March 5, 2008
That 3am phone-call
So the race goes on. Hillary’s victories in Ohio and Texas are both embarrassing and pleasing for political pundits. Pleasing because this is fantastically exciting election - and now we well get some more of it. It’s like being told there will be an extra series of The Sopranos. Embarrassing - obviously - because once again the conventional wisdom has been turned on its head.
I did a BBC Radio programme yesterday morning in which it was all but assumed that the race was over - and it was clearly going to be Obama v McCain. To his credit my fellow guest, Robert Kagan, insisted that Hillary had a good shot of re-opening the race by winning both of last night’s primaries.
Since Kagan was right about that, let me also quote him on the question of presidential character and foreign policy. This is something that both the Clinton and McCain campaigns are going big on. McCain last night insisted that he is by far the most experienced candidate to deal with a foreign policy emergency. And the Clinton campaign has been running TV ads, showing Hillary answering an emergency 3am call at the White House.
Kagan’s argument is that the common notion that McCain will necessarily be a more bellicose and trigger-happy president than either of the Democrats is not necessarily right.
Now Kagan is a strong McCain supporter. But he is also a historian of American foreign policy. And he reckons that history shows that candidates with strong national-security credentials are less likely to feel the need to demonstrate their “toughness”. The comparison he draws is between Eisenhower and JFK. Eisenhower was the victor of world war two - and did not have to prove anything to anyone. Partly as a result, the 1950s passed without major confrontation with the Soviet Union. Kennedy, by contrast, seemed young and untested. He needed to show that he couldn’t be pushed around. And so within a couple of years we had the Cuba missile crisis and the first steps into Vietnam. The clear implication is that a young senator from Illinois (Obama) or the first woman president (Hillary) might be more likely to do something rash than McCain - despite his disturbing lapse in singing “Bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbarann.
Hillary’s ad left unanswered the question of what she would actually do, when she got the 3am call. Presumably, we are not meant to think that she would respond by turning over, and plumping up her pillow. Perhaps she would turn to Bill and ask what he thought?But surely there is no guarantee that he would be there at 3am? No, I think the clear answer is that if phone rings at three in the morning she would do something TOUGH.
Yes this election is v humbling for pundits…
And I think talking as if foreign policy is what will decide the election is again not the right call from pundits. It’s the economy stupid - see my post on clive’s blog - http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2008/03/the-race-goes-on/
As much as it’s more fun for pundits to talk about iraq, iran, russia etc… the grim reality of house foreclosure and job losses matter a whole lot more to ordinary americans. I’m even betting that fear of osama/terror etc will be felt as minor by comparison to economic collapse.
In many countries, especially totalitarian ones, people in power are scared - not of Iran building a nuclear weapon etc… - but of food and petrol price inflation. When crunch times comes, people vote with their wallet, not with their foreign instincts - and it’s even truer for americans.
I’d wonder what Mr Kagan would say to the suggestion that McCain, as a pro-trade fiscal conservative stands no chance vs economic populism as Obama/Clinton will no doubt dish out.
On a different point, it’s impressive that the candidates Obama, Clinton and McCain seem all pretty outstanding individuals. Let’s face it, for all their flaws, it’s a different class from Kerry/Bush.
Posted by: fxtrader | March 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm | Report this commentGreat post, very very insightful.
Posted by: K. Ang | March 5th, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentYes indeed it is always worrying that a president who is perceived as weak may over-compensate and do something really rash.
Nevertheless, it beggars belief that Sen. McCain is considered fir for presidency when he runs on rhetoric of
“100 years in Iraq would be fine with me”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
and Bomb Iran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
What if he is not kidding and is indeed a warmonger who makes Cheney look like Gandhi?
Despite all the false promises, aren’t people entitled to take candidates’ consistent declarations at face value and feel that John McCain might be the most dangerous man alive? (Let’s not forget that GWB ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and sounded a lot less bellicose than McCain.)
