Politics

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Obama's Pre-Victory Lap

What's remarkable about Barack Obama's Middle East tour is how unprecedented it is to see a presidency begin before the actual election. But that's obviously what's happening here. For both Obama, who has overnight assumed the presidential air he was by some accounts lacking, and for the leaders he's meeting, who are very clearly eager to get a head start on getting to know the next American president, this is a pre-victory lap. And he hasn't even touched down in Europe, where the buzz around him has already taken on the dimensions of a cultural phenomenon that's being compared to the Beatles' first tour. Obviously, no one here gets to vote, but I can't imagine the American electorate being unmoved by the sight of a candidate for president having this kind of effect everywhere he goes. It would be silly not to put that to good use.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, June 6, 2008

The Pivot

If you haven't read today's WPR cover piece by Shawn Brimley and Vikram Singh, you should. I've been convinced for a while that more than any individual issues, or even collection of issues, this election is going to boil down to a generational choice. I don't know the demographics of U.S. voters well enough to know who that really favors. That said, the logic of the piece seems to argue for Obama without mentioning his name, although that might not be the authors' intention, and it might be my reading of it. I'm curious to hear from anyone who disagrees.

I remember some discussion about the Bush administration's tendency, in the days before 9/11, to emphasize state-based threats in a way that seemed destined to miss those posed by non-state actors. Obviously state-based threats still exist. But even the Bush administration's response to them, e.g. the idea of "containing" Iran, smacks of a certain strategic anachronism.

Brimley and Singh mention the way young voters experience the world via connectivity, which reminded me of a book I recently started (but have yet to finish) by Harold Innis titled, Empire & Communications. It discusses how the physical form of communication, from stone to clay tablets to papyrus to paper, impacted the organizational structure of the empires that used them. It triggered an undeveloped thought that, in some way, states will need to adapt the way in which they wield strategic power to the communication structure of the internet: rapid, fleeting nodes of hyperlinks, quickly dispersing only to reform elsewhere. This election seems like as good a place to start as any.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in:  Foreign Policy   Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Thursday, June 5, 2008

America's Obama Moment

I'm pretty deep in the weeds of a series of articles for WPR, and time has been in short supply the past few weeks, so I've let a few stories slip by without much comment. I'm thinking particularly of Barack Obama sealing the Democratic nomination, but there's also the gay marriage ruling in California, and some others that I'm probably overlooking. I'll try to get some of my thoughts organized and posted over the weekend, and even that might be unrealistic.

But with regards to Obama, I just wanted to acknowledge a moment, one that is the result of generations of hard work, enormous sacrifice, and deep commitment to what is essentially the greatest single American contribution to humankind's collective heritage of ideals. The past few weeks have seen a lot of talk of service to our country, and a lot of it has focused on military service. But just as many have paid for liberty with their lives on foreign shores, so too have many lost their lives in the effort to bring America in line with her highest ideals of justice and equality here at home. Not all of them wore uniforms.

Even though that struggle continues, it's important to appreciate today's victories. Barack Obama is a very special individual who has accomplished something that not many of us imagined was possible even six months ago. Regardless of the outcome this November, that's already a victory for all of us, and for everyone who dreamed, struggled and believed before us.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Sunday, June 1, 2008

An Eleventh Reason

Anyone feeling a bit uneasy about Barack Obama's chances come November against John McCain would do well to read Gerry Scorse's guest post over at Voices of Reason, 10 Reasons Obama Breezes in November. I'm already on record as saying that Obama is going to win easily, so I'm glad to see I'm in such good company. I'd just emphasize one thing that Gerry mentions obliquely. I think that the generational turning point presented by this election is really going to take on a much greater significance than people realize yet. And that's not just a way of saying that John McCain is old, and will appear even more so when appearing side by side with Barack Obama. Among other things, Obama represents a changing of the guard that corresponds to a general societal trend, both in America and abroad. Take a look at the G8 group and you'll see what I mean. Even if you allow for the addition of Silvio Berlusconi, John McCain just doesn't fit in. I think that once voters in the 30-55 year old range hear Obama explain his vision of national security, in particular, in a contemporary language that is at once both familiar and convincing, McCain is finished.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, May 19, 2008

Not Happening

This is why I'm so confident that John McCain stands no chance of winning the presidency:

Everybody needs to relax. There's no way John McCain will beat Barack Obama. Period.

Update: As an afterthought, it occured to me that videos like this are useful up to a certain point, but Barack Obama himself should avoid using frontal assaults on McCain's "straight talk" reputation. Instead, he and his campaign should very simply and knowingly begin referring to McCain's "credibility problem." If pressed for comment, he should reply, "People who have actually been listening to John McCain over the years know what I'm talking about."

Confronting someone with the obvious falsehood of one of their bedrock assumptions is a surefire way to trigger their defense mechanisms. As an example, imagine you wanted to inform a friend that his "devoted" wife is actually having an affair (leaving aside, for simplicity's sake, the question of whether or not you should, in fact, do such a thing). Tell him the missus is cheating on him and you're as likely as not going to end up with a black eye and one less friend. Mention in passing how a mutual acquaintance got wise to what those "extended business lunches" were all about and he's liable to start asking himself some questions. The key is not to give people answers they don't want to hear, but to get them to ask themselves the questions that will lead them to those answers.

The advantage of taking McCain's "credibility problem" for granted is that it confronts McCain on one of his core strengths, while forcing his most loyal constituency the press to do the legwork on examining the claim. And it does so without raising the natural defenses of voters who have integrated years' worth of puff pieces into their construction of reality.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Wright's Politics, and Obama's

I think Ezra Klein's right here, in that the essential problem posed by Jeremiah Wright is the political content of his remarks, and not the racial content. In fact, outside of the AIDS conspiracy theory, there isn't really that much racial content. But as I argued here when the sermon clips were first circulated, the political content of Wright's remarks grows out of the black American experience, one that has nurtured a dual identity, equal parts affirmation and ambivalence towards a country that is at once home and bitter exile. Ezra correctly traces the moral outrage over Wright's remarks to their Chomsky-ite quality, but it's no coincidence that, outside of the anti-globalization movement and far-left academia, black America is probably the most sympathetic echo chamber for Chomsky's analysis.

Ezra's thought experiment of a white candidate's white preacher espousing the same political views does support his argument that this is not a political issue simply because Obama and Wright are black. But it overlooks the ways in which Wright's views mean something essentially different in the context of the black narrative of the American experience, where they are inseparable from the struggle to move from object to subject in the larger national narrative, and from which they form a bridge between that national narrative and the global narrative beyond. The result is not a rejection of American history, so much as a correction to it, one that resonates all the more powerfully for coming from the ranks of the oppressed and not of the oppressor.

But the underlying ambivalence that comes from condemning America on the one hand, and fighting for one's rightful place in it on the other, means that a black politician like Obama can immerse himself in Wright's Chomsky-ite worldview without necessarily rejecting the broader socio-economic structure of American society. Within the black narrative, it is a radical perspective, but not a leftist perspective, anti-colonial, but not anti-capitalist. (Although Trinity UCC's philosophy does disavow "middle classness.")

The equivalent scenario for a white politician would have much broader implications, since they would suggest no ambivalence, but only a political orientation largely incompatible with mainstream American politics. Not only would this still be a story were Obama and Wright white, as Ezra argues, it would probably be a more politically damaging one. It would also be a very different story, as Ezra also argues, and that's very much due to the fact that Obama and Wright are black.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, April 25, 2008

Playing the Petraeus Card

It looks like I'm the only one who's underwhelmed by the Petraeus appointment to CENTCOM commander, but what the heck. In for a penny, in for pound. So here's another thorny question that I've yet to see directly addressed. (Hampton, make sure you've had your morning cup of Joe before reading any further.)

I mentioned that by using his direct lines of communication with the Oval Office to leapfrog Adm. Fallon, Petraeus had already been serving as de facto CENTCOM commander. But in thinking about it, the leapfrog actually went much further than that, because President Bush made it clear that he would follow Petraeus' lead in Iraq, and not the other way around. 

Now, if you're a cynic like me, you might think that was a political ploy to use the persuasive authority of the Iraq theater commander to implement military tactics in Baghdad that serve Bush's political purposes in Washington. (All the better if they've been responsible for the improved security situation, but the causal connection remains disputable, and subject to developments on the ground.) But if you're not, it means that Petraeus was exercising a command that far exceeded the bailiwick of MNF-I or CENTCOM, for that matter. Petraeus was calling the shots for the Commander-in-Chief, and not the other way around.

