Election 2008

One truth about John McCain’s foreign policy views: He’s no slave to fashion. Opposed Reagan on deploying Marines to Lebanon in 1983. Lobbied the Bush White House for last year’s troop “surge” in Iraq. The NYT tried yesterday to classify McCain’s foreign policy viewpoints based on his mix of “realist” and “neo-con” advisers, but was ultimately frustrated.

The post-modernist way that political labels are viewed these days is partly responsible. “Liberals” seldom use the label when running for national office, “conservative” is almost always inadequate in describing a candidate, unless there’s a clear context in either social, fiscal or foreign policy. The Atlantic Monthly’s Jonathan Rauch calls McCain “Mr. Conservative,” but then goes on to qualify him as a Burkean traditionalist, rather than an ambitious foreign policy revolutionary.

McCain does seem to like the idea of cheering on the spread of democracy, however. For years he’s been associated with the International Republican Institute, one of the NGOs funded by Congress to advance democracy in formerly Communist countries. And now, in his recent foreign policy discourse in Los Angeles, he has proposed a League of Democracies.

The need for the League arises because, says McCain:

…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. Perhaps above all, leadership in today’s world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests…

How different are these sentiments from the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, FDR or even Madeleine Albright? Albright started up a Community of Democracies just eight years ago in order to have a kind of forum of like-minded democratic leaders. It appears to still exist, but has scarcely been heard from in recent years.

The idea of mobilizing democracies is a lofty ambition but usually works better on paper and in speeches than in reality. George W. Bush began his Presidency without such ambitions but, by the time of his second Inaugural had become a convert. Presidential candidates are supposed to have a “vision,” but the American electorate might be content with more modest “conservative” expectations. As the curmudgeonly Pat Buchanan puts it, “What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?”

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.

Money and its influence have become the common denominators of every story at this stage in the long presidential campaign. I know — you’re shocked, shocked.

Yesterday, it was the news that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s tax returns showed lucrative work by Bill for powerful companies that donate to Hillary’s campaign.

Before that, it was Hillary campaign manager Mark Penn’s paid work on behalf of the government of Columbia to promote a free trade pact that Hillary opposes.

And before that, it was the AP rundown of how the millions of John McCain’s wife helped bank roll his early Senate campaigns, lease jet planes and pay for real estate they both use for entertaining.

And this is just the last few spins of the news cycle.

It is hard to avoid being importuned for money by the candidates, their supporters, and their political parties, or reading about how they’re spending it. When you go to the candidates’ Web sites, the first page you see is an appeal to give them more money.

Don’t they know we’re in a recession?

If you win one of the on-going campaign lotteries — sorry, contests — in exchange for a donation you can win a trip on McCain’s bus (“The Straight Talk Express”), a ticket to Hillary’s Elton John concert, or a sit-down dinner with Barack Obama. Now, Clinton’s campaign offers you the opportunity to designate how you want your donation spent.

Think of it as a funded “earmark.”

The biggest news about Barack Obama in the last day or so is that he raised $40 million last month — twice as much as Hillary.

You can see why Hillary would be concerned. A billion dollars has been spent by all the campaigns already just for the primaries. That amounts to spending money faster than Bill can give speeches.

No one must love the political process more than TV and radio broadcasters in Pennsylvania, where the Democrats are spending millions on campaign ads in advance of the April 22 primary.

Oddly, none of this spending seems to have been adversely affected by that other money story — the recession. But the money never runs out for political campaigns because the need for the influence it provides never ends.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal’s “Political Market” (a “free fantasy political stock market” — not to be confused with the equity markets) puts Obama way out in front as the likely Democratic nominee, with 84% betting for him. Nearly 60% will “buy” a contract that the Democrats will win the White House this fall.

Or you can place your bets at any Las Vegas casino — that is, if one of the candidates is not holding a fund raiser there.

Last week, when the U.S. archives released 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s documents from her eight years as First Lady, it was not the trove of information that many expected. Why? One reason: some of what transpired was never written down. Another: the government censored much of the most potentially enlightening information. The official, misleading word for this practice is “redaction.” But this wasn’t mere editing. Of the 11,000 pages, many had extensive content blacked out before they were released to the press.