As Herbert Hoover said “Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die.” What if this old man, aged 72 when he gets elected, does not have any more zest for life other than pursuit of power by shedding blood? Isn’t this the case with Cheney?
After 8 disastrous years of constant warfare by the Bushites, is the world ready for another 4 years of the same or worse? Are Americans ready for it?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm | Report this comment[…] UK and US political pundits have been getting very excited about the adverts showing Democrat Presidential hopefuls picking up a phone at 3AM in the morning. Apparently thats when the most urgent phone calls on national security are made (I may well have to review the latest 24 to see if this is true). I think this is more likely: […]
Posted by: That 3AM call… : Global Dashboard | March 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentGideon Rachman: “…once again the conventional wisdom has been turned on its head.”
So I understand I am unconventional (or unwise):
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/03/clive-crook-i-surrender/#comment-3873
Posted by: RCS | March 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentMr. Rachman,
As always, a good point well made. But, may I add another piece of “conventional wisdom”. The antagonists (Iran, Russia, Venezuela… whoever) might not be too provocative if they know a trigger happy hardliner (Mr. McCain) occupies the White House and would use force as the first option when confronted (irrespective of sanity of such a principle), as opposed to the stated principle of the young untested president or the first female president, of using force only if all diplomatic avenues are exhausted. That may explain why the Soviets might have perceived it easier to provoke the untested JFK and not the victor of two World Wars.
I do agree with fxtrader that this election is going to be all about the economy. But I don’t agree with his assertion that the free market, pro-trade policies of the Republicans stand no chance against the Populist/ Protectionist propaganda of the Democrats. If anything, the Democrats would change their tune come November, because the biggest states (California, New York and Texas) seem to have benefited from free-trade and have not had the job losses the manufacturing dependent Mid West states have had. Well, guess which states have the highest number of electoral collages in general election?
Posted by: VKA | March 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentAny ideas what’s happening in (and around) Colombia, and how it affects me?
Posted by: Donal | March 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Report this commentDonel,
A FARC rebel leader was assassinated by the Colombian authorities in Ecuadorian territory. Hugo Chavez, naturally outraged by the “infringement of Ecuador’s territorial integrity” sent tanks to the Venezuela- Columbia border. However, in all likelihood it is just hard-man posturing.
Don’t know the likely affects on you, may push the oil prices even higher as Venezuela is a big exporter.
Posted by: VKA | March 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentThe phone call may come at 3:00 am, but we can expect dirty tricks from the Hillary Clinton campaign around the clock.
Posted by: algasema | March 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentVKA - let me just clarify: many pro-trade will still vote Democrat, their record is not really anti-trade. If anything GW Bush (notably with tariffs on ethanol, and the steel tariffs…) has a far worse free trade record than either his dad or Bill Clinton. (and the miserable bilateral trades signed with a few countries do not come close to the Uruguay round or Nafta in my books)
What I mean is that the retoric will be economic populism - which will attract the losers of globalisation, those suffering from the economic slowdown etc.. And those from California, NY etc… will remember that Clinton wasn’t anti-trade.
Posted by: fxtrader | March 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this commentMay I also point out that McCain’s perceived weak point is the economic competence?
As an aside, just watched Bush’s endorsement of McCain. Hilarious! McCain clearly felt unconfortable being there. Also unsurprisingly, the word “security” was uttered regularly. Bush did mention that aside of war, security and making tough choices for America and defending America, the president’s job was also to keep the hopes up of americans… Hope is now becoming a republican value… Thank you Barack Obama!
McCain looks quick tempered enough to be baited into traps. On Super Tuesday he was in Romney’s home state where he had no chance of winning. He was thinking like he was in a military campaign instead of a political one, taking the fight to the enemy’s center of gravity. I think Obama will exploit this and if McCain wins, he will be provoked.
Posted by: garysaus | March 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Report this commentThe day did not give Mr Obama much to feel good about. Hillary Clinton now beats him in the count to date; as well noted here and in Clive Crook’s blog, Hillary has won the states that count. Fxtrader above notes that the Florida (and I would add Michigan) uncounted votes will indeed bind many super delegates.