Of course, so long as Petraeus' strategic vision is consistent with President Bush's political agenda, there's little reason to believe the relationship will suffer from his assumption of CENTCOM duties. But what happens when Petreaus decides that Bush's political line jeopardizes our regional strategic position? Well, it turns out we have a recent example of what happens to a CENTCOM commander who isn't in lockstep with the Bush administration's Middle East policy. It's called early retirement.

Now call me cynical, call me cranky, call me contrarian (just, please, don't call me punctilious). But to my eyes this looks like the latest installment of the Bush administration's politicization of the officer corps, and I suspect that anyone who expects Petraeus to suddenly start thinking differently about the big regional picture than he did about the Iraq theater is in for a disappointment. Petraeus will ask Bush for what Bush wants to give him, and Bush will then give it to him under the pretense that it's what his military commander asked for. And if Petraeus upsets the apple cart between now and January 20, 2009, he'll be joining Fox Fallon on the motivational speaking tour.

The problem isn't that the President calls the shots in time of war. That's how it should be. The problem is that the Petraeus-Bush relationship is a closed feedback loop, hermetically impervious to disproof and driven by a political agenda whose ideological foundation Bush has pragmatically sidelined but never explicitly renounced. And it's about to go regional.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in:  Iraq   Politics   The Middle East   

Comments (2) | Permalink

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Petraeus Principle

What's clear so far about the Petraeus CENTCOM announcement is that all anyone can do right now is speculate on what impact this will all have. But while answers will only come with time, the fundamental questions are shaping up pretty quickly. According to Abu Muqawama they boil down to how Gen. Petraeus' experiences in Iraq are going to influence his regional vision in general, his approach to Iran in particular, and his ability to make detached decisions about how to distribute scarce resources between the two theaters of war now under his command. Tom Barnett, on the other hand, flips the formulation a bit and wonders how the added regional perspective will impact Gen. Petraeus' approach to Iraq and Iran, although he worries about the fact that the DoD is now pretty much all "bad cop," up and down the line, when it comes to Iran.

One thing that's implied in AM's remarks about Petraeus' regional vision being shaped by the prism of Iraq, but that I'd draw out even more explicitly, is that his vision of the Iranians has been shaped by the prism of what amounts to a proxy war there. So whatever broader regional approach to Tehran he adopts can't help but be conditioned by the fact that he has already been engaged in low-intensity warfare with them for the past year and a half. To use the language of Petraeus' own COIN manual, his Iran narrative has begun as a war story. So either he's capable of making a very significant pivot, or else the plotline is about to be expanded to a regional level (which, as Tom Barnett points out, does not necessarily mean a decisive attack on Iran but logically suggests one).

Meanwhile, some questions are being raised (Phil Carter here and Charlie from AM here) about Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno's fit as commander of MNF-I. But I'm surprised that, so far, no one's had the temerity to point out that compared to his CENTCOM predecessors, Gen. Petraeus' credentials are underwhelming for such a strategically vital regional command. Admiral Fallon's prior regional command experience was too deep to count. Gen. Abizaid did prior staff tours in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff, the Southern European Task Force, and the U.S. Army Europe HQ. Gen. Franks commanded the 3rd Army for three years prior to taking over CENTCOM, and Gen. Zinni was CENTCOM Deputy C-i-C for nine months before assuming the top spot.

The bulk of Petraeus' experience, meanwhile, has been in operations and training (which is what you'd expect for someone who has demonstrated such tactical brilliance). Challenging as it is, Commander MNF-I is his broadest command to date. Now it could be that Petraeus is, in addition to being a tactical genius, a strategic genius as well. But a case could be made for the argument that, in leapfrogging Adm. Fallon through his personal relationship with President Bush, Petraeus has essentially served as de facto Commander of CENTCOM for the past year and a half. And in that time he has put the Iraq theater ahead of our broader regional interests, and according to many, ahead of the health of the Army.

Again, only time will tell. But so far, the only real qualification Petraeus seems to have for the job is to have offered President Bush a fortuitous tactical approach that coincided perfectly with Bush's political needs.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in:  Iraq   Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Real McCain

So is the problem that McCain wasn't paying attention at last week's Petraeus hearings? Or is it that he doesn't understand the difference between a theater commander, a regional commander, and the commander-in-chief? Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum are correct in saying that it will be tough to convince the public that  the perception of McCain as a national security icon is a mistaken one. But he certainly is generous about providing the proof necessary to make the case.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama's Speech: The Explainer in Chief

I just got a chance to watch Barack Obama's speech, after having read the transcript earlier today. Most of the commentary has focused, for obvious reasons, on his treatment of race and its legacy in American history and politics. And rightly so, because it's about the most succinct, balanced, inclusive and unflinching synthesis that I've seen, and I'm no stranger to the subject.

But not enough has been made, I think, about this portion of his remarks that deals with the capacity for change that exemplifies the American experience:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation.

Change has obviously been a theme of Obama's campaign, and the election in general, but it has often been reduced to a boilerplate message about changing the way in which we practice politics. This, on the other hand, strikes to the heart of what has historically led people, and continues to lead them, to our country in the hopes of starting anew against all odds: our capacity to change our conception of what America is and what it can be.

It's what gives us such an advantage over countries that are still struggling to reconcile the tensions caused by differences of origin and custom, and what makes us a model for what can be accomplished. American exceptionalism is often a manipulative device hauled out for jingoistic effect, but if there is a reason that America might be considered an exception, truly this is it.

I've also been convinced for some time that the most compelling case for Obama is a generational one. It's time not to turn the page, but to pass the torch. What the previous generation accomplished should not be rejected but refined, improved and built upon. That's what I heard here:

. . .This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

And that's really all I need. Whether Obama survives this controversy is to my mind no longer relevant. He has moved the torch along, and if in the end that proves to be insufficient, he will have lost the election with his dignity and character intact.

Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator. With any luck, Obama will become known as the Great Explainer. Hopefully America can spare the half hour it takes for him to lay out his case, not just on this but on other issues of the day as well, because it's a half-hour well spent. If not, if the soundbites carry the day, it will be America's loss. Not Obama's.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Obama, Wright, and Black Ambivalence

It just so happens that the first post of mine that got widespread attention on the web was one I wrote back in February on Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, titled "Obama As Rorschach Test." Periodically since then, someone clicking through from a "Obama afrocentric" Google search will show up in the HJ traffic logs to remind me of it. Which is all by way of saying that the post has stuck with me more than the thousand-odd other ones I've written in the past year.

So each time the question of Wright's association with Obama has come up, I've been tempted to re-visit the post, but have held off. Now that the issue is front and center, though, I figured I'd mention two things. The first is that if you click through to this 2005 radio interview with Wright that I linked to in it, at about the 3:30 mark, Wright mentions that he'd had the honor of being invited to two clergy breakfasts during Bill Clinton's presidency. So if he's as radioactive as people are saying, what was he doing on the presidential mailing list ten years ago?

The second point is that, with respect to Wright's 9/11comments, I can't help but feel that the outrage over them illustrates the extent to which the far-left is non-existent in American political discourse. In fact, the only places you can still find remnants of radical leftist analysis are in the Chomsky-ite anti-globalisation movement, and in Wright's brand of afro-centric Black liberation theology.

Provocative declaration alert: It's impossible to put a number on it, but I'd wager that the only place on Earth where Wright's analysis of 9/11 could be dismissed out of hand is in the United States. Not that the rest of the world agrees with it. But I think you'd find a substantial amount of people willing to accept that a valid case could be made for it, even if they subsequently disagree with that case. I suspect that more people consider it defensible (not correct, but defensible) than consider it outside the realm of acceptable debate.

Now it could very well be that I'm totally wrong on this. But I don't think I am. I'd offer two reasons for why this is. First, the far-left still exists across Europe and most of the world (by which I mean the real far-left, not the Clinton administration), which means that analyses such as Wright's are heard more often and have a certain legitimacy. And second, the great cleansing narrative of globalization has all but erased America's memory of historical resentments (torture and disappearances in South America, agent orange in Southeast Asia, the plight of the Palestinians) that feed anti-Americanism worldwide. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world has forgotten.

It also doesn't mean that there isn't great love felt for our country around the world as well. But it's important to remember that the ambivalence is always there, ready to tilt one way or the other depending on the latest American foray on the global stage. The dramatic shift in sympathy for America between 9/11 and the Iraq War is all the illustration necessary to see how fluid and volatile the world's feelings towards us really are.

