America's Gravest Threat - It's Own Foreign Policy

America Is Facing A Crisis

Once again, the nation is engaged in a fundamental debate about its future. What should we do with Medicare? How do we protect social security? How do we fix the tax structure? What should we do about energy? These are all important questions. However, none of them represent the most pressing, underlying problem facing the country. All of the debates around domestic issues are really irrelevant right now in my view. If we don't get the underlying problem fixed, we won't have much money for any of the domestic items that we need.

America’s gravest threat is not healthcare spending, social security, or energy. The national debt? That’s not it either. The debt problem is fixable, what is lacking is the political will to do it. America’s gravest threat is its own foreign policy. It is amazing that neither political party wants to discuss the elephant in the room. This is mainly because both parties are completely beholden to the industries involved…in this case, the defense industry.

Current American foreign policy, still largely built on the outdated 65 year old Truman Doctrine, is not in line with the realities of the present. The nation has a much leaner military, the largest total debt that it has ever seen, the biggest debt to GDP ratio since WWII, and it is still mired in an over decade long period of war that has cost taxpayers over $3 trillion - money that we will never get back. I am still wrapping my head around the fact that $3 trillion was wasted on two (unfunded) wars that were not worth it. Under a misguided Bush foreign policy, the U.S. tried to kill a fly by burning down the house. What was needed all along was a fly swatter -- good intelligence, human intelligence, allowing law enforcement to do its job, improving diplomatic relations and forming global partnerships, improving the nations image around the world, taking covert action, responsibly beefing up security where needed, using our economic power for positive change, changing foreign policy priorities to meet the realities of a new world, and only when necessary…use special operations forces. But trillions of dollars were wasted on failed adventures that left the Muslim world more radicalized than before. Never has more treasure been wasted to kill one man or even a ragtag group of men. Not to mention that the country is crawling back from the biggest economic collapse since The Great Depression. Yet the nation lacks a sensible, realistic foreign policy. In fact, the nation’s policymakers have pushed for more of the same.

Time to Mobilize On This Issue

The fact of the matter is, America desperately needs a new, more reasonable foreign policy if it wants to avoid becoming present day Greece…. Or worse yet, an ancient Rome. This is a crisis for the country. None of what we do with medicare, social security, energy, taxes or anything else to get the debt under control will matter if nothing is done about the true problem - America’s use of military power and its role in the world. The other issues facing the country did not create the debt crisis (which eventually hurt the credit rating)… it was the foreign policy that led the nation into two unfunded and unnecessary wars that, when totaled (to included care for wounded soldiers), could cost as much as $4 trillion, according to a report from Brown University. So it makes no sense to talk about these other issues, without dealing with this underlying problem. The fundamental problems surrounding the debt will not go away unless this country deals with the issue of foreign policy and what its role in the world should be.

Despite a new world and budget realities, the U.S. is still playing the role of global empire with over a half million troops airmen and sailors deployed to well over 100 bases around the world, all despite a smaller military.  Furthermore the country has far too many defense obligations around the world which keeps us entangled in conflicts between nations in every corner of the globe from the Korean Peninsula, The South China Sea, The Persian Gulf, Israel and Europe. Now the U.S. is working hard to get a foothold in the former Soviet Union. We have reached a point where any sort of conflict anywhere could easily drag the U.S. in. The U.S. is always a skirmish away from a very dangerous & costly war. We are overexposed and overstretched. Most of these defense obligations are not vital to our national security (particularly the homeland). Most of these treaty agreements were made under the Truman Doctrine’s Domino Theory for which our political establishment wholeheartedly still believes in. However, this is a concept that is mostly outdated.

Defense spending is about one-fifth of the total U.S. budget. A little more if you count related spending. While it’s not the largest part of the budget, it is the most bloated and adds more to the debt than any other expenditure. The reason? Wars often go unfunded and are tracked off the books. Taxes are not raised to meet the need, and other important programs are not cut. Instead, these wars (driven by a foreign policy that is more aggressive now than ever) become deficit balloons…and just get added onto the national debt. Other costs, such as Veterans Affairs budget are often counted separately…. But when you factor in costs to support veterans returning home… the deficit spending is unbelievable. A President Romney would be even worse. He pledges to vastly increase military spending by about $2 Trillion over 10 years, but does not say how he would pay for it.  We’ve heard that tune before - George W. Bush also failed to mention how he would pay for the 2 disastrous wars we stumbled into. Romney’s spending would likely be added to the debt.

It is an aggressive foreign policy that maintains this situation. However, America’s current foreign policy approach is unsustainable. We simply cannot afford to be global cop. It is going to continue to drag the nation down, both at home and abroad. A nation that is already broke cannot afford wars every few years.
I’m no fan of Pat Buchanan by any means… but he is one of the few Republicans who has a more realistic view of U.S. foreign policy. Even this staunch conservative believes that the U.S. is not on the right track when it comes to its role in the world.



