HASSLINGTON POLL RESULTS
First of all, here are the results of the recent Hasslington poll, which asked, "If the Democratic race goes to the convention and neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination, who would be your 'compromise' choice?"....
Al Gore: 16 votes (33%)
Joe Biden: 12 votes (25%)
Bill Richardson: 8 votes (16%)
Evan Bayh: 5 votes (10%)
(Someone Else): 4 votes (8%)
Dennis Kucinich: 3 votes (6%)
Chris Dodd: 0 votes (0%)
I'm a little surprised that Senator Dodd did not receive a vote. Beyond that, however, it seems as though the views of my readership dovetail with my own views (at least regarding this issue), as I believe that, in alphabetical order, the three strongest "compromise" candidates would be Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Bill Richardson, for very different reasons. Al Gore is probably the strongest simply due to his global stature and the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe we would have been better off if he were inaugurated as our nation's 43rd President back in January of 2001, rather than George W. Bush.
I'm interested in the four "Someone Else" votes. Might one or two of them be for Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius...?
WHERE WRIGHT WENT WRONG
I am rather depressed to admit that I was discussing the Senator Obama / Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection with a friend of mine recently. I am not embarrassed to admit that I discuss the issues of the day with friends and acquaintances often--of course I believe that to be an essential part of living in this twenty-first century world. No, I was embarrassed instead by the fact that our discussion eventually wound its way down the same media-saturated, relatively superficial path that I often try to avoid. But that's life.
At any rate, I found what my friend had to say on the topic to be both well-constructed and thought-provoking. I will not tell you everything the two of us said (you'd be bored to tears if I did that), but I would like to give you a feel for his take on the issue. The following paragraph represents my friend's viewpoint, and I would hasten to add that it is paraphrased, so any misrepresentations, which I have taken pains to avoid, are my own. As always, it's food for thought, anyway:
"Injustice occurs everywhere in the world, including the United States. But the "Jim Crow" America that Reverend Wright sees is not indicative of the vast, vast majority of today's America and today's Americans. Reverend Wright either cannot or will not get over complaining about the past long enough to notice that one of his own (African-American) parishoners, Senator Obama, is about to be the Democratic nominee for President. Maybe Reverend Wright knows that if his parishoner is elected to the highest office in the land (and still the most influential office in the world), he will have to admit that America continues to make consistent progress regarding the issues of race and ethnicity, and that flies in the face of what he continues to believe. His support for rooting out injustice is honorable and good, but how he continues to go about it proves that time is passing him by more and more each day, and he's finding this fact more and more difficult to deal with."
ENGLAND AND WALES VOTE ON MAY 1
Voters in England and Wales head to the polls tomorrow (well, tomorrow as I write this; perhaps today as you read this), May 1, in order to vote for local council members as well as a few mayors. The last time local elections occurred at such a general level, I was living in England in a full-time capacity, and then-Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour party, who were losing popularity and hoping to get away with a metaphorical slap in the face, got a metaphorical uppercut to the jaw instead. Labour lost a lot of local seats, and it was another in a series of indications that Mr. Blair was becoming an electoral handicap (whereas in, say, the late '90s he was an electoral asset). His premiership did not last long afterwards, as he stepped down "voluntarily," prior to having to be voted out of Number 10 Downing Street by his own party (which is what happened in an embarrassing manner to Margaret Thatcher in 1990). Mr. Blair was subsequently replaced by Gordon Brown last summer.
Gordon Brown is in trouble himself, as the political capital he impressively built in the first three months of his premiership (last summer) has collapsed due to multiple factors, economic and otherwise. (These local elections, therefore, mean a lot to his premiership insofar as voting momentum is concerned, despite the fact that they do not affect the make-up of Britain's national parliament.) Mr. Brown is hoping that his party's inevitable losses in council seats is "minimal"--which might mean the loss of only a few hundred seats. If, on the other hand, Labour gets pounded into the dirt again, it could spell further trouble for Mr. Brown, who many folks think is rather ineffectual as Prime Minister (under Mr. Blair's decade-long premiership Mr. Brown was a powerful, if controversial, Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position often considered second in influence only to the Prime Minister in British government). Actually, Mr. Brown might be suffering politically due more to circumstances such as the British fallout from the weakening U.S. economy and from people tiring of eleven years of Labour's national leadership.
By the way, these local elections in England and Wales mark the eleventh anniversary of Labour's 1997 national election victory, which swept eighteen years of Tory leadership away. The make-up of the national parliament's leadership may--I emphasize "may"--be poised to turn back in the Torys' direction in the next general election (to be held whenever the government decides, sometime before June of 2010), though obviously Mr. Brown hopes that this will not be the case. If he is perceived as a major electoral liability to his own party prior to the general election, they might decide to take drastic action and remove Mr. Brown in favor of someone else, though I doubt that will happen. If it does happen, I would recommend that Foreign Secretary David Milliband be inserted into the pre-election premiership; he's young (in his 40s), energetic, intelligent, and compelling in television interviews--and his foreign policy credentials are now impressive.
One way or the other, Tory Leader David Cameron is benefitting from recent events....
KEN VS. BORIS: LET THE VOTING (COMPLICATIONS) COMMENCE!
Voters in London, England are not just voting for local councillors, but for the position of Mayor of London, as well. And for the first time in quite some time, this year's race may come down to the wire. Under normal circumsances, that would be enough to set tongues wagging, but this year's mayoral election features a few added bonuses that are sure to have people discussing the election for months to come.
First of all, the two individuals with a chance to win the post, Ken Livingstone of the Labour Party and Boris Johnson of the Tory party, are not exactly "normal," even as far as politicians go. Mr. Livinstone is seeking re-election to the post, and as the current, multiple-term Mayor of London, he has been largely impressive on improving infrastructure and transportation needs in the city. He also has been mired by suggestions of scandal (nothing politically unusual there), his self-regard seems to have grown exponentially of late (again, nothing politically unusual), and he has a penchant for waxing lyrical in public about the fact that he doesn't flush his toilet if he only urinates (apparently, and hopefully, he does flush his toilet when he takes the proverbial "Number Two"). He is also known to pontificate on what he perceives as the wonderful qualities of his "friend" Hugo Chavez. And Boris Johnson is...well, let's just say that he makes Mr. Livingstone's eccentricities look fairly mild by comparison.
Complicating matters further is the fact that London will be using a "first and second choice" ballot for the mayoral race. This means that voters will select the candidate they prefer to be the mayor in one column, and then select the candidate who represents their second choice for the post in the next column. Normally this second column would not matter, as Mr. Livingstone has won handily in the past. This year, however, Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Johnson are running so close that, with several other minor candidate names on the ballot (as well as a member of the Liberal Democrat party, the other major national party, on the ballot), neither is likely to win a majority of the overall first preference vote. So--stay with me here--the second choices of those who voted for the minor party candidates will most likely determine which of the two gentlemen wins.
Oh, the pandering by these guys and their folks toward the minor party supporters that must be occurring behind the scenes must be extraordinary, particularly given the pandering that is occurring in public....
For his part, the Liberal Democrat candidate, Brian Paddick, seems content to publicly dislike both Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Johnson.
p.s. If Mr. Johnson pulls off a victory, it would be a windfall for Tory Leader David Cameron, who has openly supported him. (Prime Minister Brown has never seemed to like Mr. Livingstone.)
WHO CARES IF THEY DRINK FINE WINE OR MILLER HIGH LIFE...OR BOTH?
Kudos to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, Holly Bailey, and Richard Wolffe for their recent article (published in the May 5, 2008 edition of the magazine) on the U.S. presidential elections for bringing up the point that these presidential candidates have "the misfortune to run for the presidency in an age when reporters are watching, it seems, every time the candidate picks up a fork or orders a meal." Now, many people have pointed that out, but these three writers go on to discuss the dining and/or drinking habits of past presidents in order to give us a little more historical perspective on this topic.
They insinuate, rightly, that if many fine former presidents were scrutinized to such an extent--to determine whether or not we ought to label them "elite"--they would never have been elected. For instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led the United States through the Great Depression and the vast majority of World War II with steely determination, regularly drank martinis ("...beer--what's that?...") and used a cigarette holder (...oh, dear...) when he smoked. (And his accent, according to a class of British kids I taught several years ago who heard recordings of him speaking, sounded awfully upper-crust British in inflection.) For his part, when he had a choice, John F. Kennedy drank daiquiris. And so on.
Who cares what these politicians eat and/or drink? Who cares, for instance, if Senator Obama didn't eat the majority of french fries that came with his cheesesteak at a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania? Who cares if he (apparently) dislikes french fries? What does it matter?
Oh, yeah, I forgot--we demand that these presidential candidates be "just like us." (Which now evidently extends to their dining habits.) Well, folks, have you taken a look around of late? No one is "just like" you. No one. Everyone has their quirks and eccentricities and particular habits and so forth. So get over it. And, if by "just like us" we mean that they are like us in a "lowest-common-denominator" manner, can you imagine what their dining habits would be? Would we really care to be represented on the world stage in such a manner? I think not.
So pass those fries over, Senator Obama. I'll eat them (and I'd still vote for you).
And this is coming from me--a guy who likes fine red wines, but who nonetheless has a penchant for Miller High Life....
FINALLY, I'M WAITING ON SOME ACTION, EUGENE
I'm holding out hope that Eugene Robinson somehow saw my plea (from my previous post, below) for him to influence his fellow U.S. media colleagues in order to stop them from using the phrase "thrown under the bus" for, say, a six month cooling-off period. C'mon, Eugene, you can do it--you can affect positive vocabulary-related change in America.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Hey, Eugene, Let's Throw "...Under the Bus..." Under the Bus
I didn't want to have to do this, but I feel compelled to take a moment in order to wonder aloud (or, at any rate, in writing) why in the world an alarming percentage of U.S. national media figures are using the catch-phrase "...thrown under the bus..." to an alarming extent of late.
In the last two days, I have seen about an hour-and-a-half of national and cable news coverage in total (at various times during the early morning and evening), and the coverage I have seen has been on several networks: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and one of the three network news outlets. (I tend to watch very little network news, but when I do I try to shift between the big three networks so that I get a taste of what they're each reporting once or twice per week; this time around it was CBS.) In that span of time, I heard the phrase "...thrown under the bus..." no less than thirty times.
Now I know that some might suggest that it's quite natural to hear such a phrase uttered in a news cycle that includes the fact that Senator Obama seemed to have finally severed completely his ties with his former pastor, Revered Jeremiah Wright. It might be suggested, for instance, that the phrase would naturally be used in the following manner: "Today, Senator Obama finally threw Reverend Wright under the bus," which is to suggest that Senator Obama has finally had enough of the cantankerous preacher.
I take the point, but it astounds me that ostensibly-intelligent "pundit" types, many of whom have written lengthy books about the political or cultural issues of the day, would almost all choose to use the same quickly-ageing catch-phrase quite soon after someone else has used it. It suggests that one of two things is going on, the first being that these pundits have apparently bought wholesale into the notion that they need to use generic phrases in order to "fit in" with today's viewing audience. (I find this hard to believe, given that the pundits on MSNBC, the news outlet for the nerdiest of political junkies--a group of which I admit to being a member--must know that people are going to understand them if they vary their vocabulary, if only as an antidote to the banality of catch-phrase repetition, from time to time.)
The other possible reason for the recent obsessive use of this boring (yet weirdly brutal) phrase is that these media folks are so constantly caught up in their own cliquey groups that they don't see how narrow their topics of discussion are becoming...and therefore how confined and constrained (and just plain dull) the language they use to describe these topics is becoming.
If this group of people is part of what is meant by the term "chatty classes," we ought to either re-define the word "chatty" or, more to the point, come up with a new term to describe them, such as "vocabularly-challenged but nonetheless talkative classes."
Eugene Robinson (the Washington Post columnist and MSNBC political analyst, not the American football player) seems to me to be intelligent, open-minded, and not overly influenced by emotional appeals so much as interested in intellectual appeals. He also seems to focus roundtable political discussions on their broader societal implications, and therefore away from point-scoring "Gotcha'!"-moments. I think he's a smart guy. So I will send my blog-o-sphere appeal to him, in the hopes that he can get his co-workers to see sense on this issue:
29 April, 2008
Mr. Robinson,
Sir, please consider doing all that you can to get your colleagues to throw "...under the bus..." under the bus for, say, six months or so. This moratorium will provide everyone with some critical distance in order to evaluate whether this insanely-popular phrase is really worth uttering on a consistent basis. (My sense is that it is not worth it.)
Political wonks are smart--well, some of you are, at least. So please consider expanding your vocabulary to the point where it reflects the extent of your knowledge. (That might really tell us something about the varying levels of intelligence on display on political shows these days....) The best way to do this might be to find different angles on the news of the day, such as the ever-present presidential race.
For instance, perhaps you can discuss the international reaction to the continuing Democratic nomination race, and then move toward a state-by-state discussion of the individual primaries. Since you folks are members of the erudite "chatty classes," I will describe what I'm suggesting by using academic language: I would postulate that you invert your present micro- to sometimes (but not often enough) macro-discussion of the presidential race in such a manner that you would first look at the macro-reverberations and then focus on the micro-implications in order to see if there is any correlation and/or disconnect between how the race is viewed at the two levels. (And don't fake like you don't know what I mean--I know you understand me.) This is simply a suggestion....
Yours sincerely,
Hasslington
p.s. In listening to news reporters and analysts trying to out-utter each other insofar as the use of this phrase is concerned, I'm reminded of when I was about twelve or in my early teens and the overused word "awesome" was replaced temporarily with the overused word "radical" (the shortened version of which was "rad"). All I heard for about a year was "...that's radical..." or "...that's rad...." I was once asked by a schoolmate why I didn't use that term often. I rather naively replied, "I don't see how all of these things can be said to endorse a quick and sweeping alteration in government structures and methods of governing." And, again, Mr. Robinson, I know you know what I mean.
p.p.s. If you could do one more small thing for me, that would be great: please ask Joe Scarborough if he's actually ever been to Scarborough, England. (Or if he's been anywhere outside of Conservative-ville, for that matter.) I ask this because I think that particular not-so-old dog could still conceivably be taught a few new geocultural tricks....