As I and others, including Edward Luce, have noted, the Clintons play smart, if VERY dirty. They have Hollywood and coy/clever commentators playing with the right minds at the right moments.
I sense this morning’s disappointment is quickly giving way to anger in the international community. The lack of confidence that the US can get anything right was only temporarily suppressed. Markets and investors seem disinclined to embrace the Comeback Queen.
The Clintons and McCain-Lieberman are more of the same anyway you cut it. Obama offered the one chance for “change”.
As I noted in a post in “the other” blog this morning, the only real chance for the Obama movement would be to form an independent coalition. At the moment, I see little chance of it winning America’s middle and lower ranks. Nonetheless, if there are discussions underway, a quick break from the Democratic party will be the only way to break new ground. I also wouldn’t rule out McCain winning some of Obama’s best and brightest in the near term otherwise.
Hillary–bound to her AIPAC and Cuban commitments coupled with Strobe Talbot’s “World Federalism” ideas–is more distasteful to the international community than John McCain.
OPEC’s decision today may suggests that key dollar support has had enough. Many have lost a lot of money in the past few weeks and are unlikely to set themselves up to be burned twice. Moves will be caluclated to minimise further losses, but expect fewer smiley chats and some rude surprises.
Decisive uncoupling from 300 million overindulged adolescents seems to be underway.
Posted by: WCM | March 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Report this commentThere is one scenario about the red telephone ringing that all pundits have ignord: Hillary is president, the red phone rings, Hillary wakes up and notices that Bill is not in the conjugal bed. Does she act presidential and answers the phone or does she act like an aggrieved, jealous wife and chases after errant Bill? That is the question!
Posted by: Rimvydas Sliazas | March 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm | Report this commentIf your account is accurate (and I’m sure it is), Mr. Kagan is reaching when he portrays Eisenhower as having nothing to prove and JFK as insecure and therefore causing confrontation.
JFK was himself confronted with a Russian arms buildup less than 100 miles off the American coast. Considering that his Joint Chiefs of Staff were advising Kennedy to both bomb and invade Cuba, he responded with admirably rational and well-organized restraint.
Eisenhower was engaged in Vietnam before Kennedy, and Kennedy was assasinated before he served out his term, so it’s difficult to say where he would gone with his Vietnam policy. The war escalated under Johnson, not Kennedy.
Bottom line, all of the candidates are untested, including McCain. We’ll just have to see what happens if that phone rings.
And hey! Quit making hubby-bedtime jokes about Hillary Clinton. She’s a serious candidate for the presidency. Grow up.
Posted by: Carla | March 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm | Report this commentMr. Rachman,
Thank you for the post. The question looks like a rehash of the Margaret Thatcher question: Would a man have felt less pressure to demonstrate strength, and tried to resolve the issue without armed conflict? I’m from the other side of the pond - I’d appreciate opinions on this from actual Britons.
I am actually more interested in your experience interviewing with Robert Kagan. I am aware of him through reading On Paradise and Power, his analysis of the division of labor between the US and Europe and its origins in hard/soft power capabilities. I believe that, unlike other neocons, he was kept outside of Washington influence because he backed McCain in 2000.
Has Dr. Kagan revised his position on the need, even the desirability, of a muscular American foreign policy? Based on a panel discussion two years ago with Peter Katzenstein at Cornell, I’m inclined to say no.
More generally, one would hope that, of all people, the president of the United States would not feel the need to “prove” anything. Then again, overachievers frequently have such a drive.
Posted by: Ryan Yamada | March 6th, 2008 at 4:00 am | Report this commentI don’t think that most people evaluate McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” statement correctly. Obviously “100 years” is hyperbole, if he had said, “10 or 15 years”, that could be taken literally.
