The Message

Now that the RNC is over, McCain's message is starting to clarify. There seem to be three main points. One, McCain is a war hero and Obama is not. This tact didn't work for Kerry in 2004, nor did it work for Bush or Dole against Clinton in 1994 and 1996. We'll see how well it works this time.

Secondly, McCain is running on change. And the more I hear it, the more it irritates me. John McCain has done some important things in the Senate, definitely more so than Obama. And some of that was done by opposing his party. But since 2004, McCain has been voting with his party more and more. It is no longer accurate to suggest that his policies will be different from President Bush's policies. He wants to continue Bush's tax cuts (which he once opposed for giving too much back to the super-rich), he has no plans for withdrawing from Iraq, he is more militant towards Iran, and he supported a law that allows the CIA to use the type of torture techniques he opposed for the military. In fact, even his stance on immigration has changed and is more conservative than Bush. Reading the Republican Platform here, you can see that it opposes any amnesty and wants to deport all illegal workers.

John McCain is no longer a maverick and seems to be far from the moderate he used to be. The Republican base is starting to realize this (hence their excitement), but I don't know if independents are catching on. If McCain were the person he was between 2000 and 2004, I wouldn't be so worried. I could relax knowing we would have someone different in the White House. Unfortunately, McCain seems to be moving further and further from that person every day.

Finally, the Republican campaign is using the same talking points they always do. They say Obama will raise taxes and is weak on foreign policy. They aren't responding to particular policies of Obama's and instead are relying on reinforcing stereotypes. This worked for them in 2004, but not in 2006. Hopefully voters don't buy it this time either.

More on Palin

Governor Palin's speech at the convention was pretty good. She managed to make some sharp attacks against Obama without coming off too harsh. What is becoming more apparent is the ways in which Obama and Palin are similar. Both are young and attractive, good speakers who are able to attack yet appear clean in the press, and even though neither have a lot of experience voters seem to trust them anyway. This later point is definitely the case with Obama, and it is what has been said about Palin in Alaska. You would think that with these two so similar, some of the attacks about experience would stop. Apparently not.

On another note though, it is becoming more clear how conservative she is. The scariest thing we have heard so far: she looked into banning books when she first became mayor of Wasilla.

Bush's Legacy

I doubt this will be my only post on this topic, so bear with me. I read two really good pieces on this recently. First, there was the long piece in the Sunday Times Magazine. This paragraph seems to sum up the debate:

Bush’s place in history depends on alternate narratives that are hard to reconcile. To critics, he is the man who misled the country into a disastrous war, ruined U.S. relations around the world, wrecked the economy, squandered a budget surplus to give tax cuts to fat-cat friends, played the guitar while New Orleans drowned, politicized the Justice Department, cozied up to oil companies and betrayed American values by promoting torture, warrantless eavesdropping and a modern-day gulag at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for people never even charged with a crime. To admirers, he is the man who freed 60 million people from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq and planted a seed that may yet spread democracy in a vital region, while at home he reduced taxes, introduced more accountability to public schools through No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, installed two new conservative Supreme Court justices and, most of all, kept America safe after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

I think in the near term, this pretty much covers it. In fact, I think there is a lot of truth to almost everything said in that paragraph. The rest of the article though was not very memorable - focusing mostly on what / whether Bush thinks about his legacy.

I don't think that paragraph though gets at long term prospects for Bush's legacy. After all, we don't tend to remember much about former Presidents. Now I think too many conservatives (I won't mention any names), including Bush himself, seem to assume history will judge Bush favorably. Those people always mention Truman. (My question, where is Bush's Marshall Plan?) Other people (again, you know who you are) refuse to even consider the legacy question, leaving it for historians to judge. I find that to be a bit of a cop-out and I imagine those same people didn't give Clinton the same consideration.

This short piece in the Atlantic (June 2008) does a great job at looking at what we do remember about our past presidents and therefore what we'll likely remember about Bush.

But when things work out in the long run—and especially when we can claim the credit—Americans tend to forgive their leaders for the crimes and errors of the moment.

That’s why—to judge by the rankings that historians and pollsters regularly churn out—we’ve forgiven Teddy Roosevelt his role in the bloody and disgraceful occupation of the Philippines. It’s why we’ve pardoned Woodrow Wilson for the part his feckless idealism played in unleashing decades of strife and tyranny in Europe. It’s why we’ve granted Harry Truman absolution for the military blundering that prolonged the Korean War and brought us to the brink of nuclear conflict.

[Edit]

But these well-respected presidents have benefited, as well, from the American tendency to overvalue activist leaders. So a bad president like Wilson is preferred, in our rankings and our hearts, to a good but undistinguished manager like Calvin Coolidge. A sometimes impressive, oft-erratic president like Truman is lionized, while the more even-keeled greatness of Dwight D. Eisenhower is persistently undervalued. John F. Kennedy is hailed for escaping the Cuban missile crisis, which his own misjudgments set in motion, while George H. W. Bush, who steered the U.S. through the fraught final moments of the Cold War with admirable caution, is caricatured as a ditherer who needed Margaret Thatcher around to keep him from going wobbly.

So it's reasonable to think that, if Iraq works out, Bush might be looked back on favorably. This thought doesn't make me as depressed as it used to. But it does make me want to learn a lot more about Truman, Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson as well as Coolidge and Eisenhower.

And the comparison between Iraq and Korea does make me think differently about Korea. In our national consciousness Korea is seen as a great success. And South Koreans are grateful that they are not under the North's control. But if these two wars are similar, and if they end similarly, does this mean that Iraq was right and just mismanaged (as Korea was, although maybe not to the same extent), or was Korea wrong?

In large part, how we view Bush will affect how we view wars like Iraq in the future. Years removed, I do think we devalue deaths in war if the war was successful. Which makes it easy to hate Iraq now, but hard to hate the Korean War. Keep this in mind when the next Bush advocates for the next Iraq ten or more years from now.

Your Prediction

This electoral map at the Times is well worth checking out. What do you think? Will it be Obama or McCain?

Alaskan Veep

The political world is buzzing about McCain's choice for Vice President. I have long thought (although I apparently didn't write about it) that McCain was in a particularly tough position when it came to selecting his running mate. If he chose someone too conservative, he would turn off some of the moderates and independents who were leaning is way. But if he chose someone moderate, he would risk watching the Republican base stay home in November.

Considering that, I think his choice makes sense. Governor Palin seems to have excited the conservative base. As for turning off independents, we'll have to see. My gut instinct though is that she won't scare them as much as a Huckabee - or someone similar - would have.

One place I think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense is in the electoral college. Alaska was going to go to McCain no matter what. Minnesota on the other hand might have been in play had McCain chosen Pawlenty. In fact, I wonder if Gephardt would have been better at delivering Missouri than Edwards was for North Carolina in 2004. Anyway, it appears that McCain believes that Palin's impact nationally will be more meaningful than Pawlenty's impact in Minnesota.

As for whether she balances his governing philosophy, I don't have much input on that at the moment. But David Brooks has an interesting take:

He really needs someone to impose a policy structure on his moral intuitions. He needs a very senior person who can organize a vast administration and insist that he tame his lone-pilot tendencies and work through the established corridors — the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council. He needs a near-equal who can turn his instincts, which are great, into a doctrine that everybody else can predict and understand.

This is an interesting analysis, but I wonder if Brooks is putting too much into the VP position (probably based on the Clinton and Bush models of having a powerful VP). Conceivably, McCain could find people like that fill his administration. Although I guess his choice of Palin makes one doubt whether he will.

