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.”

Judgment, Based on Experience.

If the economy continues its downward spiral (which it will) and the war in Iraq continues its decline on the "what issues matter most" list (which--who knows?), it appears that whoever the Democrats nominate will win the White House. The math, fuzzy or otherwise, means that the Kerry '04 states plus one more--Ohio, anybody?--give the Dems their victory.

The Democrats are also poised to pick up a number of seats in both the House and the Senate. Physicist Bill Foster picked up former Speaker Dennis Hastert's old seat in that district's special election this past weekend. Mark Warner takes John Warner's Senate seat in Virginia; John Sununu will surely lose to Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire. A 60-seat majority, while improbable, is not impossible.

So why is there so much hand-wringing about the Democrats' primary race? Because more than anything else, it spells out the future. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, downticket races are generally hurt, not helped; swing districts from New Jersey's 3rd to New Mexico's 1st are packed with independents who are, at best, skeptical about a return to Clinton Era politics. Her strengths are in traditional Democratic strongholds, and in states that will go blue in November no matter what.

Obama, on the other hand, brings in a new generation of Democratic voters, and appeals to independents who wouldn't be averse to a McCain presidency. Though no one thinks Alaska or Alabama will be in the Democrats' column in November, huge turnouts, like the kind Obama has inspired through the primary process, would bolster Democratic chances not just in House or Senate races like Minnesota's 3rd and the open Colorado Senate seat, but for the all-important bench positions of state legislators, county commissioners, and school board.

The Democrats have a chance to be strategic as well as idealistic in this election. We can only hope that they take this long view.

Advice for Obama

On the heels of Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas, and the prospect of increasingly negative tactics on the horizon, Andrew Sullivan offers some thoughts to the Obama campaign:

1. Obama himself should not go negative directly against the Clintons. His surrogates can and should. I, for one, am perfectly happy to splash around in the muck for a while, if it means we get more transparency from the Clintons and greater awareness among Democrats of the enormous electoral risks of allowing that couple and their warring, dysfunctional teams back into the White House. But Obama needs to keep on message about his ability to say goodbye to all that, to forge a post-Rove, post-Morris politics for a country in too much trouble to be allowed to convulse into red and blue jerking knees again. The ability to go negative and positive is crucial - more crucial now, I'd say, than it will be in the fall. Limbaugh is right about this: the Clintons are far less scrupulous than McCain.

2. Obama needs to get out there door-to-door again, talk to the working poor, engage Reagan Democrats, explain his positions on the war, and the economy and healthcare, reiterate why he can get stuff done in a way that the polarizing psycho-drama of the Clintons cannot. Save the great speeches for later. More round-tables; get on a bus; show you can work as hard as she can. Stop looking so aloof.

3. Forget about the delegate math. Stop claiming you've won already or that the Clintons cannot win. Remember that your job is to win the argument about the future of the US and the world. Make this campaign about your kind of politics rather than the Clinton-Bush style of politics. This race will not be decided by a delegate count. It will be decided by a collective decision about the better candidate some time in the next few months. Math is not an argument; it's an analysis.

4. Make a speech about the Internet slurs. Stop ducking them. Confront them. Talk about your Christian faith and your childhood exposure to Islam. Tell people about your parents. Debunk that idiotic pledge of allegiance meme. Grab the flag pin issue by the lapels. Do it all at once undefensively. Yes, it will raise the profile of every single slur. But if you rebut them candidly, gracefully, calmly, you will defuse them. You can run but you can't hide from Internet crapola. So confront it; defeat it. Right now, on these issues alone, the Obama camp is actually captive to the politics of fear. Don't be.

Meanwhile, the Fix offers “Obama's Blueprint for Victory.”

1. Math Matters: The stark reality of the remaining contests is unless Clinton can win 60 plus percent of the vote in each, she is unlikely to overtake Obama in the battle for pledged delegates. That means that at the end of the nominating season (Montana and South Dakota on June 3 now that Puerto Rico has moved to June 1), it will take a significant majority of the superdelegates for Clinton to wind up as the nominee. Those are the hard numbers and they ain't likely to change. The mistake the Obama campaign made in the runup to the Ohio-Texas Two-Step is mistaking the math for a message. The math can be a compelling argument when it comes to superdelegates ("To choose Clinton is to subvert the will of voters") but average people are not swayed by the fact that the Illinois Senator has a nearly impenetrable lead among pledged delegates.