In my opinion the use of the impossible “100 years” indicates paradoxically that McCain has a firm intention to pull out of Iraq, but as a professional military man knows that any maneuver under fire begins with deception. You simply do not telegraph the enemy your intentions.
The figure even seems like some Chinese metaphor such as “a journey of 1000 Li begins with a single step”. The whole thing reeks of Sun Tzu.
In fact the “100 years” indicates to me that McCain is the only one that might have an actual plan as to how the USA can withdraw from Iraq with some shred of its dignity intact
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
Posted by: David Seaton | March 6th, 2008 at 8:00 am | Report this commentDavid Seaton, what an ingenious spin on John McCain’s statement about the US staying in Iraq for a hundred years! When Mitt Romney, for example, said he would build a second Guantanamo if elected, was that just a clever way of signalling that he was planning to tear the first one down?
Or are the Democrats pushing for withdrawal from Iraq because they are really planning another “surge”? (Perhaps this last is not all that absurd).
Also, is a hundred years really such a long time at all? When Chou-En Lai was asked a question about the effects of the French Revolution, he famously said that 200 years later was too early to tell. And think about what another century in Iraq could do for the bottom lines of Halliburton and Blackwater, not to mention Big Oil. Maybe we should take Senator McCain at his word.
Posted by: algasema | March 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Report this commentDear David Seaton,
I think you just won the prize for the most tongue-in-cheek post to this blog!
Now tell me what did the Nazis mean when they said they wanted to build the “Thousand Year Reich”?
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Report this commentIt is difficult for me to know what the Nazi meant about anything. How should I know?
However, it is obvious to me that the United States will have to leave Iraq,the question will be to see if it is possible to do so in an orderly manner.
There is nothing more difficult in military science than an orderly retreat under fire. Any movement has to begin with deception, so I find the term “100 years” so hyperbolic that I think it should be read, “when we feel like it, at a time of our choosing.”
BTW. I believe that Bush and Cheney should be extradited to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes, so I am not an apologist for theThat said, a disorderly
Posted by: David Seaton | March 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Seaton,
I would say there are some equally, or more, reasonable readings of the 100 years comments. For example:
- Sen. McCain thinks the invasion of Iraq and its consequences have been perfectly OK. He wishes to continue that commitment for the term of his own presidency and possibly use that modus operandi to widen and deepen the American entanglement in the Middle East by attacking, say, Iran and / or Syria.
- Sen. McCain might be sold on the NeoCon idea of staying directly in Iraq to control her oil (as a counterbalance to the Saudis) and to control enough territory (I understand big American garrisons and airbases are being built in Iraq) to hold a dagger at the heart of the region in neighbourhood of Iran, Syria and Suadi Arabia.
Given the scale of the building work the US has undertaken, it is clear that they are digging in for the long-term (maybe not 100 years but to span several presidencies to come). McCain seems to be at one with Bush and Co. in that effort.
Best regards,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Report this commentYou may be perfectly right Pacifist, but I hope not.
The difference between McCain and Bush, Cheney and the neocons is that he actually has professional military training (Annapolis) and combat experience (Vietnam). This sort of background tends to make people much more cautious in the use of force: read Eisenhower or Powell.
My view of the situation is that the United States has failed in Iraq because it no longer has the resources and the will to succeed. Much less does it have the resources to fight a war with Iran, which Bush would have already done if he could, or if they had let him.
Having failed in a fool’s errand, the problem is how to withdraw without losing all credibility, a credibility which is a “public good” for our system and whose sudden, massive loss would even further destabilize the already wobbly world economy. Extricating America from Iraq with some credibility would be a historic achievement. And certainly whoever did it would have to play his or her cards close to the chest/breasts.