The significance of Wright's analysis is that it illustrates the similarities between the world's ambivalence towards the United States, and many black Americans' ambivalence towards the United States. It's no coincidence that his particular brand of Afro-centrism traces its historical roots to the moment when black Civil Rights leaders like Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X placed the struggle in the context of the Third World's post-colonial struggle for independence. That's why it functions as America's conscience, not only for its treatment of blacks in this country, but also for its spotty post-colonial record abroad.

Now, obviously someone with Wright's views could not be elected president of the United States, so Obama is forced to denounce and reject them. The question is whether Obama's spiritual relationship, not just to Wright or a few sentences Wright has uttered over the years, but to Wright's core ideology, will now cost him the election. Back in February, I concluded that:

Assuming that his membership in the church signifies his acceptance of its agenda, Obama would do well to articulate his vision of Afrocentrism, and how it fits into his vision of a united America. Not only would it keep his opponents from doing it for him. It would bring a meaningful discussion of race in general, and his race in particular, to the forefont of the campaign. Until then, everyone will just see what they want to see.

I don't think Obama ever did that. Instead his campaign chose to present him as a post-racial candidate, in the hopes that we'd finally arrived at a post-racial America. The result is that his opponents have done it for him. And now everyone will just see what they want to see.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (4) | Permalink

Monday, March 10, 2008

System Capacity

Ezra Klein:

But the capacity of the system to stand against those who would reform it, and who come into office with a broad mandate to do so, is really quite sobering.

As it happens, he's talking about Eliot Spitzer. But the comparison to Barack Obama is... really quite sobering?

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, March 10, 2008

Yoko vs. The Graduate

Like everything else in the Democratic primary, how you answer the question of experience probably says more about you than about either of the candidates. Take the Hillary Clinton-Yoko Ono "analogy as insult", for instance, which is revealing for what it leaves out. Namely, that Yoko Ono was an accomplished and internationally recognized artist before she met John Lennon (ie. a person in her own right), and that while she might not have been a Beatle, she certainly understood what being one was like as well as anyone besides than the Fab Four themselves.

As for the commander-in-chief brouhaha, take this McClatchy article about Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Basically it says that Obama's surrounded by a pretty pragmatic team whose input he seeks out due to his voracious interest in foreign affairs, an interest that the article implies (but never says explicitly) springs from his lack of experience. What it doesn't do is offer anything other than the team members' word for it that Obama has what it takes to run American foreign policy.

The quality that comes across most strongly to me is a certain kind of vision of the world, free of pre-conceptions, a sort of lived experience that can only result from a lack of policy experience. Unlike Clinton, who already seems to have the world grouped into good guys and bad guys according to a pro forma prism, or McCain, who already has his bombing targets circled in red on his bedside atlas, Obama doesn't seem to have things sorted out yet. Whether or not that bothers you probably depends on how you see the world yourself.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The Advantages Of Going Long

Kevin Drum offers '68 as proof that Democrats are over-reacting to the potential divisiveness of the ongoing primary campaign, which yesterday did nothing to settle:

In other words, [1968] was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous. But what happened? In the end, Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1%.

I'd add that there's even an advantage to the primary campaign lasting into April: it has forced both candidates to develop ground games in states that they would otherwise have ignored had the nomination been wrapped up a month ago. That means networks of volunteers, media saturation and personal appearances that can only come in handy for the general election.

It also occurred to me that all the hand-wringing is an illustration of how deep the traumas of 2000 and 2004 really go. In many ways, it will probably take a Democratic president for the party to finally and fully recover from hanging chads and Swift Boating.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Cite Unseen

Here's Barack Obama, off the cuff and without the script:

Obama restated his opposition to gay marriage, but asserted that he supported civil unions because "people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with diginity and respect and the state should not discriminate against them." He added, "If people find that controversial, than I would just refer them to the "Sermon on the Mount."

Now I understand this is a campaign, and there are some swing votes to appeal to. Heck, I'm a big fan of the Sermon on the Mount; Prabhavananda's Vedic reading of it, The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, is among the most moving spiritual texts I've ever read. But is it asking for too much to expect a presidential candidate to refer people to the Constitution of the United States?

Meanwhile, as a practical matter, it occurs to me that supporters of gay marriage might get more mileage out of framing the debate in terms of contract law, rather than civil rights. Because in essence what's being denied, as much as legal recognition of the state of matrimony, is the right to enter into a legal contract. Which to the best of my knowledge, outside of a consensual slavery agreement, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, February 29, 2008

It's 3 A.M...

...and you're children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing... and ringing... and ringing...

Since it seems to be the topic of the day, I'll simply observe that that phone rings a long time (six, to be exact) before someone finally answers. That conveys something other than "ready" to me.

More broadly, I'd note that Hillary Clinton seems to have entered that phase of a campaign where she just can't catch a break. Which is a very unhappy phase for her to be in, seeing as how there's still a couple crucial primaries on the line.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Softer Side Of McCain

There's been a lot of speculation about what a John McCain presidency would mean in terms of America's military adventurism. But anyone worried about McCain's hawkish declarations regarding a 100-year occupation of Iraq should find this video, courtesy of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, reassuring. McCain, it seems, has accepted the limits of American military influence, and once President would focus more on "culture-building" and "velvet revolution" operations funded by his friend and co-conspirator, "Jewish tycoon" George Soros.

I should note that the idea that America is trying to gather intelligence through recruiting a sympathetic network of influential and well-placed Iranian elites is not at all farfetched. But when the motivations behind that campaign get boiled down to a basement cabal funded by "Jewish tycoons", it gets pretty pathetic. This stuff reminds me of the kind of rumors being circulated about Barack Obama, with the difference being that the Obama slime is being funded by private interest whackjobs, and this is the product of an Iranian government ministry.

Big hat tip to Small Wars Journal for catching this priceless reminder of just what kind of government we're dealing with in Tehran.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in:  Iran   Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, February 25, 2008

The Political Value Of Wit

In case it doesn't make the American news, Nicolas Sarkozy caused a new uproar yesterday at the Agriculture Salon when he responded vulgarly to an insult from a passerby. As Sarkozy was making his way through the Salon, reaching out and shaking hands with those headed in the opposite direction, a man in his late-fifties or so objected, saying "Don't touch me," in a very hostile tone of voice. He added an expression that translates poorly into English but which roughly means "You'll contaminate me." (Literally it translates as "You'll dirty me".) To which Sarkozy without hesitation responded, "Then beat it, you pathetic bastard." The actual French, pauvre con (which more literally translates to "poor cunt"), is a vulgar expression of absolute contempt. The entire incident (neither man stopped walking, so it can't properly be described as a confrontation) was of course captured on video.

The episode is revealing for yet again demonstrating Sarkozy's "man of the people" bona fides, for better or worse. But it also serves to set up this great passage that Art Goldhammer over at French Politics flagged from Marianne's online edition:

Older folks will remember that, confronted with equally difficult situations, presidents in the past adopted a more regal bearing. Take Jacques Chirac, for instance, to whom an onlooker called out "Bastard!" while he was leaving mass at Bormes-les-Mimosas. "Nice to meet you," replied the former Head of State. "Jacques Chirac, here." Compare that Cyrano de Bergerac-like riposte with General de Gaulle's inspired response when confronted with a vibrant cry of "Death to the morons!": "A vast undertaking." (Translated from the French.)

The passage made me realize to what extent Barack Obama represents a return of wit to the American political arena. Every time he is attacked, he manages to respond in a way that impresses with its cleverness, and that is perfectly lethal not despite, but because of the absolute lack of venom in the parry. I'm thinking in particular of his, "I'm looking forward to having you as one of my advisors, too, Hillary." But there are other examples.

As a reflection of character, it contrasts favorably with the brittle reactivity of the Bush administration, as well as the rapid response tactics of the Clinton era. In fact, I hate to say it but I think you'd have to go as far back as Reagan to find its equivalent.

Posted by Judah in:  La France Politique   Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, February 22, 2008

Set Up?

Is Bill Keller the Dan Rather of 2008? That's the distinct impression I got when I noticed, as Kevin Drum put it, "the fast congealing conservative consensus that this will help McCain." Maybe the Times has got the goods. Or maybe they got set up. Either way, it's odd seeing McCain bash their impartiality seeing as how they endorsed him.

