Election 2008

Democrats have a problem. Not the excitement of a close race, in which millions have voted in primaries for the first time, and not the prospect of running against a Republican Party weakened by an unpopular President. The Democrats’ problem, which threatens to outweigh their considerable advantages, is their inability to govern themselves.

It is now mathematically certain that, without delegates from Florida and Michigan, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can go to the Democratic Party convention in Denver in August with enough elected delegates to win the nomination. Democrats from Florida and Michigan, you will recall, decided last fall to disobey the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hold their primaries in January. The Party then ruled that the delegates chosen in these two states would not be allowed to vote at the Convention.

In deference to the DNC, Obama and Clinton did not campaign in Florida and Michigan — although Hillary did go to Florida for fund-raisers right before the vote. Obama’s name was not even on the Michigan ballot. Hillary won both primaries easily, and now Hillary’s supporters in these two states are lobbying to have the election results upheld and the delegates seated. More likely, there will be a new primaries scheduled in Michigan and Florida.

NPR’s Juan Williams said it best last night on Fox News:

I think that Barack Obama is in a trap here. He can’t say, “No, I oppose a do-over,” because otherwise, he’d then be saying he wants the status quo, which is to disenfranchise those voters. Hillary Clinton can take the higher ground, but you and I both know what she has out of this is delegates. She wants to say she she’s won not only the popular vote and she’s likely to win the popular vote in both those states, but to win those additional delegates. It’s a trap.

Now, that’s the scenario. If you count today the delegates elected through votes in primaries or caucuses, Obama has 1366, Clinton 1222. A candidate needs 2025 delegate votes at the Convention to win the nomination. There are a total of only 611 more delegates left to be chosen through state primaries. Because delegate votes will be awarded proportionate to the election results in these states, neither Hillary or Obama can capture enough in the remaining primaries — excluding Michigan and Florida — to win the nomination.

Michigan and Florida together would have added another 338. That leaves the Democratic Party with a potentially schism-causing choice: either change its ruling in effect and include Michigan and Florida votes, or allow the so-called “superdelegates” — there are 795 of them from around the country — to determine who becomes the Party’s candidate. Right now, the superdelegates who have already declared a preference are fairly evenly split between Obama (209) and Clinton (242). But they are not “pledged,” and can change their minds and vote for whomever they please.

Hillary and Obama have already staked out positions on how the Michigan and Florida primary results should be treated, but there is really no one in a strong position to mediate between them. The DNC and its Chairman, Howard Dean, have been shown to be ineffectual so far in enforcing their own decisions.

There are a number of nightmare scenarios for the Democrats that are, of course, dream scenarios for the Republicans. The worst might be if a candidate who wins the most votes in the primaries — with or without Florida and Michigan — fails to get the nomination. This would not only be a “train wreck” in terms of efforts to unify the Party for the general election, but would discredit the American political process in the eyes of many in the United States and around the world.

As the WSJ’s Peggy Noonan puts it today, the Democrats are in the trenches today, and for weeks to come. As they fight it out, in the muck and mud of a now less than clean campaign, they need to decide if a non-democratic result will help the Democratic Party.

Campaign headlines tonight center on the Democratic debate, which wrapped up just a few minutes ago from Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Standing center stage, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the heavyweight on the stage. On Iran, Iraq, social security, the Alternative Minimum Tax, NY Governor Spitzer’s plan to document illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses and more, Sen. Clinton’s opponents, particularly John Edwards and Barack Obama, attacked her for what they called “double speak”–voicing conflicting opinions on key stances. Clinton, meanwhile, carefully turned her attention to the failures of the Bush Administration.

The format (HRC asked question; Obama/Edwards respond; HRC rebuttal) for the first half of the evening limited the availability of any candidate to shine. The later 30-second spots forced the otherwise verbose Dems to condense answers on education, immigration, and UFOs (in case you missed it, Dennis Kucinich has seen them and Chris Matthews is afraid the party will become pro-UFO vs. the anti-evolution Republicans).

• Winner: to be determined. Obama and Edwards did what they came to do. HRC wasn’t able to stay above the fray, but she didn’t lose her cool.
• Best line: Joe Biden. Rudy Giuliani’s sentences consist of a “verb, a noun, and 9/11.”
• Post-debate spin: at this posting, the fight between the Giuliani and Biden camps has only just begun.
• Issue: Iran got three rounds of questions, at least.

