio; New Orleans; Inez, Ky., the Appalachian town where Lyndon Johnson once touted his War on Poverty.

There’s plenty of political artifice here, of course, and Democrats have been quick to deride the tour as a cynical publicity stunt. In a blast e-mail, the Democratic National Committee pointed out, for instance, that Youngstown is far better off today for having received the kind of congressional earmarks that Mr. McCain has vowed to veto if he becomes president. (Now there’s an interesting strategy for the fall: "Vote Democrat, the Party of Pork.”) But Mr. McCain’s hard-luck tour should not be so blithely dismissed, if for no other reason that it may reveal something about his theory of the electorate that presages a break with his party’s recent past.

The Costs of Staying

"The risks of leaving Iraq are debatable. The costs of staying with 140,000 troops are totally knowable. And they get steeper, and steeper, and steeper every single day."

Random Thoughts: Half-Truths

The recent Congressional testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the "proper" way forward in Iraq didn't offer anything unexpected. Essentially, it served only to provide a platform for both sides of the Iraq debate to argue the merits of their position. A major reason for the lack of a substantial discussion was the President's refusal, despite the urging of Congressional leaders, to allow the Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, to join Petraeus and Crocker at the witness stand. Their exclusion was a deliberate move to stifle the debate and it is a point that, in the conversation of Iraq, is not being raised nearly enough.

For a seemingly resolute President who has no qualms gambling away that which our nation holds most sacred on the successes and failures of a corrupt and incompetent foreign government, it could very well be a sign that he realizes the futility of his broader Iraq policy.

Let me explain.

Regardless of your beliefs on how the Iraq war is being waged, there are two undisputed truisms to take away from the Petraeus/Crocker testimony. One, both Petraeus (the military counter-insurgency expert who has become the most respected and high-profile General of his generation) and Crocker (our nation's most skilled and experienced Middle Eastern diplomat) are, without question, true public servants and patriots doing their duty. They are undoubtedly trying to help steer our nation toward what they see as a just conclusion to our significant involvement in this conflict.

Two, the testimony and perspective of both was provided solely through the prism of Iraq - not through the larger prism of our overall national security interests. After all, the Petraeus/Crocker sphere of responsibility and influence resides solely in the military, economic and political progress made in Iraq. So when repeatedly confronted with legitimate concerns and important questions about the enormous costs (both economic and human costs) of this war, the strain being placed on our military, and the undermining of our ability to address other contingencies (including our greatest security threat - a reconstituted Taliban and al-Qaeda), all Petraeus and Crocker could do was shrug their shoulders and say it wasn't their job to answer those questions. No, it was the job of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. We never heard their answers over the course of those two days of testimony because their Commander in Chief wanted headlines written a certain way and he wanted to prop up a military poster boy with four stars who, in his mind, would provide the only testimony worth hearing about our military policy in Iraq. It’s too bad because the times are too grave and the stakes are too high to perpetuate a debate of half-truths.

Don't get me wrong - within the realm of Iraq-specific policy, there are critical questions to be answered and there are crucial strategies to be debated. However, to remove the entire context from which these judgments should be derived, to take away the larger picture perspective, is dangerous and foolhardy. And while, over the past five years, the President has acted as if there were an unlimited amount of lives, resources, and taxpayer dollars at his disposal, the reality is that when we focus an inordinate amount of attention and resources in one area, it takes away our ability to focus on another area. It is the job of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to do everything they can, and ask for everything they need, to complete their mission in Iraq regardless of competing priorities elsewhere. It is the job of Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates to balance these priorities in a manner consistent with our broader national security interests. That is why it is dangerous to blindly follow the path advocated by Petraeus and Crocker without any consideration of the broader implications of doing so.

So when the President tells the world that he will give Petraeus “all the time he needs”, it means not only that we will have an open-ended commitment of at least 130,000-140,000 troops in Iraq but it means much more. It means that our hands will be tied while our true enemies grow stronger. It means that we will be less able to address the deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan. It means that we will be less able to hunt down those who attacked us on 9/11 while they recruit, plot future attacks, and hide in the mountains along the Pakistani border. It means that we will be less able to use force as a credible deterrent against dangerous enemies such as North Korea and Iran or to stop the genocide in Darfur. It means that our forces, particularly Army and Marine Corps, will continue to shoulder an unsustainable strain that could take decades to repair. It means that dwell time for troops between deployments will remain dangerously inadequate and continue to cause undue hardships for service-members and their families, and contribute to their growing susceptibility to post-combat mental health problems. It means that the Pentagon, in a desperate attempt to meet recruitment and retention goals, will continue providing billions in bonus payments and continue lowering enlistment standards through moral waivers - thereby endangering the long-term integrity of the force. It means that, as Iraqi surpluses sky-rocket due to the high price of oil, American taxpayers suffering through a recession will continue to subsidize them by providing the billions necessary to rebuild their country, provide basic services to their people, and train their security forces – all at the expense of investing in our own country, in priorities such as education, health care, and economic development.