On the other hand, is Kevin right when he claims that no one really cares about the corruption angle? Is the story really about McCain's affair? The story about the story certainly is. But let's assume for argument's sake that McCain really did have an affair with this woman. Why is that a story? I couldn't care less who's screwing who in Washington, as long as nobody's screwing us.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Presidential Cage Match

Look for the NYT's McCain story to have an insidious effect on the Democratic contest. A lot of people have already questioned Hillary Clinton's bareknuckled tactics against Barack Obama with the prospect of a tough general election looming on the horizon. If McCain's campaign comes out of this media cycled mortally wounded, the logic of Democratic restraint becomes less operative. To say nothing of the fact that a crippled McCain gives the Democratic nominee a lock on the White House. Which means Clinton's so close she can almost taste it.

Where do you go when you're already down to bare knuckles? Any street fighter knows the answer to that: the gutter.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Political Penalties

I've been a bit burned out on the Democratic primary campaign. Truth be told, I think the turning point for me was once I'd actually voted. I made a decision, felt good about it, had some buyer's remorse the next day, realized that I would have had the same feeling had I voted the other way, talked with my Dad and found out that -- separated by an ocean and a six-hour time difference -- we did the exact same thing on Super Tuesday (ie. we both went to the polls intending to vote for the same candidate only to change our minds and vote for the other one at the last minute) and that was enough for me to put the whole thing aside.

So I've watched the campaign unfold over the past few weeks with a somewhat dispassionate eye (although as someone who genuinely liked both candidates, my passions were less than enflamed to begin with). Which makes me feel comfortable making the following observation:

The Clinton campaign's performance since February 5th makes me wish that there were some sort of procedure in place whereby a candidate can be penalized by having delegates that they've previously won taken away from them. Something along the lines of a 15-yard penalty and loss of down in football. Because I've never seen anything as pathetic as what the Clinton camp has trotted out, not just once or twice, but consistently, almost daily, for the past two weeks.

As classless as Bill Clinton was in NH and South Carolina, I was willing to put that on him, not her. But there's really no one to hang the blame on for what's gone down the past few weeks. This is Hillary's campaign; in some ways it's her government-in-waiting, and she's the Commander-in-Chief. And if this is "ready from day one", well, then, Obama could probably get away with claiming that he really can walk on water.

I've said before that whenever I actually see Clinton in action, as opposed to just reading her press coverage, my opinion of her improves. Not surprisingly, I haven't actually seen much of her of late. It could be that the two upcoming debates could prove decisive in turning things around for her. But seriously, these past few weeks have reminded me of an elementary school class president election.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (2) | Permalink

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Symptoms Of Election Fatigue

Somewhere over the past week something turned for me, so whereas before I'd honestly felt that an extended campaign for the Democratic nomination was a good thing that would bring out the best in the candidates and the party, now I've got a serious case of election fatigue. It's not just that I'm mildly sick of both Clinton and Obama. It's that the longer this thing drags on without a resolution, the more full of crap both of them seem to be.

So, for instance, when Clinton says she's going to fight for the unpledged superdelegates even if she's behind in pledged delegates when the voting's done, that seems perfectly legit. It's an election, after all, one that she wants to win, and the unpledged superdelegates are, oddly enough, not actually pledged. But when she talks about trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, that's very obviously the type of win-at-all-costs approach that might have served Al Gore well in Florida seven years ago, but is entirely uncalled for in an up to now riveting and fairly above board Democratic primary election.

Then there's the debate question. Clinton has every right to press for more debates with Obama, since it's a format in which, by consensus, she seems to have an advantage. But to suggest that Obama has some obligation to debate her is ludicrous, especially if by ducking her he suffers less among voters than he would by taking part. It's not the most honorable move, perhaps, and Clinton can call him out on it all she wants. But if you try to win at all costs, you can't fault your opponent for doing so too.

Meanwhile, when Obama resorts to hackneyed political phrases, like calling Clinton's debate ad the "same old politics", it becomes all too clear that his above-the-fray posture is simply a well-worn routine from the "same old politics" repertoire, albeit one that he's enjoyed more success with than anyone else who has used it before. As for his dazzling speeches before legions of transfixed supporters, they perfectly illustrate the defining conceit of Obama's campaign -- the artifice of authenticity -- whereby he does the same thing night after night while managing to give each successive audience the impression that they're privvy to a unique and special experience.

Moreover, when he talks about uniting the Red states and the Blue states, I for one get the distinct impression that he's still something of a stranger to many of those states he's referring to. As if he's actually getting aquainted with the country he aspires to preside over through the very campaign he's waging to convince voters to elect him. Say what you will about Clinton's experience or lack thereof, but she did register voters in Texas thirty years ago, and she did work for a children's legal fund in Connecticut twenty-five years ago, and something tells me that she's checked back in regularly with just about everyone she ever met in both places ever since. Which is why she doesn't give the same speech in El Paso as she does in New Haven.

It's bad enough when general elections are decided by 800 votes in Dade County. But there really seems to be a crisis in the decision-making process when we can't even select the candidates anymore. I know democracy is the worst system except for all the others. But I'm thinking that with the advent of Web 3.0 they're bound to come up with some widget that works better than this.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Blogs Eat Their Young

In many ways, the Clintons' brand of politics, if it didn't actually spawn the blog, served as a precursor to it in that the Clintons popularized techniques at the dawn of the internet era -- rapid response war rooms, spin, talking points, polarized partisan broadsides -- that blogs would later appropriate, greatly contributing to the proliferation of the new form. The polarization of blog discourse came to a peak during the first term of the Bush administration,  where in many ways blogs were the only platform available to resist a media narrative that was at best complacent and at worst complicit. What's more, as recently as the 2006 Congressiona mid-term elections, blogs seem to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of partisanship.

So it's kind of ironic that so much of the Hillary Clinton backlash, especially among the blog set, has focused on the polarizing effect of the Clinton brand. It's also worth considering what blog discourse will look like under an Obama administration where bi-partisan cooperation and respectful dialogue have become the norm.

Posted by Judah in:  Media Coverage   Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Meltdown

My experience over the past few months is that I respond much more favorably to seeing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton debate than I do to print media coverage of either them. With Obama, seeing him discuss the issues reminds me that there's more to him than just the euphoric adulation that his campaign has been reduced to by the media. With Clinton, it's just the opposite. Seeing her reminds me that she's a lot more likable and impressive in person than the media allows for.

Now, it's been observed that the debate format is not one that favors Obama. And it's also obvious that euphoric adulation is not in and of itself a major disadvantage for a presidential candidate. So it doesn't surprise me that Hillary Clinton's meltdown-in-progress coincides with the end of the debate season. What does surprise me is that she hasn't been more insistent about getting some more debates scheduled.

Meanwhile, I'm not so sure her strategy to pin her hopes on Texas and Ohio is such a bad move. By conceding the past week's worth of primaries, she's put herself in the position of authentic underdog going into next month. Now she can legitimately make the case to her supporters in those two states that if they don't mobilize for her, and in a massive way, she's finished. Conversely, if she loses either one, or if her victory is not on a corresponding scale of magnitude, she's got to be willing to bow out.

Update: Apparently Clinton is calling Obama out for not debating In Wisconsin (YouTube at link). Andrew Sullivan calls it a negative ad. If so, it's pretty tepid as far as negative goes.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Audacity Of Nope

About halfway through reading this Congressional testimony by Col. Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) explaining why the Joint Declaration of Principles between the US and Iraq more closely resembles the Warsaw Pact-era Brezhnev Doctrine than a US Status of Forces Agreement, it occurred to me that for all the outrage over the executive power grab of the past seven years, the Bush-Cheney administration has done nothing that the Founders did not foresee and anticipate. They understood and accepted as a matter of course that the executive would have a tendency to encroach on the powers of Congress.

But while the Founders also understood the corrosive effect of political parties on a democracy, I think what might very well have surprised them about today's political climate would be the degree to which Congress, faced with the Bush-Cheney putsch, has simply rolled over. From torture to habeas corpus to domestic wiretapping to signing statements, President Bush might have run roughshod over the Constitution, but Congress did nothing to stop him.

It's worth thinking about that for a moment, now that interest in the presidential campaign has reached a frenzied peak. A lot of thought and discussion has been devoted to which of the two Democratic candidates would be most likely to pull back from the expansive precedent of the Bush imperial presidency. Less has gone into identifying and promoting the kind of Congressional leadership in the Democratic Party that will actually push back against executive overreach.