We’ll have more analysis on this largely foreign policy-related debate to come, but we’d like to hear your thoughts on the debate. Leave us your comments on the candidates’ stances, whether on halting Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the comparatively shorter school year American children attend than their international counterparts. Let’s delve into the issues in more time than the “lightening round” would allow.

 Photo: AP/Matt Rourke

• Ds The latest rendition of what TPM calls the “dueling memos” phenomenon between the Obama and Clinton camps has to do with the newsy case of Iran, upon which the Bush Administration designated serious sanctions today. They are some of the harshest imposed on the country since 1979. If the Administration continues to move in this direction, not only will there be a 2003 Iraq-like discussion in the international community, but the campaign front-runners will be forced to take stances they may not be prepared to take.
• Rs The New York Times, Alex Massie and The New Republic call out Rudy Giuliani’s response to a question raised at a town hall meeting in Iowa regarding torture. Christopher Orr calls it “what may be the mot honest defense of torture I’ve seen from an American politician.”
• Rs Iowa papers are abuzz with John McCain’s statements on the Middle East, which include hints at long-term American involvement in Iraq and the construction of military “lily pads” in the region, similar to those currently in Eastern Europe, in case of “crisis.”

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

• Rs and Trade Romney proposes opening markets in his “Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom” plan. He suggests opening markets and helping American workers “succeed,” claiming it would be the largest free trade zone “ever.” By raising the trade issue, not only does Romney get policy points (which he may be in even more need of after this rough morning), but he would renew a dialogue about the issue in Republican circles. Democratic candidates have taken stances on NAFTA and Doha before, but broadened debate could propel this issue to the fore.
• Ds and FISA Obama and Clinton offered “conditional support” for filibustering the FISA bill, which has yet to make it through Committee. They join Dodd and Biden in their distaste for the measure, which liberal bloggers are touting as “defending the Constitution against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.”
• Rs and Immigration Mark Krikorian over at The Corner is a fan of Fred Thompson’s recently announced platform on immigration.
• Endorsing Rs Mitt Romney lost an endorsement today from Pastor Don Wilton of South Carolina today, the pretty heavy-handed state Baptist Convention President. If nothing else, the loss of Wilton’s support signals the continued hesitation on the part of social conservatives to back the candidate. Does it all come down to his Mormon faith, or is there something more political going on here?
• Ads Bill Richardson (D) released this ad yesterday, highlighting his role in negotiating the release of hostages out of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1995. He has made his experience the focus of his spots in the past; this new ad drills down onto the finer points of his CV.

Way back when, campaigns started around the winter before Election Day. Now, still over a year prior to the 2008 contest, I’m wondering where to begin discussion; there’s so much to catch up on. For now, let’s stick to some points of interest from this week.

Ivory Tower American Interest launches a series among top public intellectuals on foreign affairs in the 2008 election. Barry Posen starts off the exchange, with comments from heavyweights like Fukuyama, Ferguson, Joffe, and Ikenberry following. This first debate, at least, seems to commence a worthwhile academic dialogue on post-November ’08 foreign policy. A must-read, indeed.

In the Journals John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the latest contributors to the Foreign Affairs Election ’08 segment. CFR.org puts their pieces in context. Clinton and McCain’s essays, like those of the other candidates’, prove adequate in conveying worldviews and issues of interest.

Rs Kathryn Jean Lopez contemplates John McCain’s call to serve at National Review Online. Kate O’Brien thinks he might be a better option than Giuliani. Is the conservative commentariat coming around on McCain?

Ds Bloggers on the left are happy that Chris Dodd announced he would place a hold on the Senate FISA legislation, though as the Washington Post notes, the bill has yet to come to the Senate floor and is still in mark-up. According to Dodd, the bill would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the president’s terrorist surveillance program. Dodd has fared poorly in recent polls and the move is seen as a means of courting, among others, liberal bloggers.

Congress has not been very surefooted of late when it comes to declaring foreign policy by means of Congressional Resolution. The latest example comes in the form of H. Res. 106, passed last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which condemns the Ottoman Empire’s murderous behavior in 1915, when the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia was nearly extinguished.

After several days of repercussions that included Turkey recalling its ambassador and threatening to end bilateral military cooperation with the United States, there were signs today that the Democratic leadership in the House was planning to quietly shelve the resolution so it would not get voted on in the full House.