In the last two days, I have seen about an hour-and-a-half of national and cable news coverage in total (at various times during the early morning and evening), and the coverage I have seen has been on several networks: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and one of the three network news outlets. (I tend to watch very little network news, but when I do I try to shift between the big three networks so that I get a taste of what they're each reporting once or twice per week; this time around it was CBS.) In that span of time, I heard the phrase "...thrown under the bus..." no less than thirty times.
Now I know that some might suggest that it's quite natural to hear such a phrase uttered in a news cycle that includes the fact that Senator Obama seemed to have finally severed completely his ties with his former pastor, Revered Jeremiah Wright. It might be suggested, for instance, that the phrase would naturally be used in the following manner: "Today, Senator Obama finally threw Reverend Wright under the bus," which is to suggest that Senator Obama has finally had enough of the cantankerous preacher.
I take the point, but it astounds me that ostensibly-intelligent "pundit" types, many of whom have written lengthy books about the political or cultural issues of the day, would almost all choose to use the same quickly-ageing catch-phrase quite soon after someone else has used it. It suggests that one of two things is going on, the first being that these pundits have apparently bought wholesale into the notion that they need to use generic phrases in order to "fit in" with today's viewing audience. (I find this hard to believe, given that the pundits on MSNBC, the news outlet for the nerdiest of political junkies--a group of which I admit to being a member--must know that people are going to understand them if they vary their vocabulary, if only as an antidote to the banality of catch-phrase repetition, from time to time.)
The other possible reason for the recent obsessive use of this boring (yet weirdly brutal) phrase is that these media folks are so constantly caught up in their own cliquey groups that they don't see how narrow their topics of discussion are becoming...and therefore how confined and constrained (and just plain dull) the language they use to describe these topics is becoming.
If this group of people is part of what is meant by the term "chatty classes," we ought to either re-define the word "chatty" or, more to the point, come up with a new term to describe them, such as "vocabularly-challenged but nonetheless talkative classes."
Eugene Robinson (the Washington Post columnist and MSNBC political analyst, not the American football player) seems to me to be intelligent, open-minded, and not overly influenced by emotional appeals so much as interested in intellectual appeals. He also seems to focus roundtable political discussions on their broader societal implications, and therefore away from point-scoring "Gotcha'!"-moments. I think he's a smart guy. So I will send my blog-o-sphere appeal to him, in the hopes that he can get his co-workers to see sense on this issue:
29 April, 2008
Mr. Robinson,
Sir, please consider doing all that you can to get your colleagues to throw "...under the bus..." under the bus for, say, six months or so. This moratorium will provide everyone with some critical distance in order to evaluate whether this insanely-popular phrase is really worth uttering on a consistent basis. (My sense is that it is not worth it.)
Political wonks are smart--well, some of you are, at least. So please consider expanding your vocabulary to the point where it reflects the extent of your knowledge. (That might really tell us something about the varying levels of intelligence on display on political shows these days....) The best way to do this might be to find different angles on the news of the day, such as the ever-present presidential race.
For instance, perhaps you can discuss the international reaction to the continuing Democratic nomination race, and then move toward a state-by-state discussion of the individual primaries. Since you folks are members of the erudite "chatty classes," I will describe what I'm suggesting by using academic language: I would postulate that you invert your present micro- to sometimes (but not often enough) macro-discussion of the presidential race in such a manner that you would first look at the macro-reverberations and then focus on the micro-implications in order to see if there is any correlation and/or disconnect between how the race is viewed at the two levels. (And don't fake like you don't know what I mean--I know you understand me.) This is simply a suggestion....
Yours sincerely,
Hasslington
p.s. In listening to news reporters and analysts trying to out-utter each other insofar as the use of this phrase is concerned, I'm reminded of when I was about twelve or in my early teens and the overused word "awesome" was replaced temporarily with the overused word "radical" (the shortened version of which was "rad"). All I heard for about a year was "...that's radical..." or "...that's rad...." I was once asked by a schoolmate why I didn't use that term often. I rather naively replied, "I don't see how all of these things can be said to endorse a quick and sweeping alteration in government structures and methods of governing." And, again, Mr. Robinson, I know you know what I mean.
p.p.s. If you could do one more small thing for me, that would be great: please ask Joe Scarborough if he's actually ever been to Scarborough, England. (Or if he's been anywhere outside of Conservative-ville, for that matter.) I ask this because I think that particular not-so-old dog could still conceivably be taught a few new geocultural tricks....
Monday, April 28, 2008
Various Notions, Volume 1
Welcome to the first of what I hope will become semi-regular postings of "Various Notions." In each volume, I hope to discuss several topics--in succession, not all at once. This will allow me to discuss some topics that seem discussion-worthy but that get put on the permanent back-burner as I focus on any one major topic at a time. It will also allow readers to let me know what topics I should pursue in more depth, if they choose to do so. (I will of course continue to provide single-issue "regular" posts, as well.)
So, here goes....
INDIA AS INTERNATIONAL POWER BROKER?
In my zeal to discuss what I (and others) view as the emerging mega-super-power alliances of North America/Europe on the one hand and China/Russia on the other (for more information on this topic, please see the "...Multi-Polar World..." post directly preceding this one, below), I neglected to mention the increasingly important role that India will have to play insofar as tipping the scales in one direction or another is concerned. I had planned to discuss India's emerging role, but I got caught up with discussing the principal players of the two alliances and simply forgot to give India its due. I hope to rectify that, at least a bit, right now.
According to the "U.S. Council on Foreign Relations" website, between 1992 and 2005 "bilateral trade between India and China has gone from $332 million in 1992 to $13.6 billion in 2005; in recent years, trade between those two countries has grown at or above the rate of 30% per year." And, given India's strong economic connections with South Africa (it accounts in a general sense for a majority of the "economic activity" in South Africa; connections between the two countries are woven indelibly into history, such as can be seen in the fact that prior to taking up his own country's struggles, Gandhi was involved heavily in similar struggles in South Africa), India could provide China, the latter of which has worked tirelessly over the past decade to create a foothold in many of Africa's various economies, with another big opportunity to make money and spread influence on that continent. (The U.S. and several E.U. countries, such as Britain and France, have countered with various proposals to further their own influence in Africa, ranging from energy development deals to the Bush Administration's military proposal "AFCOM.")
India has close ties to Europe, and particularly Great Britain (India was, of course, a British colony, and as such subject to the crown until just after World War II), so it's quite natural that it would do a lot of business with the European Union. And it has increased its ties to the U.S., as well: between 2001 and 2006, several international watch-dog groups reported that U.S. trade with India more than doubled; the U.S. and India are working in an increasingly close manner on energy development plans on the Indian subcontinent (which would provide greater energy sources for Indians while hopefully working to curb, at least to a certain extent, concerns regarding environmental fallout from the increased energy use such plans would put into effect); and President George W. Bush, working through Indian political leaders and U.S. ties to Indian commerce, has aggressively courted Indian business and industry, in the hopes of working to counterbalance China's influence in that critical country's economy.
India may very well find itself in the position of "International Power Broker" in the coming decades. By this I mean that, once the China/Russia alliance nears economic maturity (and therefore becomes a more powerful political partnership), India might choose to throw its growing influence a bit more behind one side or the other, which could and probably would tip the scales of power in favor of either the North America/Europe alliance or the China/Russia alliance. (This would greatly increase India's power and influence over one alliance or the other.) Or, India could do something very tricky indeed: it could somehow manage to continue to walk the tightrope between the two emerging mega-superpower groups, playing each side off of the other, to the consternation of both sides but the possible benefit (at least geo-politically) of India.
Remember, there are about a billion people in India, and with sales of new, low-cost cars presently soaring in major Indian cities--as well as with business and technology companies moving into India and setting deep roots there--its economy is poised to make a major impact on the world markets for decades to come. If you think we've already seen a good deal of the extent of India's economic influence on the global economy, think again.
ELWYN TINKLENBERG FOR CONGRESS
I often stay away from making public endorsements of particular political candidates. I simply tend to vote (at the polls if I'm in the U.S.; via absentee ballot if I'm in Europe) for the candidate I think is the best fit for each particular job. (Sometimes this has to do with each candidate's background experience; other times it has to do with policy proposals; most often, it's due to a combination of both.) This means that I don't cast votes in a party-partisan manner, though the majority of my votes tend to favor Democrats over Republicans.
I broke this non-endorsement trend when I endorsed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in July of 2007 (he has long-since impressed me both from the standpoint of background experience and the standpoint of domestic and foreign policy proposals). I am about to break it again.
I was born and raised in Minnesota, and recently I had the pleasure of attending a party at a friend's house in the Saint Paul suburbs. Present at the party was Elwyn Tinklenberg, who would soon go on to win the Democratic nod to challenge incumbent Republican Michele Bachman for the U.S. House of Representatives seat from Minnesota's 6th District. (He won the nod just this past weekend.) He is a former Minnesota Transportation Commissioner (he was picked to serve in the Ventura Administration, which he said came as "a big surprise to me"; he served during a time when Minnesota's roads were in better shape than they seem at present...) and a former mayor of the Twin Cities' suburb of Blaine.
Mr. Tinklenberg was surrounded by folks peppering him with questions when I arrived at the party, so I meandered elsewhere on the premises, but he surprised me by seeking me out in order to ask questions about the increasingly farcical mayoral race in London, England (between Ken "I-Love-Hugo-Chavez" Livingstone and Boris "I'm-A-Reminder-Of-What-Was-Wrong-When-The-Aristocracy-Controlled-Everything" Johnson), as well as my ideas regarding making the process of legal immigration to the United States more efficient (and thereby working in a productive and pragmatic manner to cut down on a certain amount of illegal immigration).
I cannot vote for Mr. Tinklenberg in the autumn election, as I do not live in his congressional district (in fact, I have never lived in his congressional district). He apparently knew that prior to talking to me, and it didn't seem to bother him, as we talked for twenty or twenty-five minutes, during which time I found him intelligent, well-schooled on domestic affairs, in possession of far more knowledge of foreign affairs than an "Average Joe" congressional nominee (and eager to learn more about foreign affairs), and often humorous.
He is also running against one of the most notoriously embarrassing members of the entire U.S. House of Representatives (of which there are 435 total members), Michele Bachman. Representative Bachman is notorious in the state of Minnesota for many depressing reasons, and she is rather infamous nationwide for "hugging" President George W. Bush on national television--immediately after he delivered a State of the Union Address a few years ago--in a manner that suggested she would soon have to cook him a hearty meal and buy him flowers while promising to "respect him in the morning."
Elwyn "El" Tinklenberg is a human being, and therefore has personal and political flaws (and he will have to overcome the emerging charge that he is overly "liberal" to fully represent the voters in his often Republican-leaning district), but he is also a sturdy and logical thinker, an engaging speaker, and an experienced politician. And he is surely an improvement over the one-person hijinks roadshow that is Ms. Bachman.
THEY JUST DON'T MAKE REDENBACHER-CLONES LIKE THEY USED TO
I'm beginning to think that Dr. Neil Clarke Warren (of eHarmony.com) looks like deceased popcorn guru Orville Redenbacher, and to a creepy extent. At the very least, he looks like what my memory suggests Orville Redenbacher looked like (I have yet to compare pictures of the two gentlemen; perhaps Dr. Warren looks a bit more like a cross between Mr. Redenbacher and Fred Rogers....).
The difference between Dr. Warren and Mr. Redenbacher, as far as I'm concerned, is that Dr. Warren does not have that naturally avuncular way about him that Mr. Redenbacher (and Mr. Rogers, for that matter) had. I just get the sense that Dr. Warren isn't the person his television commercials would suggest he is, though I have no real-life evidence for this.
Do you think Dr. Warren would have accepted either Mr. Redenbacher or Mr. Rogers into the pool of love-lorn potential love connections for the ladies of eHarmony.com, if those two gentlemen were still alive and suddenly became single people? Or would they be amongst the folks that Dr. Warren's organization rejects?
Why do I think that Dr. Warren would have rejected these fine gentlemen from his organization? Does he possess some insidious quality, hidden on the surface, that translates itself to others by osmosis? Or am I, for some reason, projecting such negative qualities onto him in a mean-spirited manner?
Or is this simply what happens when you eat popcorn (for the first time in six months or so) while watching television as an eHarmony.com commercial comes on?
V.P. PICKS (for the week of April 28, 2008)
Everyone else seems to be doing it, so why not me? Here are the people I think would currently make the best V.P. picks for Senators Obama and McCain (I am leaving Senator Clinton's possible V.P. picks off the list for now because she is presently trailing Senator Obama in the Democratic delegate count; this scenario will obviously change if she overtakes him--but there is really only one big leader on her list right now, anyway, given his...well...current lead over her: Barack Obama):
Barack Obama's Top Five
1.) Joe Biden. He's tough, tenacious, whip-smart in debates, experienced regarding foreign affairs, and he'd be the perfect tag-team partner to have swinging back at those who will throw mud at Senator Obama. He seems like more of a "president" than "vice president," but that's of little concern right now, given the superficial-but-oddly-effective ammunition the Republican attack machine now has to hurl at Senator Obama should he win the Democratic party's nomination.
2.) Wesley Clark. He's leapfrogged from about #6 to #2 because, as a supporter of Senator Clinton, a former (successful) military man, and a former candidate for the presidency (during which he learned a lot about successful vs. unsuccessful campaigning methods), he could unite both the Clintonian and the conservative wings of the Democratic party (often, though not always, the same thing) to Senator Obama's cause. He'd also score big points with independent voters, given the mixture of his Democratic politics and military service.
3.) Sam Nunn. He's a bit old for the V.P. job (he'll be 70 by the time the general election rolls around), but he's a foreign policy expert, an ex-three-term U.S. Senator, a successful businessman, and the head of the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative), which works to reduce the threat of nuclear warfare around the globe. He is also a Southerner who could put his state of Georgia in play.