2. Fight Back (Politely): Although Obama said on Tuesday that he was happy with his campaign's strategy leading into the Ohio-Texas elections, it's clear that Clinton's decision to hit him hard on national security paid dividends. While Obama's message of hope and transformational politics has served him well to date, the endgame in the Ohio-Texas Two-Step suggests that it may be time to fight more of a trench warfare battle from here on out. The issue for Obama, of course, is that he has promised a different sort of campaign and runs the risk, if he is perceived as going negative, of losing some of the support he has built to date. The solution? Fight back in the most polite terms possible -- praising Clinton as an able public servant and the questions being raised as legitimate avenues of inquiry that Obama himself has had to answer. Asked about the campaign's new strategy on a conference call earlier this week, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said: "This is not a decision to go negative. This is an attempt to see to it that both campaigns are held to the same yardstick."

3. What Are You Hiding?: The first e-mail from the Obama campaign that arrived in The Fix inbox following the Ohio-Texas Two-Step called on Clinton to release her tax returns. But, on a conference call later Wednesday, Axelrod broadened the argument -- and in the process provided a window into the wider Obama strategy in the race. Axelrod called Clinton a "habitual non-discloser" and then later said that she has a "history on non-disclosure." Axelrod never mentioned Whitewater, the controversy over the Clinton White House travel office or the behind-closed-doors health care commission that Clinton chaired in the 1990s. He didn't have to. Expect Obama and his surrogates to trumpet the message of Clinton as secretive over the coming weeks -- using her unwillingness to release her tax returns as a symbol of a broader pattern of non-disclosure during her years in political life. Clinton's campaign has effectively leveraged the good times of her husband's presidency to their benefit; Obama will now seek to convince voters that not everything was rosy during the 1990s.

4. Guilt the Press: Clinton effectively argued with the press over the final week before March 4, repeatedly suggesting that Fourth Estate was going easy on Obama. In politics, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; by Wednesday, the Obama campaign was urging the media to more closely examine the claims of the Clinton campaign. "We are going to ask you guys to do your jobs," said Axelrod. Will this reverse-guilt tripping of the press work for Obama in the coming months?

5. Electability is Essential: With Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the official Republican nominee, Obama and his campaign will urge voters to think about the remainder of the primary race through the frame of the November election. In his speech on Tuesday night, Obama briefly congratulated Clinton but then devoted a considerable chunk of his speech to the differences between he and McCain -- a subtle signal that Obama is still preparing for a general election race. In the days following Tuesday's votes, his campaign also sought to re-invigorate the storyline that Republicans so hate Clinton that they will be motivated -- regardless of the national political environment -- to turn out and vote against her in the fall. "There's a reason Rush Limbaugh was urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in Texas," said Axelrod earlier this week. As we wrote in the Clinton blueprint, the greatest fear among Democrats is that they will somehow miss a golden opportunity to take back the White House in 2008. Clinton is pushing hard on the idea that Obama's relative dearth of foreign policy experience makes him a risk. Obama will counter with the idea that Clinton is so divisive that nominating her represents the far greater risk.

For the Benefit of Mr. McCain

Highlighting the recent tactics of the Clinton campaign, James Fallows points to their apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to regain personal glory, even if that means tearing down Barack Obama as much as possible. In the end, these tactics make it more and more likely that John McCain will be the only one benefiting from Hillary's prolonged candidacy.

In laying out his case, Fallows first looks to a column by Chuck Spinney in which he quotes Michael Gerson among others: "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 and appeals, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."

Puncturing the idealism? "The skies will open up, the light will come down.." Sullying the character? Not a Muslim -- "as far as I know." (Yes, yes: saying that someone is a Muslim is no slur. In the circumstances..) Appeals? The Michigan and Florida delegations. Racial tensions? Passim. Plus, infamously two days before the Ohio-Texas voting: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

(Update: In a live CNN interview, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience. But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.

