Election 2008

Come on down to this blog’s sister on climate change where I’ve written about Tom Friedman and the Candidates, specifically about a suspension of the federal gas tax this coming summer.

Already the presider over one of the longest primary races in recent history, the Democratic party chairman has put a deadline on the fun.

This morning Howard Dean, comparing himself to a basketball referee, announced on the Sunday morning talk show “Meet the Press” that he believes the Democratic party needs to choose a nominee before the end of June. Leaving speculation as to whether Dean’s statement will aid either candidate in the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries aside, it’s clear the many reasons Dean would want to end the party infighting.

Unifying the party in time to beat John McCain is Dean’s first priority. A turbulent party convention in August would leave less than ten weeks for general election campaigning. Both Clinton and Obama, by this point, have been properly “vetted” through the national media, but Dean needs to ensure that both his party and the public view the Democratic candidate as presidential. McCain’s tours—of the Middle East and the American South—plus the lack of any fierce competition for him over many months result in a definite advantage for the Republican.

Dean, Clinton, and Obama have each done the analysis and come to similar conclusions as to where McCain’s weaknesses lie. As of now, neither of the candidates has been able to focus consistent resources to expose and capitalize on the areas in which McCain is most vulnerable: on the issues.

Dean is hoping that an earlier decision will permit Obama or Clinton more time to differentiate issue positions among themselves—we’ve certainly learned of those nuances in the twenty-one debates—but from McCain’s. Particularly on Iraq, McCain is not in line with the American mainstream. His staunch support for the surge, even given his original hesitation of Bush’s plans for war, leaves McCain among conservatives rather than moderates, as his “maverick” moniker would posit. Whether we realize it or not, McCain’s approaches to Iraq and other “textbook” issues are decidedly conservative.

On the other hand, McCain’s candidacy upsets the blue-red norm. As the Pew numbers suggest, McCain is not seen as a true-blood conservative among many of the most conservative voters; nor is he beloved by all moderates given his recent championship of the most conservative of causes such as tax cuts. The lack of definition of McCain’s candidacy is both a blessing and a curse for the Democrats: Democrats have the opportunity to shape McCain’s image, but the later they join, the more time McCain has to define it himself. Dean, in doing his job, would like to stop McCain from controlling any element of the general campaign.

I’ve got a post on Coal and the Candidates over at the FPA’s Climate Change blog if you’re interested and have a moment. 

If you look carefully, you can see that Barack Obama’s vulnerability in foreign affairs is not his inexperience. His questioning of General David Petraeus on Wednesday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was thoughtful and probing, focusing on whether the conditions set by U.S. commanders for withdrawal could actually be achieved. Obama also correctly points out that Congressional tenure alone is no guarantee of foreign affairs expertise (watching the hearings made this painfully evident). It is even plausible that Obama’s private travel abroad in Indonesia and Pakistan actually may have given him some insights that most Congressmen never gain. Maybe that’s why he spoke out against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 when Hillary voted for it.

No, Obama’s problem in foreign affairs is not his inexperience — it’s whether he will be opposed by supporters of Israel for his stance favoring talks with Iran. As Petraeus pointed out, Iran continues to assist terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and represents a major threat to Iraq’s security. Time/CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who interviewed Petraeus on Wednesday, was particularly adamant in stressing the now obvious point that the struggle for influence in Iraq is essentially between the United States and Iran. Given Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism (at least in its leadership), its virulently anti-Israeli rhetoric, and given Obama’s support for official US contacts with Iran — Obama seems to have staked out a politically vulnerable position. It is only a matter of time before Hillary tries to turn this into a “kitchen sink” to be thrown at him. If she fails, and Obama is nominated, McCain will pick up where Hillary left off.

Washington is still digesting Petraeus’ hours of testimony and interviews, but his assessment of Iran’s activities was impossible to ignore and in other times would be a clear casus belli.

Last October, here’s what General Petraeus said:

“[The Iranians] are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers…There is no question about the connection between Iran and these components, (the) attacks that have killed our soldiers.”

This week, the general added that Iran is “funding, training, arming and directing” Shiite Muslim militias known as “special groups… Unchecked, the[se] special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said.