The first group of people that McCain would have to fool with the “100 years” is not the Iranians, it is, of course, the Israelis and their Washington Lobby, who depend on US hegemony in the region to keep their hold on the occupied territories. They are quite worried by McCain’s having mentioned James Baker, who endorsed him early on, as his envoy to the region. Certainly to change the US role in the Middle East would require a “Nixon goes to China” approach and of the three candidates the only one equipped for that role is McCain. The major obstacle is not Iran or Iraq or even Al Qaida, it is Israel.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this commenthttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
While I do not concur with much that has been said above about the 100-year commitment or McCain’s relative maturity and sophistication next to Bush-Cheney due to Annapolis or Vietnam, I do think McCain can beat Clinton.
If it is Clinton, Obamacrats will not vote for her. They will not be uncomfortable with McCain, who will demonstrate that he is less owned by AIPAC than Hillary. If foreign policy becomes the issue, McCain’s record is better than his words. Hillary was in the room on Sarajevo, Kosovo, Somalia and the Afghan/Sudan phoney bombings.
Her 3-am call video revealed a lot about her that will be parodied against her up until November. She is not a woman I want to awaken.
It is unwise to beat the Iraq horse. It is responding to treatment, and memories of US voters are short. Also, Iran is not ready to see the US leave. Others want to see the US suffer and pay for its bad judgment. More to the point, the 100-years is a commitment centred more on the oil infrastructure than on Israel. The buy in is region wide, so long as the US can learn to do its job more quietly.
Posted by: WCM | March 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Report this commentDear Mr Seaton,
What nonsense! Absolute rubbish! Israel as an obstacle to the US? Greater than al-Qaeda?
Seems you are an expert in topsy-turvy theorising: 100 years become 100 seconds, friend is a threat, small country is big obstacle: I suggest you give up punditry and take on surrealist painting.
Posted by: RCS | March 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Report this commentThe red phone scenario is ridiculous. Her resume is a joke as far as putting it forth as a candidate for President of USA. She can only do so because she is Mrs. Bill Clinton, which most women with any class and moxie would not want to be considering his tendency to publicly humiliate her. She can claim being a wife and mother, like countless of other women, a First Lady of a small state in the South, a First Lady of a President (and she did not have a Security Clearance) …these are titles, NOT credentials!!!! Her senate experience does not give her a leg up …it makes it a wash with Obama. I am sure the only experience she has had in a 3:00 am crisis is picking up the phone when one of Bill’s bimbos had a little too much to drink and decided to call him hoping that he would pick up instead of her. It is amazing that she has sold this nonsense that she is tested and ready in security matters and foreign affairs to so many voters. If she does become the First US Woman President, I consider it a setback and accomplished women everywhere will regret it down the line. She is not tested, and she will never be ready. She is in politics for unhealthy reasons.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 6th, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Report this commentThis time I agree with Lisa-Helene Lawson. Hillary’s supposed 35 year experience is little more than a propaganda slogan. The main problem is that American voters will believe almost anything as long as it is repeated often enough in slick csmpaign ads and by empty talking TV heads.
As far as McCain’s hundred years in Iraq are concerned, what is the point of trying to spin? McCain was one of the biggest backers of the “surge”, and has long argued for more troops in Iraq. In his victory speech after winning a Midwestern state like Ohio that is being devastated by the economic downturn, especially the subprime mortgage lending scandal, McCain had nothing to say except that he would boost American military power, something that, no doubt, will be greatly reassuring to people whose homes are about to be foreclosed.
In the fall campaign, we can look for even more scare and fear tactics from McCain than we had from Bush (or have had to date from Hillary). If Obama somehow manages to win the nomination - not likely, I am afraid, as his support seems to have peaked - one can only imagine the McCain version of the 3:00 am ad: “When the phone rings with news about the latest attack by Osama, will Barack Hussein Obama put down his Koran long enough to answer?”. If Hillary is the candidate, McCain’s 3:00 am ad will have Monica Lewinsky answering the phone.
Despite all of this, there is reason to believe that the American public is fed up with more militarism as a solution to our problems. If the Democratic candidate whoever he or she turns out to be, can come up with real proposals, not just slogans, about the economy, the Democrats should be able to beat McCain hands down, depite all his inevitable fearmongering.