Did Mrs. Clinton play a role in the Northern Ireland peace process? Did she negotiate the transit of refugees from Kosovo? Did she contribute to the formulation and conduct of foreign policy during her husband’s tenure as President? She and her campaign say that she did, but the “redacted” documents from her tenure as First Lady don’t tell us the answer. On the days when Bill Clinton made critical foreign and security policy decisions – the disastrous Somalia intervention, the response to the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, the U.S. air attack on Yugoslavia – there is no contemporaneous record of Mrs. Clinton having taken part in them. There is obviously no official role for a First Lady in the “3 a.m. phone call” scenario that has become so much a part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertising. We are asked to believe that she is “ready on day one” based on her proximity to decision makers, not her having been one.

Mark Penn and other Clinton supporters point to now-Senator Clinton’s decades-long life in the public eye as evidence of “vetting” – another misused word. True, many journalists have written about Bill and Hillary Clinton in the course of their political lives – enough to fill a library. But “vetting” is usually an organized, directed process, not the independent activity of journalists. Also, it usually implies a positive outcome, as in “Mrs. Clinton has been vetted for the position of X, and has been cleared for duty.” Political candidates – even for high office – really don’t get vetted in any systematic way. (Witness last week’s chance revelations that led to the downfall of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer.) Even when personal peccadilloes are exposed, voters may not be aware of them, or may disregard their importance. Victory in a political campaign should not be confused with ethical vindication.

It is not clear why so much of Hillary Clinton’s record as First Lady has been censored – sorry, redacted. But it is clear that we cannot consider her “vetted” until all evidence – supporting and otherwise – about her foreign policy record is made available. For the same reason, the public has every right to see “unredacted” copies of the Clintons’ tax records.

When we hear about State Department contract employees prying – unauthorized — into Barack Obama’s passport file, or seven-year-old videos of Obama’s church pastor being surfaced in an effort to discredit him, it is clear that we are into a very extreme season of “opposition research” – yet another misnomer. Such so-called “research” amounts to nothing so much as an effort to find more mud beneath a river of slimy political tactics.

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!

Hillary Clinton delivered a major speech on Iraq today, amid the growing sense of crisis in the financial markets.

“The American people don’t have to guess whether I’m ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I’d be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward.”

John McCain is on a short trip to Europe and Iraq to highlight his foreign policy experience. From the Wall Street Journal:

John McCain takes an overseas detour from the campaign trail this weekend to the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona senator says he is doing it as a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He insists this isn’t a campaign trip.

In both cases, events that could presumably generate significant foreign policy press–and therefore discussion–have been overshadowed by the concern foremost on Americans’ minds: the economy.

News of the buyout of Bear Stearns echoed throughout Wall Street and international markets. The news of the weakening dollar and likelihood that the U.S. is in a recession filtered through the national news.

In what was expected to be the foreign policy election, voters are increasingly finding the economy to be their foremost concern. At this point in the process, very few have changed their story to: “it’s Iraq, stupid.”

Writing at the New York Times, Andrew Kohut reports on new Pew Center data that Americans, while voicing clear domestic priorities, are unsure about the direction foreign policy should take after Bush.

Opinion surveys show that American views about the world will not only challenge the presidential candidates of both parties in the general election, but will force the winner in November to deal with a citizenry that is downbeat about the world and fractured along partisan lines.

Disillusionment with the Iraq war has ushered in a rise in isolationist sentiment comparable to that of the mid-1970’s following the Vietnam war. Pew surveys have found as many as four in 10 Americans saying the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”…

A rise in isolationism has signaled a diminished public appetite for the assertive national security policy of the Bush years and, in general, a less internationalist outlook.

Did Bush, inadvertently, bring about a new era of isolationism? As the economy looks to be on the verge of recession and the dollar at record-breaking lows, are Americans realizing the cost of the Iraq war–as the Economist writes, what economists like Joseph Stiglitz estimate to be 3 trillion dollars?

Great powers almost never pay for their wars up front. Even in America’s war of independence, the revolutionaries printed money to finance their campaign.

But the Pew figures point to a populace that is starting to experience the effects of the war expenditures. If the news continues to worsen, the candidates will have little choice but to draw upon isolationist sentiments. Whether the U.S. can afford such a lack of foreign policy remains an open question.