Finally, Joe Lieberman asked: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

Petraeus’ response: “It certainly is. I do believe that is correct. Again some of that also is militia elements who have then subsequently been trained by these individuals.”
All this spells more trouble in Southwest Asia and the Middle East at a time when the American public is looking for relief from our foreign engagements there. As Senator Lugar (one of the rare foreign policy experts in the Senate and now about to retire) put it: “Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future.”

Lugar’s candid comment had the intellectual honesty of someone not running for office. America is in a funk over the economy and over Iraq. It doesn’t want another four-letter word — Iran — added to its vocabulary of words best left unspoken. Congress’ fixation on withdrawal from Iraq and silent treatment re Petraeus’ warnings on Iran told Tehran all it needs to know. America will probably not attack Iran — not for killing our soldiers nor for resuming uranium enrichment — but Hillary will attack Obama verbally for being willing to talk to opponents of Israel. That’s good politics in Pennsylvania, but ignores the fact that by next January our willingness to talk may be totally undermined by our unwillingness to do anything else.

John McCain has not always been the Republican party’s sweetheart. He was George W. Bush’s adversary for the nomination in 2000, a fierce advocate against the use of torture practices of detainees, and one of the few Republican candidates to take a hard line on immigration in the 2008 primary season. But now, as the party’s anticipated nominee, he campaigns on behalf of the party and its legacy.

McCain is known for his “maverick,” and “straight-talking” ways, but from speech to speech McCain presses on, carrying the conservative moniker. On his recent fundraising trip to California, he received the endorsement of Nancy Reagan. A staunch supporter of the surge in Iraq, McCain’s Iraq policy has come under fire and his positions on domestic and economic affairs solidify McCain towards the right of the American political spectrum. At his core, however, he is a moderate–a label which his recent foreign policy address to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles solidifies.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone.

Is the era of Republican realism over?

[America] must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish.

When was the last time a high-level Republican politician advocated not just for the support, but for the creation of new international institutions? In just one speech, McCain has brought to an end any party notions of “with us or against us”:

Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

This is likely to be one of many foreign policy speeches the candidate gives as he seeks a win in November’s election, but its diversion from the Bush Republican mainstream is noteworthy. (Granted, he delivered the speech in California to an internationalist crowd, though) perhaps the maverick title holds, for McCain certainly seems to have chosen the Republican road less traveled.

Photo by Flickr user pingnews.com used under a Creative Commons license

Senators and Representatives travel abroad on a regular basis, usually on fact-finding trips funded through the generosity of one various interest group or another. As a Senator, John McCain has made many such trips, many of which have been to the Middle East and Europe. This time, though, the purpose is broader.

Acting as his party’s chief ambassador, McCain is meeting with high-ranking officials in Israel, Iraq and Europe. In preparation for his time with Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy, McCain released this op-ed in the Financial Times. In it he says,

Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face…

McCain seeks to “strengthen the transatlantic alliance,” but in order to do so he must secure his party’s nomination and win November’s general election; which is, after all, the purpose of his trip (it’s not as if the average middle class family in London are potential swing voters from whom he is asking for votes).

Note the venues and personalities involved in McCain’s excursions: Prime Minister Blair, President Sarkozy, Iraq, the Wailing Wall, Israel, and Palestine. These are images well known to the politically conscious American. While filling the presidential role, McCain seeks to raise awareness of his foreign policy background, and reinvigorate his own image as a forward-thinking candidate for President.

Update: From the New York Times,

Senator John McCain’s trip abroad this week — which took him from the Middle East to No. 10 Downing Street to the Élysée Palace here — was more than just a Congressional fact-finding trip, or even a candidate’s attempt to appear statesmanlike.
It was also an audition on the world stage for Mr. McCain in his new role as the Republican presidential nominee. And it offered him the chance to test his hope that he could repair America’s tattered reputation by shifting course on some of the policies that have alienated its allies, in areas like global warming and torture.

John McCain, while bolstering his foreign policy credentials on a trip to Europe and the Middle East, made an erroneous and rare gaffe today.