With the superdelegates (of whom Congressional Democrats make up roughly a third) poised to decide the party's nominee, now would be a good time to consider just what Congress will be getting in return for its tie-breaking Convention votes. Obviously these sorts of deals are made between individuals. But hopefully there will be some institutional dealmaking going on as well.

Posted by Judah in:  Iraq   Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Five Easy Pieces vs. Easy Rider

In the comments to this previous post, regular reader, frequent commenter and all-around "friend of HJ" Gerald Scorse wondered if I would venture some suggestions for a "signature enemy" for Obama to wage his "smart war" against. Guilty as charged: it's easier to formulate the idea in the abstract than to articulate an instance of how to put it into practice.

But in thinking it over, it occurred to me that this is in essence why so many of the historical examples Obama uses in his stirring rhetoric (the American Revolution, Abolition, Women's Suffrage, WWII, the Civil Rights movement) just don't pass muster as comparisons to what America faces today. The fact is, the most urgent moral issues on the agenda (ending the practice of torture, restoring habeas corpus to terrorist detainees, ending warrantless domestic spying) can all be resolved with a stroke of the pen through executive order.

The meme bouncing around the spherical world of online opinion today is that the Clinton brand of politics is either commodity-based (ie. Brooks) or else packaged into issue-ettes (ie. Sullivan). Both of which strike me as alternate ways of saying that it's the product of Mark Penn's micro-political mind. Obama offers the exact opposite with his call to a transcendent cause that rallies all the micro-political niches into a mass movement. But for that to happen, the transcendent cause has got to be up to the task as defined by the historical moment.

So far, Obama has relied on an ecclesiastic formulation of the American dream to serve as the glue which holds his grand majority together, which is why the choice between Clinton and him has become the choice between a Chinese menu (ie. a patchwork quilt of custom-fitted solutions to address the discrete fears of the electorate) and an epicurian cookbook (ie. a sense of purpose to satisfy the collective hunger for an organizing logic for action). The question is whether or not the historical moment bears out the former or the latter.

To be clear, I'm talking about rhetoric and imagery here. I think there are other, more convincing arguments for supporting Obama's candidacy than his appeals for unity, and I think he's capable of creating and carrying a broad majority based solely on his personal charisma even in the absence of the collective yearning for unity that he evokes. But if he does manage to identify some concrete popular crusade to rally America to a cause that is not, as he has currently formulated it, simply the cause of America, I think he could actually manage to live up to his rhetoric.

I'll try to identify what one might be, but in the meantime, if anyone has any ideas, feel free to pop them into the comments. 

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Obama's War

A friend was making the case the other day for Barack Obama, to the effect that he'd be able to rehabilitate liberalism in the political worldview of an entire generation. He argued that with the comfortable Congressional majority the Democrats will in all likelihood have, he'd be able to govern effectively and demonstrate that liberal policies work, while seducing some centrists with compromise. My counter-argument was that with a comfortable Congressional majority, Clinton would be able to pass a more liberal agenda, so compromise wasn't necessary.

Thinking it over, though, I think my friend has a point. I'm an advocate, after all, for the idea of Israel offering the Palestinians in particular, and the Arab world in general, a generous peace. So the logic of that sort of approach in domestic political terms does appeal to me.

But here's the thing. The problem with Obama's rhetoric of unity and bi-partisanship is that it ignores two fundamental aspects of the formation of group identity. First, that there has to be a distinct and easily recognizable boundary separating inside from outside. (Like a cell wall, this boundary can be permeable, but it needs to be identifiable.) And second, in order to form that boundary, fighting for something works, but fighting against something works better. Whether or not you subscribe to Rene Girard's theory of the origins of human religion, the scapegoat mechanism is a historically proven component of human collective behavior.

Take Ronald Reagan, who Obama has repeatedly cited as an example of the kind of game-changing political mandate he hopes to generate. Reagan had two made-to-order scapegoats: the enemy without (the "evil empire") and the enemy within ("welfare queens"). The former allowed him to cherrypick blue collar Democrats who were alienated by the defeatist image that had, fairly or unfairly, stuck to the party of Carter like a wad of chewing gum on the sole of a shoe. The latter combined racial/racist dogwhistle appeals with a call for fiscal responsibility that got him the support of white collar Democrats who understood the value of a balanced checkbook. But while Reagan's new majority grew in part out of a national zeitgeist (whereby a return to American triumphalism compared favorably to the prevailing sentiment of fatigue, self-doubt and defeat), it certainly didn't represent a collective yearning for unity.

A few months ago, when Obama was still intriguing the electorate but not quite sealing the deal, Josh Marshall suggested that he needed a signature policy for his campaign to shift gears. I'd go a step further. He needs a signature enemy. In the logic of his oft-repeated formula for opposing the Iraq War (ie. he's not opposed to wars, he's opposed to dumb wars), Obama needs a smart war.

Now at first glance that might seem to be diametrically opposed to the inclusive logic of his campaign, as well as his refusal to use fear as a political tool, but it needn't be so depending on the enemy he identifies. Before Bush's War on Terror (to say nothing of the Constitution) or Reagan's War on Drugs, after all, there was LBJ's War on Poverty.

It might be too late for it to have much of an impact on the Democratic primaries. But in the event that Obama does win the nomination, it would set him up effectively for the general election.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (2) | Permalink

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Thanks, Dad

My dad made a few points about the Democratic race this afternoon that I thought bore repeating. For better or worse, Obama has now effectively appropriated the legacy of John F. Kennedy. Now to my dad, who is relatively immune to glitter and the whole blang blang thang, JFK does not represent a stellar example of presidential accomplishment. And on the merits it's not a tough case to make that his myth has far exceeded his record.

But on the symbolic level, and especially abroad, the JFK aura can't be underestimated. By way of illustrating, when I still lived down in Provence, I once went to pick up my son at a friend's house. The mother of the parents was visiting, a woman in her sixties who had emigrated to France as a young woman from her native Italy. When she heard I was American, she immediately grimaced and made a remark in a heavily accented French to the effect that it was a shame we had such a moron for president. Then her gaze wondered off to some interior horizon, and she added, "Not like Kennedy. Or Clinton. Now they were good."

My dad, too, had mentioned the irony that the last politician to consistently be invoked in the same breath as JFK was, of course, Bill Clinton. In other words, in a very real way, Obama's political persona threatens Clinton's historic legacy. (It's unrelated but worth noting here that however he was regarded in the States, Bill Clinton was pretty universally adored around the world.)

The other thing I found thought provoking were the presidents my dad invoked to measure Obama. In the untested category, he offered up Truman. And in the character category, he mentioned Eisenhower. I don't often talk politics with my dad, which is a shame, because he's a real mensch and the blog would probably benefit from his insight.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Obama, Clinton & The American Imagination

Dug took me to task in the comments to the previous post about Obama and Clinton representing two halves to a whole:

Two different, evenly matched candidates who triggered different identity factors would carve things in half, but different halves. In short, you need to say something substantive about the constituencies, something to the effect that only this kind of pair would generate an even split. Otherwise, the speculative question about a larger collective dynamic at work isn't very interesting.

I was going to add something more substantive about the qualities I had in mind last night, but it was already pretty late and I was already up past my bedtime. What I was going to add, though, wasn't quite so much about the "identity factors" that Dug mentions. I was thinking more along the lines of American archetypes and our national genius. It's the sort of thing that isn't as easily measured as who carried which race, class, or gender among voters, and it's also much less useful in terms of the nuts and bolts of winning an election. So it's not likely to show up in any exit polling data.

The Rorschach of Obama and Clinton is the story of American archetypal opposites. See them at their best and Obama represents the tent revival movement leader, Clinton the party machine fixer working for the little guy. Obama the vertiginous and meteoric rise, Clinton the plodding and tedious ascent. Obama the promise of American renewal, Clinton the reassurance of American decency.

Take them at their worst and Obama takes on all the trappings of the charlatan snake oil salesman, while Clinton becomes the bought and sold politician in the special interests' pocket. Obama is the American idealist with his head in the clouds, Clinton the vulgar striver with her ankles in the muck. Obama is the teacher's pet, Clinton the crooked school board boss. On and on it goes, off to the horizon of the American imagination.

