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.