In short, America’s security needs, our economic well-being, and the future of our military will continue to be held hostage by a reckless President and the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government. The loss of 4,000 American lives, 30,000 wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars demands that we have a legitimate debate about our future involvement in Iraq. It is a debate that needs to be fully aired and it is a debate that, out of respect for those who have sacrificed so much, deserves to be about more than half-truths.

Mitt: Off the Cuff

As reported by the Boston Globe, in a surprisingly funny self-parody, Mitt Romney emerges from the ashes of his presidential campaign to provide a top 10 list for why he dropped out of the race.

No. 10: There weren't as many Osmonds as he thought.

No. 9: Got tired of the corkscrew landings of his campaign plane while under fire
No. 8: As a lifelong hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of varmint season.
No. 7: There wasn't room for two Christian leaders in the presidential race
No. 6: I was upset that no one bothered to search my passport files.
No. 5: I'd rather get fat, grow a beard and try for the Nobel prize.
No. 4: Got tired of wearing a dark suit and tie, and I wanted to kick back in a light colored suit and tie.
No. 3: When my wife realized I couldn't win the GOP nomination, my fundraising dried up.
No. 2: I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
And No. 1: His campaign relied on a flawed campaign strategy that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.

Hollow Rhetoric

In case you missed it, Senator Dick Durbin had some choice words for OMB Director and political hack, Jim Nussle, at a Senate Appropriations hearing last week. As per usual, Durbin effectively articulates his case and easily swats down Nussle's weak attempt to score a hollow political point with the tired "Government is evil" mantra.

Brush That Dirt Off

National Insecurity

As compiled by the National Security Network, “five new reports from various government agencies and independent organizations were released this week, all confirming that the Bush Administration has weakened the security of the United States.”

The reports were: 1) Government Accountability Office: the Bush Administration has no plan for defeating al-Qaeda its central haven in Pakistan; 2) National Defense University: Iraq War is a debacle; 3) Rand Corporation: 300,000 American troops have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; 4) House Armed Services: Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan are poorly managed; and 5) Refugees International: The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is worsening. Some excerpts:

Government Accountability Office: Bush Administration Has No Plan for Defeating the Terrorist Threat

The Executive Branch has failed “to develop a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power” to defeat terrorism. The GAO found that “no comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas] has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).” Despite these mandates, “. . . neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress.”

Al-Qaeda has succeeded in re-constituting itself in the safe-haven of Pakistan’s tribal areas, where they are putting the finishing touches on its plan to attack the United States. The GAO “found broad agreement, as documented in the unclassified 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), State and embassy documents, as well as among Defense, State, and other officials, including those operating in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA.” In addition, the GAO report cites testimony from the Director of National Intelligence, which says that “al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place.”

Independent Report from the National Defense University: Iraq Conflict a “Major War, and a Major Debacle”

The Iraq War has profoundly weakened the United States. The NDU report, written by a former aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, found that the Iraq War has weakened the U.S. across the board: “Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen,” and “our status as a moral leader has been damaged…” Additionally, the war has had a “…negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq… ” and “our Armed Forces— especially the Army and Marine Corps—have been severely strained…” Worst of all, while the war was described as necessary to secure the safety of the United States, our efforts in Iraq have become “... an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.”

Post-Invasion strategy has been as flawed as the decision to go to war itself. “To date, the war in Iraq is a classic case of failure to adopt and adapt prudent courses of action that balance ends, ways, and means. After the major combat operation, U.S. policy has been insolvent, with inadequate means for pursuing ambitious ends.”

RAND Corporation: The War in Iraq has Done Tremendous Harm to the Health of our Armed Servicemen

The Iraq War has done great trauma to the mental health of hundreds of thousands of service members. According to a study conducted by the RAND Corporation, it is likely that over 300,000 armed service members have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and an estimated 320,000 individuals suffered traumatic brain injury during their deployment. “Assuming that the prevalence found in this study is representative of the 1.64 million service members who had been deployed for OEF/OIF as of October 2007, we estimate that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI during deployment."

All too often, service members carrying these invisible scars do not receive adequate care. “Even when individuals receive care, too few receive quality care. Of those who have a mental disorder and also sought medical care for that problem, just over half received a minimally adequate treatment. The number who received quality care (i.e., a treatment that has been demonstrated to be effective) would be expected to be even smaller. Focused efforts are needed to significantly improve both accessibility to care and quality of care for these groups. The prevalence of PTSD and major depression will likely remain high unless greater efforts are made to enhance systems of care for these individuals.”