4.) Bill Richardson. This guy has "Secretary of State" written all over him. His resume' is astounding (U.S. House of Representatives; U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.; U.S. Secretary of Energy; Governor of New Mexico; international hostage negotiator and liaison; etc.; etc.). He would make a great V.P. pick, too, for many reasons, including his potential appeal to Hispanics and independent voters...but the Clintonians presently hate him for endorsing Senator Obama. So choosing him for V.P. might be risky. I'd go with him for Secretary of State, should Senator Obama win the general election. He'd be a great choice for that post.
5.) Kathleen Sebelius. She is the present, popular Governor of Kansas who could bring that ruby-red state into play for the Democrats in the general election (and perhaps help tip the scales of nearby swing-states such as Missouri and Colorado). She is also, obviously, a woman, which might assuage some residual anger felt by many fervent Clinton supporters, a large percentage of whom are older white women (and older white women make up a large chunk of the Democratic party base). She isn't "too liberal" to be a drag on the ticket, and she isn't "too conservative" to turn off liberal voters. Her one drawback is that she lacks extensive foreign policy experience.
John McCain's Top Five
1.) Tom Ridge. He is pretty-much pro-choice on abortion, which may anger conservatives, but then again his potential boss, Senator McCain, is pro-life on that issue, so that drawback might be neutralized by that fact. He is tough-looking and tough-sounding, and he was a popular former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania (and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania), so he could really put pressure on the Democrats to spend-spend-spend in order to win Pennsylvania while the Republicans work hard elsewhere. He also served as the first Homeland Director (in the Department of Homeland Security), which is a benefit in that he knows that important playing field, but it is a detriment in that he might get tied too closely to the Bush Administration during the campaign season. At any rate, he projects strength, physical and otherwise, and he's not known for being "very-conservative," so he could appeal to independents in swing states.
2.) Rob Portman. Here are his drawbacks: he's worked in the Bush White House and he's an unknown quantity to "Average Joe" voters. He's also far, far less than exciting. Here's why he's #2 on this list: he's known to be a solid Director of the Office of Budget and Management (given what the Bush Administration has given him to work with); he has extensive foreign policy credentials (he was the head U.S. Trade Representative prior to working in the Office of Budget and Management); and he spent several terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, so he knows the ins and outs of that particular legislative body. He is also from a critical swing-state: Ohio.
3.) John Thune. He's from South Dakota, so that might hurt his chances. But he is young (47), was a multiple-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives, defeated then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle to become a member of the U.S. Senate (which won him a lot of political capital in his party), is more conservative than Senator McCain, and simply looks the part of "Refreshing Young Upstart." If several other possibilites fall apart, look for him to sneak into the running mate position.
4.) Tim Pawlenty. The Governor of Minnesota is young (47), conservative, and has won two terms as Minnesota's governor, which included winning re-election in a close 2006 race (when Republicans were radioactive and, in Minnesota, lost a lot of seats, both state-wide and nationally). He is also eerily--almost creepily--ingratiating in a home-spun sort of way, and he is from a swing-state. The drawbacks include the fact that his foreign policy experience, though improving, is still a bit sketchy, and it's an open question whether he could deliver Minnesota's ten electoral votes in November (though he could help with nearby states Wisconsin and Iowa). He is also a long-time friend of Senator McCain.
5.) Sarah Palin. Why not? Who cares if she's the Governor of already-conservative Alaska? She's female, young (44), conservative, and attractive (and those four aspects might be just what Senator McCain needs insofar as balancing the ticket is concerned). She does not have a lot of foreign policy experience, and she hasn't been governor for long, but her approval ratings are through the roof, and her concern for global warming issues shows that she has a maverick streak that dovetails with Senator McCain's.
* (Note: I left other names, such as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, off the list because they have shown little appetite for the job of V.P. We'll see if that lasts.)
Friday, April 25, 2008
The New Multi-Polar World and the Continuation of American Exceptionalism
I was speaking with an acquaintance other day (he a European, me a North American) and, after discussing topics such as baseball and the peculiarities of spring weather in the Midwest, the topic of America's role in this rapidly changing world came up. (Some people would tend stick with discussing baseball and the weather, but I have a strong nerd-streak that runs to an alarming extent through the very fiber of my being, so....) One of the things we discovered that we agreed upon (instantly, as a matter of fact) was the idea that the New World--and, in particular, the United States, as well as Canada--will in the coming years increasingly become a part of the Old World (Europe), and vice versa.
Necessity would seem to dictate such an increased affiliation, due to the rise of China as a major world superpower (which threatens America's primacy), as well as the rise of Russia as a major energy supplier to Asia and (if Russia has its way) nearly the entirety of Europe. Much of Europe has been balking of late at Russia's increasingly belligerent methods of influencing the direction the European Union takes (which have included, but have not been limited to, Russia cutting off oil supplies to former Soviet Republics it feels are cozying up too much to Western Europe; forcing legitimate European oil companies out of disputed "Russian" territory; flying old but functional Cold War military aircraft over U.K. airspace; etc.). For its part, the United States is increasingly on edge regarding the rapid economic rise of China (a former student of mine lives in China, and she reports that every eight months or so the country seems to expand economically at an amazing rate, which serves to change both the inward and outward landscape of that country on a constant basis).
This would put China and Russia, always heretofore somewhat suspicious of one another, in the position of forming a strategic partnership, with Russia a major energy supplier (and emerging economic power) and China a major economic power with the purse-strings to bring the influence of both itself and the Kremlin to bear on much of the rest of the world. We are already seeing this played out in the U.N., where China and Russia have been voting in very similar manners on worldwide (particularly Middle Eastern) matters to an increasing extent of late.
Hence, North America and Europe would also be put in the position of consolidating their enormous strengths, economic and otherwise, in order to offset the rise of these primarily Asian countries. With the continuing consolidation of the European Union creating an ever more united Europe, and with both the E.U. and the U.S. eyeing favorably the eventual expansion of just about all E.U. privileges (and, by extention, American influence) into just about every former Soviet Republic (and with the U.S. poised to place missile defense systems ever closer to the Russian border), the new fault lines are being drawn.
What we're left with is an increasingly strong indication that there will be on the one hand a new "Transatlantic Old World Alliance," made up of ever more integral ties between what we now call the Old World (Europe) and what we now call the New World (North America, Australia, etc.). Hence, the United States will become a major, major part of the Old World. On the other side of the scale there will be an "Asian New World Alliance," made up of the ever-expanding new economic power of China and Russia. (I realize that some of Russia is technically on the European continent; let's let that slide in order to avoid confusion.)
This is not "new" news, at least not to Europeans, who have been speculating about this in increasing levels of intensity since the end of the Cold War. Their predictions, by and large, have thus far come to pass, and all indications are that they will continue to do so. This scenario is a bit newsworthy for many North Americans, however, who have tended to continue to be a bit more aloof regarding geopolitics and view themselves as a bit "apart" from the rest of the world. But just listen carefully to what John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have been saying of late regarding the future of transatlantic relations, and pay close attention to increasing American political alignment with European Union policy, and you will see what we're getting at.
And look at the increasingly unified positions of the Chinese/Russians vs. the increasingly unified positions of the North Americans/Europeans regarding broad policies (though not always in regards to exact, specific policies...at least not yet) in the energy-rich Middle East.... That may be one of the fronts in a coming New Cold War between those two camps.
So where does that leave us "Yanks," as the Brits often call us Americans (regardless of where in the U.S. we are from)? If necessity dictates that we become more interdependent with our old allies--and it does--what does that suggest about the notion of "American Exceptionalism," which argues that we are at root very unique, even when compared to Western Europe, in our underlying values and social patterns? Does it mean that it will fade?
No. It will simply adapt where it needs to, as suggested in a wonderful new article from The Economist magazine (an international publication dedicated to financial, political, and cultural discussion), published in its "Lexington" section, which deals with American topics. I will provide bits of the article here as a snippet into what our American mindset in the not-too-distant-future may look like, at the end of which I will provide a link to the full article for those who are interested.
The only thing that I would say as a qualifier is that this article deals heavily with the coming U.S. presidential election, whereas what it has to say could very well be indicative of overall trends in the U.S., regardless of who is elected in any one election. I think the idea that American "values" will be utilized to alter certain operating procedures in the U.S. towards a more Western European norm, but one that is still distinctly American-unique, is accurate. And let's not forget that though Americans will most likely become slightly more "European" in the coming years, Europeans have become a lot more "American" over the past several decades....
It's food for thought, anyway.
Only in America
Apr 24th 2008
The Economist
America's Particularities Will Survive George Bush
...All countries are exceptional. But America likes to think of itself as exceptionally exceptional, different from other advanced industrial countries not just in its social arrangements but also in its underlying values....
...The current Bush administration, with its commitment to conservative values at home and assertiveness abroad, is the most exceptional administration in recent years. But [a new book] raises a new question: is a new cycle, dominated by a rejection of conservatism and a convergence with West European norms, about to dawn?
...Americans strongly favour the introduction of universal health care. They are also desperate to improve their global image. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to introduce the former. All three candidates have promised to improve the latter. The next administration will undoubtedly see significant moves, such as the closing of Guantánamo Bay or the adoption of stronger environmental regulations, that will be intended to make America less of an outlier.
But look at the 2008 election—the one that is supposed to be changing the direction of the country—and American exceptionalism seems to be as strong as ever. Where else do primary elections go on for well over a year? Where else do candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? And where else do the party rank-and-file (as well as some non-party people) get a chance to choose the candidate for the top job? Gordon Brown became Britain's prime minister without a single ordinary Briton casting a vote. John McCain won his party's nomination despite the opposition of a large chunk of his party. Mr Obama is leading an uprising against his party's old establishment.
The various campaigns have often invoked American exceptionalism, especially the strength of its religious feeling. Mrs Clinton has stressed her credentials as a cradle Methodist who once thought of becoming a minister. Even before the Jeremiah Wright affair, Mr Obama spoke at length about how he found purpose in life when he discovered God. The only odd thing about this election is the fact that the Democratic candidates both seem more comfortable with God-talk than Mr McCain.
All three candidates preach a peculiarly American style of patriotism. Mr McCain invokes his military service in Vietnam, when he learnt to depend on something greater than himself. Mr Obama argues that there is not a red America or a blue America but one America united by common values. All three candidates wax lyrical about the American dream. And by European standards all three candidates are strikingly willing to sanction the use of force....
More Liberal Is Not Less American
...A Democratic hat-trick in November would certainly produce a more liberal America, with more government involvement in providing health care and protecting the environment. But it will be a liberal America of an exceptionally American kind, not a facsimile of Europe. Both candidates have rejected the “single-payer” health-care model popular in Canada and Europe. Instead they advocate a very American solution—allowing people who are happy with their private health coverage to keep what they have but then using a mixture of mandates and subsidies to extend coverage. And even modest changes will be endlessly diluted. The world may be transfixed by the presidential campaign. But the president's powers...are remarkably limited, qualified not just by Congress and the courts but also by the states and the localities.
The big change coming is not the end of American exceptionalism but the end of American triumphalism. Winning the cold war left many Americans intoxicated with power. Even Bill Clinton boasted about America as the “indispensable nation”—a country that stood taller and saw farther than its rivals. The mood is very different today. The main challenge facing the next president will not be to blunt American exceptionalism, but to make sure that American triumphalism is not replaced by a grumpy and irresponsible isolationism.
Necessity would seem to dictate such an increased affiliation, due to the rise of China as a major world superpower (which threatens America's primacy), as well as the rise of Russia as a major energy supplier to Asia and (if Russia has its way) nearly the entirety of Europe. Much of Europe has been balking of late at Russia's increasingly belligerent methods of influencing the direction the European Union takes (which have included, but have not been limited to, Russia cutting off oil supplies to former Soviet Republics it feels are cozying up too much to Western Europe; forcing legitimate European oil companies out of disputed "Russian" territory; flying old but functional Cold War military aircraft over U.K. airspace; etc.). For its part, the United States is increasingly on edge regarding the rapid economic rise of China (a former student of mine lives in China, and she reports that every eight months or so the country seems to expand economically at an amazing rate, which serves to change both the inward and outward landscape of that country on a constant basis).
This would put China and Russia, always heretofore somewhat suspicious of one another, in the position of forming a strategic partnership, with Russia a major energy supplier (and emerging economic power) and China a major economic power with the purse-strings to bring the influence of both itself and the Kremlin to bear on much of the rest of the world. We are already seeing this played out in the U.N., where China and Russia have been voting in very similar manners on worldwide (particularly Middle Eastern) matters to an increasing extent of late.
Hence, North America and Europe would also be put in the position of consolidating their enormous strengths, economic and otherwise, in order to offset the rise of these primarily Asian countries. With the continuing consolidation of the European Union creating an ever more united Europe, and with both the E.U. and the U.S. eyeing favorably the eventual expansion of just about all E.U. privileges (and, by extention, American influence) into just about every former Soviet Republic (and with the U.S. poised to place missile defense systems ever closer to the Russian border), the new fault lines are being drawn.
What we're left with is an increasingly strong indication that there will be on the one hand a new "Transatlantic Old World Alliance," made up of ever more integral ties between what we now call the Old World (Europe) and what we now call the New World (North America, Australia, etc.). Hence, the United States will become a major, major part of the Old World. On the other side of the scale there will be an "Asian New World Alliance," made up of the ever-expanding new economic power of China and Russia. (I realize that some of Russia is technically on the European continent; let's let that slide in order to avoid confusion.)
This is not "new" news, at least not to Europeans, who have been speculating about this in increasing levels of intensity since the end of the Cold War. Their predictions, by and large, have thus far come to pass, and all indications are that they will continue to do so. This scenario is a bit newsworthy for many North Americans, however, who have tended to continue to be a bit more aloof regarding geopolitics and view themselves as a bit "apart" from the rest of the world. But just listen carefully to what John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have been saying of late regarding the future of transatlantic relations, and pay close attention to increasing American political alignment with European Union policy, and you will see what we're getting at.