The conclusion of Spinney's (and Gerson's) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

In a side note, he adds some more thoughts on the “experience” question:

I mean, it's almost incredible to think about, when you consider what constitutes an "experience" edge in this election. The elder George Bush, by the time he ran for re-election, had been president for four years; vice president for eight; ambassador to the UN for two years; de facto ambassador to China for two; Congressman for four; director of the CIA for one year; plus former head of the Republican National Committee, decorated combat pilot, and commander in chief during one brief hot war and the end of the prolonged Cold War.

Moreover, in his "3 a.m." moments of real crisis, he had used his experience to make sane decisions: handling the collapse of the Soviet empire, standing up against Saddam Hussein, putting together a wartime coalition so broad and supportive that the United States may have actually made money on the Gulf War, then having the sense not to occupy Iraq. Not bad!

Nonetheless, the young, vigorous, though vastly less experienced governor of Arkansas was a better match for America's needs in 1992 -- or so Bill Clinton argued, and I believed. To hear, 16 years later, the Clinton team stress the transcendent importance of a "lifetime of experience" must drive the elder George Bush mad.

Re-thinking Michigan and Florida

Looking toward the potential re-votes in Michigan and Florida being strongly advocated by the Clinton camp, Joe Vogel lays out a case for why Obama supporters should embrace these efforts. In fact, he offers that it would speed up an Obama victory and secure his nomination by May 20th, well before the DNC Convention in August.

According to RealClearPolitics, Barack Obama currently has 1,573 total delegates to 1,464 for Hillary Clinton. Add in Michigan (128) and Florida (185) and suddenly 313 more delegates are up for grabs. Let's say Hillary wins both of these states by 12-point margins, 56-44. This will give her approximately 165 delegates to 148 for Barack Obama, a net gain of 17.

That puts Barack Obama at 1,721 to 1,629 for Hillary Clinton. Now, word is circulating in the press that 50 pledged delegates are going to come out for Barack Obama by the end of this week so if we add those in that puts him at approximately 1,771. That's when the remaining states come in. Here are my modest approximations for the states holding primaries and caucuses up to May 20th:

Wyoming: 12 delegates (8 for Obama, 4 for Clinton), Mississippi: 33 delegates (20 for Obama, 13 for Clinton), Pennsylvania: 158 delegates (74 for Obama, 84 for Clinton), Guam: 4 delegates (3 for Obama, 1 for Clinton), Indiana: 72 delegates (36 for Obama, 36 for Clinton), North Carolina: 115 delegates (65 for Obama, 50 for Clinton), West Virginia: 28 delegates (13 for Obama, 15 for Clinton), Kentucky: 51 delegates (24 for Obama, 27 for Clinton), Oregon: 52 delegates (30 for Obama, 22 for Clinton)

And the grand total is... Barack Obama: 2,034 (reaches the 2,025 threshold and wins the nomination), Hillary Clinton: 1,881

Of course, the more superdelegates start jumping to Obama (which has been the trend since February 5th), the sooner he can wrap up the nomination. It is not farfetched at all to believe he could be the presumptive nominee by May 6th.

So send the memo to the Obama campaign: Give in to Hillary's demand. Let Florida and Michigan re-vote. It only speeds up the path to the magic number.

Clinton Endorses McCain?

In "exposing" Barack Obama for what she feels is his reckless naivety and ignorance to the dangerous realities of our world, Hillary Clinton is now giving voters the impression that our safety would be in much better hands with John McCain than Barack Obama.

"I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, and I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that, and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said during a meeting with military officers and other national security experts in Washington, which was convened to discuss her own readiness for the job and her plans for dealing with the war in Afghanistan.

It's a shameless and desperate tactic and one that we will likely see more of in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary. The best interests of the party be damned, it's typical Clinton.

Veepstakes Continued...

The Financial Times provides an interesting run-down of potential running-mates for John McCain and the positives and negatives for each.

Charlie Crist, 51: (+) Popular first term Florida governor; Credited with helping McCain win the Florida primary and would probably deliver the Sunshine State again in November if chosen as VP. (-) Too moderate for many conservatives; At 51, his bachelor lifestyle is a source of intrigue – rumour mongers cannot decide whether he is a playboy or gay.

Mark Sanford, 47: (+) Second-term governor of South Carolina; Crusader against government waste – once brought live pigs into the state legislature to protest against “pork-barrel” spending. (-) Did not endorse McCain (or any other candidate) before the South Carolina primary.