Iran=majority Shiite. Al-Qaeda=majority Sunni. For years John McCain has worked on foreign affairs issues in the Senate and as a presidential candidate, but the basics are good to have down. As some commentators have noted, if it weren’t for Obama’s speech winning a great deal of free media, this might be on the front pages of the papers. Nevertheless, what a good friend and travel buddy Joe Lieberman is!

Barack Obama seeks to usher in a new kind of politics. His stump speech calls on supporters to help him “end the politics of fear,” and borrowing from John F. Kennedy, “that we should never fear to negotiate.” Now in a one-on-one battle with Hillary Clinton for the nomination, Obama has been forced to the defensive, searching for an effective way to fight back.

Hillary Clinton has persisted with her claim that Obama is less prepared than she and John McCain for the “3am phone call” that will come as President. But the Obama campaign is built upon positive ideals–the candidate could tarnish his image, should he go negative. The answer: send out the surrogates, particularly those who can vouch for national security credentials, to convey the message.

The Obama campaign had two of its most high-profile foreign policy advisors, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, grant a series of interviews with the press. They tried to send the message that, in their views, Senator Obama was equally, if not more qualified for that middle-of-the-night phone call than his opponents.

In one of these interviews, Samantha Power let it slip in what she thought was an off-the-record comment to The Scotsman that she thought Hillary Clinton had been a “monster” during the campaign. Ms. Power, a prominent scholar and advocate for US involvement in Darfur, quickly apologized and resigned from her post with the campaign. She issued a number of apologies to Senator Clinton, most of them equally as poignant as this:

Susan Rice took her turn speaking with the press this week, as she responded to Senator Clinton’s characterization of Obama’s in ability to handle the 3am phone call. On Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC, Ms. Rice announced that she believed neither Clinton nor Obama have substantial national security experience.

As Samantha Power pointed out, she is a relative novice to the tires of a political campaign. Ms. Rice, while not new to the Washington and foreign policy arenas, also made a slight error in her comments on television. Both have created nominal headaches for the Obama campaign, and failed to accomplish their objective. Instead, they made the candidate seem to be just what he had intended to combat: inexperienced.

Our political contests borrow heavily from military vocabulary: “campaigns” are waged in “battleground” states, “attack” ads “target” key opponents, and so on. Since 2004, we even have an opprobrious tactic — “swiftboating” — drawn from a synonymous naval vessel.

But on this Veterans’ Day, we are reminded that there is very little military experience — except for John McCain’s — among the current Presidential candidates and their lieutenants. Our most notable military hero in public life, McCain is the only candidate who can speak of deploying American forces with a credibility borne of his own personal experience. However, due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War and his strong support of it, this turns out not to be much of an asset. Without a very strong showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, this survivor of the Hanoi Hilton will be an early primary casualty.

On Veterans’ Day, the candidates automatically focus on helping veterans. Hillary has a campaign video featuring endorsements from veterans, Romney a campaign speech pledging benefits for vets, and Edwards a talk promising new support for treating Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Obama has a pro-vets activity scheduled as well.  But don’t look for this focus to last beyond today’s news cycle.

Hillary’s approach to foreign affairs and security as campaign themes seeks to position her between — as she would have it — Bush’s rush to use military force and Obama’s rush to talk to dictators. She will continue repeating, as she puts it in her Foreign Affairs piece, that the military is “but one element in a comprehensive strategy.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ skirmish at last weekend’s big Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines showed that the five speakers (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd) are sharpening their rhetoric on other topics in preparation for the next campaign battle — the debate on Thursday in Los Vegas. The long, positive, cover stories on Obama that have appeared in the last week (NYT Magazine, The Atlantic) are another indicator that Obama’s forces are winning over the media — at least for now.

There are a number of wounded candidates on the presidential battlefield: Giuliani from the Bernie Kerik indictment, Thompson from lackluster campaigning. On the Democratic side, Richardson’s emphasis on his years of experience in elected and high-level positions has not gained him any points in the polls. In both parties, it is the real survivors, the candidates with the most years of experience — McCain, Biden, Dodd and Richardson — whose future now seems most in doubt.

