Election 2008

You can be sure that when the choreography of a political event emphasizes symbolism, it’s usually at the expense of content. So it was with the Democratic show of unity at tiny Unity, NH (population 2,100). Lots of smiles, promises to work together, and Hillary and Obama trading compliments. Obama emphasized how much the country and the Democrats owe Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Hillary (Bill was not there) said it was important for her supporters to vote for Obama in November.

It was a long way to go to get a photo op with “Unity Town Hall” in the background.

The two erstwhile opponents do, in fact, need each other. In that sense the unity message is sincere enough. Hillary wants Obama’s backers to cough up $22 million so she doesn’t have to eat her campaign debt. Obama wants the votes and money of “die hard” Hillary backers. But it seems that you can’t just say this and be done with it. The symbolism demands that you pretend that the harsh attacks of the last year didn’t really happen and that the Party is really one big happy family.

So earlier in the week, there was Obama’s call to his top donors to pay Clinton’s “vendor debt” — as if Hillary can’t go on unless her “campaign” pays her back the millions she loaned it. Then came Thursday’s joint appearance in Washington — no cameras, please! — before Hillary’s top fund raisers. Obama spread the love by writing his own check to Hillary for $2,300.

Media observers seem to think this is all good. What’s more important than unity — even if it is just symbolic?

Come over to the Climate Change blog at FPA to see my latest on McCain and Obama.  Cheers.

President Bush, it seems, has been a lame duck for months. In addition to the blogs following his activities on his road back to Crawford, the President’s polling numbers are excruciatingly low–68 percent of Americans disapprove of the Bush Presidency, higher than any other disapproval ratings Gallup has ever tracked (they’ve been measuring since 1938).

The good news rests on the side of the (now determined) general election contenders. According to the newest ABC/Washington Post poll, Obama and McCain are all of four percentage points apart (48 to 42, Obama). Obama attracts those in search of new ideas and a new direction (82 to McCain’s 10 percent). McCain supporters believe strength and experience to be most important in a candidate. The contest will get into full swing after the conventions this summer, and Americans from both persuasions will choose their candidate.

Those watching abroad seem to have chosen theirs already. The most recent Pew study reports high interest in the election abroad, not to mention strong preferences among the leading candidates.

People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama’s, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate.

Obama’s advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain.

Along with the prospects of a new US President, foreigners are gaining confidence in the overall image of the US.

The survey finds a widespread belief that U.S. foreign policy “will change for the better” after the inauguration of a new American president next year. Among people who have been following the election, large majorities in France (68%), Spain (67%) and Germany (64%) say that they believe that U.S. foreign policy will improve after the election. This sentiment is also common in the African countries included in the survey - Nigeria (67%), South Africa (66%) and Tanzania (65%).

Many of the Muslim countries don’t see improvements happening at all: “In Jordan and Egypt, more people who are following the election say they expect new leadership to change U.S. foreign policy for the worse than say they expect a change for the better.”

The next President, whomever he is, will look for public support at home and abroad, and will have to compete against predetermined biases.

President Bush’s farewell visit to Europe was one of his longest visits to the “Old Continent,” but it may also have been the least noticed. From Slovenia, Northern Ireland, and Germany, to London, Rome, and Paris, Bush took nearly a week to meet with heads of government, the European Union, the Pope and the Queen of England — all without making much news. Even within the countries visited, such as tiny Slovenia, with a total population of less than two million, the President came and went without much impact. This is quite unusual, if for no reason other than the size of a U.S. President’s traveling party and the logistical requirements imposed on the governments of the countries visited. This scant attention is a sign of Bush’s reduced influence, due to his short remaining tenure in office, but also, more fundamentally, the slight regard in which his policies are held.

The ticking away of the George W. Bush presidency is in some ways a sad thing to observe from abroad. For someone who displayed little interest in foreign affairs prior to running for President, Bush will be remembered almost exclusively for his response to a terrible attack on the U.S. homeland that had profound international implications. The “Education President” became the “War on Terror President,” and the American public grew so unhappy with the results that the first thing all major candidates have said this year is that they will not be anything like George W. Bush.  Low esteem for Bush seems to be one of the things that unite most Americans and most Europeans in this U.S. election year.