This blog recently reported on the volatility of the Obama campaign’s foreign policy surrogates (Susan Rice: neither Clinton nor Obama are ready for the 3am phone call; Samantha Power: Clinton is a “monster”). Throughout the campaign, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to keep a particularly watchful eye on their surrogates’ and supporters’ public appearances. But as the media attention grows and the campaigns need surrogates to convey increasingly negative messages, surrogates are taking on a greater burden.

Geraldine Ferraro, an open supporter of Hillary Clinton, has taken her turn spurning controversy. After the South Carolina incidents for which Mrs. Clinton apologized, Geraldine Ferraro has again brought race into the conversation:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Marc Ambinder says it best: “gas, meet fire.”

UPDATE: The former Vice Presidential candidate is now a former member of Hillary Clinton’s finance committee. Geraldine Ferraro stepped down today saying “that Senator Barack Obama’s campaign was twisting her words to make her appear racist and that this was hurting Mrs. Clinton.”

The two incidents that have caused resignations from the Obama (Samantha Power) and Clinton (Ferraro) campaigns, demonstrate the unprecedented speed with which

A comment each to a Scottish or a minor Los Angeles area newspaper first led to vehement controversy on the Internet, then cable news, then national news. In just two days, and amid the height of another political scandal, it’s yet another sign that campaigns are facing increased scrutiny from all sides this time.

Photo: Getty Images via npr.org

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.

At least until late April, Democratic party infighting will ensue. John McCain, widely recognized for his dedicated service to the United States and his hawkish approach to foreign affairs (particularly Iraq), received the Republican presidential imprimatur this week and is the party candidate for November’s general election.

As the unpopular President endorsed McCain, media and thereby voter attention stayed on the Clinton-Obama contest for the Democratic nomination.In the first of, presumably, many attempts to come, Hillary Clinton continued her foreign policy offensive against Barack Obama today. This time, however, the Senator from Illinois did not sit on the sidelines: through a chief foreign policy surrogate, Prof. Susan Rice, Obama’s camp made it clear that they do not believe Clinton’s “3am phone call” accusation–that Clinton is prepared for the call in the middle of the night, and that Obama is not–to be factually substantiated.

That said, Hillary Clinton was on the offensive today as she claimed to have “crossed the threshold” of acting as commander in chief. She said that while John McCain had certainly acted as statesman, reporters would have to check with Obama’s camp whether this was the case for him. Obama’s campaign inteds to fight back, and watchers are settling in for at minimum another month of campaigning, at the extreme, Denver.  The question for us is whether the candidates will proceed with the use of foreign affairs as a way to gain votes.

Hillary Clinton emerged the comeback winner last night (and early this morning), as she added Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island to her “W” column. Exit polls showed that Texas voters who made their decision within the past three days, voted for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, 63-37.

Hillary Clinton fought Obama to the end, releasing negative ads and offering combative stump speeches. Each mistake the Obama campaign made in the past few days, Clinton jumped: principally the Canada-NAFTA incident, and Tony Rezko. But more often than not, the Clinton campaign sought to turn the discussion back to her talking points.

Significantly, one of the ads the Clinton campaign released in Texas brought the conversation back to national security. In the context of who is best to “answer the red phone call in the middle of the night.” Timing is everything.

Just last Wednesday, Robert Novak wrote: “Inside the Democratic Party, it is already taken for granted that the queen is dead and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the king.” A few days earlier, Mark Halperin counted 16 “underappreciated Obama advantages.” What — only 16?

Such is the world of media and politics that tonight, on the eve of the March 4th primaries, Hillary Clinton is cast in nearly all mass media as tomorrow’s likely victor — even if she should gain fewer delegates. Dick Morris, once gleeful at the prospect of Hillary’s demise, predicts enough bounce for Clinton to extend the Democratic campaign through spring. The Michigan and Florida primaries, annulled by the Party, will be restaged, he predicts.

Ohio ice will be Pensylvania mud before this is all over. And the mud will be slung with abandon.

Two weeks of Saturday Night Live, yesterday’s Sixty Minutes and today’s Daily Show have showcased a laughing, self-deprecating Hillary, while regular newscasts have featured a series of questions about Obama’s character. First, the Tennessee Republicans unearthed a photo of Obama in an African costume, then Obama’s erstwhile supporter Rezko went on trial for corruption. Finally, today a slime-covered story surfaced picking up on the NAFTA-Canada angle. It seems that one of Obama’s economic advisers met with Canadian consulate officials (at their request) and, according to a leaked report of the meeting, the adviser told the Canadians that Obama’s critique of NAFTA was only for public consumption. Although the Canadian government denied this — as did the adviser and Obama himself — the damage for this election eve news cycle was done. Hillary quickly said Obama had given a “wink and a nod” to the Canadians not to take his NAFTA criticism seriously.