And look at the increasingly unified positions of the Chinese/Russians vs. the increasingly unified positions of the North Americans/Europeans regarding broad policies (though not always in regards to exact, specific policies...at least not yet) in the energy-rich Middle East.... That may be one of the fronts in a coming New Cold War between those two camps.
So where does that leave us "Yanks," as the Brits often call us Americans (regardless of where in the U.S. we are from)? If necessity dictates that we become more interdependent with our old allies--and it does--what does that suggest about the notion of "American Exceptionalism," which argues that we are at root very unique, even when compared to Western Europe, in our underlying values and social patterns? Does it mean that it will fade?
No. It will simply adapt where it needs to, as suggested in a wonderful new article from The Economist magazine (an international publication dedicated to financial, political, and cultural discussion), published in its "Lexington" section, which deals with American topics. I will provide bits of the article here as a snippet into what our American mindset in the not-too-distant-future may look like, at the end of which I will provide a link to the full article for those who are interested.
The only thing that I would say as a qualifier is that this article deals heavily with the coming U.S. presidential election, whereas what it has to say could very well be indicative of overall trends in the U.S., regardless of who is elected in any one election. I think the idea that American "values" will be utilized to alter certain operating procedures in the U.S. towards a more Western European norm, but one that is still distinctly American-unique, is accurate. And let's not forget that though Americans will most likely become slightly more "European" in the coming years, Europeans have become a lot more "American" over the past several decades....
It's food for thought, anyway.
Only in America
Apr 24th 2008
The Economist
America's Particularities Will Survive George Bush
...All countries are exceptional. But America likes to think of itself as exceptionally exceptional, different from other advanced industrial countries not just in its social arrangements but also in its underlying values....
...The current Bush administration, with its commitment to conservative values at home and assertiveness abroad, is the most exceptional administration in recent years. But [a new book] raises a new question: is a new cycle, dominated by a rejection of conservatism and a convergence with West European norms, about to dawn?
...Americans strongly favour the introduction of universal health care. They are also desperate to improve their global image. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to introduce the former. All three candidates have promised to improve the latter. The next administration will undoubtedly see significant moves, such as the closing of Guantánamo Bay or the adoption of stronger environmental regulations, that will be intended to make America less of an outlier.
But look at the 2008 election—the one that is supposed to be changing the direction of the country—and American exceptionalism seems to be as strong as ever. Where else do primary elections go on for well over a year? Where else do candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month from their supporters? And where else do the party rank-and-file (as well as some non-party people) get a chance to choose the candidate for the top job? Gordon Brown became Britain's prime minister without a single ordinary Briton casting a vote. John McCain won his party's nomination despite the opposition of a large chunk of his party. Mr Obama is leading an uprising against his party's old establishment.
The various campaigns have often invoked American exceptionalism, especially the strength of its religious feeling. Mrs Clinton has stressed her credentials as a cradle Methodist who once thought of becoming a minister. Even before the Jeremiah Wright affair, Mr Obama spoke at length about how he found purpose in life when he discovered God. The only odd thing about this election is the fact that the Democratic candidates both seem more comfortable with God-talk than Mr McCain.
All three candidates preach a peculiarly American style of patriotism. Mr McCain invokes his military service in Vietnam, when he learnt to depend on something greater than himself. Mr Obama argues that there is not a red America or a blue America but one America united by common values. All three candidates wax lyrical about the American dream. And by European standards all three candidates are strikingly willing to sanction the use of force....
More Liberal Is Not Less American
...A Democratic hat-trick in November would certainly produce a more liberal America, with more government involvement in providing health care and protecting the environment. But it will be a liberal America of an exceptionally American kind, not a facsimile of Europe. Both candidates have rejected the “single-payer” health-care model popular in Canada and Europe. Instead they advocate a very American solution—allowing people who are happy with their private health coverage to keep what they have but then using a mixture of mandates and subsidies to extend coverage. And even modest changes will be endlessly diluted. The world may be transfixed by the presidential campaign. But the president's powers...are remarkably limited, qualified not just by Congress and the courts but also by the states and the localities.
The big change coming is not the end of American exceptionalism but the end of American triumphalism. Winning the cold war left many Americans intoxicated with power. Even Bill Clinton boasted about America as the “indispensable nation”—a country that stood taller and saw farther than its rivals. The mood is very different today. The main challenge facing the next president will not be to blunt American exceptionalism, but to make sure that American triumphalism is not replaced by a grumpy and irresponsible isolationism.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Senator Clinton: Shot-Drinker, Gun-Shooter, Ass-Kicker! Yeehaw!
It is most likely the case that I will support whichever candidate is nominated by the Democratic party to be the next president of the United States. It used to be a certainty that I would support either Senator Obama (my preferred candidate) or Senator Clinton against Senator McCain. But, of late, Senator Clinton's electoral tactics have been increasingly outrageous, and it astounds me that our national media hasn't been as quick as many international media outlets have been to jump all over a few of her more eye-popping recent statements. (It should be pointed out that these statements have been uttered on national television for all to see.)
Take, for instance, Senator Clinton's response to a question asked during the Pennsylvania debate that centered on whether she would use nuclear weapons against Iran if that country were to attack Israel. Her response, clearly aimed at the knee-jerk, culturally myopic "ass-kicking" audience, focused on the assertion that she would create a "nuclear umbrella" that surrounds most of the Middle East, and that American nuclear arms could very well be used if and when any nation in that region with even tangential connections to the United States is attacked...in just about any manner...from just about any country. (Does she really mean to suggest that we would risk a catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East--which could expand beyond the Middle East quite quickly and easily--in order to protect the United Arab Emirates from just about any aggressive attack?) This would tear up all of the existing (and in my opinion, largely deliberate and correct) rules of American nuclear engagement, and would represent a sort of "Cowboy-Response" that even the current Bush Administration would publicly suggest is "going too far."
Several days later (and just a day or so prior to the Pennsylvania primary), Senator Clinton followed her "nuclear umbrella" statement--which was left largely and unaccountably unchallenged by our oh-so-erudite national media outlets--with another statement ostensibly aimed at the Iranian leadership (but really aimed at playing on the ignorance of Middle Eastern nuances on the part of many American voters). This new statement, which was uttered again on national television, was so bellicose I initially laughed...until I realized that she wasn't being facetious. The statement, once again in response to the question of what a potential Clinton Administration might do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, was as follows:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
I suppose that Senator Clinton is responding to our odd national John Wayne Complex, which stems from our often apparent psychological "need" to have a mighty military man-ish person as our nation's chief executive (whether it be a real military individual, such as John McCain or Dwight Eisenhower; or an actor who channels military-themed scenes from movies so realistically that people actually think he's describing a real-life scenario, such as Ronald Reagan; or someone who loves to strutt about a stage like a starry-eyed juvenile, yelling "Semper Fi!" in front of actual military personnel, such as George W. Bush). This is a worrying sort of psychological quirk (particularly given the fact that the position of Commander-in-Chief is not at all like that of a field general anyway...), but it's still relatively pervasive in this country, so I can understand why Senator Clinton is trying to appeal to those who adhere to it--particularly given that she is a woman, and therefore automatically (and wrongly) viewed as somehow "weak" by a certain segment of the population because of that fact.
But in working this angle, Senator Clinton has developed an unhealthy fixation on demonizing Iran, particularly when added to the fact that she voted to designate the Iranian Guard a "terrorist organization," something which Senators Biden and Dodd rightfully voted against. If she is elected president, her actions in these regards will most likely (and quite predictably) serve only to stoke anti-American sentiment inside Iran, which in turn can only hurt what small semblance of progress we have made in Iraq (given Iran's now obviously-growing influence in that country). It would also serve to delay (if not totally "obliterate") any progress we might be able to contribute to making insofar as lessening tensions in the Middle East is concerned. Furthermore, it would surely continue to strain the already-strained relations between both the U.S. and China and the U.S. and Russia, as both China and Russia are eyeing expanding alliances with oil-rich, ostensibly anti-American countries like Iran as a step toward getting a major foothold in the Middle East...and perhaps eventually muscling-in on previously pro-American footholds in the region.
And need I suggest what sort of message Senator Clinton's statements would send to radicalizing elements both inside Iran and throughout the region? I didn't think so. Let's just note that what such statements do for radical Islamist-recruitment could represent the worst type of fallout from Senator Clinton's position on Iran.
By contrast, Senator Obama has been deliberate and open-minded regarding how we deal with Iran, while still taking a tough line on Iranian nuclear weapon development. For his part, Senator McCain has taken a harder-line on the issue than has Senator Obama, but not as hard a line as that espoused by Senator Clinton. (Like Senator Obama, he continues to suggest that he will keep all options open, and he thus far continues to refrain from both immediately taking confrontational stances and using terms like "obliterate" when describing the potential use of nuclear weapons.) That's right, Senator Clinton is running to the right of the Republican candidate on this very important issue....
It seems to me that Governor Bill Richardson's idea that we slowly and cautiously work with Iran over a period of years to develop Iranian civilian nuclear power, utilizing largely American technology and largely American scientists and labor, which would thereby tie that country closer to us in a somewhat dependent manner, is the way to go. American, European, and U.N. overseers would have to be stationed in Iran in order to see the transition through and make sure that clandestine nuclear operations, if attempted, are halted. This would create a permanent, somewhat-moderating influence on the Iranian government. (This is not to say that this happens overnight or in a naive manner; it needs to be seriously considered and carefully done, and we have to make it clear to Iran that it must drop its anti-Israeli rhetoric prior to us cooperating with them. And, of course, there will be set-backs along the way.) I suggest this because if we don't enter into some semblance of long-term agreement with the Iranians, China and/or Russia will, and both of those countries may very well become part of a Sino-Russian Superpower team, against which the North America-European Superpower team will be pitted in the coming decades. And one of the "New Cold War" battlefronts might very well be the energy-rich Middle East. But that is a post for another time....
In the meantime, Senator Clinton, who is far smarter than she has let on of late, has got to stop appealing emotionally to our worser, culturally-insular natures, lest we continue to look as ignorant as some of those we presently oppose. Her statements might be electorally expedient in places like rural Pennsylvania, but they also may very well box her into a tricky national- and geo-political corner in the long run. If she were to somehow pull off the Democratic nomination, what got her there might be the same thing that makes Senator McCain look like a realistic, moderating influence in comparison to her.
Take, for instance, Senator Clinton's response to a question asked during the Pennsylvania debate that centered on whether she would use nuclear weapons against Iran if that country were to attack Israel. Her response, clearly aimed at the knee-jerk, culturally myopic "ass-kicking" audience, focused on the assertion that she would create a "nuclear umbrella" that surrounds most of the Middle East, and that American nuclear arms could very well be used if and when any nation in that region with even tangential connections to the United States is attacked...in just about any manner...from just about any country. (Does she really mean to suggest that we would risk a catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East--which could expand beyond the Middle East quite quickly and easily--in order to protect the United Arab Emirates from just about any aggressive attack?) This would tear up all of the existing (and in my opinion, largely deliberate and correct) rules of American nuclear engagement, and would represent a sort of "Cowboy-Response" that even the current Bush Administration would publicly suggest is "going too far."
Several days later (and just a day or so prior to the Pennsylvania primary), Senator Clinton followed her "nuclear umbrella" statement--which was left largely and unaccountably unchallenged by our oh-so-erudite national media outlets--with another statement ostensibly aimed at the Iranian leadership (but really aimed at playing on the ignorance of Middle Eastern nuances on the part of many American voters). This new statement, which was uttered again on national television, was so bellicose I initially laughed...until I realized that she wasn't being facetious. The statement, once again in response to the question of what a potential Clinton Administration might do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, was as follows:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
I suppose that Senator Clinton is responding to our odd national John Wayne Complex, which stems from our often apparent psychological "need" to have a mighty military man-ish person as our nation's chief executive (whether it be a real military individual, such as John McCain or Dwight Eisenhower; or an actor who channels military-themed scenes from movies so realistically that people actually think he's describing a real-life scenario, such as Ronald Reagan; or someone who loves to strutt about a stage like a starry-eyed juvenile, yelling "Semper Fi!" in front of actual military personnel, such as George W. Bush). This is a worrying sort of psychological quirk (particularly given the fact that the position of Commander-in-Chief is not at all like that of a field general anyway...), but it's still relatively pervasive in this country, so I can understand why Senator Clinton is trying to appeal to those who adhere to it--particularly given that she is a woman, and therefore automatically (and wrongly) viewed as somehow "weak" by a certain segment of the population because of that fact.
But in working this angle, Senator Clinton has developed an unhealthy fixation on demonizing Iran, particularly when added to the fact that she voted to designate the Iranian Guard a "terrorist organization," something which Senators Biden and Dodd rightfully voted against. If she is elected president, her actions in these regards will most likely (and quite predictably) serve only to stoke anti-American sentiment inside Iran, which in turn can only hurt what small semblance of progress we have made in Iraq (given Iran's now obviously-growing influence in that country). It would also serve to delay (if not totally "obliterate") any progress we might be able to contribute to making insofar as lessening tensions in the Middle East is concerned. Furthermore, it would surely continue to strain the already-strained relations between both the U.S. and China and the U.S. and Russia, as both China and Russia are eyeing expanding alliances with oil-rich, ostensibly anti-American countries like Iran as a step toward getting a major foothold in the Middle East...and perhaps eventually muscling-in on previously pro-American footholds in the region.
And need I suggest what sort of message Senator Clinton's statements would send to radicalizing elements both inside Iran and throughout the region? I didn't think so. Let's just note that what such statements do for radical Islamist-recruitment could represent the worst type of fallout from Senator Clinton's position on Iran.
By contrast, Senator Obama has been deliberate and open-minded regarding how we deal with Iran, while still taking a tough line on Iranian nuclear weapon development. For his part, Senator McCain has taken a harder-line on the issue than has Senator Obama, but not as hard a line as that espoused by Senator Clinton. (Like Senator Obama, he continues to suggest that he will keep all options open, and he thus far continues to refrain from both immediately taking confrontational stances and using terms like "obliterate" when describing the potential use of nuclear weapons.) That's right, Senator Clinton is running to the right of the Republican candidate on this very important issue....