Now let's talk about the the real issue with this choice: gender. John McCain chose a woman. My initial reaction to the choice was positive. I am glad that if McCain loses, one of the top choices to run in 2012 will be a woman (a woman who by then will have considerably more experience). And any talk about whether she should be running for VP instead of spending more time taking care of her four-month-old infant is, well, sexist. Nobody says that about a man running in the same situation.

Unfortunately though, I still find the choice to be a bit of a let-down. Gail Collins says it pretty well:

This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back.

The real question though is whether this will actually draw independent and liberal women. Are they upset enough still from the primaries that they will flock to Palin and McCain? This of course remains to be seen and I don't really have a prediction. The McCain camp is doing everything it can, including acting hurt on Clinton supporters behalf and suggesting that the Obama campaign was sexist. I have heard others say though that liberal and independent women will still vote Democrat, following issues (like abortion rights and equal pay laws) instead of symbolism. I hope so.

Obamanomics Explained

I just finished reading this piece from the Times Magazine about Obama's economic positions. It's really enlightening if you have the time to read it.

What is comforting about the article is that it shows Obama has a firm grasp of economics. He seems to understand that markets are on the whole efficient, but often not fair, and that there exist obvious market failures. The key is in balancing all of this. Here are some of his plans:

- Obama is for tax cuts for middle- and low-income wage earners,

The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.

and tax increases for the highest earners (partly reversing the Bush tax cuts, and then increasing the taxes further). For those of you who are concerned the increases would stifle innovation and investment, consider that the proposed increases wouldn't come close to reversing the gains upper income earners have seen over the past few decades. Also realize that, "Most families [low- and middle-income] are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000." This might sound like pandering, but the reality of stagnant wages for middle- and low-income earners can't be ignored and isn't good for the country.

And it seems on the surface at least that recent history supports at least some redistribution. As the article points out, the negative effects of Clinton's tax increases never materialized and the trickle-down effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts also never seemed to occur. Granted, showing a direct causal relationship between a president's policies and economic outcomes is imperfect to say the least, but I would be willing to increase taxes on the rich and risk losing some efficiency in the market for at least some increase in fairness.

- Obama favors an increase in government spending on infrastructure. This I think has the most promise, if done wisely. While we don't need new highways as much as we did after World War II (which by the way, I hadn't realized was a result of witnessing how easily Germans could move good during the war), we have serious unmet needs relating to energy and the environment. With significant government funding, we could increase sustainable energy and the infrastructure that supports it (ie power lines, which are unfit to meet probable changes in our production according to this article). What makes this so attractive is that it could provide jobs for the part of the workforce that is suffering from the loss of manufacturing and related industries overseas. I don't believe in protectionism and I realize that re-educating workers isn't the solution many pretend it is.

To the extent that he sticks with these policies, and manages to move on them, it seems that Obama by far represents our best hope in managing our economy.

It's Our Fault

Last summer, I hoped that the presidential race would be between two people who could rise above petty, name-calling partisanship and talk about the real issues. If you asked me the two people most likely to do that, I probably would have said Obama (or maybe Richardson) and McCain. Well, here we have a race between Obama and McCain, and neither are particularly living up to those standards. The debate isn't any more intelligent than it would have been if it had been between Clinton and Romney. I have basically tuned most of it out by now because of that.

Reading David Brooks' column, I do find it hard to blame them. The media remains fixated on covering the horse race and the insults back and forth - and the public seems to revel in that as well. It seems as though it isn't the candidates that are at fault for our system, but us. There are no transcendent candidates. None. But maybe you knew that already.

Sad News from Zambia

Reuters has reported that the President of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa has died. What I will remember most is that he was one of the few African leaders who criticized Zimbabwe's Mugabe, realizing that a leader who blatantly ignores democracy makes not just himself look bad, but also all those who support him. But he was also the leader of a landlocked African country trying to sustain growth and escape poverty. I visited Zambia last year and it is an incredibly beautiful country with some of the most friendly people. Hopefully his successor will keep moving Zambia forward.

Worse Off?

I just saw an ad by John McCain where he says we are worse off than we were four years ago. Of course I agree, but I am surprised that McCain is willing to admit that. I mean he must realize that he is in part responsible for that, right? He is a Republican who voted with the administration those four years. And how does his party feel about him saying Bush made the country worse off?

Of course this is the line that McCain must walk. He needs to distance himself from a wildly unpopular president, while not going too far to alienate the party faithful.

More on Zimbabwe

In my last post on Zimbabwe, I wrote about Mbeki's poor leadership. Now, the talk is all about sanctions - the West is pressing for sanctions. The African Union doesn't support sanctions on Zimbabwe, and I can't say that I blame them.

Sanctions are not as effective as you would think based on how often they are trotted out as the solution to a problem. Granted, they seem to have worked in Libya (eventually), and are playing a role in Iran and North Korea, but were ineffective in Cuba and Iraq (during Saddam). In the end, in a situation like Zimbabwe, sanctions are likely to hurt the people way more than the leaders. And as long as the government has a monopoly on power and are adept at winning illegitimate elections, there is little hope of the disgruntled people tossing their leaders out.

But this is the West's only option at the moment. Criticism of Mugabe form the West has little effect because he can just dismiss the comments by saying the word "colonialism". But the African Union has much more power. If they were to refuse to recognize Mugabe's election and then isolate him, that would likely be enough to force a change. So far, they haven't officially recognized his election, but they haven't called it illegitimate and asked for a re-vote, and they have called for power sharing. Calling for power sharing between a leader that used violence to stay in power, and a reformer who "lost the run-off" isn't a workable solution.

Many of course point to Kenya. Although there was much praise of the Kenyan agreement, it remains to be seen whether it will in fact work. Besides, in Kenya you had ethnic battles between the parties. That doesn't seem to be the driving factor in Zimbabwe. Removing Mugabe is unlikely to cause the sort of disruption that would have resulted in Kenya if one side was removed from power.

In the end, the African Union isn't willing to take the big steps necessary to make meaningful change. There are some leaders who want to (like Levi Mwanawasa in Zambia), but not enough. Instead, they try to placate people like Mugabe, who ruin their country and then refuse to stand for a legitimate election. It would be much easier for the international community, and the West in particular, to allow the African Union to manage their own affairs if they actually showed strength.

A Balanced Budget?

I'll be quick on this one. McCain says he plans to have a balanced budget. While he cuts taxes. Right. Now, to be fair, one can achieve a balanced budget with tax cuts under certain circumstances - when the cuts are not significant and when costs can be contained. Neither of these seem to hold here. His tax cuts are significant, including making the Bush tax cuts permanent and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. On top of that, he has no chance of keeping a lid on spending. Even if he had a Republican Congress, which is unlikely, it doesn't seem reasonable to think he'll be better than Bush at keeping them from increasing his budget. On top of that, he plans to somehow, magically keep entitlement spending down. Completely absurd.

Dear Conservative

Dear Conservative Friend / Family Member,

I always hoped that my liberal postings would rile you up and force you to respond. In fact, my posts are more often than not written for / to you. But I think I was being too subtle. So now, I am going to write some posts directly to you.

On a recent road trip with two such conservatives (you know who you are) we had two lively debates. One was about urban poverty and the other about the Iraq War. My position on the war has changed to believing that being there was a mistake and that now is a good time to start withdrawing. The two conservatives disagreed, of course.

I'll admit that pulling out will be delicate. There is the possibility that violence could escalate again. I don't want to spend too much time debating this point though because whoever is President when troops begin to come home will have to watch what happens in Iraq and respond accordingly.

The main issue I want to debate is about whether we should have invaded, and when we should in the future. Each situation will be different from the one before it, but I think we can come up with reasonable guidelines while still being flexible enough to change if we have to. Our country would be much better off if we used our foreign policy to actually express our core principles. Too often in the past our foreign policy has been either morally bankrupt or completely hypocritical.