Unfortunately there is no sign that the U.S. is changing course anytime soon. As a progressive, the biggest problem that I have with Obama and the Democrats is that their foreign policy is not vastly different from that of the Republicans. Support for the bloated military industrial complex is, in fact, a tradition for both parties. Strangely enough, with all of the dysfunction between the two parties and all of the gridlock, one would think that cooperation would be almost impossible. But one area where both Republicans and Democrats miraculously agree is on defense and the use of force around the world. Both parties believe that the U.S. must somehow maintain its role as the worlds police force, inserting itself even in internal conflicts and where the security of the U.S. itself is not at stake. The difference between the two parties is only on the surface. The core aims are the same.

In a poignant piece for the Atlantic, James Joyner describes the U.S. as being stuck in a “perpetual state of war” and points out the similarities between the two parties. While he describes conservative pro-war hawks as neo-cons, he also points out that pro-war hawks - which he calls “liberal interventionists” - also dominate the progressive side: 

are neoconservatives and liberal interventionists really so different? Neoconservative bastions like the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are passionate advocates of spreading American values. In Iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and discovery that there was no WMD program to speak of were both accomplished in the first weeks of the war and with a relative handful of American casualties. If these had been our chief concerns we would have left immediately; the apparent U.S. goals in staying on so many years were democracy promotion and nation-building, both ideals the neoconservative White House leadership shared with liberal interventionists.

Further, while neocons are doubtless less patient than liberal interventionists when it comes to exhausting diplomatic options and achieving international consensus, what does it really matter if the end result is the same either way: military action.

Dr. Stephan Walt, in an outstanding article in Foreign Policy magazine, made a similar point on U.S. foreign policy:

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power — and especially its military power — can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.

So if you’re baffled by how Mr. “Change You Can Believe In” morphed into Mr. “More of the Same,” you shouldn’t really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I’m not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn’t really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in particular, has embraced an assertive foreign policy. I refer to U.S. foreign policy under this Administration as neo-con lite. Many of the misguided initiatives carried forward under the Bush Administration; such as missile defense, the push for unnecessary (and destabilizing) NATO expansion, Gitmo, the compromising of civil liberties and the use of drones, have been embraced wholeheartedly by the Obama Administration. Most troubling is that Obama & Co. never renounced the Bush era doctrine of pre-emptive war. The Obama Administration still sees this nonsensical and dangerous policy as useful. Hillary Mann Leverett, a former member of the NSC and an expert on the middle east, has become a critic of Clinton’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out the lack of an even-handed approach. Leverett is also critical of Clinton’s hawkish approach on Iran. I recommend the work of Hillary Mann Leverett, Stephen M. Walt, Stephen F. Cohen, Juan Cole, John Mearsheimer and other experts who are critical of both Republican and Democrat administrations and who have been expressing their displeasure about the direction of the Obama team. These experts can’t be written off as far left like Zinn, Chomsky or Michael Parenti. They are very much within the mainstream. It is just that American foreign policy has gone so far off the rails towards the interventionist side that rational thinkers who are looking out for the best interest of the U.S. are seen as too dovish. 

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was himself a hawk during his career as national security advisor and advisor to several other Presidents (even opposing efforts to thaw relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union) sees trouble ahead for the United States:
Brzezinski Says Hillary Stands With Neo-Cons 
This is the area of greatest disappointment when I reflect back on President Obama’s first term. As Secretary of State, Clinton has been marginal at best. It’s a myth that she has done an awesome job. As a result of the current misguided policies, relations with key countries have suffered. She was late on supporting the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt. She has most recently pushed for full throated U.S. intervention in Syria. A recent trip abroad resulted in eggs being thrown at her motorcade because the foreign policy that she has promoted is so out of step with current realities and in many cases out of step with the desires of citizens from a number of countries.

The so-called reset with Russia fell flat. Relations are now the worse they have been since the Soviet era. It is my belief that the Cold War never really ended and that it simply experienced a lull. We are now entering a new phase of the same Cold War. The U.S. and Russia have been competing adversaries since 1999, in a tiff sparked by the U.S. led war against the former Yugoslavia (led by another Clinton). More recently Russia-U.S. relations have deteriorated over the U.S. push to install a missile shield in Europe (a shield that makes no sense and that experts believe will not work), as well as the unnecessary & destabilizing push to expand NATO. U.S. presence in the former Soviet Union also raised tensions. The U.S. approach towards Syria and Iran have also soured relations.