It seems to me that Governor Bill Richardson's idea that we slowly and cautiously work with Iran over a period of years to develop Iranian civilian nuclear power, utilizing largely American technology and largely American scientists and labor, which would thereby tie that country closer to us in a somewhat dependent manner, is the way to go. American, European, and U.N. overseers would have to be stationed in Iran in order to see the transition through and make sure that clandestine nuclear operations, if attempted, are halted. This would create a permanent, somewhat-moderating influence on the Iranian government. (This is not to say that this happens overnight or in a naive manner; it needs to be seriously considered and carefully done, and we have to make it clear to Iran that it must drop its anti-Israeli rhetoric prior to us cooperating with them. And, of course, there will be set-backs along the way.) I suggest this because if we don't enter into some semblance of long-term agreement with the Iranians, China and/or Russia will, and both of those countries may very well become part of a Sino-Russian Superpower team, against which the North America-European Superpower team will be pitted in the coming decades. And one of the "New Cold War" battlefronts might very well be the energy-rich Middle East. But that is a post for another time....
In the meantime, Senator Clinton, who is far smarter than she has let on of late, has got to stop appealing emotionally to our worser, culturally-insular natures, lest we continue to look as ignorant as some of those we presently oppose. Her statements might be electorally expedient in places like rural Pennsylvania, but they also may very well box her into a tricky national- and geo-political corner in the long run. If she were to somehow pull off the Democratic nomination, what got her there might be the same thing that makes Senator McCain look like a realistic, moderating influence in comparison to her.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
If He Wins This Extended Democratic Nomination Race, Senator Obama Will Need a Running Mate With Sharp Teeth
Senator Clinton's recent ten-point (or thereabouts) win in the Pennsylvania primary did not come about in a general atmosphere of political positivity; it occurred when the tone and content of the political discourse, at least insofar as the remaining Democratic candidates is concerned, turned increasingly more muddied and muddled. Instead of nuanced discussions of Iran (and, at a broader level, Middle East) policy, there were suggestions of "obliteration" regarding that particular nation state in conjunction with its potential for aggressive behavior that could heavily affect its various neighbors; instead of discussing the necessity to show national pride through a mindset, both individual and collective in manner, focused on improving policies in order to restore a more palpable sense of our national and self worth, there were discussions of why it is apparently trendy to wear American flag pins on one's lapel; instead of....
Forget it; I could go on forever, but that would put most readers into a depressive state, and at any rate I believe that I have made my point.
Yet we must remember the fact (and it is still a fact) that, though Senator Clinton has been given a new lease on presidential life due to her Pennsylvania win, Senator Obama nonetheless continues to lead by a not insubstantial margin in total pledged delegates. This scenario seems to indicate a few things, amongst them the following: 1.) at this point, Senator Obama is still more likely than Senator Clinton to win the Democratic nomination; 2.) the process of winning that nomination will continue to be long and tough--a real time-consuming, grueling campaign slog--and the candidate who eventually concedes (I'm hoping that a concession occurs at some point prior to the convention in the late summer) may not do so until the final votes (discounting the Florida and Michigan messes, which still need to be cleared-up in some fashion) on June 3, or perhaps even afterward; 3.) the negative, rather superficial tone that permeated the goings-on in Pennsylvania seems to have helped Senator Clinton, so it would seem a matter of course that she would continue in that vein, whether she wants to or not; and, finally, 4.) given all of this, it strikes me that, were he to win the Democratic nomination in this protracted, increasingly insidious race, Senator Obama will need a running mate with sharp teeth come the final, post-convention two months leading up to election day in November of this year.
This is to suggest that a somewhat hobbled Senator Obama (again, if he wins the nomination) will in the autumn be dealing with fending off the notion that he may not be as electable as many first thought, as well as dealing with the fallout from other assorted potentially harmful topics (the Reverend Wright scenario; Lapel-pin-gate; having lost several big battleground states to Senator Clinton in the primaries; and so forth). He may therefore need a fighting bulldog of a running mate who can counter-attack the Republican ticket and the Republican attack machine (which will be working overtime, given all that it now has to work with), on matters both trivial and substantive in matter, in a manner that forces Senator McCain and his potential running mate back on the defensive, so that Senator Obama can focus more exclusively on policy issues, both domestic and foreign in nature, in an above-the-fray manner. (I realize that this is a delicate balancing act to achieve in that Senator Obama cannot look like he is "stooping" to the level of getting sucked-in to discussing non-issues in a less-than-presidential manner, but he also must not be seen as too aloof on such matters that he appears to be wimpily hiding behind his running mate. But the necessity of having a running mate that can attack so that Senator Obama is on the defensive less often seems increasingly important, given the current conditions.)
Previous to this point, two individuals were tied for first on my list of potential running mates for Senator Obama: former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. However, because of their somewhat anti-confrontational natures (at least in comparison to my new number one choice), they have dropped to tied for second on my list (which is admittedly still very high in the rankings, given that only one person has leapfrogged in front of them). They remain high on the list because of their strong electoral and policy qualifications, which I will discuss before I discuss the individual who I now think would be the very best choice to be Senator Obama's running mate.
Sam Nunn
Sam Nunn is a former four-term U.S. Democratic Senator who will be seventy years old at the time of the general election in November, which contrasts nicely with Senator Obama's relative youth and would not be much of an issue in the "Is he too old?" variety because he is about two years younger than Senator McCain. In fact, his age would suggest that older Democrats can and have decided to align themselves with the young upstart from Illinois. His ethnicity--he is white--would balance nicely with Obama's minority status.
Nunn is from Georgia, and he is considered a popular figure in that state. As Obama won the Georgia Democratic primary, and as Georgia has been targeted by some people in the Obama camp as a southern state (along with the likes of Louisiana) in which under certain conditions their candidate might be able to compete in a competitive manner in the general election, placing Nunn on the ticket might open that particular door to the South. And, of course, if a Midwesterner (such as Obama) is leading the ticket, Nunn's presence would help to balance things geographically, as well, and it would give independent-minded Southerners who otherwise might shrug their shoulders and vote for the Republican candidate another option when they are in the voting booth. (It would also force the Republicans to put more time, money, and resources into securing the South than they would otherwise want to, leaving some battleground states a bit more open for the Democrats to take.)
Nunn is also more conservative than Obama, which would help assuage fears that Obama would take the country into a heavily tax-and-spend direction. Nunn is a successful businessman, which would reassure folks who point out that Obama has never run a business and/or met a payroll. And, since leaving the Senate, Nunn has for several years been the director of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (which he helped establish), which works to reduce the threat of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons throughout the world; his previous national security and internationalist credentials, already strong, were utilized to create the N.T.I., which has only strengthened those credentials.
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson made exactly two enemies during his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president: Bill and Hillary Clinton. And even that didn't occur until well after Richardson folded up his presidential operations and, after a long period of deliberation, endorsed Barack Obama's bid during a very difficult week for Obama (he really helped save Obama's rear end from continued bad press just prior to Easter, in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy). Other than the dust-up with the Clintons, Richardson proved to be a very personable and accessible candidate, and he proved to appeal in a particularly strong manner to small groups of people as well as on a one-on-one basis, which contrasts nicely with Obama, who appeals to large gatherings of people but is sometimes stiff and a bit aloof in small groups. Also, Richardson's ideas have been incorporated to a somewhat surprising extent by both Clinton and Obama, an example of which is his idea that the U.S. must begin immediately and systemmatically withdrawing troops from Iraq regardless of present conditions on the ground, which neither Clinton nor Obama supported until recently.
Richardson's resume' is eye-popping: he spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, after which he was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He left that job to become the U.S. Energy Secretary during a low point in its existence (and, aside from the Lee scandal, he was able to "right" that bureaucratic ship to a large extent), after which he became the popular two-term Governor of New Mexico, the job that he continues to hold. (Term limits will force him out of that particular office in January of 2011.) He has been an international hostage negotiator, a liaison for the U.S. to many foreign countries, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a total of five times (though he has yet to win it).
Richardson is also Hispanic, which would help because Obama has struggled to win the votes of Hispanics, particularly those over the age of thirty-five. He is a governor, so he has chief executive experience (which Obama does not have), and his is a swing-state that Bush barely won in 2004 and Gore barely won four years previous to that. He is also from the Southwest, which contrasts nicely with Obama's Midwestern base, and it should be pointed out that the Southwest is still growing quickly in population and changing quickly as far as demographics go, so it's an increasingly important area of the country, electorally speaking.
Yet the fact that Richardson is Hispanic means that, if added to the ticket, the Democrats would be offering two minorities to voters nationwide (as opposed to a minority and a white person), which may not necessarily appeal to culturally conservative blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" from rustbelt states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. Furthermore, some of the more fervent Clinton supporters dislike Richardson for his support of Obama after having worked in the Clinton White House. Also, the politically personable Richardson may or may not be comfortable in the role of "attack dog," which is sometimes required of a Vice President. In many ways, his background suggests that he would make a superb Secretary of State; if I were Senator Obama, I'd ask Richardson to fill that extremely important role.
So, if Sam Nunn and Bill Richardson are great "second" choices for the V.P. slot, who is now the best choice? Given his sometimes larger-than-life personality and presidential gravitas, my suggestion for the individual who should be Obama's running mate is one that I previously thought would not be a good choice in that he could have served to dwarf Obama on a number of fronts, but who now looks like the perfect fit given his experience, intelligence, and very strong debating skills: U.S. Senator Joe Biden, from Delaware.
Joe Biden
"Joe Biden looks like a Founding Father," someone recently remarked in my presence while watching him discuss the potential electoral strengths that whoever is nominated by the Democrats for the presidency might bring to bear against John McCain. Yes, as he moves through his sixties (he is presently sixty-five years old), he looks increasingly as though his picture belongs on the fifty dollar bill (or whatever). But he also often sounds like a Founding Father in that he is authoritative, experienced, philosophical, often passionate, and whip-smart insofar as making points and counter-points is concerned. He brings instant gravitas to any discussion, and when he speaks he tends to have those who agree with him nodding along enthusiastically, and those who disagree with him at least respecting him for the manner in which he constructs his arguments. These are strong characteristics for a potential running mate to display. (He is also a conviction-based individual who is often a bit intimidating, which can be a good thing to have in a presidential running mate, as well as sometimes long-winded and self-congratulatory, which can be a bit of a detriment.)
Joe Biden has served as a United States Senator from Delaware for over thirty-five years (nearly six full terms; he is up for re-election in the autumn, and, if he is not part of a winning presidential team, he will most likely win a seventh term). During that time, he has been a ranking member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. As a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he authored the "Violence Against Women Act," which stiffened penalties against individuals who committed physical crimes against women (which would tend to appeal to a number of Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters, among others), and he promoted college aid and loan programs that allowed families to deduct thousands of dollars from their taxes due to higher education costs (which would tend to appeal to middle class Americans struggling to pay for their and/or their children's higher education costs). As the current Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is exceptionally well-informed on foreign affairs, well-acquainted with major political players throughout the world, and in possession of foreign policy and national security credentials that are beyond question. He is, simply put, very, very experienced in many of the ways that Senator Obama is not.
He has also never backed-away from a fight, and he argues with the best of them (and often beats the best, because he's one of them). He won nearly every 2007/2008 Democratic presidential debate he participated in prior to dropping out of the race following the Iowa results in January, which was due more to lack of funds to spread his message than anything else. He grilled Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing to become the Secretary of State, but not in a coarse, mean-spirited way--he challenged her on the president's policies and never let her rest on her credentials alone when answering questions. He took both General Petraeus and Ambassador (to Iraq) Crocker to task for several of the answers they provided to his committee regarding the Iraq scenario on several occasions recently, while still treating them with the respect they rightfully deserve.
He makes the television rounds seemingly several times weekly (maybe even daily), taking the Bush Administration to task for their failure to recognize the complexities at work in various areas of foreign affairs and policy (President Bush once famously said to him, "But I don't do nuance...."), complete with facts and almost-always accurate cultural readings of the realities at work in various countries throughout the world. His plan to reduce the violence in Iraq by federalizing that country, a "nuanced" counter-proposal to the present Bush "surge" strategy, won passage by a whopping three-to-one margin in the U.S. Senate (including the votes of many Republican senators) prior to being rejected by the president. He is greatly respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle (including Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain), and no one ever seems eager to get into a debate with him, given his ability to project both professorial intelligence and "Average Joe" common sense during such scenarios.
His drawbacks are few but could prove problematic. First of all, his is a major, major personality; he is not one to fade into the background...for anybody...so he might tend to dominate the proceedings even when he isn't attempting to do so (he's really more of a president-type than he is a vice president-type), though this can be offset by what would most likely be his constant willingness to fight for his potential boss's (Obama) viewpoints. Thus, his tendency to upstage folks might need to be constantly monitored. Also, he is from Delaware, and if the Democratic nominee doesn't win Delaware, he/she doesn't win much of anything--so he's not going to be able to "deliver" his own state in the sense that it's not a critical swing-state. (Delaware's neighboring state of Maryland is similarly solidly Democratic.)
But do candidates really "deliver" states like they used to? I'm not so certain; the rules may have changed as far as that's concerned. No, Biden won't "deliver" a critical state or region, but he would be broadly acceptable to both the Obama people (who revere his experience) and the Clinton people (who revere his leadership abilities). He has stayed away from endorsing either Democratic candidate thus far, which has kept his options open, and he has impressively defended his party's stances on the issues in relation to Senator McCain's stances while the two Democratic candidates have been preoccupied with each other, which suggests that he can and will continue to do the same once a nominee is settled upon.
And, again, the guy just looks presidential.
If the Republican attack machine revs up to a great extent against a potential Democratic Nominee Obama, the Democrats may very well want Senator Biden on the ticket to fight back, quite capably, all the way to the election in November, and afterwards, as well.