I agree with David Seaton on one point, however: Bush and Cheney belong in The Hague, not in the White House.
Posted by: algasema | March 7th, 2008 at 4:08 am | Report this commentThe surge has done nothing but buy some time. The United States has lost the war in Iraq already. The “100 years” is hyperbole. If he had said 10 or 20 it would have had some meaning. The question is “how” to get out, not “if”.
A reader commented on a previous post of mine: “What nonsense! Absolute rubbish! Israel as an obstacle to the US? Greater than al-Qaeda?”
Yes, if the objective is to withdraw from Iraq, in fact it is. It is certainly a relationship that calls for closer scrutiny. Something that is not going to happen in an election year.
Posted by: David Seaton | March 7th, 2008 at 7:39 am | Report this commentJust a note. It is very significant that McCain received an early endorsement from James Baker, who is anathema to the Israelis, while Barack Obama had to put distance between himself and Zbigniew Brzezinski. That is a story in itself
Posted by: David Seaton | March 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am | Report this commentIsrael is a stable American ally in a volatile region. Contrary to popular paranoia, Israel does not determine American policy in the ME. In fact, the war in Iraq was not in Israel’s interest, as it deflected from the effort to contain Iran. Iraq was a personal vendetta of George W. Bush. Furthermore, Israel cannot be held responsible for the foolhardiness of the Neocons. If anything needs scrutinising, it is the American political system: in a parliamentary system such a failed administration would not have survived, and in a multi-party system voters’ preferences can be channelled through the parties, which reduces the need for special-interest lobbying.
Posted by: RCS | March 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am | Report this commentInteresting blog, Gideon, but you swim with neos at your peril.
Kagan is certainly right insofar as part of the Cold War was concerned: second generation warfare betw. the Soviets and the US. But note the US lost in fourth generation war, guerrilla war–in VietNam. Additionally applying second generation tactics (lots of bombs and shock-and-awe) to Iraq ignited the insurgency. If Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the Americans invaded, it certainly made up for lost time afterwards!
Guerrilla warfare plays by different rules. Soft power, moral authority and legitimacy are more important, and not coincidentally, these are Obama’s strengths and unique to him only. Whether he gets to apply them in behalf of his country is another matter entirely. His worst enemy is not McCain but his ‘fellow’ (hah!) Dem. Hillary Clinton, who possesses no such credentials whatsoever.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentMcCain, Obama, and Clinton are economic dunces. McCain does not understand the economics of war/policing the world. Clinton made health care in the US, and sleepwalked into dodgy trade deals with Asian countries with dodgy labour law. And Obama is the “Hope Pope”, with experience of running a university journal on the topic law. That is a short list of fools !!
The only candidate in the field with a knowledge is Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinch is the most knowledgeable Democrat on economics. Both want to end US foreign policy, and fix the US from within. But officially, both have been declared to be ‘fringe’ candidates….ignore them in case they change the debate topics !!!1
McCain is seriously underqualified on any item relating to the economy……
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk
God help America !!!!
Posted by: Deco | March 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am | Report this commentDeco - the job is for president of the US, not Treasury secretary.
Clinton wasn’t that good at economics - so he picked Rubin, who did a v good job of sorting out the budget etc…
I agree with your point about the candidates’ economic credentials, but historically the candidates the most capable on economics are bad politicians hence lose elections.
Bush had to call Paulson to try to sort out the mess, but frankly regardless of the economic competence of O’Neil and Snow, it was irrelevant as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had decided that economic common sense didn’t matter and that war it would be - hence all the pork bills to garner political support for war and the likes. Hence a 3 trillion USD budget and a gaping hole…
Posted by: fxtrader | March 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentThe “surge” is like one of those drugs that may make the patient feel better but, longer term, it will kill him.
Bribing and arming the Sunni tribes who were in league with Al Qaeda is sure to backfire big time. Didn’t these fools learn anything from the way they supported the Taliban and Bin Laden?