Nevertheless, some conservatives, such as Ann Coulter, argue that Bush will be eventually be regarded as a “great president” on the grounds that “he kept us safe.” Coulter puts it this way:

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That’s 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK — or a landmark building, for that matter.

The factual accuracy of the above assertion can be disputed, but even were it entirely true, there have been so many unintended and yet foreseeable consequences of Bush’s approach to fighting the “War on Terror” that the value of “pinning down” terrorists on the Iraqi battlefield is highly dubious. From the legal and ethical mess at Guantanamo, to the growth of Iranian influence in Iraq, the weakening of U.S. leadership in the West, the loss of American lives and treasure, the dilution of the focus on attacking al-Qaida sanctuaries in Afghanistan, and ultimately the failure to eliminate the man whom Bush said he “Wanted — Dead or Alive,” Osama Bin Ladin — all have lead to a dismal conclusion that no one running for office wants to be associated with.
While eventually some historians will give Bush credit for preventing any further attack on the United States during his years at the White House, an enduring legacy is usually built on something positive you accomplish rather than something negative you prevent from happening.

There is another way of looking at this: Presidents should be allowed some credit for the things that go right on their watch, because they will surely get blamed for the things that go wrong. So Bush deserves credit — although few members of his own Party, and none of the Republican presidential candidates actually said this out loud — for preventing another 9/11. This is because the negative “legacy” is so obvious.

The most prominent sound bite that came out of Bush’s European trip was, again, on his view of his decision to invade Iraq:

I don’t regret [having gone to war with Iraq] at all. Removing Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place. And yes, [when I was asked], now what could you do over? First of all, you don’t get to do things over in my line of work. But I could have used better rhetoric to indicate that one, we tried to exhaust the diplomacy in Iraq; two, that I don’t like war. But, no, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.

The Bush years are ending in a strange way, as Britain’s The Independent puts it. Bush now seems interested in listening to Europeans in the waning days of his presidency, when it matters less to them, than in the early days, when it mattered greatly to all concerned.

And, ah yes, he could have used better rhetoric.

Now that tempers have calmed and Hillary Clinton has made a gracious concession speech, the general election campaign begins in earnest. Polls today give Barack Obama only a slight advantage over John McCain, but almost five months remain until November 4th, and surveys of candidate popularity taken this far ahead of the election don’t tell us much about which candidate Americans will favor this fall.

Polls of the American electorate on the issues, however, are much more indicative. Right now, they state clearly that that most Americans are very concerned about the economy. Friday’s jump in oil prices and U.S. unemployment, and the simultaneous fall in the stock markets and the U.S. dollar, were only the latest manifestation of our economic woes. Saturday’s sound bite from McCain acknowledged that things were “very, very serious.”

It does not seem that anything President Bush or Congress is likely to do, or any independent economic development, is likely to alter the U.S. economy’s vector in the next few months. The federal government’s tax rebates, approved early this year in response to the country’s mortgage crisis, have largely been disbursed. Predictably, there was little impact on the overall U.S. economy.

What the United States is facing now is much more a consequence of international developments, particularly the rapidly escalating price of oil, linked to rising international demand. Of course, the Bush Administration did itself no favors by pursuing a weak dollar policy, which bolstered exports but now results in a vicious cycle of weaker currency putting greater upward pressure on dollar-denominated oil and higher oil prices weakening the dollar. Higher oil will eventually foster conservation and greater innovation, but for now we’re locked in an downward economic cycle based on expensive oil.

Respected pollster Andrew Kohut and populist conservative Bill O’Reilly — to name just two commentators of the past week — made the point that Iraq has lost salience as a election issue. O’Reilly says this is because the war is going better. True in part. American casualties were down in May. But, as I write this, the Iraqi government is deep in diplomatic contacts with Iran — you know, the axis-member evil-doer. Not a particularly good outcome for the United States.

Kohut makes the point that Americans are quite ambivalent about what to do now with regard to Iraq. This will shape a new context for the candidates as they prepare to debate the issue: Obama can say he was right about not invading Iraq in the first place, McCain can say it doesn’t make sense to withdraw now so quickly if it strengthens Iran’s influence in Iraq at a time Iran itself is the greatest threat to regional stability.