• Rudy Giuliani received an unexpected endorsement on Wednesday from Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. It shocked many watchers of the Republican campaigns, but Hugh Hewitt at Townhall isn’t convinced that it matters. Many of the leading Christian conservatives have elected to support different candidates in the party, signaling a general discontent among the Republican base.
• Giuliani and McCain have been sparring over the issues of torture and immigration (via Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report and others).
• Ron Paul was able to raise over 4 million dollars in one day through an online ad campaign referencing Guy Fawkes day.
• HRC has had a week of bad press (Hotline, subscriber-only). Rs ask: is this the beginning of her downfall?

• 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.”

• Immigration It’s likely that the Senate won’t be passing any immigration legislation after this move today before the ‘08 election.  This leaves the wedge issue out for discussion among the candidates, some of whom (most recently Fred Thompson), already have come out with statements.
• Rs John McCain’s campaign released this ad, highlighting his remark at the Fox News debate this weekend about Clinton’s former support for the Woodstock museum in up-state New York.  His “I was tied up at the time” comment serves multiple purposes: not only does it allow his team to use colorful tied-eyed backgrounds in the ad, but it also highlights, yet again, his service and capture during Vietnam.
• Rs Mitt Romney released a new ad today, featuring his plans to bring change and spending accountability to Washington.  Per The Caucus, the campaign says it will air in South Carolina.
• Ds The folks at DailyKos are pushing for a stronger response from the Clinton campaign and Senate office re her stance on the FISA legislation.  This as Politico’s Ben Smith reports on possible threats to Clinton’s campaign from the left.

Yesterday’s Republican debate was another installment in their “Who’s the Best Conservative?” televised mini-series. This episode, brought to you by Fox News and the Florida Republican Party, played before an appreciative live audience in Orlando that warmly greeted the on-stage performers and loudly booed the absent villain – Hillary Clinton. She was, as Fred Thompson put it at one point, “always a good applause line (for us).”

This was the kind of audience Republicans yearn for. At one point, the boisterous group beat Mitt Romney to the punch. “Is Hillary Clinton fit to be commander in chief?” the moderator asked Romney. The transcript records:

“AUDIENCE: No!
ROMNEY: The audience — the audience is telling you the answer….”

The ex-governor of Massachusetts then digresses, his thespian’s timing a bit off, until the questioner lobs the softball once again across the plate:

“QUESTIONER: I asked you specifically is she fit to be commander in chief?”
ROMNEY:…I think you heard what they said. The answer is, absolute — anyone here want to vote for Hillary?
AUDIENCE: No!
ROMNEY: I agree with them.

This segue into foreign affairs topics came toward the end of the debate, and perhaps it was just as well. Iraq is a divisive issue among Republicans, immigration equally so. So in this red-belt section of Florida, the eight-man ensemble sparred with each other mainly on domestic policy – who cut taxes more, opposed abortion more, promoted family values better than others, who managed a business, state or city the best, who could best “fix” the health care system. When asked about his views on gay marriage, Rudy Giuliani had a chance to show off his own skillful timing. Marriage is not just a religious commitment, he said. After all, he had married 210 couples when he was Mayor of New York. Then, almost rolling his eyes, a theatrical pause:

“…They were all men and women.
(LAUGHTER)
I hope.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know…”

If Hillary was the number one villain for this Republican gathering, then Vladimir Putin was – among foreign leaders – a kind of understudy for the role. John McCain pronounced him “a dangerous person” and, taking a jab at President Bush, said that “…when I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B….The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don’t care what his objections are to it.”

(Disregard, for a moment, the fact that Czechoslovakia became two separate states – the Czech Republic and Slovakia – 15 years ago. The image of McCain — experienced, skeptical and patriotic – was probably what stuck with the audience.)

As you can see, the characters and their interaction are by now well established, and most are becoming well practiced at delivering a feisty quip, a barbed comment or a comic aside. It’s understandable that, after ten televised debates, each lasting 90 to 120 minutes, there’s no longer much news (or drama) made, but it’s excellent preparation for whomever finally becomes the Republican candidate. After all, less than a year from now, one of the players in this off-Broadway pilot will co-star in prime time TV debates with the nominee of the Democratic Party – and the results will be scrutinized like TV networks’ “sweeps week” ratings. The best sound bites will be broadcast again and again in the final days of the campaign, as millions of Americans may still be deciding who they’ll vote for. Timing – and sound bites – are everything.

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.