Forget it; I could go on forever, but that would put most readers into a depressive state, and at any rate I believe that I have made my point.
Yet we must remember the fact (and it is still a fact) that, though Senator Clinton has been given a new lease on presidential life due to her Pennsylvania win, Senator Obama nonetheless continues to lead by a not insubstantial margin in total pledged delegates. This scenario seems to indicate a few things, amongst them the following: 1.) at this point, Senator Obama is still more likely than Senator Clinton to win the Democratic nomination; 2.) the process of winning that nomination will continue to be long and tough--a real time-consuming, grueling campaign slog--and the candidate who eventually concedes (I'm hoping that a concession occurs at some point prior to the convention in the late summer) may not do so until the final votes (discounting the Florida and Michigan messes, which still need to be cleared-up in some fashion) on June 3, or perhaps even afterward; 3.) the negative, rather superficial tone that permeated the goings-on in Pennsylvania seems to have helped Senator Clinton, so it would seem a matter of course that she would continue in that vein, whether she wants to or not; and, finally, 4.) given all of this, it strikes me that, were he to win the Democratic nomination in this protracted, increasingly insidious race, Senator Obama will need a running mate with sharp teeth come the final, post-convention two months leading up to election day in November of this year.
This is to suggest that a somewhat hobbled Senator Obama (again, if he wins the nomination) will in the autumn be dealing with fending off the notion that he may not be as electable as many first thought, as well as dealing with the fallout from other assorted potentially harmful topics (the Reverend Wright scenario; Lapel-pin-gate; having lost several big battleground states to Senator Clinton in the primaries; and so forth). He may therefore need a fighting bulldog of a running mate who can counter-attack the Republican ticket and the Republican attack machine (which will be working overtime, given all that it now has to work with), on matters both trivial and substantive in matter, in a manner that forces Senator McCain and his potential running mate back on the defensive, so that Senator Obama can focus more exclusively on policy issues, both domestic and foreign in nature, in an above-the-fray manner. (I realize that this is a delicate balancing act to achieve in that Senator Obama cannot look like he is "stooping" to the level of getting sucked-in to discussing non-issues in a less-than-presidential manner, but he also must not be seen as too aloof on such matters that he appears to be wimpily hiding behind his running mate. But the necessity of having a running mate that can attack so that Senator Obama is on the defensive less often seems increasingly important, given the current conditions.)
Previous to this point, two individuals were tied for first on my list of potential running mates for Senator Obama: former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. However, because of their somewhat anti-confrontational natures (at least in comparison to my new number one choice), they have dropped to tied for second on my list (which is admittedly still very high in the rankings, given that only one person has leapfrogged in front of them). They remain high on the list because of their strong electoral and policy qualifications, which I will discuss before I discuss the individual who I now think would be the very best choice to be Senator Obama's running mate.
Sam Nunn
Sam Nunn is a former four-term U.S. Democratic Senator who will be seventy years old at the time of the general election in November, which contrasts nicely with Senator Obama's relative youth and would not be much of an issue in the "Is he too old?" variety because he is about two years younger than Senator McCain. In fact, his age would suggest that older Democrats can and have decided to align themselves with the young upstart from Illinois. His ethnicity--he is white--would balance nicely with Obama's minority status.
Nunn is from Georgia, and he is considered a popular figure in that state. As Obama won the Georgia Democratic primary, and as Georgia has been targeted by some people in the Obama camp as a southern state (along with the likes of Louisiana) in which under certain conditions their candidate might be able to compete in a competitive manner in the general election, placing Nunn on the ticket might open that particular door to the South. And, of course, if a Midwesterner (such as Obama) is leading the ticket, Nunn's presence would help to balance things geographically, as well, and it would give independent-minded Southerners who otherwise might shrug their shoulders and vote for the Republican candidate another option when they are in the voting booth. (It would also force the Republicans to put more time, money, and resources into securing the South than they would otherwise want to, leaving some battleground states a bit more open for the Democrats to take.)
Nunn is also more conservative than Obama, which would help assuage fears that Obama would take the country into a heavily tax-and-spend direction. Nunn is a successful businessman, which would reassure folks who point out that Obama has never run a business and/or met a payroll. And, since leaving the Senate, Nunn has for several years been the director of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (which he helped establish), which works to reduce the threat of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons throughout the world; his previous national security and internationalist credentials, already strong, were utilized to create the N.T.I., which has only strengthened those credentials.
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson made exactly two enemies during his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president: Bill and Hillary Clinton. And even that didn't occur until well after Richardson folded up his presidential operations and, after a long period of deliberation, endorsed Barack Obama's bid during a very difficult week for Obama (he really helped save Obama's rear end from continued bad press just prior to Easter, in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy). Other than the dust-up with the Clintons, Richardson proved to be a very personable and accessible candidate, and he proved to appeal in a particularly strong manner to small groups of people as well as on a one-on-one basis, which contrasts nicely with Obama, who appeals to large gatherings of people but is sometimes stiff and a bit aloof in small groups. Also, Richardson's ideas have been incorporated to a somewhat surprising extent by both Clinton and Obama, an example of which is his idea that the U.S. must begin immediately and systemmatically withdrawing troops from Iraq regardless of present conditions on the ground, which neither Clinton nor Obama supported until recently.
Richardson's resume' is eye-popping: he spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, after which he was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He left that job to become the U.S. Energy Secretary during a low point in its existence (and, aside from the Lee scandal, he was able to "right" that bureaucratic ship to a large extent), after which he became the popular two-term Governor of New Mexico, the job that he continues to hold. (Term limits will force him out of that particular office in January of 2011.) He has been an international hostage negotiator, a liaison for the U.S. to many foreign countries, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a total of five times (though he has yet to win it).
Richardson is also Hispanic, which would help because Obama has struggled to win the votes of Hispanics, particularly those over the age of thirty-five. He is a governor, so he has chief executive experience (which Obama does not have), and his is a swing-state that Bush barely won in 2004 and Gore barely won four years previous to that. He is also from the Southwest, which contrasts nicely with Obama's Midwestern base, and it should be pointed out that the Southwest is still growing quickly in population and changing quickly as far as demographics go, so it's an increasingly important area of the country, electorally speaking.
Yet the fact that Richardson is Hispanic means that, if added to the ticket, the Democrats would be offering two minorities to voters nationwide (as opposed to a minority and a white person), which may not necessarily appeal to culturally conservative blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" from rustbelt states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. Furthermore, some of the more fervent Clinton supporters dislike Richardson for his support of Obama after having worked in the Clinton White House. Also, the politically personable Richardson may or may not be comfortable in the role of "attack dog," which is sometimes required of a Vice President. In many ways, his background suggests that he would make a superb Secretary of State; if I were Senator Obama, I'd ask Richardson to fill that extremely important role.
So, if Sam Nunn and Bill Richardson are great "second" choices for the V.P. slot, who is now the best choice? Given his sometimes larger-than-life personality and presidential gravitas, my suggestion for the individual who should be Obama's running mate is one that I previously thought would not be a good choice in that he could have served to dwarf Obama on a number of fronts, but who now looks like the perfect fit given his experience, intelligence, and very strong debating skills: U.S. Senator Joe Biden, from Delaware.
Joe Biden
"Joe Biden looks like a Founding Father," someone recently remarked in my presence while watching him discuss the potential electoral strengths that whoever is nominated by the Democrats for the presidency might bring to bear against John McCain. Yes, as he moves through his sixties (he is presently sixty-five years old), he looks increasingly as though his picture belongs on the fifty dollar bill (or whatever). But he also often sounds like a Founding Father in that he is authoritative, experienced, philosophical, often passionate, and whip-smart insofar as making points and counter-points is concerned. He brings instant gravitas to any discussion, and when he speaks he tends to have those who agree with him nodding along enthusiastically, and those who disagree with him at least respecting him for the manner in which he constructs his arguments. These are strong characteristics for a potential running mate to display. (He is also a conviction-based individual who is often a bit intimidating, which can be a good thing to have in a presidential running mate, as well as sometimes long-winded and self-congratulatory, which can be a bit of a detriment.)
Joe Biden has served as a United States Senator from Delaware for over thirty-five years (nearly six full terms; he is up for re-election in the autumn, and, if he is not part of a winning presidential team, he will most likely win a seventh term). During that time, he has been a ranking member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. As a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he authored the "Violence Against Women Act," which stiffened penalties against individuals who committed physical crimes against women (which would tend to appeal to a number of Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters, among others), and he promoted college aid and loan programs that allowed families to deduct thousands of dollars from their taxes due to higher education costs (which would tend to appeal to middle class Americans struggling to pay for their and/or their children's higher education costs). As the current Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is exceptionally well-informed on foreign affairs, well-acquainted with major political players throughout the world, and in possession of foreign policy and national security credentials that are beyond question. He is, simply put, very, very experienced in many of the ways that Senator Obama is not.
He has also never backed-away from a fight, and he argues with the best of them (and often beats the best, because he's one of them). He won nearly every 2007/2008 Democratic presidential debate he participated in prior to dropping out of the race following the Iowa results in January, which was due more to lack of funds to spread his message than anything else. He grilled Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing to become the Secretary of State, but not in a coarse, mean-spirited way--he challenged her on the president's policies and never let her rest on her credentials alone when answering questions. He took both General Petraeus and Ambassador (to Iraq) Crocker to task for several of the answers they provided to his committee regarding the Iraq scenario on several occasions recently, while still treating them with the respect they rightfully deserve.
He makes the television rounds seemingly several times weekly (maybe even daily), taking the Bush Administration to task for their failure to recognize the complexities at work in various areas of foreign affairs and policy (President Bush once famously said to him, "But I don't do nuance...."), complete with facts and almost-always accurate cultural readings of the realities at work in various countries throughout the world. His plan to reduce the violence in Iraq by federalizing that country, a "nuanced" counter-proposal to the present Bush "surge" strategy, won passage by a whopping three-to-one margin in the U.S. Senate (including the votes of many Republican senators) prior to being rejected by the president. He is greatly respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle (including Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain), and no one ever seems eager to get into a debate with him, given his ability to project both professorial intelligence and "Average Joe" common sense during such scenarios.
His drawbacks are few but could prove problematic. First of all, his is a major, major personality; he is not one to fade into the background...for anybody...so he might tend to dominate the proceedings even when he isn't attempting to do so (he's really more of a president-type than he is a vice president-type), though this can be offset by what would most likely be his constant willingness to fight for his potential boss's (Obama) viewpoints. Thus, his tendency to upstage folks might need to be constantly monitored. Also, he is from Delaware, and if the Democratic nominee doesn't win Delaware, he/she doesn't win much of anything--so he's not going to be able to "deliver" his own state in the sense that it's not a critical swing-state. (Delaware's neighboring state of Maryland is similarly solidly Democratic.)
But do candidates really "deliver" states like they used to? I'm not so certain; the rules may have changed as far as that's concerned. No, Biden won't "deliver" a critical state or region, but he would be broadly acceptable to both the Obama people (who revere his experience) and the Clinton people (who revere his leadership abilities). He has stayed away from endorsing either Democratic candidate thus far, which has kept his options open, and he has impressively defended his party's stances on the issues in relation to Senator McCain's stances while the two Democratic candidates have been preoccupied with each other, which suggests that he can and will continue to do the same once a nominee is settled upon.
And, again, the guy just looks presidential.
If the Republican attack machine revs up to a great extent against a potential Democratic Nominee Obama, the Democrats may very well want Senator Biden on the ticket to fight back, quite capably, all the way to the election in November, and afterwards, as well.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Who Is The Stronger Democratic Candidate, Obama or Clinton? If Our Collective Paradigm Has Shifted, It's Obama; If Not, It's Clinton
Much attention has focused of late on the Pennsylvania Democratic primary (to be held tomorrow, April 22, 2008), and, given the tight nature of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, that is perhaps rightfully the case. (It should be pointed out, however, that a lot of us could do without the twenty-four hour Pennsylvania exhaustion-fest offered up by cable news programs. It seems to be affecting the folks who bring us the news, as well--the normally goofy-yet-somehow-ingratiating Pennsylvanian Chris Matthews, for instance, seems to be spinning out of orbit in front of our very eyes due to what he obviously views as the "excitement." I suppose that is why even news junkies enjoy having other television options....)
Yes, the all-important Pennsylvania primary will indeed be interesting for those who like this sort of stuff to assimilate, though the race will most likely go on to the all-important Indiana and North Carolina races, and from there perhaps on to other all-important races, as well--perhaps ending in the all-important Montana and South Dakota races on June 3...or even going on from there in a "Democratic Summer of Our Discontent" manner. (If that happens, we may lose Matthews and a few other long-standing pundits to the political stratosphere before the convention.)
Yet getting caught-up in the individual races, and even in the overall delegate count, tends to blur what ought to be one of the real areas of constant and sharp focus for Democrats, Independents, and other interested, politically-minded people--that area of focus being whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is the stronger candidate to take on Senator McCain in November of this year. That should, after all, be a major factor regarding why people vote in the caucuses and primaries the way they do (and the others factors, such as political experience, particular policy stances, and issues of character, naturally filter into the "who is stronger" debate, anyway).
I suspect that this issue is not examined, at least at a consistent level, as much as it might be due largely to the fact that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very strong candidates; to have survived and even thrived in a Democratic field that included such initially strong candidates (in the areas of experience, policy, and character) as Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, as well as Governor Bill Richardson, is proof positive of that. And both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama represent particular paradigm-shifts--she would be the first ever female presidential nominee; he would be the first ever African-American presidential nominee. So it's quite naturally the case that the two remaining candidates, neither of whose intelligence can be called into question, have been examined by many elements of the media, and many voters, from rather non-traditional angles.
Yet there is a huge difference between them that I think gives us insight into which one is the "most electable" come November, and, at a more general level, where our country is in terms of mindset, both at a national and international level. The difference is far more complex than any one blog-post (such as this one) could suggest, but it basically comes down to this: if our national paradigm has shifted--that is, if we have sociologically and culturally shifted our mindset as it applies to both domestic and foreign affairs--Barack Obama is the stronger of the two candidates. If, on the other hand, our paradigm has essentially remained the same as it has been since the end of the Cold War (and perhaps well before then), Hillary Clinton is the stronger of the two candidates.