I'm not arguing that Obama and Clinton are the only two politicians who could ever inhabit such diametrically polar corners of the American archetypal landscape. But neither do I think it's just a question of finding images to stick onto two politicians who happen to split the electorate. A few dozen votes separated Bush and Gore, and the same exercise does not seem to apply.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Desperately Seeking Storyline

So now that Super Tuesday has come and gone, leaving neither Obama nor Clinton with a more legitimate claim to victory than the other, what's the narrative? Did Clinton stop Obama's momentum? Or did Obama, against all odds, make up a stunning amount of ground? Did Obama show the value of his appeal in the Red States? Or did Clinton prove her Democratic bona fides in NY and Cali? It seems as easy to support any of those arguments as to dismantle them.

With regards to Obama's momentum, so much of it seems to run off the fumes of whatever it is he inspires in his most ardent supporters, and even more so in the frenzied rush that has preceded each primary, that by nature it's almost bound to not live up to the expectations it generates. That said, the fact that he's not only still around, but gaining ground really is pretty remarkable. A lot of that has to do with the new voters he's brought into the electoral process, but I wonder if there wasn't a significant pool of voters who were naturally inclined to support him but reluctant to commit until they were certain he was the real deal. And whatever else is still in doubt, I think he's effectively made the case that he's the real deal.

With regards to Clinton, it's hard not to imagine her wondering what the hell she's got to do to shake this guy. After all, she went up against against Joe Biden and managed to convince people that she was the candidate of experience. She went up against the party's VP nominee from four years back and managed to convince them that she was the inevitable candidate. Compared to that, handling Obama ought to have been short work. But here we are on Super Wednesday, and you get the sense that no matter how many primaries Clinton wins, it just won't be enough to put Obama away, and that she's finally beginning to realize that. And you know it had to hurt to hear the news that while she was lending her own campaign $5 million, the rest of America was poneying up $32 mil for Obama.

Still, who would have believed even two weeks ago that the Democratic candidate that won NY, Cali, Massachusetts, and arguably Florida would have anything but a clear path to the nomination? In fact, with all the attention that's been paid to Obama's Red State appeal, I'm not sure I've seen it mentioned that his path to the Democratic nomination, should he end up winning it, will have curiously resembled the strategy that the GOP used to win the last two general elections. There's no doubt that California and NY will fall behind Obama should he win the nomination. But will he be really able to put those Red States in play come November? The answer, of course, to that and all the other questions being asked today is that despite the hopes, convictions and certainty that abound, no one really knows.

Which leads me to suggest that the real narrative of this election has less to do with the candidates than with the voters. It's somewhat tangential to the idea that Kevin Drum's been developing about the candidates functioning as a sort of Rorschach test, whereby everyone who looks at them sees something different. Because whereas Kevin has posited that "something different" as being very personal, I'm beginning to think there's part of a collective reflection involved as well. As if these two candidates somehow manage to incarnate two very distinct poles of our national genius. Notice that I don't say duelling, even though they are each trying to defeat the other, or irreconciliable, even though the spectre of bitter division has been raised.

The reason we're having such difficulty deciding between them is that they are two halves that form a whole. Put them together and you wind up with America.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (7) | Permalink

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The Last Word

My experience with California bureaucracy has always been relatively painless over the years. The DMV's are clean, the state and municipal employees are in general pretty helpful, and there's an overall ethic of competence that seems to pervade the culture. So I was surprised and disappointed that, despite having contacted them a month ago, the LA County Registrar's Office didn't manage to get me my absentee ballot until this morning. Since the ballot had to be in the Registrar's office by 8pm tonight, and I didn't know anyone who happened to be flying out to the Golden State today, I walked over to the American Church where Democrats Abroad was holding the expatriate's [Note: correct spelling courtesy of reader GS.] primary. And that's how I wound up in this video clip that's now on the front page of Le Figaro:

My comment, which comes at the very end, roughly translates to, "Even if I'm wary of the Obama euphoria, I think he's an exceptional politician, the kind that doesn't come along very often, who manages to mobilize a lot of people."

It was a curious experience finally voting, after having followed the campaign so closely for so long. As I set out for the church, the realization dawned on me that I would finally have to actually decide between Obama and Clinton, and with each step I took the sense of uncertainty grew stronger. Because although I've been increasingly leaning towards one of them recently, it hasn't been without moments of doubt and wavering. So I really didn't know who I would vote for until I sat down at the table, filled out the form, and considered the names with the empty squares next to them. And although I was staring at the paper, my gaze was directed inward.

It was only after I left the voting area that I realized that for the first time in my adult life, I had just voted for someone who I wholeheartedly, without reservation would like to see elected president of the United States.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Friday, February 1, 2008

Too Close To Call

Wow. I just got finished watching the entire Obama-Clinton debate, and what I said yesterday about either one of them destroying McCain come November counts for double now. They're both really great candidates. As always, whenever I see Obama I'm reminded of why I agree with so much of what's written about his strengths. And also as always, whenever I see Clinton I'm reminded of why I disagree with so much of what's written about her weaknesses.

I read a bit of commentary and analysis before watching the debate, and the consensus seemed to be that they both put on strong performances, with Obama having the slight edge due to his advantage during the Iraq portion of the debate. And I have to take issue with the latter half of that assessment. It was clear that Clinton was eager to re-direct the Iraq discussion to the way forward. But I found her very persuasive on the merits of her position on the authorization vote. And I say that as someone who opposed the war from the start, and who has never been sympathetic to the position she was defending.

What's more, while I continue to be impressed by Obama's strategic assessment of the past and strategic vision for the future, I found myself irritated by two of his assertions regarding Clinton's Iraq position. First, that she supported the war and the mindset that led to the war, which is a blatant distortion that I'm surprised he's not called out on. And second, that Clinton will be compromised by her authorization vote when facing off against McCain. There's tons of daylight between Clinton's Iraq stance and McCain's, and if anything, she'll be in the position of using her vote as proof that she's tough enough to wield the threat of force, but sane enough to determine when it actually makes sense to follow through.

I think both candidates did extremely well. Obama because he showed he belongs up there in every sense of the word. It's tautological, but the questions about his toughness and staying power become less and less valid the longer he sticks around. Meanwhile, Clinton's performance demonstrated her savvy in terms of how to modulate the tone of her campaign to suit the tactical needs of the moment.

While I've already made the editorial decision not to endorse either candidate, I thought as recently as last night that I'd finally decided who I was voting for. After watching the debate, I'm not so sure anymore. I've often found that when we have a hard time making a decision for ourselves, the universe sometimes makes it for us. Oddly enough, my absentee ballot still hasn't arrived from the LA County registrar's office, so maybe I'm destined to remain undecided in this one. One thing's certain. Come November, I'll have no problem voting for the candidate with the big "D" after their name.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Heads We Win, Tails They Lose

It looks like I was a bit premature in my previous comments about the state of the Democratic campaign. Obama really does look like he's changing the political landscape in the way he needs to do in order to pull this out. No telling if the trend holds, but if he does end up winning the nomination, it would be pretty tough not to admire the story arc.

Meanwhile, for no real reason I found myself spontaneously and very forcefully declaring earlier this evening in a conversation with a friend that John McCain doesn't stand a chance in the general election, against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And surprised as I was to find myself saying it, I realized as the words left my mouth that I really believe that's true.

Clinton's mastery of policy detail would simply outclass McCain in a debate, and she's smart enough to adopt her disarming, charming persona (the one she used so well to deflect the question about why she's unlikable) to do it. As for Obama, even granting that McCain might edge him out for the independents and centrists (which I really don't see happening), there's a possibility Obama could actually win over some of the disenchanted evangelicals who would never support McCain. But beyond the polling and demographics, both Obama and Clinton are just so much more visibly dynamic and alert than McCain that the difference would be too apparent over the course of the campaign.

Just as importantly, if McCain wins the GOP nomination, it will be a default victory. His poll numbers since last year show that. Republican voters have at one time or another virtually begged every other candidate -- with the exception of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes -- to take the nomination from him. The fact that they've wound up coming back to McCain says more about the rest of the field than it does about their enthusiasm for him.

What it all means is that the idea floating around out there that Democrats should be wringing their hands and biting their nails, worried that no matter who they vote for they'll wind up sending the wrong candidate out to the general election, thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, is a total bunch of crap. Both Obama and Clinton are strong candidates, and regardless of how tough the battle for the nomination is, the party's going to rally around the winner come the convention. And then whichever one of them is the Democratic nominee, they'll promptly go out and turn John McCain into a pile of chopped liver in a crewneck sweater.