A gotcha moment, eh?

The usually distinct line between politics and parody was blurred once again over the weekend by Saturday Night Live, the long-running American television show.  Hillary Clinton flew on Saturday from Ohio, where she was campaigning for tomorrow’s primary, to New York to appear in a skit alongside a comic who makes fun of her.  Then she sat for a taping of another TV program that gets high ratings from spoofing politicians and their foibles, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  That program is set to air tonight.

Foreign readers (and others somehow insulated from the current theater of American politics) can find clips of these shows on YouTube.  Don’t be surprised if this all seems more like “Alice Through the Looking Glass” than political reality.  With so much at stake in tomorrow’s votes in Ohio and Texas (and Vermont and Rhode Island), Hillary Clinton is trying every tactic to sway voters.  The current, accepted wisdom is that candidates do well in such circumstances to join in with popular entertainers who mock them, thereby showing a “human” side and gaining free publicity.

Thus, Hillary appeared on national TV on Saturday night as the faux “Hillary” took part in an extended lampoon of the last Clinton-Obama debate satirizing the media questioners for allegedly going easy on Obama and hard on Clinton.

Huckabee, Obama and even John McCain have all appeared on this and similar shows in the past, but for Clinton to take time off from retail politicking right before a crucial vote says something about her campaign and perhaps the American electorate.

If she narrowly wins tomorrow, Clinton’s forays into self-deprecation may be credited by the media and her feuding advisers as having “shaped” the last-minute media “environment,” and influenced Ohioans and Texans to vote for her.  Many credit her teary-eyed moment in front of the cameras on the eve of the New Hampshire primary last January as playing just such a role.

Can it really be that such “earned” media — the term of art for news-making events that get candidates free airtime — will be decisive?  Or will it be the “red phone” TV commercial paid for by her campaign that was unleashed this weekend in Ohio and Texas?  Here the motif was a play on frightening symbols and images, this time designed to cast Hillary as the experienced foreign policy hand ready to tackle a middle-of-the-night foreign policy crisis.  Although quickly criticized, this attack ad — like the comedy skits — is probably effective last-minute politics.   In our topsy-turvy world, it’s all about getting spin, even if you’re trying to amuse and frighten people at the same time.

The NYT warns today that Barack Obama, if he wins the Democratic nomination, will be subject to a withering Republican attack based on much sharper policy contrasts between him and McCain than those that exist between Obama and Clinton.

Such media coverage is creating a fascinating story line in the run-up to the critical March 4th primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Are we seeing a preview of an Obama-McCain campaign to come?

If so, expect foreign and security policy to occupy a major part of a no-holds-barred debate. Consider, for example, the rhetoric McCain and Obama employed today at separate appearances in staunchly pro-military Texas. McCain cited (as he often does) the “transcendental challenge of the 21st Century, which is Islamic extremism,” and his commitment to track Osama bin Laden “to the gates of Hell” in order to “bring him to justice.”

Obama’s comments, in front of a veterans’ group, gave greater emphasis to fulfilling the country’s commitment to caring for returning veterans, as well as his own standard rhetoric about being “right” on Iraq — unlike Clinton, McCain and Bush.
However, McCain took an additional line of attack in his remarks today. Not only focusing on the dangers of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, McCain jumped to Obama’s critique of NAFTA as implicitly undercutting the Canadian consensus needed to continue Canada’s military engagement in Afghanistan.

This is a more nimble and nuanced reference to the links between different foreign policy issues than we have seen so far in the primary season. It may presage a more serious and (hopefully) substantive foreign policy debate over the summer.

There is a tactical danger for Obama in looking beyond the March 4th primaries. (Hillary is still ahead in Ohio, according to all the polls.) But he has no choice. Obama is now being forced to carry on two simultaneous campaigns — against McCain as well as Clinton. If he appears weak or ineffective in responding to a feisty war hero on security issues, he will give Hillary a boost going into next Tuesday.