Tim Pawlenty, 47: (+) Second-term governor of Minnesota – a key Republican target state; One of McCain’s staunchest supporters and a conservative rising star. (-) Failed to deliver his home state for McCain in the Republican primary.

Haley Barbour, 60: (+) Second-term governor of Mississippi; Competent and well-connected operator; One of the few people to win praise for their leadership after Hurricane Katrina. (-) His background as a powerful Washington lobbyist clashes with McCain’s image as a crusader against special interests.

Matt Blunt, 37: (+) Young first-term governor of Missouri -- traditionally an important bellweather state in presidential elections; Won the highest rating of any governor from the libertarian Cato Institute for reducing state spending; Recently announced he would not seek a second term, making him available for the VP job. (-) Backed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination; His youth could raise doubts about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief and undermine Republican attacks against Barack Obama for his inexperience.

Bobby Jindal, 36: (+) Corruption-busting governor of Louisiana and Republican rising star; His youth and Indian-American ethnicity would help neutralise the appeal of Barack Obama. (-) Less than two months into his first term – it would surely be too soon for him to quit.

Sarah Palin, 44: (+) First term governor of Alaska, with an approval rating above 80 per cent; Solid conservative; Considered the brightest female prospect in the Republican party; Mother of four and wife of a commercial fisherman, giving her populist appeal. (-) Relatively inexperienced; Comes from a politically peripheral state.

Rick Perry, 58: (+) Governor of Texas since George W. Bush stepped down in 2000; Would be a popular choice among ”red state” conservatives. (-) Is America ready for another Texas governor on a presidential ticket?

Condoleezza Rice, 53, and Colin Powell, 70: (+) Secretary of State and former Secretary of State, respectively; Would add to McCain’s foreign policy credentials and bring racial diversity to the Republican ticket. (-) Too deeply associated with the failures of the Bush administration; Both say they don’t want the job; Powell is only a year younger than McCain.

Rob Portman, 52: (+) Former US Trade Representative and White House economic adviser; Would bring economic clout to the ticket and could be an asset in his native Ohio – a crucial swing state. (-) Little known outside economic circles. Closely tied to the Bush administration.

Christopher Cox, 55: (+) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former congressman and editor of the Harvard Law Review; Would bring economic and financial experience. (-) Lacks star power.

Joseph Lieberman, 66: (+) Independent senator for Connecticut and running mate to Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket; Quit the Democrats because of his support for the war in Iraq; Would strengthen McCain’s appeal among independents and moderate Democrats. (-) Liberal views would alienate conservatives.

Mike Huckabee, 52: (+) Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor; Popular among evangelical Christians and widely admired for his good-humoured approach to campaigning; Refrained from attacking McCain. (-) Socially conservative views could alienate moderates, while his populist rhetoric alarms economic conservatives.

Mitt Romney, 60: (+) Former presidential candidate, business executive and Massachusetts governor; Emerged as McCain’s fiercest opponent; Would provide executive experience and economic knowledge. (-) Hostile relationship with McCain could be difficult to overcome.

Rudy Giuliani, 63: (+) Former presidential hopeful; Highly-respected for his leadership as New York mayor after the 9/11 attacks. (-) Could overshadow McCain; Too socially liberal for conservatives; Volatile private life.

Michael Bloomberg, 66: (+) Widely respected mayor of New York, philanthropist and billionaire owner of the Bloomberg news organisation; Recently ruled himself out as a third-party candidate; Would bring executive experience, economic clout and bipartisan appeal. (-) Quit the Republican party last year to become an independent; Too moderate and metropolitan for many Conservatives.

Steve Forbes, 60: (+) Member of the Forbes publishing dynasty and twice a Republican presidential contender in 1986 and 2000; Campaigner for lower taxes and small government. (-) Anti-tax views may be too extreme for some; Out of frontline politics for years.

John Thune, 47, Richard Burr, 52: (+) Young and solidly conservative senators for South Dakota and North Carolina, respectively. Frequently named among the Republican party’s brightest rising stars. (-) Conventional wisdom suggests it would be unwise for McCain, a longtime senator, to add another lawmaker to the ticket, given the unpopularity of Congress. The same reasoning could rule out several other senators that have been linked with the job, including Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Kay Bailey-Hutchinson of Texas.