The Three Presidents

The media is desperate to find and exploit any rift in the Obama-Clinton relationship, wherein they see endless drama, but in reality it seems there is none. Obama goes to Russia without Hillary. Joe Biden takes point on the Iraq withdrawal. Hillary cancels her trip to Italy for the G-8.

First of all, let's not forget she shattered her elbow. Shattered it. Ouch. I don't know how many people have ever broken a bone or messed up a messy area like a knee or elbow, but let me tell you first hand it hurts like hell. And you'd take a few days off work if you did it, too. I was down with a wrenched knee for a month. Hillary Clinton was back at work three days later. Granted, she doesn't have to walk on her elbow, so it is probably a little easier, but please, give me a break. Excuse the pun.

I think more than likely, what spurred this fresh round of media gossip is Iran. It is well documented at this point that Obama's sharper stance on the post-election turmoil in Iran came at the urging of Secretary Clinton. Then, someone decided that the President did so "without telling her first." Of course these stories all come from "confidential sources," and I just don't believe it. And moreover, so what? If I asked someone to agree with me, and they did it, I'd be happy, not mad that they didn't send me a memo announcing they did. And the likelihood that any public statement made by the President of the United States concerning a major foreign policy issue came as a surprise to the State Department (who apparently originated the sentiment) is nearly unbelievable. Particularly considering the equally well-documented closeness between Obama and Clinton: weekly private meetings, daily phone contact, and admissions by the Vice President that Secretary Clinton frequently trumps him in high-level meetings, that Hillary is Obama's "go to" person on "almost everything."

Let's address the Russia thing. So, did we all already forget that Secretary Clinton was in Russia in March, concluding a major diplomatic tour where she met with just about every key leader in Europe and Asia, where her star power and international reputation at least at that time greatly exceeded the President's. Now, the President has made his trip to Russia to work out the details, and it is reported that the US-Russian commission that was agreed to this week will be overseen and conducted by... drum roll, please... none other than Secretary of State Clinton. Let's also not forget that if Secretary Clinton had to cancel her trip to Russia with the President this week, obviously it was planned for her to go. I don't see where it would be appropriate for Clinton to be in Russia making major policy agreements; that is still the president's job, right? And Russia is certainly important enough in the scheme of things to get Obama in person.

On Iraq. Nothing new is taking place in Iraq. We are concluding a policy-driven withdrawal that was negotiated by the former administration. Secretary Clinton was in Iraq on April 25th, following suicide bombings in Baghdad, and coinciding with the arrival of US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, and was there to assess the situation, and the readiness of US troops to conduct their scheduled pull-out. Iraq, for all its politicization, is a military operation, and primarily needs to be conducted through military channels, with the advisement of the State Department, not the other way around. Giving Vice President Biden the lead on Iraq is a natural choice, as vice-Commander-In-Chief, and a foreign policy expert. Biden was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 4 years after all, and on the committee for more than 20. And, this portfolio pass off between Biden and Clinton is becoming par for the course, as well. It's a sign of trust and cooperation in the administration, not of "rifts." Giving the Iraq portfolio to anyone less than the VP would be an insult to Secretary Gates, who in reality should likely be the point person for Iraq policy. Gates and Clinton have also shown a much greater cooperation and mutual respect for one another than has been seen between the Pentagon and the State Department in recent memory, and Gates has handed back a good deal of the responsibilities that should rightfully belong to the State Department, and it seems he did so with a sign of relief.

Today, VP Biden and Secretary Clinton had a private meeting just prior to Biden's swearing in of Al Franken. Secretary Clinton then took off for Foggybottom to prepare for her meeting with ousted Hounduran President Zelaya. Not to mention she has been on the phone and at the press podium for days talking about China, and slowly mounting international pressure on continued human rights abuses that broke out again this week in Urumqi. Not to mention working in concert with the UK to put as much pressure on Iran as possible to release detained UK Embassy staff and to respect democracy without undermining our desire to engage with them directly. (Note also this is a direct departure from her stance in the 2008 presidential campaign, and a complete adoption of Obama's point of view.) Oh yeah, and working the diplomatic grape vine to ensure India as a partner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, working overtime to mend fences with Muslim interests in the Middle East, without marginalizing Israel. And pretty much single-handedly ironing out the peace process in Norther Ireland. Arguably, the bureaucracy at State is at least as large and complex as the bureaucracy in the White House, yet when the Secretary of State flushes it out with well-empowered and experienced envoys, she gets criticized, but when the president does it, it's expected.