But the winner this fall will be the candidate who begins with the economy — on Main Street and Wall Street — and presents a coherent plan for getting the U.S. out of recession. Obama and McCain will agree about many aspects of energy policy, but the answer lies not only there. The next President will need to move simultaneously on many aspects of trade, fiscal and budgetary policies — providing stimulus and incentives while keeping oil-inspired inflation in check. Wiser use of the U.S. military is needed to demonstrate to markets and publics that supplies of oil can become more reliable and predictable. Getting Iraq right is a start — but only a start.

Let’s find the right word or phrase to describe what is going on in what is now known as Hillaryland.  Is it “denial” — as in an inability to face reality?  Is it “tactical willfulness” — trying to wrest concessions from Obama in exchange for letting him try to unify the Democratic Party?  Is it “vindictiveness” — as in wanting to undermine the value of the prize that he has won and that has eluded her?

Most commentary and analysis today suggests elements of all three.  What, however, has little credibility is campaign director Terry McAuliffe’s suggestion that Hillary was too busy in recent days to give any thought to what she would do once Obama passed the threshold of delegates needed to ensure his nomination.  It has been clear for weeks that Hillary could not win more elected delegates than Obama.  Plenty of time to think things through.
Does Hillary really want the Vice Presidential nomination, or just to be offered it?  The acid-tongued (but entertaining) Maureen Dowd puts it this way:

Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren’t sure what… [B]y broadcasting that she’s open to being Obama’s running mate, she puts public pressure on him similar to the sort of pressure Walter Mondale was under from rampaging feminists when he put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket. Mondale ended up seeming henpecked, as Obama would seem if he caved to the women who say they will write in Hillary’s name or vote for anti-choice McCain before they’d vote for Obama.

Hillary certainly knows that, despite her strength in the swing-state primaries, she would not help Obama as a running mate.  It is also not a role that she would be comfortable with.  By elimination of other possibilities, one is sadly (but not surprisingly) left to conclude that Hillary is feeding the rumor that she would accept the Vice Presidential nomination in order to weaken the man she still regards as her opponent — even after he has won.

It’s all over but the post mortems for the Clinton campaign. Votes in the last two Presidential primaries are being cast as I write this post and, barring some upheaval, Barack Obama will end this evening with enough delegates (including superdelegates) to claim the Democratic nomination. The only suspense that remains seems to be over whether Hillary will publicly acknowledge her defeat.

There are certainly grounds for doubt. Last weekend Clinton strategist Harold Ickes announced that Hillary “reserved her right” to challenge the ruling of the the Democratic committee that issued a compromise decision on the previously disallowed Michigan and Florida primaries. Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe issued a stern denial today when the AP reported that Clinton would acknowledge her defeat tonight.

Knowing when to say “when,” and how to say it, is one of Hillary’s toughest challenges. Obama has been generous and diplomatic in his public references to her, but she has not reciprocated. She seems stuck in her own world of counting the “popular vote” and claiming to be in the lead. Similarly her husband seems stuck on blaming her defeat on national media bias against her, just as she once blamed her husband’s misfortunes on a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.”

It is time for closure — blaming the media or your opponent may feel good at this point, but is bad behavior and hurts reputations. It is hard to imagine that it goes along with being invited to join Obama’s ticket.

Few issues have the staying power of Israel in American foreign policy.  As the AIPAC conference approaches (and the cable news channels set their sights on different politically-charged committee rooms in Washington DC hotels), Jeffrey Goldberg offers some required preparation reading.

Having conducted interviews with both Barack Obama and John McCain, Goldberg uncovers some of the most focused discussion of the candidates’ Middle East policies as and their relevance for Israel as an ally and the American Jewish community:

“The two candidates…have well-developed thoughts on the Middle East, and their differences are stark. Obama sees the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as one of America’s central challenges in the Middle East; McCain names Islamic extremism as the most formidable challenge. Obama sees Jewish settlements as “not helpful” to peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians; McCain does not offer a critique of the settlements, instead identifying Hamas’ rocket attacks on the Israeli town of Sderot as the most pressing problem. And both men take very different positions on the issue of Philip Roth.”