When it comes to deciding whether to invade, the primary reason has been and should remain whether the other country poses an imminent threat. Afghanistan obviously falls into this category. Iraq does not. Even if you allow for the fact that many intelligence services believed Saddam had a weapons program, nobody really thought there was an imminent danger to the US; a long term concern maybe, but not an imminent threat.

I know some would argue that you shouldn't wait until he has the weapons - which is when he will be more dangerous. I agree. But I think it is clear in retrospect that we could have waited longer. We could have given the weapons inspectors more time - given containment more time to work. Deciding when someone is an imminent threat isn't a science, but I don't think anyone believes we were at that point with Saddam.

It seems for some, a reason to continue believing the invasion was right is that we need a democratic role model in the Middle East. Granted, we need to acknowledge that this wasn't one of the main reasons for the invasion, but became the main reason when WMD's didn't materialize. Even so, the argument should be taken seriously. In fact, for a long time, I was right behind Thomas Friedman favoring this argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me anymore. We talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we don't follow though. We tolerate Saudi Arabia - a very oppressive monarchy, and we ignore the results of Palestinian elections because we don't like who they chose (without even wondering why they chose them). If we are going to support democracy, we have to do it everywhere if we are to retain moral credibility.

Someone said in regards to this argument that Iraq was low hanging fruit. Maybe, but was it the lowest? Could we have supported a democracy in the Middle East without losing more than 4,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees? I think we could have done a better job in Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda is making gains again), supported Lebanon - including stopping Israel's disastrous invasion, recognized Hamas' victory in Palestine - while keeping them on a short leash, and been tougher with Saudi Arabia. All of this could have been done without the disastrous consequences we see in Iraq.

This gets to my main point. Besides invading when there is an imminent threat, I think the only other time we should get involved is when the situation is bad enough that we can't likely make it worse and could conceivably make it much better. Iraq, at the time of the invasion, wasn't a model of human rights and democracy, but wasn't as bad as many other places around the world and certainly not as bad as it was before, and directly after, the first Gulf War. Under this reasoning, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we would get involved in places like Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I think if we were fighting to create more democracies and protect those under horrible dictatorships, as some (with memory problems) argue Iraq is about, there are better places to start.

What may end up happening over the next decade is Iraq could improve slowly, mirroring in some ways South Korea. If that happens, people might forget these disastrous years, as many forget the ups and downs of the Korean War. In fact, tens of thousands of Americans and South Koreans died, and we are still paying to have troops in South Korea. Yet this draws little protest and South Korea is seen as a success.

If this is the case, then I probably won't have a strong response. While I still believe that the costs to the Iraqis so far has been great - partly because of our mismanagement, I think that through containment and time, we might have achieved the same goal for the Iraqi people at a smaller cost to them and us.

So what do you think, unnamed conservative friend / family member? Care to weigh in?

Poor Zim

I can't express how disappointed I am with the situation in Zimbabwe. There seemed for a brief moment in December the possibility that Zim would get a fresh start and a new leader. While it isn't surprising that Mugabe and company are holding onto power, something I expect they'll try even after he dies, it is so disheartening to see how poorly Mbeki, president of South Africa and mediator for this process, is handling it. For so long, African nations have sought to solve their own problems. Often, it is African Union troops on peacekeeping missions, and leaders from Africa are chosen as mediators. With the history of colonization, I completely understand this desire.

While I support empowerment, with it comes responsibility. If you want the role of fixing the problems in your family, you need to show that you can actually do it. Of course there will be times when it turns out that the African Union will not have the resources to have a peacekeeping mission that meets the needs of the situation. In those instances, the African Union can ask for UN support (as in Darfur). But this is wholly different.

What Mbeki is showing, by his refusal to criticize Mugabe, is that Africa will not stand up against dictators, that it does not support the rule of law or full democratic rights. And worse, he is showing that he, the president of the most powerful country in Africa, is unable to solve problems that arise in Africa. He is making it that much harder for the next person to claim that Africa can and should solve its own problems. (Although it is good to see Mwanawasa in Zambia taking a stand against Mugabe.)

True, to be fair, I should also get into the debate about the limits of sovereignty. The answer though is that there are limits to sovereignty. And those limits need to be when human rights or the rule of law are violated. Otherwise, one shouldn't pretend that they live by those standards. Those standards have to rise above all else.

I have no hope that this situation will resolve itself in any satisfactory way. Mugabe has no incentive to give anything up. He can resist the international community and Mbeki is preventing strong reactions form inside Africa. The worst part of this is that the people of Zimbabwe aren't just suffering from lack of suffrage, but their economy is a complete mess with high unemployment and inflation. They need new leadership now more than ever.

Major Transformation?

I don't usually agree with Paul Krugman. Mostly, it is because I see him as a partisan hack - someone who will fight just as hard for Democratic causes as some Republicans do for theirs. The worst part is that he does this with full self-recognition and without excuse. In a reference to my previous post, he seems completely incapable of being objective (during the primaries he was one of the few people who tried to suggest that Obama's people were being more negative that Hillary and her staff).

Anyway, the point is that this column of his is great. It gets to a serious issue about Obama - that we don't really know whether Obama is a moderate or a serious liberal. His talk about reconciliation and working across party lines suggests moderation, but many of his policies are more liberal. That we are entering the general election phase of the campaign, where candidates move towards the middle, doesn't help me reconcile this.

The fact is that Obama, if elected, and if joined by a strong Democratic majority, could transform American policies. He could increase access to health care, change our foreign policy (and thereby improving our image as well as improving outcomes), make serious progress on curbing carbon emissions, and restore funding to social programs. Alternatively, he could either be ineffective or choose a more moderate path, like Clinton did. His voting record doesn't suggest the latter will be an issue - as long as he really doesn't by into the positions he is / will be taking during the general election. Either way, there is tremendous potential, and we'll have to wait to see if he can realize it.

(By the way, Krugman was of course supporting Hillary, who seemed just as moderate as Bill was. So while I think the column was great, I am surprised that Krugman is expressing these points.)

Am I Objective? Are You?

Hearing about findings like these isn't at all new or surprising. But it should still give us pause. The study that John Tierney is talking about shows that people excuse behavior in themselves or people on their "team" that otherwise they would criticize. What this shows is a propensity to lose the ability to be objective.

We can all point to perfect examples of this. One need only listen to a Red Sox fan complain about the Yankees, or a Yankees fan complain about the Red Sox, to see this. But this behavior is to be expected in sports.

This behavior is just as common in politics, but here the impact is worse. Who cares if fans forgive Steinbrenner for making baseball less interesting by stealing all of the best players? But what happens when Republicans forgive Bush for avoiding service in Vietnam, when they wouldn't forgive Clinton for it. Or when Democrats forgive Obama for refusing public financing of his general election campaign? The inability to be objective when analyzing people in our party allows them to get away with inconsistencies or hypocrisies they otherwise shouldn't.

Here is what Tierney has to say about it:

Politicians are hypocritical for the same reason the rest of us are: to gain the social benefits of appearing virtuous without incurring the personal costs of virtuous behavior.

Of course it makes sense to punish the opposition for trying to get away with this, but why is it in our interest to reward people in our own party who are good at this?

Now, if you asked me to name some people who seem to lack the ability to be objective, I might point to Republicans close to me (my dad and my brother come to mind). And while I would stand by that, it is also pretty clear I have the same problem. This was very apparent during the democratic primaries. I found myself enraged at Hillary's behavior but felt Obama was behaving honestly. The truth is of course somewhere in the middle.

