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.