There. You read it here first (unless you read it somewhere else before).

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Republicans Only?

A lot has been made of the fact that by winning Florida, McCain just won his first Republican-only Republican primary. I haven't seen mentioned anywhere the possibility that independent voters might have prepared for the fact that the Democratic primary was invalidated by re-registering as Republicans.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

After South Carolina

I optimistically promised some thoughts on the state of the Democratic campaign yesterday, before the flu bug I'm fighting off sent me to bed early. In the meantime, it occurred to me that we've entered the phase of the campaign where the horserace coverage kind of takes a backseat and the organization kicks in. So to a large degree (and barring any major gaffes on either side), I think that what will happen on February 5th is already decided, whether or not the pundits or the polls manage to accurately predict the outcome.

That said, what strikes me as significant about the very tumultuous month of campaigning we've just seen is that it has prevented both Obama and Clinton from fully imposing their narratives on the campaign. After a moment where Obama looked poised to ride a post-Iowa wave of euphoria straight to the nomination, it has become clear that hope, while a major part of any successful formula, won't be enough. Neither will bi-partisanship, which despite being warmly received by Obama's Republican admirers (no surprise there given the GOP's 2008 chances) is regarded with either suspicion or derision by most self-identified Democrats. So while Obama continues to surprise and impress with his ability to attract new voters and thereby change the political landscape to his advantage, and while he does so largely with these themes, he'll have to find some way to graft some other element onto his core message if he's going to attract the rest of the Democratic base.

For Clinton, the story is similar. In the aftermath of Iowa, the air of inevitability that she hoped to ride to the nomination took on a close resemblance to the political equivalent of the Titanic. But despite the iceberg that Iowa tossed into its path, the Clinton campaign has managed to not only survive its disastrous maiden voyage and right itself, it has somehow managed to recloak itself with an air of... inevitability. It's a neat trick, but one that is betrayed by the fury with which she, her husband and various and sundry proxies have been campaigning.

Meanwhile, if neither candidate was able to fully impose their narrative on the campaign, neither, too, were they able to distance themselves from their perceived weakness. What's most significant here, though, is that neither has actually suffered for it. What do I mean by that?

Again, let's start with Obama. Despite his ability to take the Clinton campaign's post-Iowa barrage of bare-knuckled, hard-nosed, tag-team politicking and remain standing, he's left many observers (Josh Marshall here, for example), unimpressed with his ability to fight back against Clinton's attacks. In other words, the questions about his toughness linger, even if the impact of his opponents' attacks has been put in doubt. (With all the comparisons that have been made between Obama and Reagan, it won't be long, I'm sure, before we start hearing talk about the Teflon Candidate.)

The same thing, though, holds true for Clinton. Her Achilles' heel was supposed to be the polarizing effect of her take-no-prisoners brand of politics. But while Bill Clinton's role in the campaign has drawn quite a bit of criticism, it has also (up until South Carolina) seemed to work. It's also far from universally accepted that Clinton has in some way crossed the lines of a hard-nosed political campaign, and some have even been reassured by her combatancy.

What this all means to me is that the campaign has served its function very well. No one got a free pass, the major candidates' strengths and weakness were brought out, and both Clinton and Obama had to fight from a position of frontrunner and comeback kid. What it also means, though, is that from here on out, it favors the status quo. And unless there's some seismic shift in the political landscape, the status quo favors Clinton.

It could be I'm speaking on the eve of just such a seismic shift, given all the endorsement moves being made this week. If so, we could see a major surprise come February 5th. But truth be told, I have a hard time seeing Obama do better than nibble away at the edges and draw the race out.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Monday, January 28, 2008

Lying In His Sleep

I know it's a bit stale, but I just saw the video of Bill Clinton dozing off during an MLK memorial service. The footage is damning enough given the racially charged atmosphere that preceded it the week before on the campaign trail. And the unfavorable comparison with Barack Obama's inspiring performance at Ebenezer Baptist is obvious. But it also struck me as revealing that the first thing Clinton does when he catches himself dozing off is to immediately nod his head and pretend as if he'd been listening. Take a look at 0:47 and again at 1:18 of the clip. It's as if his first instinct upon waking is to lie.

It's unfortunate that the damage he's done to Hillary's credibility is inescapable, although I don't think it will necessarily prove fatal to her chances for the Democratic nomination, or irreversible come the fall should she wind up the nominee. The same can't be said, as far as I'm concerned, to the damage he's done to his own credibility. At the risk of repeating myself, I was never very susceptible to the much-vaunted Clinton charisma while he was president. It was largely in his role of ex-president that he won me over. And if that role represents an office of some sort, Clinton has for all intents and purposes abdicated it.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Friday, January 25, 2008

Eighty-Sixed

Lately it's seemed like anyone with a blindfold and a dartboard can pick a primary winner. What separates the men from the boys when it comes to political prognostication these days is marital predictions. So, now that Dennis Kucinich is out of the presidential race, we'll see just how prescient my pre-Iowa handicapping really was:

Same goes for Kucinich who, like most ugly men, can't seem to turn down an opportunity to show off his wife's good looks. The fact that she's almost certain to leave him before his withdrawal announcement hits the wires (asking herself as she does whether he was even in yet) makes a long hard slog all the more likely. Kucinich will stick around, if only to keep Dem debates from turning into the political version of Celebrity Death Match, until late spring. Count on a tell-all book from the former-Mrs. Kucinich detailing UFO sightings, vegan potlucks and other unseemly practices just in time to exploit the marketing opportunity of the nominating convention this summer.

Granted, I was a little bit off about the timing of his withdrawal, but I'd forgotten how quickly Kucinich would be eighty-sixed from the debates. I'm banking on a divorce announcement by this time next week. And I'll go out on a limb and wager that the title of her book will be "Don't Hate Me Cuz He's Ugly: How To Win When Your Husband Loses".

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (1) | Permalink

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Promissory Notes Of Hope

I just watched Barack Obama's speech/sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church, and was not at all surprised, given his enormous oratorical skills, to find that it lives up to its billing. It's an inspirational and impressive speech, and the way he articulates and contextualizes his vision of hope as an active force for change is effective.

I found his arguments for unity less compelling, since I think what he's talking about is more solidarity than unity. Progress has always been a polarizing proposition, as most of the examples he cites to illustrate it (the American Revolution, abolitionism, the Civil Rights movement) demonstrate. The key is not to get unanimity or consensus but a solid majority. Ronald Reagan, for instance was a very polarizing figure. That didn't keep him from winning 60% of the popular vote in 1984, which is what makes it hard to call him divisive.

Three things occurred to me, having watched the video. First, the white-haired gentleman with the kente-cloth stole sitting behind the pulpit above Obama's right shoulder is Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's church, Trinity UCC. Wright, you'll recall, was asked by the Obama campaign not to attend Obama's speech announcing his candidacy last year. So the fact that he was in attendance at Ebenezer so soon after the recent publicity over Obama's ties to him strikes me as significant.

Second, there were a couple of moments in Obama's speech that I found symbolically awkward. The first came when he began his litany of "hope moments" from American history with the American Revolution. It seemed like you could almost feel the enthusiasm in the pews dip for the second or two it took him to hurry on to the abolitionists (not surprising given how many of the patriots that took on the British Empire were slaveholders).

The second was at the very end, when a story used to illustrate the unity driving his campaign culminated in a young white campaign worker inspiring an elderly black man to rediscover the fight he had left in him. Something about the "single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man", as Obama put it, struck me as tone deaf to the patronizing hint of paternalism in the story, to say nothing of our country's particularly charged sexual-racial history.

I wonder if the two moments reflect the difficulties that Obama is bound to encounter in tailoring his message to the various audiences of what seems like a decidedly less post-racial America with every week of this campaign (although I leave open the possibility that I'm paying too close attention and reading too much into both).

Finally, there was a noteworthy moment when, in telling his own story, Obama says, "I got in trouble when I was a teenager, did some things folks don't like to talk about..." Compare that to the language BET founder Bob Johnson used ten days ago, for which he was later forced to apologize: "...Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book..."

Now, granted, Johnson's remarks were objectionable, but this strikes me as similar to a dynamic that Matthew Yglesias already identified with regard to Obama's middle name. Namely, that his supporters don't hesitate to use his background and the impression it will make abroad as an appeal, while getting outraged by every mention made of it by his opponents. Yes, the attacks are cheap and unseemly, but as Matthew put it:

If he's going to get praised in these terms, he's going to get knocked in them, too. That's just how it is.