Like many things, the solution lies in admitting you have a problem (how cliche, right?). This means admitting that Obama's support for the agriculture bill was appalling, and his decision to blithely reject public financing could ruin that very institution. It means admitting that the Democrats haven't had many great ideas in the past to deal with Iraq. But on the flip side, it means Republicans should find it much easier to admit that the Iraq War has been a terrible diversion (in resources and attention) and that tax cuts and increased spending should not happen at the same time. And most importantly, it means looking at the history of American foreign policy and being able to point to places where we not only made mistakes, but acted in ways that contradict our core values.

Goodbye

I saw Tim Russert once at a Borders in the Maryland suburbs. He was putting out copies of his book Big Russ and Me. I didn't approach him. I didn't say hi, I didn't tell him how much I liked his show. I just stared from a short distance. I watched as an elderly woman asked where the cook books were. He laughed a bit and said he didn't work there. Then I watched as a slightly awkward man did what I wouldn't; he told Tim Russert how much he admired him. And Mr. Russert gave him a big smile and thanked him. I am resistant to talking to famous people. I generally believe that they don't want me to interrupt them while they are trying to live their private lives. I don't know if that is right or not, but I do regret not saying something to him that morning.

I was on vacation with my dad and brother when I heard the news of Tim Russert's death and I am surprised how much it affected me. I think I am saddened for two reasons, one selfish. First, I am sad because it seemed that he was such a genuinely nice and excited person. Since his death, stories abound of his love of politics, Buffalo, his Dad, his son, his wife, and his faith. To see someone so full of life and joy die at a relatively young age is heartbreaking.

But selfishly I am upset because of the void that he is leaving. Tim Russert was great at his job, and his job was extremely important to our democracy. He had the absolute perfect blend of smarts, hardwork, on camera presence (although not in the traditional sense), and geniality. He did what most other interviewers say they do - he asked the tough questions of all the big names in American politics. He did it in a way that wasn't combative, so people couldn't be excused for dodging questions and responding aggressively. And because he worked so hard and because he was so smart, he could bring up old quotes from politicians and try to catch them in their hypocrisy.

I must admit that I didn't watch the show as religiously as I wanted to. Many Sunday afternoons I would think about what I did that morning and wonder if it was worth missing Meet the Press. The bottom line though is that I didn't make it part of my routine. But at least I drew comfort knowing that the show was on and that some politicians were being grilled about their positions.

The only possible comfort I can take from this is that maybe Tim Russert's death will allow people to fully realize what we are missing when he is gone. In doing so, we might search not for one replacement, but for many replacements. Maybe we'll lose one Tim Russert but gain a dozen people just like him. I imagine that's what he would want.

Farm Bill

I don't really have the energy to go into this right now, but I just need to say that the farm bill passed by Congress, vetoed by the President, and then overrode by Congress, is a disgrace. It rewards the undeserving and doesn't help those in need. Agribusiness does not need government welfare, but developing countries need us to end our subsidies.

It is frightening that so many people in Congress can get something so wrong. I must therefore recognize one person who got it right - John McCain. I feel I might not get the chance to say many nice things about McCain in the upcoming election. Here though, the made the right choice. Furthermore, President Bush also made the right decision to veto the bill.

The NY Times Editorial on the bill sums up my feelings pretty well.

League of Democracies

I heard that McCain has been supporting this idea of creating a League of Democracies. The support for this institution, which would replace the United Nations, rests on the assumption that the UN in ineffective because the non-democratic countries interfere with our ability to do good. The problem is that this assumption just doesn't ring true.

At a reading for her latest book, Samantha Power made a profound but obvious statement. She said the UN will only be as effective as its strongest member - the US - wants it to be. The fact is that many times, we have used the UN to avoid doing the right thing and has rarely stood in our way of acting when we truly wanted to. In Rwanda, we manipulated the UN to prevent us from acting (by preventing the UN from acting). And of course in Iraq we acted without UN approval.

Granted, on the margins, there are times when our desires are frustrated. Our ability to bring sanctions against countries like Iran and Sudan has been hampered. In the case of Iran, other democracies were standing in our way. And with Sudan, there are much more effective efforts we could undertake without the UN if we really wanted to.

On the other side though, a League of Democracies is unlikely to be more favorable towards Israel than the UN is, considering that although Israel is a democracy, the situation with the occupied territories doesn't exactly live up to democratic standards.

What conservatives like McCain actually want is a new institution that is better at doing what we want it to. We want an institution that will levy sanctions when we say to, let us invade when we want to, help avoid military efforts when we want to, and pretend that the situation in Israel is fine as it is and deserves no rebuke. A world body like this is a pipe dream. Our only hope is to actually live up to our standards, not our self interest. Maybe then other countries would be more willing to follow suit.

Race in the Primaries

Hillary has recently been describing how Obama lacks support among working class white voters. Without that support, he might not win the nomination, or so the argument goes. I admit that this argument does scare me a bit. What is even more troubling are the polls that say that 25 percent of the voters in West Virginia said race was a factor - and 75 percent of those supported Hillary. Apparently Kentucky was much the same.

While Hillary along with many commentators have been suggesting that sexism has been worse than racism on the campaign trail (considering the comments that have been yelled at Hillary), there seem to be many voters actually making their decision based on racism.

What really bothers me about all this though is that Hillary doesn't seem at all concerned that there might be people supporting her out of racism. Actually, she is concerned that Obama might not be able to win, but not concerned that there is racism. For a while I was thinking that the classy thing for her to do would be to stand up and say, "Any voters supporting me because you won't vote for a black man, stay home. I mean it, if there is any racism in your heart, I don't want your vote."

The truth is, I feel even more strongly about this now. I don't see it as the classy thing to do (which I wouldn't expect from Hillary), but as the moral thing to do. Both she and McCain need to say that they don't want the votes of racists. Period. Instead, Hillary is doing the opposite. She is using the working class white - possibly racist - voters in Appalachia (because apparently this is a regional problem instead of that affects all whites of a certain income level) to further her argument that she is the better nominee.

Before I wrap up, I should take a moment to discuss the two different ways one can vote based on race (or gender). In one case, the voter's decision would be an affirmative vote, casting a ballot for someone because of their race. In the other case, you are voting against someone because of their race. To me, the difference is that in the former, the decision is one of identity and in the latter the decision is based on hate. And to me, that makes all the difference.

To conclude though, I keep coming back to this one feeling about Hillary (and Bill, too). She (they) care only about achieving their goals of ambition and power. While this isn't an uncommon trait among politicians, it feels like the magnitude is far greater in them. And so in the end, their drive and ambition obscures what might otherwise be their impulse to sacrifice (ie forgo power) in the course of doing what is right. Maybe McCain will be willing to do such a thing.

When to Talk

As Obama starts to turn his attention to McCain, there has been a lot of talk about whether or not we should, well, talk to our enemies. Bush chimed in from the Knesset in Israel, showing that in his speeches he is only capable of arguments that are black and white, and incapable of nuance and distinction. This will end up being one of Bush's legacies - his speeches that attempt to leave no room for debate by casting the choice as either or and leaving his opponents trying to defend indefensible positions. Appeasement, when compared to Hitler, is of course indefensible.

McCain seems to be falling into the same trap. His comments on talking to our enemies leave no room for nuance and understanding (something I used to associate with him). It is only a little consolation that both McCain and Bush understand nuance to some degree, even if they don't admit it publicly. Bush's administration has in fact negotiated with North Korea, Iran and Libya.

My hope is that the public is tired of the thoughtless bravado of Republican leaders. Maybe people have finally realized that there is more to the debate about Iraq than either being a defeatist or a patriot. Maybe there are more options to be considered in regards to Iran than sanctions and tough talk with the eventuality of a missile strike.