As I have said, and will continue to say most likely, the Obama-Biden-Clinton global triumvirate is going just fine.

Israel & Hamas Agree On One Thing: Keep Fighting

Officials from both Hamas and Israel today rebuffed the United Nations call for a cease-fire in Gaza, both claiming the proposed plan is not in the best interest of their countries or their people. Hamas further blasted the United States claiming that their Abstain vote on the UN resolution (rather than a veto or a yes vote) is designed to give Israel more time in Gaza. This is likely true, and unbalanced or not, this kind of UN action is really lacking any bite without US backing. Either that, or Secretary Rice sees the enticing possibility of not having to deal with Gaza and passing the task to Hillary Clinton in 11 days. Meanwhile, the Red Cross is accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, which may or may not be true, but they are certainly not wholly cooperating.

The Vatican is also sounding off about the humanitarian conditions of the Gaza Strip, causing an explosive back-and-forth between Cardinal Renato Martino, the president of the Council for Justice and Peace and Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Martino compared the Gaza Strip to a "big concentration camp," which admittedly is inflammatory language. Palmor quickly fired back, that it was “shocking to hear the vocabulary of Hamas propaganda coming from a member of the church." The Vatican officially downplayed the spat, calling Cardinal Martino's words, "inopportune."

Iran is also pulling back its rhetoric, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refusing to let known extremists out of the country to carry out suicide bombings in Israel. In a show of division inside Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although supportive of the Ayatollah's wishes, continues to talk big about supporting Hamas in "other ways." Anti-Israel and anti-US protests in Iraq continued today as well. Moqtada al-Sadr called for revenge attacks on the Jewish state's strongest ally the United States. This is going to get worse before it gets better.

Hamas Antagonizes Peace Prospects

Israel, bending to increasing global pressure to consider a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, agreed to a three hour cessation of hostility. The New York Daily News is reporting that at 1 O'clock PM, "precisely the time" when the 3-hour cease-fire was supposed to begin, Hamas fired on Israeli troops. The three hour window was intended to allow aid supplies and fuel to reach some of the 1.4 million residents of Gaza. Red Cross International is calling the Gaza Strip a full-blown humanitarian crisis at this time, and is struggling to get aid workers and supplies into Gaza. Al-Qaida is capitalizing on the mayhem, calling on worldwide attacks and blaming President-elect Obama for the Gaza attacks. Iran is also flexing its muscles, sending out envoys all over the globe, under the guise of peace. Iraqi resistance leader Muqtada al-Sadr has jumped on the bandwagon as well, calling for "revenge operations" against America and pro-Israeli groups. Meanwhile racism is alive and well at home, as a protester in Florida calls for Jews to "go back to the oven." If anyone still thinks Hamas is interested in a peaceful solution, look here and here.

Clinton's Path To The Nomination: Clearer Than You Think

I find it interesting that the majority of people who are writing about Clinton's "path to the nomination" are mostly Clinton eulogists. These essays read like this, "Clinton needs to achieve this long list of unlikely victories and then will still have to face a hostile elective body in Denver who clearly prefer Obama." They then go on to point out that Clinton's only real hope is that Obama will do something to tank his own campaign and make himself unpalatable to the DNC. Then, and only then, will Clinton have a chance of swaying the superdelegates to back her, and by then, the image of the Democratic party in general will be so trashed that McCain will sweep the election, and everyone will be sorry they didn't speak out louder for Obama. They're already plating up a big, healthy meal of buyer's remorse, when no one's been bought yet. In light of all this, I think it is far and away time to see a Clinton-favoring "path to the nomination."