Iran

Another War On The Horizon



Now the U.S. is about to go to war yet again. The U.S. is sleepwalking into another disaster. American policymakers really do love their wars, even if they do not always want to pay for them or fight themselves. It is looking more and more likely that the Obama Administration is going to allow Israel to draw this country into a disastrous war with Iran. This war would be even more nonsensical than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Israel, likely with the help of the U.S. (being beholden to Israel, the U.S. has no choice) is about to launch an attack based on a nonsensical idea of pre-emptive war-  surely Israel is looking at the U.S. as an example. It will be a war started under the irrational premise that Iran might one day attack Israel … completely nonsensical. Unfortunately American policymakers are able to get away with this. Why? Interest groups like AIPAC and the defense industry lobby carry a tremendous amount of weight. But more importantly, I believe that it has to do with the U.S. having one of the dumbest populations of any country in the industrialized world. Americans allow themselves to be sheeple.

Natanyahu, is an absolute radical when compared to other more responsible heads of government. At times brash and maniacal. He is certainly one of the most hawkish leaders in the free world. He is aware that an attack could harm the U.S., particularly the economy and Obama's standing as President. He would have preferred having Romney as President so that he would have an ally and enabler for his aggressive policies toward Iran and other countries in the Middle East. This will be a disaster for the U.S. Yet our policymakers have made this country a hostage of Natanyahu. Our foreign policy has essentially been signed over to him. When it comes to Iran and Middle East policy, the Capital of the U.S. may as well be Jerusalem. Luckily an October (or November) surprise never came. But whether it happens 6 months, 1 or 3 years from now really makes no difference. It will be a disaster no matter when it comes...and just as nonsensical.

Under the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, Iran has the right to engage in nuclear research & development. The demands being made on Iran have no basis in international law and are themselves, in fact, extralegal. Iran has the right to enrich uranium for industrial purposes. Western media always fails to explain the NPT rules.

Even if Iran were looking to build a nuclear weapon, a pre-emptive attack (which would start by air and Sea only) would not accomplish the goal of killing the program...again IF it exists. In fact, the opposite would occur. An attack would only ensure that Iran gets the bomb. They would kick out international inspectors and would go into bomb making full steam ahead. The only way to stop Iran once the U.S. and Israel start such a stupid war would be an all out ground invasion and occupation, requiring an amount of troops & equipment that the U.S. simply does not have. I encourage all to read the 'Iran Project Report' which spells out just SOME of the requirements and consequences of a war with Iran. The report, endorsed by dozens of current & former diplomats as well as top political and military leaders, basically confirms that such a war would be a disaster. A war would require hundreds of thousands of troops, many billions of dollars, would require a ground invasion and occupation and would be a mess. In fact, just an initial air attack on Iran would probably require ground forces because of the Iranian response. So an attack makes absolutely no sense.

A war with Iran would also have all sorts of other unintended consequences. It could drag in other nations. Russia has already hinted that it is making preparations to provide Iran with assistance in the event of an attack. Russia largely stood on the sidelines during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and during U.S. deployments in the former Soviet Union. This time Russia, and to some extent China, have drawn lines in the sand around Syria and Iran. Russian and Chinese leaders have recently made remarks raising the possibility of a military conflict with the West, with Russia’s Medvedev in particular, mentioning the use of nuclear weapons (comments aimed at the U.S.).  Chinese officials were even more blunt, threatening to go to war over Iran.Although it may be just tough talk designed to deter the U.S., there could be substance behind the statements. This kind of bellicose talk has not been heard for a generation or more. In some cases it is worse than at the height of the Cold War. China enjoys some level of trade with Iran and gets a portion of its energy from the Persian State.

Another consequence, as if a major disastrous war is not enough, would be a backlash among Iranians. Currently many young Iranians are fond of U.S. freedoms and have adopted western culture and fashion. Although many believe in their nations right to develop nuclear technology. Many of these young Iranians have little sympathy for their hardline government. But launching a war against Iran will turn supporters away from the West and towards the very regime that the U.S. would like to see gone. The Iranian leadership is well aware of this. This is why they would like nothing more that to see the U.S. or Israel blunder and take some sort of military action. Such an attack would finally give the Iranian leadership what it has not been able to get for itself: widespread legitimacy & support from its own people. An attack would give them the support that has been elusive for the past few years and would validate their negative propaganda about the U.S. and Israel.

What makes this situation worse is that rational thought and common sense are not guiding the hands or minds of policymakers on either side. Religious fervor is informing both sides. Both sides believe that they are doing Gods work on some grand divine mission. Whenever you have a mix of religious dogma and defense policy, it creates a very dicey situation. With Israel and Iran, you have two religious States. These are not your typical secular institutions we are dealing with. Instead of playing grownup, the U.S. is about to allow Israel to make this colossal mistake. It appears that the U.S. is going to allow Jerusalem to pull us into a war (yet another) that we don’t need, and that will go against our interests. Relations with other nations will be irreparably damaged and the conflict could spread. Iranians will rally to support their leaders. Global oil prices will spike and Europe, already teetering on a cliff….will fall over it, into an even bigger crisis and we would likely see a global recession, possibly like 2008.…perhaps worse. The U.S. economy will certainly suffer.  All for a military attack that will not accomplish the desired goal. It makes no sense whatsoever. After all that we have gone through (and are still going through) to crawl out of the recent near Depression, and after getting to a point where Americans are rebuilding their lives and going back to work, we are about to throw away many of those gains because of the irrational fears of Israel.