Obama seems to do a lot of talking (and writing) about the things he's done that "folks don't like to talk about". So he ought to have some responses ready when other people mention them.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, January 21, 2008

Iraq War Republicans

It's worth clarifying, because I don't think Barack Obama has really formulated it this way yet: He might have made mention of Ronald Reagan the other day, but he was actually talking about America. But while he's right when he says that the mood of America allowed Ronald Reagan to capture the famous Reagan Democrat votes, he keeps leaving two things out.

First, Ronald Reagan did not change the political landscape of America by working across party lines. He did it by getting voters who traditionaly identified as Democrats to not only vote Republican, but to identify as Republican, as least temporarily. Specifically, he appealed to blue collar Democrats' social conservatism, to middle class Democrats' fiscal conservatism, and to both groups' susceptibility to a reinvigorated American triumphalism. If Obama really wants to change the political landscape of America in the way that Reagan did, he needs to claim the political space on the other side of the center line. But first he needs to identify exactly who he means to win over and how.

Which brings me to the second point Obama keeps leaving out. The Reagan Democrats were driven to change party allegiances not just by an intangible national mood. They were driven by a Democratic Party in which they had lost faith and by which they felt abandoned. I wrote about this three times back in Novemeber, (here, here, and here), because it seemed at the time like the GOP was headed for a meltdown. And if Mike Huckabee ends up winning the nomination, I think the logic of an "Obama Republicans" groundswell still holds.

But the overwhelming factor in the GOP's self-examination, at least as I saw it at the time, was the Iraq War. It's what led Republicans like Wesley Clark and Jim Webb to run as Democrats in 2004 and 2006, and I think they were early adapters for a much broader movement that might have followed in 2008. But Iraq, for the time being, has quieted down. Which suddenly makes the GOP -- especially one led by John McCain or Mitt Romney -- a less threatening proposition, especially to Republicans most susceptible to an Obama appeal (ie. the sane ones).

So while I understand why Obama is using the Reagan analogy, I'm no longer sure it will be borne out by the electoral dynamics come November.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, January 21, 2008

The Former Ex-President

I took the weekend off to rest my eyes and spend some quality time with my son. Which means I just spent quite a bit of time catching up on my regular blog reading. (Apparently one of the consequences of paid bloggers is that there's no such thing as a weekend anymore.)

And the first thing that occurred to me upon seeing that Bill Clinton is running for president again is that I'd experienced a Newhart ending. But while starting over in 1996 would be the equivalent of hitting the trifecta (no Monica, no W., and no 9/11), the fact is that it's still 2008. And in 2008, Bill Clinton's campaigning looks like a triple loser: bad for Hillary, bad for Obama, and bad for the Democratic Party.

I say looks like, because it really isn't. The only person Bill Clinton's campaigning is bad for is Bill Clinton. Unlike a lot of people criticizing him these days, I was never a very big fan of his while he was president. But I, like most people, make an enormous allowance for former presidents. (Hell, I had to fight off a round of revisionist emotion that welled up when Richard Nixon died.) But Clinton's attack dog campaigning for Hillary, while perfectly understandable in political terms, are incompatible with his stature as a statesman. Which means that he has, in effect, forfeited his former president status.

But this is about Bill, not Hillary. Whatever impact his negative campaigning has on her candidacy (the advantages will be short term, the disadvantages long term), it doesn't diminish her strengths as a candidate. People who are criticizing her because she's allowing him to do it are forgetting that a large part of her sales pitch is that she gets the job done. If it wins, it stays in the game. That's how she's promised to beat the Republicans. And that's how she's promised to govern.

Obama, on the other hand, has promised that his emphasis on unity can successfully defeat this kind of campaigning. That's how he's promised to beat the Republicans. And that's how he's promised to govern. The rest of the primary campaign will be a proving ground for each candidate's promise. And the winner will have been borne out by the result.

Meanwhile, the rest of us need to keep our cool, because the Deomcratic Party isn't going to fracture. There will be some bandages to be applied and some very sore ribs come the summer, but nothing a few promised cabinet positions won't heal.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, January 18, 2008

Fair Tax

It took a while of reading about Mike Huckabee's 30% sales tax, which he dubs the Fair Tax, before it occurred to me that here in France, we pay 20% sales tax on goods and services (basic foodstuffs are taxed at a 5.5% rate). The main difference between the French system and Huckabee's is that here, that's in addition to a pretty stiffly progressive income tax that tops off at 40%. And that's in addition to a pretty stiff Social Security tax. Socialized medicine does have its costs.

Posted by Judah in:  Domestic Policy   La France Politique   Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Friday, January 18, 2008

Evenhanded

It's reassuring to see that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is as serious about instances of partisan pulpit endorsements when it comes to Democratic candidates as it is for Republicans. Two days ago, it asked the IRS to investigate a Las Vegas church whose pastor introduced a surprise appearance by Barack Obama by announcing his intention to vote for him.

What will be worth keeping an eye on, especially if Obama eventually wins the nomination, is whether the IRS is as evenhanded in its enforcement as AU is in its watchdog efforts.

Update: Melissa Rogers has a very informative discussion of partisan pulpits with regard to a Wisconsin pastor who took out a full page ad in the WSJ basically challenging the IRS to come and get him. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the freedom of speech and religious practice issues at stake in the IRS' enforcement of tax-exempt status.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Just Wondering

Question: Is the headline "Giuliani Tries for a Hail Mary in Florida" an innocent reference to football, or a subtle attempt to call attention to his Catholic faith?

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Will To Power

Something to remember regarding the unseemly innuendo about Barack Obama that's been spread by Clinton surrogates and Richard Cohen this past week, as well as some of the coded language that's been used to accentuate his race. These are tactics that we knew would be used. We thought it would be a Republican 527 slime outfit using them, but we all knew they would come up. And from the start, Obama's candidacy was based upon, among other things, the assurance that he could handle them.

There's no justice to the fact that he has to. It's actually a pretty depressing hangover following the "post-racial America" euphoria of his victory in Iowa. But it's the reality of electoral politics as things stand today. If this can derail his campaign for the Democratic nomination, then no matter how inspiring he is, no matter how legitimate a candidate he is, he simply stood no chance of winning the general election.

So far the endorsements have continued to come in, and by all appearances he should do well enough in South Carolina and Nevada to legitimize his campaign for the longrun, which suggests that he can, in fact, deliver on his promise. If he does do well in those two states, it will be a major boost to his electability argument. And if he goes on to win the nomination, this will prove to be the Nietzschean stretch of the campaign that, in not destroying him, made him stronger.

In the meantime, I'll be pretty happy when my posts on Obama in particular and the Democratic campaign in general can be archived solely under "Politics", without the "Race in America" tag behind it.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

When Farrakhan Is Short For Malcolm

Last night I said that Barack Obama would definitely be asked about his opinion on Malcolm X, and that his answer would be potentially risky for his candidacy. The reason I was so sure, which I didn't mention in the post, is Obama's church, Trinity UCC, which self-identifies as Afro-centric. (Here's what I wrote about it last February after a hatchet job first appeared in Investor's Business Daily.)

This morning, Roger Cohen gets us halfway there. Louis Farrakhan is admittedly a much less ambiguous figure than Malcolm X, who after all has appeared on a US postage stamp. But this storm is less about historical accuracy and more about codewords like Afro-centrism and black nationalism, and it's a storm that's already brewing (scroll down on the link). Hopefully Obama's got his answers ready.

Posted by Judah in:  Politics   Race In America   

Comments (0) | Permalink

Monday, January 14, 2008

The X Factor

I think Ezra Klein's onto something when he talks about the impact, rather than the intentions behind, the recent flurry of racial innuendo coming from Clinton surrogates:

If Obama has to spend a lot of time talking about race, it's hard for him to be the post-racial candidate. If he has to spend a lot of time on divisive topics, it's hard for him to make an appeal for unity. And if he gets thrown off message at this point in the campaign, it will be exceedingly hard for him to blunt Clinton's momentum. And, whether it's a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clintons or not, it's definitely what's happening.

As I noted here, though, I think this conversation was bound to come up right about now anyway, given that we're moving out of the lily-white phase of the primary season. But the Clinton camp does seem to be adding their fuel to the fire, and it's not farfetched to imagine that the basis of their calculation is that these kinds of media flurries cause tactical damage to her cam