What is funny in retrospect is that as Bush was in the Knesset bashing talks with enemies, the Israeli government was talking with Syria. Does that mean that Israel is like Chamberlain? This isn't to say we definitely need direct talks with our enemies (I hate using "enemies" over and over again, but I am tired). There is a good opinion piece about reasons to be cautious with negotiations. If you think you might come off as bad as Kennedy apparently did, it might not be a good idea to have direct talks.

It seems like in every situation, Bush and McCain are wrong about foreign policy. Bush wants to make some sort of peace deal between Israel and Palestine, but wants to do it without Hamas. As much as we hate Hamas for its violence, it has a lot of popular support. A peace deal that only includes Abbas, as much as we support him, isn't really a peace deal. And in Iran, our tough talk only strengthens the hard-liners in the country.

The bottom line is, we need a huge shift in our foreign policy. McCain at times seems to be saying that he would bring something different, but I have yet to see how. And this recent debate shows how McCain is more like Bush than unlike him.

In a Word, Sophistry

As the primaries start to wind down to a conclusion (or so I hope), I have been trying to summarize Hillary's campaign in my head. One word that comes to mind of course is negative, and that was certainly part of her campaign. She definitely seemed to have no problem "going negative". In fact for a while it seemed like she thought McCain would make a better president than Obama.

But what has stood out even more than that, especially recently, has been her sophistry. She has been so good about trotting out clever arguments that are either false or disingenuous of why she should be crowned the nominee by the super-delegates.

Recently, she has been trying to tell the country that Florida and Michigan's votes should count. Granted, most of what she is saying here is true. It could hurt the Democrats if Florida and Michigan are not seated at the convention. And yes, in a democratic society, every vote should count. But she didn't seem to have a problem with the party punishing these two states before they voted. She made no comments about how unfair this is and she didn't campaign in either state. So of course her sudden concern for democratic principles comes off disingenuous.

We were also treated to arguments about how her voters are more important. Since working class whites were supporting her and not Obama, and since we need working class whites to win the election, then she should be the nominee regardless of how the pledged delegate count turns out. This argument is of course clever, but Obama could make the same case for the type of voters that have been supporting him.

Before that her campaign was saying the states she won were more important. Since she was winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (swing states) and New York and California (big states), she deserved the nomination regardless of pledged delegate counts. This argument again sounds nice, but doesn't actually fly. Unless Obama is fundamentally unelectable, these states will go Democrat in the fall.

These two arguments when used together are even more clever. The voters in these important states are likely to not vote for Obama. Therefore, we need Hillary if we want the White House to be occupied by a Democrat. There is a certain part of me that is scared by this argument. In the end though it is made only to advance her goals, and not genuine and objective concerns. In fact, the super-delegates don't seem to have bought this argument.

Finally, she has argued that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates - reminding everyone of the 2000 election. In her count, she is using Michigan and Florida and ignoring states with caucuses. The argument sounds good - that direct democracy is the best, but if she actually believed this, she should have said this before.

In her arguments, what matters is not objective reason and consistency. What matters is how she can lay claim to the nomination. Arguments only have to sound good and possibly convince people to be used.

As her sophistry continues, it strikes me how willing she is to take down anything in her ambitious path. She had no problem telling the country that McCain was more prepared than Obama to be president. She sees nothing wrong with weakening the power of the party to set a nomination schedule according to its choice and prevent states from running loose. And on top of that, she is willing to subvert the whole nomination process if it means she might win (for someone who has been one-half of the democratic party leadership since 1992, she seems awfully surprised at how broken the nomination process is).

All along, I have defended Hillary against attacks like this from Republicans. Maybe they were right after all.

She Gets My Vote

There have been two great Opinion pieces lately that have forced me to make a decision. First this piece by David Brooks lays out all the things that bother me about Hillary in a way that is more concise and well-written. Here are some highlights:

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

[Edit]

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

Then, Nicholas Kristof writes on the same theme:

Instead, the battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012.

The bottom line is that people feel like Hillary is hurting Obama's chances in the general election. If she is going to continue, as many feel she should, and if she has the good of the party (and by extension the country) at heart, then she needs to completely change the tone.

But there is something I need to do. Absent of any changes from the Clinton campaign, I have decided that I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. Both Brooks and Kristof in their columns talk about the fact that the primary has become so divisive that some Democrats might stay home come the general election. From the Kristof column:

“It’s amazing how bitter it’s getting, and it can only get worse in the months ahead,” said Gov. Philip Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, who has not taken sides. “I’d love to have a Democratic president, but I’d also love to have a Democratic Congress. If you’ve got people mad and staying home, that can’t possibly help candidates running for the Senate, candidates running for House seats, and for the State Legislature.”

I admit that I have felt that angry at times. And it is true that if Clinton wins the nomination without winning the popular vote or a majority of pledged delegates, I will resign from the party. But I will still vote for her come the general election. I won't like it, but I'll do it. I wish Clinton would change her tactics so that others who are upset like me won't even consider staying home in November. But that just seems unlikely. For whatever reason (selfishness, narcissism, myopia, hatred of Obama), she seems to only know how to fight to win no matter what the costs. Lucky for her, I do care about what is good for the country, and am willing to vote for her despite her amazing faults.

Hillary v. Bill

There have been at least two instances lately when Hillary has tried to distance herself from some of Bill's policies, saying she disagreed with them at the time. Whether we believe her is very important for how we understand her candidacy.

First is of course NAFTA. Here, the Obama campaign is using her schedules to show she supported the treaty. But she claims she actually didn't agree with it at the time. Now, I could understand if she opposed it, but defended it publicly because that was Bill's decision. But I am not sure I believe her. This strategy reeks of typical Clinton behavior; she takes credit for the good things during her husband's administration but says she opposed all the bad things.

The second example has to do with Rwanda. Again, she claims she was actually on the correct side of this issue, in favor of getting more involved. As in the case above, there isn't much evidence (but there is some - one person who will back it up) to support this. And in fact, if it was the case, why hasn't this come out before?

I want to be able to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But since there is scant evidence, and I don't much trust Hillary's candor, I have a hard time believing. Wouldn't it be great though if both Democratic candidates were serious about preventing genocide? That is probably why I am a little more inclined to believe her about Rwanda. I want to believe that it is more likely that she was shocked by what was going rather than unaffected.

Primaries Roundup

So there has been a decent amount of activity lately in the primaries. I want to cover as much as I can, so I'll be brief. Obama gave a speech on race last week. What it showed once again is Obama's ability to understand the nuance of issues. His ability to recognize anger on both sides of an issue, to see gray areas, would be a welcome change to a president that can only see the world in the Manichean lens of good and evil.

I shouldn't be surprised though that Bill Kristol doesn't want to talk about race. He thinks we would be better off just making progress without talking about it. Granted, I'll be the first to say too much talking prevents progress. But ignoring issues and pretending they will fix themselves is absurd. Only by recognizing where there are still problems (racial steering in the housing market for example). And to say that a discussion about race will only divide us doesn't make sense in light of the type of speech Obama gave - one that sought to unite and recognized both sides and then suggested what we can do about it.

Hillary released her schedules from her time as first lady. Again, the information seems to show that her experiences were both greater than what Obama was doing at the time, while also less than what she makes them out to be. Although at times it is hard to get a clear sense for what she did since of those who were there, some work for Hillary and say she is being accurate and the rest seem to work for Obama and say she is exaggerating. It would be great if someone objective came forward and said something. This story seems to confirm my thoughts though: she did go to the Balkans during the violence, but she wasn't actually ducking sniper fire. Valuable experience, but not quite as she describes it. True, this does sound like a problem most politicians have.