Of course these eulogies started popping up as soon as Clinton achieved what everyone said she needed to achieve: big wins on March 4th. Everyone from both campaigns, to the media, to the DNC said this was the "firewall." She passed that firewall with flying colors. And, in spite of accusations that Clinton is capitalizing on the Wright scandal, the more likely reality is that March 4th gave Clinton momentum for Pennsylvania. She was already in the lead in the Keystone State, and her lead started to grow immediately after March 4th. Yes, the Wright scandal probably helped, and Clinton cannot be blamed for passively benefiting from it. More likely, the Wright situation is helping her more in North Carolina, where Obama's lead has been drastically shortened. Three weeks ago, Penn and NC looked like mirror images of each other, now it's a landslide for Clinton in Penn and a narrow win for Obama in NC. Since the beginning or March, the head-to-head schematic has started to slide Clinton's way, too, with the "vs. McCain" results no longer favoring Obama (which they were by 5 points) and with Clinton performing better against McCain. In that race, Obama has lost nearly 6 points and Clinton has gained 3. That is a 9-point variance, which is outside most margins of error.

So, what is Clinton's path to the nomination?

Florida and Michigan

While the pundits are calling the likelihood of nothing happening in FL and MI towards re-votes a "blow" to Clinton, I think this is a media-created fallacy. First of all, a re-vote in either state presents the very real chance that Obama could close the gap. Campaign schematics are different, the media coverage is different, only 25% of the original candidates are still standing, and Obama is seen as a much more serious option than he was pre-Edwards drop out. Second, if nothing happens in the two contested states, and the DNC continues their shut out of those delegates, they still represent 1.2 million votes for Clinton. Official or not, those votes close the gap. With FL and MI included, the popular vote total only favors Obama by 0.3%. Anyone who tries to claim that those votes should not count should also check their cries for the popular vote to be respected. Regardless of a rule that disenfranchised millions of American voters because governmental bureaucracy made a bungle, votes are still votes.

Big States Strategy and Electoral Strategy

These two are related, and are a very normal and typical general election strategy. In spite of the nit picking about the importance of such and such demographic and arguments about who can turn red states blue, the simple fact remains that Clinton has performed the strongest in the big states and that she leads in electorate strength. Barring a huge reversal in Pennsylvania, that argument will be almost unchallengeable by April 22. Obama has cleaned house in small states and in caucuses. And, in spite of creative math supported by questionable arguments that Obama appeals to swing voters more than Clinton, big states decide the general election, and the general election is not run caucus-style. Yes, there are states that are so blue that any Democrat will carry them, but that is true of Clinton too. Also, Texas is the major big-state stronghold for Republicans, and there is a very compelling case that Clinton would be much more competitive in Texas than Obama. I'm not sold that Democrats could take Texas at all, but stranger things have happened. If 700,000 Latinos come out to vote on Election Day in Texas like they did on March 4th, we might see an upset in Texas. An area where Clinton has an arguable advantage is in voter empowerment, and in energizing her ground game at the last minute.

Swing States and "pink" states

The swing states are: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. They represent 71 electoral votes which is 13% of the nationwide electorate and 26% of the required majority to win. Based on a combination of results and poll projections, Clinton beats Obama in the swing states by 10 points. I believe there is also a strong argument that Clinton could take Florida, a "pink" state. She is performing much better in head-to-heads than Obama in the Sunshine State, she won the Florida primary by a very convincing margin, versus McCain's narrow win over Romney. If Clinton can hang onto her Latino base and regain the white male vote, she could give McCain a run for his money in taking Florida's 25 electoral votes. The other pink states are: Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana. In terms of the Democratic race, those states are split in half with Georgia and Colorado for Obama and Arizona and Montana for Clinton (Montana projected.) Of the pink states other than Florida, only Georgia has much electoral weight, and in fairness to Obama, I do think he would stand a fair chance of taking Georgia, but he would lose Florida which would cut into his net gain pretty seriously.