Now the U.S. is now in the baleful position of having worsened relations with Turkey without even getting points for principled action.

From the standpoint of current U.S. foreign policy, the timing of this whole affair could not have been worse. The Republic of Turkey is a key U.S. ally and partner. Ankara’s cooperation and support are crucial to U.S. military activities in Iraq. Turkey represents a modern country with an Islamic majority that endorses the separation of mosque and state. Add to this the extremely sensitive situation on Turkey’s border with Iraq, Turkey’s restive attitude toward the Kurdish semi-state developing in northern Iraq, and the latest vote today by the Turkish parliament to authorize military incursions across the border to attack suspected PKK enclaves, and one is left with a sinking feeling about what may happen next.

This is not to say that Turkey should be allowed to deny the actions of the Ottoman Turks ninety years ago. But there are better ways – and much better timing – to achieve atonement and reconciliation.

It would also help if congressional resolutions were more consistent, and less politically expedient. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) must have thought at first it would be easy to support this measure because her party is not in the White House and would not have to bear the consequences – at least not yet – for worsening US-Turkish relations. She appears now to be reconsidering.

For better or worse, when Democrats or Republicans control both the Executive Branch and Congress, Congress passes very few resolutions that are considered offensive to key allies. When power is divided in Washington, Congressional forays into foreign policy don’t have the same consequences and it becomes easier to stand on “principle.”

Perhaps more important, the temptation is great, during election seasons, to solicit votes by actions that appeal to ethnic voters. California, home to the largest part of America’s Armenian diaspora, will be key to the outcome of the 2008 elections. Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan – other sites of more recent genocides – are less present in America’s immigrant/ethnic communities, or we might see more resolutions in this election season on their behalf.

As Congress recalculates its interest in this issue, it might also keep in mind its October 2002 Resolution supporting the Iraq war, which seems so hasty in light of subsequent events. When the U.S. moved ahead and invaded Iraq, the Turkish parliament opposed its own government and refused to authorize use of Turkish airspace for the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe Congress would do well to listen occasionally to its counterparts in Ankara.

The stunning news that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize should make Americans proud – even as it upsets his political detractors and worries Democrats running for the White House. After all, it’s a prestigious recognition that the United States helped to lead the international debate on climate change, something that was easily forgotten in the acrimony over the US stance on the Kyoto Protocol. It’s also a kind of personal vindication – the kind Americans love – where the guy who’s had a tough break picks himself up and comes out a winner. Whatever F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about no “second acts” in American lives, we relish those exceptions, whether it’s Richard Nixon in ’68, or Albert Gore forty years later. Who remembers “Sore Loserman” now? An Oscar, an Emmy, and now a Nobel!

It perhaps should be no surprise that the guy who was in charge, during the Clinton years, of “government re-invention,” turned out to be pretty good at re-inventing himself. He’s more at home in Silicon Valley than any of the Republican candidates, the putative backers of entrepreneurs. Having been out of politics since 2001, Gore has no votes on Iraq that he must defend. So, with his name recognition, and benefiting from Republican miscues, Gore would be a remarkably strong candidate, blessed even by the Swedish academy. Even our mammoth energy conglomerates would probably like him, since they are all deeply into re-inventing themselves as purveyors of alternative energy products (and the government subsidies they earn).

So why won’t Gore run? Almost certainly, the answer lies once again in the frosty, symbiotic relationship between Gore and the Clintons, dredged up once again in a new book by Sally Bedell. If one believes only half of what has been written over the past ten years or so, Gore took umbrage at Hillary’s initiatives as First Lady, Bill resented Al’s go-it-alone attitude during the 2000 campaign, and Al chaffed at the Clintons’ fund-raising successes on behalf of Hillary’s first Senate race. Hillary’s current, commanding lead among Democratic candidates can only be challenged by one individual – and no one knows this better than Al, Hillary and Bill.

Less than three months remain before the first party caucuses, which gives Nobel Laureate Gore only a couple of weeks in which to reconsider – if he chooses – his demurrals. Those who want – or fear – a Gore candidacy are well aware of this and are engaged in last ditch efforts. An election, like a hanging, concentrates the mind. But if there were any doubt that foreign publics take an interest and try to influence the outcome of our quadrennial confusion, the voters in Oslo put that to rest. They held their own caucus, cast their secret vote, and announced the results of the first primary of the 2008 election. The only question is, will the winner be a candidate?