Richardson has endorsed Obama. This means a lot to me since I supported Richardson's run (before he announced an immediate withdrawal from Iraq). It also says something that a close friend of the Clinton's, someone who was appointed to two high-level positions under Bill, would decide to support Obama. The fact that James Carville would call Richardson a Judas is not surprising for two reasons. One, Carville is just plain crazy. Two, it shows that the Clinton people expect loyalty over objectivity. Apparently, if Richardson doesn't want to support Hillary based on her campaigning, then he should out of loyalty. Well, we saw from Bush what happens when you value loyalty too much.

Finally, it seems McCain gave more consideration to changing parties than he has let on. I don't blame him - although it is amazing how easily liberals forget about how socially conservative he is (myself very much included). I wonder though if this will help him or hurt him - meaning will he gain more moderate votes than he loses in conservative votes?

Ethnic Nationalism

I started sharing magazines with a coworker of mine. I give him copies of my old New York Review of Books (which I haven't done yet) and he gives me old copies of Foreign Affairs. One of the first articles I read was this one about ethnic nationalism (or ethnonationalism). Although at first glance it seems like your standard troupe suggesting that different cultures cannot get along, it is actually very well argued and the tone is reasonable.

Basically his argument is that Americans tend to underestimate the power of ethnonationalism and assume it is an idea created by humans. The author admits that is is a fake construct, but that doesn't diminish its power. He then sites all the examples of ethnic conflict that eventually lead to peace following mass murder and / or mass migration. He argues that the peace is caused by homogenization and separation of the populations. His examples are hard to refute - although some of them I lack enough knowledge to be able to know if his analysis is accurate (he goes back to post World War I changes).

If his analysis is right, it doesn't bode well for some current or recent conflict situations. We look at places like Iraq, Kenya, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and the Balkans, and wonder if they'll be able to hold together in their current state. And in fact, in Iraq, there has already been significant displacement, especially in Baghdad. Neighborhoods are much more homogeneous now after minority residents were forced to leave or killed. It makes you wonder if some of the decrease in violence is attributable to this.

I don't want to be a pessimist. I don't want to believe that the only way to stabilize places like Sudan or the Congo is through separation. At the same time, there is a reason we supported Kosovo's declaration of independence (and it's not just because of guilt). Maybe the answer isn't clean one way or the other, but needs to be decided on a case by case basis. For example, Rwanda is relatively stable for now, and Kenya appears to be getting back on track.

I think though our first step should be to get involved and try to help the populations stay together. Then if it isn't working, to allow for separation and make the mass migrations as painless as possible. But since we haven't been trying very hard in places like Congo, Sudan, and Somalia, we don't know whether the only option is ethnically homogeneous states.

Crazy Week in New York State

The big news this week, especially here in NY State, is the Spitzer prostitution scandal. The only thing I want to say for now about Spitzer is how disappointed I am. His administration had so much promise; he swept into the governor's office with high popularity - at the same time that Democrats overtook Congress. He promised to reform Albany and bring sound management mixed with progressive (although somewhat moderate) politics to the state.

On the other hand, I am very excited about David Paterson. He impressed me in the few interviews I saw of him when he and Spitzer came into office, and his recent speech and Q&A made me feel even better about what he can do. He comes off very smart, reasonable, and candid. Most of the recent news reports say he is also more progressive (liberal) than Spizter. He also has a reputation of having a more collaborative style. I tend to favor politicians who are more collaborative and less combative.

Paterson, like Spitzer, is committed to reform in Albany. Before being Lieutenant Governor, Paterson was minority leader of the NY State, which is a perfect vantage point for seeing how messed up Albany is (basically, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority Leader have all the power and seemingly little accountability). This will be no easy task, especially if the Democrats fail to take over the NYS Senate. And I am a little concerned that his more collaborative style might not work as well in this instance.

I also think it is great that the incoming governor will be New York's first African-American governor as well as first blind governor (good Op-Ed here regarding that). Here is part of his speech and Q&A from Thursday:

In some ways I feel that I’m sitting on a sand castle that other people built. There are so many African-Americans, both men and women, who throughout the past couple of centuries have struggled unremittingly to try to advance opportunity for all people and for themselves. I think they would have been far more qualified than me to serve in this position. The fact that it’s taken this long in some ways is a sad note. But if it in any way allows for African-Americans or those who are disabled — 71 percent of the blind are unemployed, 90 percent of deaf people in this country are unemployed. Maybe one of them could figure out a cure for cancer, but we can’t get them into the workplace. The educational proficiency of the disabled surpasses the national education average, and yet we have these horrible unemployment rates in those communities. So to whatever extent my presence impresses upon employers, or impresses upon younger people who are like me in either way, or Hispanics or women — we’ve never had a governor from either of those communities — then I would feel very privileged, very proud and very flattered to be in this position.

I am disappointed in Spizter, but my hopes and expectations for Paterson might be even higher than they were for his predecessor.

Update: There is an article in today's NY Times taking a look at Paterson's record as a legislator. It's not all flattering. But I still have faith. And here is a column from Bob Herbert on the incoming governor. Apparently, this is how the call from Spizter went:

The call from Mr. Spitzer himself came at 10 minutes after 10 a.m. on Wednesday. Mr. Paterson remembers it this way:

“He said, ‘I’m going to resign.’ And then, at that turbulent moment in his life, he gave me such a kind compliment. He said, ‘David, I told you that in the event I didn’t serve my full term that I wanted a person there who understood how Albany worked and could work well with colleagues. Right now, as bad as I feel about myself, I am so happy about convincing you to come with me.’ ”

Maybe She Can Reapply

I can't even express how disappointed I am that Samantha Power had to resign from Obama's campaign. It said a lot to me that Obama would hire someone whose only claim to fame is an exhaustively researched book about the genocides of the 20th Century. I don't want to go into whether she should have resigned or not - or how bad her comment was (or not) because I can't even pretend that I am capable of being objective. I am a huge fan of Samantha Power; in fact I think I like her more than I like Obama. My hope though is that if Obama does win the nomination and eventually the White House, there will be a big role for her there. As the leading voice for intervention in genocides (as well as the leading critical voice for the times we haven't), she is seriously needed inside Washington.

And just as a reminder, Samantha Power was very critical of the Clinton Administration (which includes Hillary if she is claiming that time as part of her extensive 35 years of experience) in her book A Problem From Hell for refusing to do anything in Rwanda as 800,000 people were slaughtered. And we know how much Clinton's hate being criticized. So I am sure they are particularly happy knowing they knocked Power out.

In an ideal world, the Clintons would truly be sorry for letting the Rwandan genocide happen, and would forgive Power and say that someone who has worked so hard to advocate for those without a voice deserves a second chance. But we know the Clinton's are not capable of that.

What Happens if it Works?

I feel the need to talk about experience again. Hillary's claims of 35 years of experience never cease to fill me with anger. It is such a gross exaggeration. It works for now because in comparison to Obama, she does have the edge. But that will all change if she wins the nomination.

If she faces John McCain in the general election, she'll be up against someone who, by any objective standards, has considerably more experience. So while her argument right now is that the biggest qualification for being president is experience, she'll have to change her tune and all of a sudden and argue that experience isn't as meaningful. Sure, she can change what she talks about by focusing on how similar McCain is to Bush. But I don't know if the press will let her change the subject so easily. I imagine she'll try to continue using the "35 years" line, but when you compare McCain's 22 years in the Senate to what she has been doing over the last 22 years, he comes out way ahead.

This is one of the things that bothers me about her. She has no problem using an exaggerated and disingenuous argument even if she knows she'll have to backpedal later. Obama on the other hand is arguing for change. That applies whether you are talking about preventing another eight years of Clintons or getting the Republicans out of the White House. And I don't anyone doubts his actual desire for change.