We have heard an endless parade of "Change" chants since November of 2006 (the presidential campaign really began after the mid-term election results were reported that month), to the point where the three remaining candidates (including John McCain) are still hammering away at the theme in a consistent manner. (This is probably as it should be, given the various failures of the Bush II White House.) From the McCain camp, the message is clear: You're frustrated with the president, and so are we (our guy doesn't even really like him, and feels as though he should have been the Republican nominee in 2000, anyway), so we'll change things in that we'll patch up the leaky ship and carry on like the good conservatives, with occasional maverick streaks, we are. There will be no major paradigm shift; there will be no major overhauls. There will be small changes that will represent the "correct" way--as opposed to the rather confused Bush's "incorrect" way--to steer a conservative ship through national and international waters.
Yet the message is not immediately as clear from the Democrats, which is most likely due to the fact that they want to have it both ways: they want to project the notion that America is ready to "Change" things with a capital "C" in that we are ready to embark on a new national unifying cause or series of unifying causes that affect us as well as people throughout the world in positive ways, but they also want to project the notion that America needs to "change" with a small "c" in that we should work within our existing system(s) to tweak, fix, etc., things in a more comprehensive and aggressive manner than McCain is proposing--so that it benefits all Americans more equally--but in a somewhat similar, traditional mindset to that which McCain is channeling.
"Change" with a big "C" suggests that we shift how we view the very nature of American power and leadership; "change" with a small "c" is a more conservative set of ideas that suggests that we can restore ourselves to the rightful "balance" we held prior to the Bush years without having to re-align our world view. Whereas in many ways they agree on policy, this "Change"/"change" duality is what most separates Senators Obama and Clinton, as well as the majority (though certainly not all) of their supporters.
Senator Obama more often than not represents "Change" with a big "C," and Senator Clinton often represents "change" with a small "c." Many of Senator Obama's supporters see his candidacy as the chance for a necessary shift away from what they view as the existing, antiquated paradigm of the United States being a bit of an isolated island-republic (albeit on a continent), apart from the rest of the world, living a rather insular and provincial existence. Senator Obama's policy ideas bear this out: whereas Senator Clinton would not negotiate with leaders from such countries as Iran and Venezuela because she "...will not be used for propaganda purposes....," Senator Obama is far more open to the idea of doing so; he seems less concerned with losing a little presidential luster in the short term than he is with American public relations in what he views as a radically changing world in the long term.
Whereas Senator Clinton takes the older, more traditional view (which is not necessarily a bad thing) that one must "earn" the right to speak to the most powerful person (and leader of the most powerful country) in the world--which makes the process one in which the balance of the onus is on the party wishing to engage the United States--Senator Obama takes the view that America is ready to lead in a different, more collegial way. He suggests that the U.S. should more often take the initiative in extending a hand to potential adversaries throughout the world, which is a sign that we are willing to engage with just about anyone--and for a president or Secretary of State to meet with controversial leaders will prove that we are willing to do so--if those the president or Secretary of State meets with are similarly willing to reciprocate in such a way that they are serious about ditching their current untenable stances for ones that better parallel other successful countries. Senator Clinton's more traditional stance is one that includes more rules for engagement, whereas Senator Obama's more (might he call it "modern," "post-modern"?) stance is one that calls for America to be more initially disarming in its sudden shift in paradigm, which may lead to surprisingly positive results.
Obviously, both candidates are a mixture of these two "Change" and "change" viewpoints at the foreign level, and they both are far less conservative and insular than is President George W. Bush, but these are the trend lines, and it should come as no surprise that their advocates are often (if not always) of the same mindsets. For just a couple of examples, look to rather conservative-Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, a potential Clinton V.P. or cabinet pick with both domestic and foreign credentials who is a strong advocate of many of the "restrained and cautious" methods of reestablishing American legitimacy abroad, which he views as stemming from Senator Clinton's political experience and subsequent vision of the world; and look to New Mexico Governor (and former U.N. Ambassador) Bill Richardson, a potential Obama V.P. or Secretary of State pick, who advocates full-on diplomatic engagement with Iran, the end result of which might be (according to Richardson) a partnership in which the U.S. helps build Iran a civilian nuclear power base and thereby creates heretofore non-existent ties with Iran, establishes a cooperative partnership at the civilian and government levels with Iran, and because of economic benefits to both countries, eventually diffuses potential armed-nuclear tensions. (Is it any wonder why Senator Clinton, who voted to name the Iranian Guard a "terrorist" organization, and Bill Richardson, a huge critic of that vote, fell out with each other?)
The same goes for the domestic agenda. Senator Clinton is appealing to people in more micro-manners (people who are struggling with child care crises and who are struggling with the high price of gas relative to what it was a few years ago are largely gravitating toward her), and her pointed and specific proposals, when taken as a whole, would do surprisingly little to change the overall operating structure of the government. She suggests that she is a good enough manager to tweak the system where it needs to be tweaked, and she is probably right. Whether those tweaks are sustainable over a twenty- or thirty-year period is what might be called into question, but many of her supporters are presently more focused on the short-term.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, while well-versed on individual issues and willing to tweak where the system needs it, is often less explicit regarding certain precise domestic policies than his opponent. He is instead far more focused on the overall mindset of the country; his is the view that systems and conditions alter positively only when Americans come to the conclusion that we need to take on a more thoughtful view of ourselves and the world, which includes a shift away from a provincial-focused mindset that nonetheless does not totally disregard what was good in the old mindset so much as incorporates it with what is necessary to know about the world as a whole. It's a more multi-level, long-term approach to...just about everything, really...and it should therefore come as no surprise that his supporters have a tendency to be more academically educated and more economically affluent than Senator Clinton's supporters. He seems more interested in change at the macro-level.
The question we are left with, then, is where are American voters, when taken as a whole, at present? I don't know. Based on recent caucuses and primaries in potential swing-states, if Ohio, for instance, is indicative of where we are, then Senator Clinton's world-view might be the stronger one on which to run in November, and she would be the stronger candidate. But if the Upper Midwest (Minnesota; Wisconsin) is indicative, then the opposite would be true and Barack Obama would be the stronger candidate. If Florida is any indication, almost every recent poll suggests that Senator Clinton is far stronger than Senator Obama. But if Virginia is more indicative of the overall mindset of the country, Senator Obama should be the nominee.
Only time will tell where we are, both at the domestic and geo-political levels. Meanwhile, two very strong candidates continue to slug it out with one another in a very close race. That this is still a competitive race, even after all this time, may be the most telling indication of where we are as a country: standing at a three-pronged fork in the road (when Senator McCain is factored in), presently torn regarding which path to take.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Iraq Elephant vs. Non-Issues That Set the Pundits' Pants on Fire
In one of its Thursday headlines, one European news outlet described Wednesday evening's ABC Democratic presidential debate in the following straight-forward language: "Worst. Debate. Ever." It's hard for anyone who saw the debacle to disagree, at the very least in regards to the first (by my count) fifty-plus minutes, during which not a single substantive issue, either domestic or foreign in nature, was discussed. Not one.
Iraq? No. Energy security? No. The faltering national and, in many ways, international economy? No. Afghanistan? Education? Iran? The national deficit? Various humanitarian crises? The devaluing dollar? Free trade versus protectionism? American public relations with the rest of the world? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. And, though some (certainly not all) of these issues made appearances later in the debate, they were like periscopes in enemy water; they popped up as brief, intricate antidotes to the superficial nature of just about everything that had happened beforehand, and then quickly ducked out of sight, as if to signal that, if we make the mistake of showing it, we ought to quickly re-hide our better natures, lest anyone think that we are capable of nuanced discussion.
And so, in this uncertain and critical era, and one in which the very nature of American leadership is at stake, those of us with a self-crucifying nature sat through over fifty minutes of tabloid-esque handling of such apparently-"weighty" issues as which candidate has been punched in the face the most by Republicans in the past; why anyone would have the gall to avoid wearing American flag pins on his lapel when an increasingly-large, zombie-like portion of the population wears such "patriotic" symbols as a matter of course; why a few short-sighted, emotional comments made several years ago by a friend of one of the candidates--and not that candidate himself--should take up at the very least twenty minutes of discussion during an event that is being viewed by people in every country around the world; why two of the remaining multi-millionaire candidates for the most powerful position in the world think the third mulit-millionaire candidate for the most powerful position in the world is "elitist"; why it's a bad idea to suggest that you valiantly stayed strong in the face of enemy sniper fire while strolling in Europe with the comedian Sinbad, who has a penchant for wearing purple pants and not coming under enemy sniper fire; and why it's crucial to discuss the actions of a lonely, politically dissident English professor (because politically dissident English professors are so uncommon...) that took place thirty years ago.
If alien life forms exist outside of this planet, if they have any sentient level of intelligence, and if they hadn't decided one way or the other prior to Wednesday night, they have now come to the overwhelmingly obvious decision to stay the hell away from Earth.
That being said, it is incumbent upon those of us who sat through the brain-eradicating proceedings to try to find something of some relative substance amidst the nonsense and at least make an effort to discuss it. And, my goodness, after almost an hour of this farcical fare it struck me that, yes, there is a God, after all, because the issue of Iraq came up (apparently accidentally). That either candidate could say anything about it at all after going through such a public lobotomy was amazing.
What each candidate said about it was even more eye-opening, for it confirmed the fact that Bill Richardson's unwavering 2007 stance on the Iraq scenario, which was that American forces should pull out of the country within one year of the new president taking office--and be accompanied with a diplomatic surge, more cooperation with our allies throughout the world and the countries within close proximity of Iraq, and dual coordination with the U.N. regarding how Iraq transitions towards standing on its own two feet--is now, with certain alterations in the way of time-lines and the like, the position taken by both Senator Clinton and Obama. Let's remember that as recently as November of 2007, both of these candidates declared that "conditions on the ground" would determine whether or not we would pull our forces out of Iraq immediately if at all in their potential first terms in office. This is a huge change of mindset.
Said Charlie Gibson to Senator Clinton, as he quoted a question previously asked of Senator Clinton's communication's director: "...is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month whatever the realities on the ground?"
Said Senator Clinton in response: "Yes, I am, Charlie.... I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq.... I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within sixty days [of taking the oath of office]...."
Said Charlie Gibson to Senator Obama: "Your campaign manager...said, when [Obama] is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in sixteen months at the most; there should be no confusion about that."
Said Senator Obama in response: "...we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out...ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."
This is an extraordinary change in strategy for the two remaining Democratic candidates. Whereas they once were cautious regarding making statements related to pulling out combat troops, et all, from Iraq, they are now both committed to doing so. Though they both suggest that their current plans could alter somewhat, they are nonetheless strongly in favor of taking major steps along the Richardsonian path regarding the present Iraq scenario. The fact that such an immense alteration in these policy stances has occurred should also have been discussed in relative depth, but the commentators most likely started feeling as though we'd moved into territory that was a little too complex and relevant for anyone's own good, and therefore felt safer moving on to the next subject.
I remain a strong supporter of the good work of Governor Bill Richardson, and I am proud that I supported his bid for the Democratic nomination, which withered in January (along with everyone else's bid, except for those of Senators Clinton and Obama). I continue to feel that his energy strategies were the strongest and most pragmatic of all of the Democratic or Republican candidates, as were his education proposals, his internationalist credentials, and so forth.
That being said, I must admit that my one sticking point with Governor Richardson was his rather uncompromising stance on the Iraq scenario, which has been adopted to a large extent by Senators Clinton and Obama. Though his plan to remove our troops in a relatively short period of time was multi-layered and impressive, and though I agree with him that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder (given that weapons of mass destruction were not found and it now seems clear that they were monkeyshines), it is nonetheless the case that we did indeed invade Iraq, and by leaving in such a precipitous manner, we might be inviting as much trouble as we solve in that agents of chaos may very well take over portions of that country, potentially turning it into a terrorist training ground. It's brutal to put it this way, but as the old saying goes, if you break it, you buy it. We've spent a lot of money breaking and buying Iraq (and, unfortunately, "buying it" in Iraq).
Make no mistake about it, I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion of Iraq has not made us safer and more secure as a nation, and I similarly agree that it has cost thousands of American lives and a lot of money to come to what continues to look like an uncertain end, whenever that end will be. But is pulling out of the country in such a seemingly uncompromising manner a good solution (or at least a workable one), or might it be a naive and potentially dangerous solution to an awful problem?
I don't like Senator McCain's "anti-surrender" rhetoric; Iraq is a far more complicated problem than such simplistic declarations suggest, and the use of such language makes Americans seem as though we are no wiser about this fact than we were in 2003. But I also don't like the thought that 4,000-plus Americans may have died for very little, and for a presidential candidate to tie her- or himself to a relatively uncompromising pull-out policy may prove to be politically expedient but also policy-confining if conditions change.
The Democrats are largely right about the war in Iraq. But, if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama wins the general election in November, they may also be boxing themselves into a corner from which they have very few improvisational moves should some be required to deal with the ever-changing situation in Iraq after Inauguration Day.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Democrats Need to Smarten-Up, or McCain Will Continue to Gain
Senator Joe Biden, seasoned and tenured Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made an appearance on "Countdown with Keith Olberman" on MSNBC tonight. I have a few observations regarding his appearance, and they each have at least something to do with the current status of the presidential race.
First of all, even with Iowa's somewhat antiquated 15% threshold rule on caucus night (any given candidate must receive 15% of the votes during the first few rounds of haggling at any given caucus site, or else he/she is declared illegitimate at that site), how in the world did Biden receive only 1% of the votes in that crucial opening caucus state? The experienced and whip-smart triumvirate of Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and Governor Bill Richardson wound up accumulating a paltry 4% (or thereabouts) of the vote. Something seems very wrong....