The Money Myth

"Obama outspends Clinton." "Obama raises more money than Clinton." The fact however, is that since the beginning of March, Clinton has been raising at least a million a day, and when they sent out panicked calls for donations last week, they raised over 2 million on 1 day. I do not see that kind of push from Obama, who is currently coasting on financial advantage based on higher debt on the Clinton side. Also, Clinton is much more financially prepared for the general election, by more than a 3-to-1 margin. Both Democrats have left McCain in the dust financially. If Clinton can get to the general election, she will have a huge financial advantage. Obama would have to focus on fund raising, whereas Clinton would be much more agile because of her money lead. In the general election funds, Clinton is ahead of McCain 7-to-1 whereas Obama is ahead just over 2-to-1. Obama is blowing through money very fast right now trying to regain his momentum, outspending Clinton by over a million a day. While that makes him look like he is winning, it is literally costing him. If Clinton can stay financially afloat for the next 5 weeks, the financial schematic will look very different by June. By that time, the Clinton campaign will have paid off its debt, and Obama will be struggling to keep his lead against McCain and the GOP who will no doubt open their wallets wide. Clinton has also been slammed for her big-donor strategy, which I cannot fathom being a bad idea. With big, cash-flushed donors on her side, there is a much greater chance that when push comes to shove, Clinton will be able to keep her lead, versus Obama's "grassroots" financial support. If I was in dire straights for money, I'd ask my rich friends for money before my poor ones.

General Election Focus and the Issues

I believe that Clinton has been focusing on general election strategies from the start: take the big states, build up a big general election fund, stay centrist on the issues. Clinton is appealing to the wallet -- economy, housing, health care. Obama is appealing to the spirit -- change, cooperation, reform.

I think it is clear at this point that the working class prefers Clinton, and in the end, her positions on keeping your house and getting medical care will win the day. While it has come out that Clinton apparently "misrepresented" her position on NAFTA, I still think that one goes to (or against) Obama. Clinton held pro-NAFTA meetings while Bill was president, and NAFTA was widely seen as a good move for the US economy. Clinton has said that NAFTA is hurting the economy now, and said that she would use opt-out threats to renegotiate NAFTA terms. Obama pretty much said the same thing, but it also came out that his campaign strategists knew this was just rhetoric and didn't really mean it. So, 10 years ago Clinton said, "Let's do NAFTA." Now it's not working out, and she acknowledges this and wants to fix it. Obama just looks like a liar in this case, whereas Clinton has a much stronger argument that, "We tried it, it didn't work out as planned. We can fix it."

As for Iraq, people think that Obama has a better plan because he opposed the war from the start. This is another media-created fallacy. Just because Clinton voted to authorize the war doesn't mean that today, five years later, in a completely different political climate, Clinton is not capable of coming up with a reasonable solution. Also, the likelihood that Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better is still very real. Pro-Iraq sentiment is at an all time high again. Even though liberals won't acknowledge it for the most part, the troop surge worked. I believe Clinton's Iraq position is also a general election strategy to appeal to moderates who support the war effort (even if they opposed it originally) but want to see progress toward withdrawal. Obama's anti-war stance is much stronger and louder, and that may not be a strength against McCain, although it presents more contrast. Clinton and McCain are both on the Armed Services Committee, which begs the question, who knows more about Iraq? Probably Clinton. Couched together with her very real point that Obama has been seriously negligent in his duties as the chair of the sub committee on Europe, Clinton comes out looking much more prepared to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

The Superdelegate Myth

The prevalent attitude at this time is the the superdelegates favor Obama. Currently, Clinton is holding a 14% lead in superdelegate support. Clinton has had superdelegate majority since the beginning. Obama is closing that lead, but he is doing so with his primary and caucus numbers, not with unpledged "defectors" as the media is portraying. The main myth that is being perpetrated is that the superdelegates are in some way going to automatically support Obama based on "large" popular vote leads. First of all, I don't see much of a large lead, and it is getting smaller. Florida and Michigan are going to count in the arguments, even if they don't count in the math, and that erases Obama's "big lead." The superdelegates are not bound to the popular vote, otherwise their function would be what? Nothing. Superdelegates exist because of the obvious need for discernment in the nomination process. If Clinton can convince superdelegates that she is the right one for the job, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the pundits are already saying that this is exactly what she has to do. When all the primaries are over, and the nominating process enters its final stages, either one of them is going to need the superdelegate contingent to get their majority. Obama has to campaign for their support, too, but you don't see anyone saying he shouldn't. The superdelegates are voters in the nominating process just like the pledged ones, and arguably their role is more important at this stage, since neither candidate is going to win without them.