I know there are a lot of pundits out there saying why one candidate or the other is better for the general election. I am not claiming that my argument is original, but I am surprised I haven't heard more people voicing it.

State of the Primaries

This NY Times editorial is such a great and concise description of the current state of the Democratic primary:

The election seems stuck where it has been for months. Mrs. Clinton's distinctly more negative campaign has left her open to bad memories of her husband's administration. Mr. Obama's notions of transformational change are as airy and unformed as they were when he first began using them.

I think it says something when a paper that endorsed Hillary says openly that her campaign is more negative. But I also agree that Obama, while inspiring is still quite elusive on policy.

The Times editorial also says this:

The quality of this contest has not reflected that interest or the candidates’ intellect. Instead of a serious debate about trade, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have engaged in a depressing fit of pandering to voters in economically troubled Ohio. They tripped over each other in rushing to attack the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement rather than offering voters honest answers about what government can and should do to help them adapt to globalization’s challenges.

I think the NAFTA issue has enraged me the most. Both candidates were tripping over themselves to be the most negative about NAFTA while making sure to offer statements that were vague enough to avoid being pinned down. Granted, in part I was so offended because I largely support NAFTA. But either way, I hate seeing candidates misrepresenting their positions for votes.

In the end, I am still supporting Obama because I don't want the Clintons back. They claim that being divisive is necessary. I don't buy that when Paul Krugman says it, and I don't believe it when they say it. I want something different, even if it is a vague and airy sort of different. I just wish that the different I will be supporting was more honest and offered a little more depth.

Imperfection

Maybe I should have made this point sooner. Both of the top candidates in the Democratic primary are imperfect. Barak Obama lacks experience and specific policy proposals. But his message is positive, inspiring, and offers change from 20 years of Bushes and Clintons. Hillary on the other hand has more experience (not as much as she claims though) and apparently has more detailed policy plans for the nation. But she also offers another presidency similar to her husband's. And since his presidency was remarkable only in its divisiveness, it isn't so appealing to bring the pair back to the White House.

In the end then, our decision, as per usual, is between two imperfect candidates. For better or worse, I am going to choose the one that offers some change while inspiring me and my generation. Barak may let us down, but I would rather take a chance on that then travel back in time to the 1990s - a time where our country refused to get involved in genocide, but had no trouble following every detail of a president's sex life or a celebrity murder trial.

Good Ole Kristol

I will try to be quick with this one. Yes, I am writing about Bill Kristol again. While my main argument for supporting his new column at the times was for diversity of view points, I also realized there would likely be a few times when I agreed with him. I didn't realize though that it would be so soon.

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

[Edit]

Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.

That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!

Kristol is right. The recent improvement in Iraq is due in large part to the troop surge. The role of Sunni Iraqis turning on Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia also contributed greatly to the increased security. The credit belongs with both of those developments and has nothing to do with Democrats vapid positions on Iraq. The only place I would differ with Kristol is that McCain deserves the credit, not Bush. It took Bush four years to realize he needed more troops, McCain knew from the beginning.

More on Hillary's Experience

There have been two really good articles lately, one by Nicholas Kristof (back from book leave!) and the other by Timothy Noah, that basically get at the experience issue as it relates to Hillary Clinton. The interesting thing though is that after I read their pieces, I read the NY Times article that talks about her experience as First Lady. While the article does have a dismissive tone of her experience, I did come away feeling better about it than I did before. Based on the article, she does seem to have experience from her time as First Lady that Obama hasn't had yet.

That doesn't mean I am changing my vote though. While I do believe more now that she does have an experience edge over Obama, it still isn't significant enough for me to outweigh the negatives. The bottom line is that it still comes down to the fact that I don't want four (or eight) more years of the Clintons. They didn't do a good enough job to deserve more time.

The Federal Budget... Mmm...

What you see before you is the president's fiscal year 2008 budget request. Granted, this may be a bit obsolete, since Congress recently passed the 2008 budget, and if it hasn't been signed yet it will be soon because the president isn't expected to veto it. Anyway, since I couldn't find the approved budget, this will do for now for big picture analysis.

The budget you see here actually only includes discretionary spending, which is less than 40% of the total budget. Non discretionary spending includes Medicare, Medicaid and social security. I have posted this mostly for any of my libertarian friends who might read my blog. There is a lot of talk about how much federal taxes are and I think that talk should be connected to knowledge of how much each government service costs. On the far right column is percentages of the total discretionary budget.

To be honest, this seems to pose more questions than it answers. But it is a good starting point to understanding where your federal dollars go and how much you could actually expect back if you cut certain programs (my analysis is that you would not get much back) or whether we could increase spending in certain areas. I plan to talk more about the details in the future, so stay tuned. If you want more detail, you can go here and get agency level detail.

Support for the War

I posted a while ago about Hillary Clinton's support for the Iraq War and how her justification seemed to make sense. This NY Times article muddies the water a little. Since I wasn't paying attention as much then as I am now, I find it hard to really understand how the debate played out - whether the resolution was a threat to Saddam or whether people should have reasonable expected Bush to use it to go to war. I don't have the energy right now to argue this through. But read the article, it is brief but interesting.

Praise for LBJ?

I feel a little bad that I have been bashing Hillary a lot lately. But it seems like I keep getting more reasons to. Most recently, she made the following comment, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

There is so much that enrages me about this statement. First, it has long bothered me when people, usually presidential biographers but now Hillary too, give the credit for advances in the civil rights movement to Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson. While it is true we should be thankful that they did the little things they did, the civil rights movement was achieved not because of them, but because of groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, NAACP, and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, among others. Neither Johnson nor Kennedy were marching on Washington, working in the deep south for African-American voter registration, or boycotting buses and lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks.

Furthermore, Johnson in particular got behind the movement when there was already the momentum for it. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act, arguably more important, was passed in 1965. This was nearly ten years after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, kicked off after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.

I know there are political science theories about "pressure cookers" and acting at just the right time, but personally, I think they are bunk. It is a way of celebrating someone who did nothing other than wait until there was popular support. Johnson may have worked hard in 1964 and 1965 for the bills to be passed, but the issue already had popular support - especially among northern whites who were outraged by footage of police attacking non-violent protesters in the south. He didn't use his position as Majority Leader of the Senate in the late 50's for these issues. Because of this, he doesn't deserve the credit for the Civil Rights Act.

This is about more than just one seemingly inappropriate comment though. I think it says something about the Clintons that they would celebrate Johnson's role in the Civil Rights movement. Bill Clinton, as president, seemed to rarely use his control over the agenda to promote big issues that didn't already have strong national support. Two major examples of this are Rwanda and the Balkans - and Somalia too for that matter (yes, it seems that I will never forgive President Clinton for his poor choices in the face of genocide). And Hillary has the same reputation. The point is, I don't want a leader who will be good at recognizing an issue whose time has come. I want a leader that will recognize something like civil rights and fight for it until others are on board. Hillary can't be that person if she is willing to make a comment like the one above.

On Experience

With the presidential elections right now mostly between Obama and Clinton, and since I just got official news that Richardson has dropped out, it seems appropriate to talk about experience. Hillary has spent much of this campaign claiming she has more experience than the rest of the field. What has bothered me was that if we were really voting on experience, we would have chosen Richardson without question. During his not-yet-complete two terms as governor of New Mexico, he was wildly popular, oversaw growth (especially by attracting businesses), cut some taxes, and watched as some major state indicators improved (including education). On top of that, he has been Secretary of Energy, US Ambassador to the UN, and a volunteer negotiator to Iraq, North Korea and Sudan.