I'm already digressing. So, more to the point, tonight Biden made a crucial comment that reaffirms my somewhat faltering notion that the two final Democratic contenders for their party's nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, should both stay in the race until the initial voting is done on June 3, when the final states of Montana and South Dakota vote. He told Olberman that Senators Clinton and Obama are "understandably preoccupied with each other" at this point in time, and he insinuated that such a mindset might continue for several weeks. Yet he went on to say that "...by the time the primaries [and caucuses] are over, it will be clear who the nominee is." I assume he means that by the time the final ballots are counted on June 3, it will be clear which candidate the Democratic Superdelegates should support in order to ensure that said candidate--who will already be leading in the delegate count--will officially become the Democratic nominee.
I agree. And since Biden went on to suggest that the summer months will provide enough opportunity to fire-up Democratic and independent support for the presumptive Democratic nominee prior to the convention, his is essentially the argument I made on this blog last week. And yet, and yet....
The last month or so has been anything but impressive for the two Democratic candidates. Senator Obama has followed the Reverend Wright scandal (for which I do not blame Obama, as it was his friend's words, and not his, that people found objectionable; the media obsession with the issue was somewhat inappropriate, given the source) with his clumsy comments regarding the "bitterness" of rural and small-town voters (again, I agree with his assertions; his problem was in his wording). Then (here's the real problem) came his campaign's rather petulant-yet-also-aloof initial reaction to the way in which those comments were taken, which seemed to reinforce the "elitist" notion being tossed in his direction by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
Speaking of the Clinton campaign...wow, has this initially-impressive candidate lost stock with me over the past month or so. I put up with her overly-aggressive debate tactics followed immediately by overly-friendly debate tactics followed immediately by creepily-insinuation-filled debate tactics...etc...because her policy experience suggests that she is indeed an impressive candidate for the White House. But what has followed in the wake of such multiple-personality moments has been too superficially insidious to accept, particularly her beating endlessly the "elitism" drum as applied to Senator Obama, to the point where she has reached a new nadir by this week releasing a commercial in Pennsylvania in which "average Pennsylvanians" complain about Senator Obama's statement. Her areas of strength deal with policy experience, intelligent organizational skills, and straight-forward, plain-spoken discussions regarding the direction she wants to take America both at home and abroad. Yet what she's done lately suggests little more than desperate electoral pettiness, and her speeches are far too pandering and patronizing to her audience to take seriously.
This can be rectified, at least to a solid extent, if it stops now and the tone elevates in the days prior to the Pennsylvania primary (to be held next Tuesday), but as these things go this will most likely not be the case, as a desperate Clinton and a defensive Obama try to find purchase at the edge of the potential electoral precipice that is Pennsylvania. It calls into question whether or not they are presently capable of regaining the impressively layered discussion that they found at times prior to and just after Super Tuesday in early February, given that gravity has a tendency to take over when campaigns devolve enough to tug each other over the edge into open air. This in turn calls into question whether or not they can make it, in a two-horse race capacity, to June 3 without badly damaging the eventual nominee's chances in November.
I say this in such stark terms because Senator McCain is--I will say it again as I've said it before--proving to be a strong Republican candidate for president, particularly given the currently putrid status of the national Republican party. If another of the original Republican contenders for the nomination had slipped into the #1 position in the race, the silliness on the Democratic side might not seem as dire, but with McCain heading the ticket come November, the challenge for the Democratic candidates to shift gears quickly has become urgent.
You say you don't believe me? Well, let's look at the evidence. For instance, Senator McCain had another in a series of increasingly-impressive days today (gone, at least for now, are his embarrassing Iran/al-Qaeda mix-ups and the like). This morning, he received a hearty round of applause for a slightly boring but measured speech to economics students and teachers at Carnegie Mellon University, and followed that up with a performance in front of undergraduate students at Villanova University on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" that was, to be honest, quite impressive in that he seems to have sharpened his ability to offset conservative proposals with independent-sounding/moderate ones in a textured manner.
For instance, he began the session (which will be repeated on MSNBC ad nauseam, I'm sure) by rejecting the Bush Administration's ideas regarding global warming and torture (he went so far as to suggest that he would close down the Guantanamo Bay military facility), but he offset that with full support for the president's current strategy in Iraq. Though the latter aspect of foreign policy didn't get much support from the student crowd, he did garner applause for his criticism of the original Rumsfeld-run policy, and by reminding the attendees that he was a vocal opponent of that policy from the beginning, he reinforced the notion that he has a nose for what to do in Iraq, even if his proposals aren't as popular at present as he might hope.
He was hawkish on Iran (he did not rule out airstrikes or other forms of military intervention) but doveish and cooperative about if and when such hawkish tactics would be applied (he would vastly prefer a robust push in the "diplomatic, trade, and financial" realms that would isolate Iran without forcing them to lose too much face, and in order to do so he suggests that our allies must play integral, important roles, which would allow for more international cooperation in such areas than we've seen of late). He also suggests that Congress would have a far larger role to play in the overall Middle East debate.
Even his comments on Senator Obama's so-called "elitism" were balanced: he now says that Obama is not an elitist, though his comments were elite in nature. If that sounds too cute and tidy (and even a little too-balanced to be "real"), his delivery was straight-forward and oddly compelling.
When he left the gymnasium setting, he did so to thunderous applause from the students (though it's doubtless the case that Senators Clinton and Obama would receive similar levels of enthusiastic applause, if simply because such a production is a very big deal for any given university).
Given many of Senator McCain's statements today, it seems obvious that the Democrats have avenues of political attack that can be exploited. For example, McCain's assertion that political, economic, military, and in some ways cultural stability need to be in place in Iraq before we can call the war "over," at which point our forces can continue to draw down while we simultaneously provide a stabilizing force, beg the question of how in the world we get from the current situation to the one he suggests, which would require massive movement on the political and cultural fronts that seems to be a bit of a shot in the dark to many people right now; he was fuzzy on the details of how to get there. Also, his suggestion that shutting down Guantanamo and the like would be helpful to curb the radicalization process in the Middle East seems to clash a bit with his proposal to stay in Iraq and potentially take on Iran in an aggressive (if not necessarily military) manner, given that western occupation in the Middle East has been one factor (admittedly amongst many) in that same radicalization process. And so forth.
But the Democratic candidates, who are very capable of conducting a robust debate with Senator McCain, seem stuck in a superficial rut. If they were arguing policy proposals in a more statesmanlike, "presidential" manner, the continuing race to the Democratic nomination could be a good thing in that it would help sharpen the eventual nominee for his or her upcoming duel with Senator McCain. Instead, both Democratic candidates and their campaigns have gone intellectually flabby of late. As a result, McCain's statesmanlike speeches are being received by more and more open minds. He's becoming a stronger and stronger candidate as each week slips by, so the Democrats have to start acting like the strong candidates they are, as well, and they need to do it now, whether or not they both stay in the race until the early summer.
First of all, even with Iowa's somewhat antiquated 15% threshold rule on caucus night (any given candidate must receive 15% of the votes during the first few rounds of haggling at any given caucus site, or else he/she is declared illegitimate at that site), how in the world did Biden receive only 1% of the votes in that crucial opening caucus state? The experienced and whip-smart triumvirate of Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and Governor Bill Richardson wound up accumulating a paltry 4% (or thereabouts) of the vote. Something seems very wrong....
I'm already digressing. So, more to the point, tonight Biden made a crucial comment that reaffirms my somewhat faltering notion that the two final Democratic contenders for their party's nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, should both stay in the race until the initial voting is done on June 3, when the final states of Montana and South Dakota vote. He told Olberman that Senators Clinton and Obama are "understandably preoccupied with each other" at this point in time, and he insinuated that such a mindset might continue for several weeks. Yet he went on to say that "...by the time the primaries [and caucuses] are over, it will be clear who the nominee is." I assume he means that by the time the final ballots are counted on June 3, it will be clear which candidate the Democratic Superdelegates should support in order to ensure that said candidate--who will already be leading in the delegate count--will officially become the Democratic nominee.
I agree. And since Biden went on to suggest that the summer months will provide enough opportunity to fire-up Democratic and independent support for the presumptive Democratic nominee prior to the convention, his is essentially the argument I made on this blog last week. And yet, and yet....
The last month or so has been anything but impressive for the two Democratic candidates. Senator Obama has followed the Reverend Wright scandal (for which I do not blame Obama, as it was his friend's words, and not his, that people found objectionable; the media obsession with the issue was somewhat inappropriate, given the source) with his clumsy comments regarding the "bitterness" of rural and small-town voters (again, I agree with his assertions; his problem was in his wording). Then (here's the real problem) came his campaign's rather petulant-yet-also-aloof initial reaction to the way in which those comments were taken, which seemed to reinforce the "elitist" notion being tossed in his direction by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
Speaking of the Clinton campaign...wow, has this initially-impressive candidate lost stock with me over the past month or so. I put up with her overly-aggressive debate tactics followed immediately by overly-friendly debate tactics followed immediately by creepily-insinuation-filled debate tactics...etc...because her policy experience suggests that she is indeed an impressive candidate for the White House. But what has followed in the wake of such multiple-personality moments has been too superficially insidious to accept, particularly her beating endlessly the "elitism" drum as applied to Senator Obama, to the point where she has reached a new nadir by this week releasing a commercial in Pennsylvania in which "average Pennsylvanians" complain about Senator Obama's statement. Her areas of strength deal with policy experience, intelligent organizational skills, and straight-forward, plain-spoken discussions regarding the direction she wants to take America both at home and abroad. Yet what she's done lately suggests little more than desperate electoral pettiness, and her speeches are far too pandering and patronizing to her audience to take seriously.
This can be rectified, at least to a solid extent, if it stops now and the tone elevates in the days prior to the Pennsylvania primary (to be held next Tuesday), but as these things go this will most likely not be the case, as a desperate Clinton and a defensive Obama try to find purchase at the edge of the potential electoral precipice that is Pennsylvania. It calls into question whether or not they are presently capable of regaining the impressively layered discussion that they found at times prior to and just after Super Tuesday in early February, given that gravity has a tendency to take over when campaigns devolve enough to tug each other over the edge into open air. This in turn calls into question whether or not they can make it, in a two-horse race capacity, to June 3 without badly damaging the eventual nominee's chances in November.
I say this in such stark terms because Senator McCain is--I will say it again as I've said it before--proving to be a strong Republican candidate for president, particularly given the currently putrid status of the national Republican party. If another of the original Republican contenders for the nomination had slipped into the #1 position in the race, the silliness on the Democratic side might not seem as dire, but with McCain heading the ticket come November, the challenge for the Democratic candidates to shift gears quickly has become urgent.
You say you don't believe me? Well, let's look at the evidence. For instance, Senator McCain had another in a series of increasingly-impressive days today (gone, at least for now, are his embarrassing Iran/al-Qaeda mix-ups and the like). This morning, he received a hearty round of applause for a slightly boring but measured speech to economics students and teachers at Carnegie Mellon University, and followed that up with a performance in front of undergraduate students at Villanova University on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" that was, to be honest, quite impressive in that he seems to have sharpened his ability to offset conservative proposals with independent-sounding/moderate ones in a textured manner.
For instance, he began the session (which will be repeated on MSNBC ad nauseam, I'm sure) by rejecting the Bush Administration's ideas regarding global warming and torture (he went so far as to suggest that he would close down the Guantanamo Bay military facility), but he offset that with full support for the president's current strategy in Iraq. Though the latter aspect of foreign policy didn't get much support from the student crowd, he did garner applause for his criticism of the original Rumsfeld-run policy, and by reminding the attendees that he was a vocal opponent of that policy from the beginning, he reinforced the notion that he has a nose for what to do in Iraq, even if his proposals aren't as popular at present as he might hope.
He was hawkish on Iran (he did not rule out airstrikes or other forms of military intervention) but doveish and cooperative about if and when such hawkish tactics would be applied (he would vastly prefer a robust push in the "diplomatic, trade, and financial" realms that would isolate Iran without forcing them to lose too much face, and in order to do so he suggests that our allies must play integral, important roles, which would allow for more international cooperation in such areas than we've seen of late). He also suggests that Congress would have a far larger role to play in the overall Middle East debate.
Even his comments on Senator Obama's so-called "elitism" were balanced: he now says that Obama is not an elitist, though his comments were elite in nature. If that sounds too cute and tidy (and even a little too-balanced to be "real"), his delivery was straight-forward and oddly compelling.
When he left the gymnasium setting, he did so to thunderous applause from the students (though it's doubtless the case that Senators Clinton and Obama would receive similar levels of enthusiastic applause, if simply because such a production is a very big deal for any given university).
Given many of Senator McCain's statements today, it seems obvious that the Democrats have avenues of political attack that can be exploited. For example, McCain's assertion that political, economic, military, and in some ways cultural stability need to be in place in Iraq before we can call the war "over," at which point our forces can continue to draw down while we simultaneously provide a stabilizing force, beg the question of how in the world we get from the current situation to the one he suggests, which would require massive movement on the political and cultural fronts that seems to be a bit of a shot in the dark to many people right now; he was fuzzy on the details of how to get there. Also, his suggestion that shutting down Guantanamo and the like would be helpful to curb the radicalization process in the Middle East seems to clash a bit with his proposal to stay in Iraq and potentially take on Iran in an aggressive (if not necessarily military) manner, given that western occupation in the Middle East has been one factor (admittedly amongst many) in that same radicalization process. And so forth.
But the Democratic candidates, who are very capable of conducting a robust debate with Senator McCain, seem stuck in a superficial rut. If they were arguing policy proposals in a more statesmanlike, "presidential" manner, the continuing race to the Democratic nomination could be a good thing in that it would help sharpen the eventual nominee for his or her upcoming duel with Senator McCain. Instead, both Democratic candidates and their campaigns have gone intellectually flabby of late. As a result, McCain's statesmanlike speeches are being received by more and more open minds. He's becoming a stronger and stronger candidate as each week slips by, so the Democrats have to start acting like the strong candidates they are, as well, and they need to do it now, whether or not they both stay in the race until the early summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)