If find no compelling argument that Obama's case is any stronger than Clinton's. The two are still in a dead heat, and Obama is currently suffering. If Clinton had experienced the horrible week Obama just had, the opinion would be that it was over for her. The fact that she has hung on, is gaining in the head-to-heads and is closing the gap in states that were "Obama Country" a week ago, is certainly not a sign that she should quit. It is a very strong sign that she could turn it around. Clinton has come back every time it has looked like it was over. There is more evidence to support the idea that she can come back again, rather than she won't. This battle aint over til it's over. Clinton very well may win the argument that she is more electable, and that is going to win the nomination. Democratic party leaders have made it very clear that their priority is a Democratic win in November, and whoever demonstrates a stronger elective case by August will be the nominee.

Enough With The He-Said-She-Said Over Iraq

I was going to write a non-partisan evaluation of all three presidential candidate's positions on Iraq, but I can't. I just read in detail McCain's published position on his website, and it is so repugnant to me, I cannot offer any sort of authentication to it. McCain's position is not only "pro-Iraq." It is a manifesto of continued occupation of Iraq, increase of military presence, nullification of Iraqi domestic government, and insinuation of US interests in the Middle East in general. McCain offers us a conqueror's claim of territory. If McCain has his way, it will not be "foreign oil," it will be tribute paid to an overlord. I am repelled and sickened. Any lingering sympathies I may have had for McCain are destroyed. I am eating my own words: McCain is Bush With A Brain. Let me echo Nancy Pelosi in saying, "We must have a Democratic president."

For Clinton and Obama, again, let me urge unity. Their positions are almost identical, with only nuance level differences. Clearly, both Democratic Senators are pro-withdrawal, pro-America, and pro-Iraqi autonomy. Enough with the he-said-she-said. I will reiterate: it only matters what they will do about it. Obama is crying foul that Clinton "supported the war." I find that a broad claim, as what she actually did, along with more than half of congressional Democrats, was authorize the use of military force in Iraq, which in spite of liberal cries against it, was a reasonable choice. Clinton also spoke in favor of heavy UN involvement, coalition building, mediation before military action, and heavy Senate oversight. Clinton has said that Obama may be misrepresenting his position on Iraq, and that he may in fact not even be planning to carry through on his claims of immediate solutions. What I believe is Obama may find himself mired in partisan politics and jockeying for position, and would have to make some compromises. Compromise, which is the result of successful cooperation seems consistent with Obama's position to me, and I feel he would be equally diligent in his pledge to get out of Iraq. Clinton has a more detailed plan by far, but that does not prove Obama would be bad at it, or that he would not have a more flushed out plan by January 2009. Obama has a higher moral claim to his position because he has clearly opposed the war, strongly, since the start. That does not prove that Clinton is insincere in her position, and her impassioned support of the human tragedies in all corners of the Iraq mess. I think both Clinton and Obama are genuinely concerned with the well being of the Iraqi state, and in managing the visceral elements of the war like refugees and bereft American families, veteran affairs and ongoing safety protocols.

Comparisons to FDR could be damaging for both of them in this matter, but I do see a good deal of Rooseveltian sentiment from both Clinton and Obama, which I can only agree with. Clinton approaches Iraq from the long-view perspective, whereas Obama treats it as a critical but independent situation. Iraq and Afganistan have been ongoing issues for the US since the late 80's, and every President since Carter has had to confront Middle East issues. Iraq figured strongly in Bill Clinton's administration, and this is an area where Hillary may well fairly claim more experience. This does not dismiss Obama's positions or potential successes.

Both have indicated that they chiefly agree with each other on Iraq. I believe this is one of those times that Clinton and Obama should present a strong united front. Allowing campaign rhetoric, debate biases or negative campaigning to undermine a united Democratic front on solutions to Iraq is a bad, bad idea. New polls are suggesting that support for the ongoing Iraq quagmire is at an all time high again, and McCain is going to capitalize on that to make his pro-Iraq war mongering seem like a good idea. If this trend continues, Clinton and Obama are going to have to make very strong cases for being in favor of balanced management, not dramatic withdrawal. Although the economy is taking a front seat in the issues, I believe the successful spin on Democratic solutions to Iraq will be management not "withdrawal." Focus on coalition and transitioning, steady insertion of multi-national forces, and inclusion of Iraqi dominated government officials can win the argument.