But experience isn’t the main criteria. It is popularity / name recognition. Then, once we look at the popular ones, we can compare their experience. Okay, so let’s compare Hillary and Obama. Hillary has served one full term in the Senate, and when the presidential inauguration comes around, she’ll have completed two more years – for a total of eight. Barak Obama will have served four years in the Senate when inauguration day comes around. So Hillary has a small advantage there – nothing worth bragging about.

Before being Senator, Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate. Hillary served eight years as first lady. So here is my question: Is being First Lady substantially better experience than serving in a state senate? I do think it depends on the First Lady. In this case, I don’t know of any major items that would help her claim of experience except her work on Health Care reform. I don’t want to minimize that just because it failed. I do believe it was valuable experience. But that is the only thing I can think of. Instead, it seems like she is suggesting that she was involved in the decision-making process in some capacity. I don’t doubt that her and Bill discussed policy and politics nor do I doubt that she provided valuable advice. But even so, I am still not convinced that giving good advice to the President when consulted can be used to back up the claim that she has far more experience than Obama.

Any way I analyze it, the three candidates we are left with are all relatively inexperienced. I only wish that people would realize this and we could move past it and focus on the things that really separate these candidates: their ideas, their beliefs, and their character.

On New Hampshire

I wrote a really long post about New Hampshire, and it mostly focused on bashing Hillary. I have decided instead to start anew and this time be more concise. So, as far as New Hampshire goes, I was upset to see Hillary win. I was afraid she won back that air of inevitability, but I don't think that is actually the case yet. Either way, I really don't like Hillary.

There are two main reasons I don't like Hillary. First, if her campaign is a referendum on Bill's presidency (and it has to be if she is claiming her time as first lady as "experience" that sets her apart from Obama), then I don't think they deserve another term in the White House. I can't for the life of me think of anything significant they / he did while President. Besides offering a really nice apology to Rwanda and finally getting involved in the Balkans (better late then never), I am at a loss. There was also welfare reform, which I don't oppose, but I don't know how successful that really was, nor was it his doing if I remember right. Granted the economy was very strong, but I would say he / they did a good job of not ruining the growth as opposed to being responsible for it. So why should we reelect a team that produced very little after eight years in office? The only explanation I can come up with is that we just want someone who won't ruin the world as Bush has done. But I think we need to set our expectations higher.

The other reason I don't like her just has to do with her personality. I realize that a truly informed person wouldn't base their decision on something as nebulous as personality. But in reality, a candidate can be as wonkish as they want, and have lots of detailed policy ideas going into office, but that all washes away once they try dealing with Congress and once the world changes and forces events on them. So in the end, I have to trust the person I am going to vote for; I have to trust that I know their core beliefs and trust that they will make good decisions. That's why I used to support McCain (before it really sunk in how socially conservative he is). And that's why I don't support Hillary. This Maureen Dowd column gets at some of the reasons. But basically I think she is too strategic, and not real enough. (It is true thought that this charge didn't really stick to Bill much because of how charismatic he is.)

Despite how much I am beating up on Hillary, the truth is that I will definitely vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But I would much rather see Obama there.

Okay, so much for being brief.

Finally, a Repalcement for Safire

I was thrilled when I read that the Times was hiring the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, to write a weekly column for the paper. I have missed William Safire since he stopped writing political columns, and although I think David Brooks is pretty good, he just feels too moderate to really count as the paper's token conservative. (This quote in a Slate article on the same subject sums it up nice, "Brooks tries to persuade his readers of his views gently, as if he's a guest in the house. Kristol lives to brawl and make enemies.")

The fact is that I think we need someone at the Times who is going to shake up liberals like me. I rarely agreed with William Safire, but it was important to know what he, and others like him, were saying. And most times it made me more sure of my position and got me more riled up against the conservatives like him. But I rarely missed one of his columns.

What I don't get is why people would be upset about it. That there should be at least one conservative voice at a liberal paper seems like common sense. But it seems that there are people that would rather the paper remain pure and only hire liberals (or at worst inoffensive moderate conservatives). This way, they'll never have to actually hear from intelligent conservatives. And painting Kristol as on the fringe is ludicrous. He is a standard neo-con, and his views are pretty widely shared by Republicans - including many of those in the party's presidential primary.

The bottom line is that those that are scared to let the opposition talk do so because they are not confident enough in their own message. They are afraid that by giving him a platform at a liberal newspaper, he'll convince liberals to become neo-cons (sorry, but Friedman already tried that). I have no problem letting Kristol speak because I know that if we make our case right, next time we'll be able to prevent another Iraq. And if not, it's our fault, not Bill Kristol's.

Update: Kristol's first column was on Monday. It neither enraged me nor made me think differently about my opinion. Basically, it was pretty plain. But I am still glad it is there. And I am sure that in the coming Mondays his columns will do what aggressive conservative columns are supposed to do to me - and for me.

Dyersville?

So, I haven't posted here in a while. Since I started blogging at the Human Rights Committee, I haven't made the time to continue blogging here. But since I have a few minutes, I thought I would get down my thoughts about the recent Iowa caucus. (I meant to write about who I supported before the first primaries, but that just didn't happen)

Overall, I am pleased. Right now, I am a fan of Obama, mostly because I am not a fan of the other contenders, or former contenders. I can run through them all if you'd like:

* Biden is now out - but hopefully he'll be considered for secretary of defense or national security council (positions he would be much better at then president)

* Richardson is more experienced than any of the three remaining candidates but his Iraq plan is lunacy - maybe he'll get a good appointment also

* Edwards - I just don't like his tone - his aggressive posturing towards big business and the right is both a turn off to me and I am not convinced it is the most effective strategy for progressive reform

* Hillary - as much as I would like a female president she seems a little too hawkish (I think I have changed over the last few years) and I am never sure whether her positions are genuine or strategic. On top of that, I think she is running on Bill's legacy too much, both to boost the level of "experience" she can claim and to simply hearken back to the good old days of the 1990's.

* Obama - He is young, inspiring, and super intelligent. He may not be a policy wonk, which leaves him a little fuzzy on specific plans, but in the end, I trust his judgment more than any of the other candidates. And right now, that is all I can ask for. Because truly, no matter what someone says in the debates, their positions can change quickly if you elect someone who isn't smart or consistent (think back to Bush's plans for isolationism during the 2000 Presidential debates).

Plus, I think I am ready for a change. I am sick of the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle.

As for the Republicans, the only one I would maybe consider is McCain. He stood by his belief of increasing troop levels (something he has been saying for years) and that has produced results. But in the end, I still think I want a Democrat for president.

What Have We Learned?

On the blog for the Human Rights Committee that I am a part of, I talked a little about the situation in Pakistan where General Musharraf has declared emergency rule and imprisoned 500 people from the opposition party. What I want to talk about here though is the broader foreign policy involved.

Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.

Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.

In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.

To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).

Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.

I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.

No Bipartisan Revolt?

A friend and I discussed the history of the strong executive in an email exchange last week. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been expanding presidential powers since they took office - mostly through the effort of VP Cheney. As I have thought about this, I often wondered if I would object as much if it were a Democrat seeking greater powers. In fact, my friend got us started on the debate by referencing Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. After reading that book, I was glad Lincoln was firmly in charge instead of Congress.

Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.

My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).

What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.

Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush

I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.

All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).

My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.

Can't Manage

If we are going to be honest we need to admit that the Democrats have been such a letdown in Congress. And I don't mean this from a policy perspective. Most of the things they have fought for I agree with (increased funding for some social welfare priorities for example). But from an effectiveness perspective they have been useless. On Iraq they have done very little that is meaningful and even their comments are vapid and useless.

Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.