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fadhily.php?articleid=12408
Posted by: Pacifist | March 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentThe Scottish Press did in one of Obama’s most talented advisers! What a shame! the AIPAC crowd were gunning for her too for sometime now…Samantha Power, unlike Hillary, does have an impressive resume…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this commentGood article coming up on Obama’s net fund raising and its ability to somewhat free him from threats from Dershowitz &tc as well as the AIPAC lobby:
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_10/article.html
Off topic, but what is going on with the ‘analysis’ at the white Times? Kaletsky’s recent article endorsing Clinton was specious and embarrassingly full of errors: it wit, stating that baby boomers elected Kennedy! (They would have been 14 at the time.)
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am | Report this commentPS Just noticed that the article mentions Samantha Powers is one of the three Obama advisors AIPAC is gunning for. One down, two to go…and then the man himself?
Shame, that..real shame.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am | Report this commentDavid Seaton says that “100 years” in Iraq is hyperbole, but 10-20 years would have had some meaning. Is this because because another 10-20 years in Iraq would seem like 100 years? Most people would agree that the five years that America has been in Iraq seem like a century. Certainly, we have already done anough damage to last a hundred years.
Possibly, all of this rhetoric may be part of a clever plan by McCain to get us out of the war. But much more likely, it is just a sign that McCain will try to use jingoism, nationalism and smears against the Democrats’ patriotism to win the election, just as Bush/Cheney/Rove did before him.
Posted by: algasema | March 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm | Report this commentIn 2003 I had a talk with an Israeli friend–very right wing, oh well, we can’t always have friends with the same pol. outlook, can we?–right after the Americans invaded and everything looked great (from an American POV) and I said: “the Israelis should have a major peace conference and reach some kind of settlement with the Pals now, right now.”
And he answered “Everything is going so well. Why should we negotiate?”
My view was that wars are always uncertain and that you should negotiate when your position looks the strongest. You know you can obtain great terms at that time–who knows what terms you’ll get in future? Things always change.
Using that logic today I would say the Pals. ,and I mean Hamas,the real Pals, plus Iran, should begin preparation for talks to commence immediately after Obama is elected. The the soft power, moral authority &tc. characteristic of Obama will work to their detriment so they should start now.
Things look pretty awful for the Americans but we shouldn’t forget the country’s capacity for self renewal.
Only fly in this POV is that Obama has lost 2 out of his 3 of his main foreign policy advisors. Hopefully he will have some foreign policy staff by next year!
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am | Report this commentIt may generally be true that an inexperienced leader is likelier to feel the need to prove toughness than an experienced one. But in this case, consider the individuals involved.
McCain at several points advocated cutting off all aid and trade with North Korea, admitting that such a policy would risk war, in later years with a nuclear power. It’s no accident that in a recent ad he casts himself as Churchill; for fifteen years he has cast the dictators Milosevic, Saddam and Kim Jong-il as Hitlers (and Bill Clinton as Neville Chamberlain). In the Clinton years, he also advocated a much more aggressive stance against China, advocating that we provide Taiwan with missile defense. Speaking of missile defense, he also spoke in favor of abrogating the ABM treaty in 1999. As a self-identified “Churchill,” McCain may not rest until he finds a suitable “Hitler” to oppose.
Hillary Clinton may indeed fit the profile of an unproven leader anxious to prove her “toughness.” Fear of appearing weak appears to have motivated her vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and probably of the recent resolution deeming the Iran Guard a terrorist group. As a woman and as a Clinton, Hillary seems to need to send that ‘don’t tread on me’ vibe.
Obama may indeed make serious mistakes borne of inexperience if elected. He is not the kind of personality, however, that acts out of a need to be perceived as tough. He recognizes the political necessity of showing that he can’t be pushed around, but his demeanor and approach to decision-making are the opposite of bluster.
Posted by: Andrew Sprung | March 16th, 2008 at 12:55 am | Report this comment