House Armed Services Committee Report: Provincial Reconstruction Teams, Crucial to US Efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, are Under-Resourced and Poorly Coordinated

PRTs in Afghanistan and Iraq lack “strategic guidance.” “The PRT program lacks strategic guidance and oversight. The Department of Defense and the Department of State have not established clearly defined objectives and milestones for Provincial Reconstruction Teams for achieving larger operational and strategic goals. Nor have they adopted a system for measuring PRT effectiveness and performance.”

Reconstruction initiatives suffer from unpredictable access to funding and poor coordination. “PRTs operate under complicated and, at times, unclear chains of command. The lack of unity of command negatively impacts unity of effort, which can result in uncoordinated, and even counterproductive, outcomes.” Moreover, the Armed Services Committee Report found that in spite of their broad set of responsibilities, PRTs have neither had “predictable funding streams” nor “an appropriate mix of well-trained military and civilian staff.”

Refugees International: Iraqi Government is ‘Party’ to a Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

Study contradicts Bush Administration claims; militias, not Iraqi government, are primary providers of humanitarian assistance. “As a result of the vacuum created by the failure of both the Iraqi government and the International Community to act in a timely and adequate manner, non-state actors play a major role in providing assistance to vulnerable Iraqis. Militias of all denominations are improving their local base of support by providing social services in the neighborhoods and towns they control. Through a ‘Hezbollah-like’ scheme, the Shiite Sadrist movement has established itself as the main service provider in the country.” Aided by these patronage operations, Iraqi militias “are also recruiting an increasing number of civilians to their militias - including displaced Iraqis.”

Sectarian Iraqi Government has contributed to the humanitarian disaster. “The Government of Iraq is itself a party to the conflict and its security forces have facilitated displacement and sometimes carried it out themselves. Officers in the Iraqi Security forces complain that most of their men are loyal to the Mahdi Army and most of their commanders are loyal to the Mahdi Army or the Badr Militia. They and Sunni groups described incidents where Iraqi Security Forces opened fire on Sunni neighborhoods, protected death squads, or were directly involved in the kidnapping and execution of Sunni civilians.”

Moving Forward

As the Clinton campaign continues to overreach and make a semantic gaffe by Barack Obama the chief focus of their efforts, the Obama campaign will hopefully move on and make the case for what their candidate can do to move America forward. The theme continues - a desperate Clinton focuses on the past and tries to appeal to the worst in voters while a steady Obama focuses on the change he can bring while desperately trying to raise the level of discourse in this campaign.

The Elitist

Beyond Cool.

Bush rides bikes on his Texas ranch. Clinton jogged (kinda). How cool would it be to have this guy as President? Can't wait for Shaq to endorse him.

Forget Bowling. How About Some Hoops?

By Larry Rohter

It became clear this week in Pennsylvania that Senator Barack Obama is not much of a bowler (cable television has run footage of his gutter balls all week). But basketball — ah, that’s another thing, or so says Mr. Obama. His latest campaign gimmick is meant to show off those hoops skills in a match-off with teenage supporters, while also engaging Indiana voters, who hold their primary early next month.

Here’s the plan: high school students who will turn 18 before the November election are being urged to register 20 friends or classmates to vote. From those who reach that goal, one will be chosen and allowed to pick two friends to play on their home court against Mr. Obama when he makes a campaign swing through the Hoosier state, a hotbed of hoops, later this month.


The challenge, called “3 on 3 Basketball Challenge for Change,” was announced Friday by Calbert Cheaney, an Obama supporter and Evansville native who also happens to be the Big Ten’s all-time leading scorer, a three-time All-American and a former NCAA player of the year. As of Tuesday, nearly 50 Indiana high schools had already qualified for the challenge, according to Kevin Griffis, communications director for the Obama campaign in Indiana.

“We’re thinking standard rules, with the first to 11″ points winning the competition, Mr. Griffis said. Mr. Obama’s teammates will be an Indiana college student who has registered 30 young voters and a player to be named later. Asked who that might be, given Indiana’s extraordinarily rich history of producing hoops stars, Mr. Griffis replied that “we haven’t ruled anyone out.”

The news release announcing the Indiana challenge was accompanied by a YouTube video showing Mr. Obama walking into a gym in South Carolina wearing street clothes and, with reporters looking on and no chance to warm up, calmly sinking a three-point shot. Afterwards, he pretended to woof a bit on those who thought his abilities may have eroded since his high school days, when he wore No. 23, same as Michael Jordan did a decade later.

“That’s how you perform under pressure,” said Mr. Obama, boastfully. ” I’ve got skills.”