I see no reason to be optimistic.

Unfortunately the chorus of public anger is not loud enough to get their attention. There does not seem to be much of an effort to stop a war in Iran or military intervention in Syria. This is unfortunate, because the drumbeat for war with Iran is getting louder by the day. There isn’t even an effort to make the need for a new foreign policy part of the national debate. It’s totally absent. All we hear are chest thumping statements from both camps, proclaiming their willingness to go to war with Iran because Israel wants them to. During the Presidential campaign Romney publicly promised war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. Quite unbelievable. Obama has been more nuanced... but Hillary Clinton is no dove. So it seems that America may be screwed no matter who is in office. This is why (knowing that Missouri was not a competitive State for Obama) I decided to support Jill Stein (Green Party Candidate) for President, because of her strong progressive domestic policy ideas and ultimately because her views were more in line with my own... particularly on foreign policy. But I just wish President Obama would listen to progressives like myself who have no voice under the so-called big tent.

The majority of Americans want to see a reduction in military spending in favor of other more important needs. This includes both Republicans and Democrats. Yet, policymakers have not pursued efforts that reflect that public sentiment. It is fascinating to me that members of Congress don’t seem to have a clue as to why two-thirds of Americans believe that the Country is on the wrong track or why the public approval of Congress has been as low as 12%. A misguided foreign policy is an example. Attention President Obama, White House Staff and members of Congress: Here is a clue. Americans are tired. We are war weary. 10 plus years of war…. 20 years of off & on military conflict is enough. $3 trillion dollars wasted is all that we can take, especially when pressing needs here at home are not being taken care of.

I suspect that the mandatory budget cuts for military spending, which are scheduled to automatically kick in under the Budget Control Act, actually won’t. There will be a last minute deal to keep that money flowing. Why? Because the Defense lobby has a lot of influence over Congress. Taxes won’t likely cover the cost because Republicans will block any effort to change the current tax situation. Draconian cuts in other parts of the budget will have to take place or we are looking at more deficit spending.  

Time To Act

There is still something that could be done. If enough people spoke up about this issue, perhaps we could at least get the topic on the table. Right now, the candidates won’t even mention foreign policy unless they are arguing about who is the toughest and most pro-war man for the job. Contact your member of Congress and press them on making this issue a part of the national debate. Reach out to the candidates and force them to answer questions about commitments that they have made to take us into yet more war. Something has to be done to bring this into the national consciousness and soon. Stop a war with Iran before it happens.

None of the other big problems can be solved in this Country without dealing with the foreign policy issue - an underlying problem that, directly or indirectly, impacts just about everything else. The potential nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice (a hardcore interventionist, ...from the Albright/old Brzezinski/Kissinger/Clinton school of foreign policy thought, far more pro-war than pro-dove) for the post of Secretary of State will be an indication of what direction the Obama Administration will take with foreign policy in its second term. The Russians (and others) have already taken the unusual step of saying (warning) that they don't want her... because she is too brash, rigid and aggressive. If she is nominated instead of someone more sensible, and more progressive like a John Kerry, I will puke. I am keeping my fingers crossed in hopes that this nomination isn't made. *****

“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” ~ Then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to Colin Powell on intervention in Bosnia.

Powell's response:
"I thought I would have an aneurysm. American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board".

Susan Rice as Secretary of State would be many times worse.

U.S. Continues to Meddle in the Former Soviet Union

Vice President Joe Biden recently expressed U.S. support for Ukraine's efforts to enter NATO (despite its own population being against it). Obama and his Neo-Con Lite foreign policy team are also cheerleading for Georgia's entry into NATO.

This is perhaps the dumbest foreign policy effort that the Obama Administration has engaged in so far, piggy backing on the damage in the U.S. - Russia relationship caused by the Bush Administration, and the Clinton Administration before that. Strategically it makes no sense. There are no good outcomes from this effort. None.

The best that could come out of this is a long-term chilling of relations between the U.S. and Russia; basically maintaining the status quo (not in the best interests of the U.S.). The worst that could come from this is a new arms race in Europe and a renewal of the Cold War...and a situation where military conflict (accidental or otherwise) becomes more likely....even more likely than the old NATO vs. Warsaw Pact days, when the two sides battled for influence in Europe and competed in other parts of the World (particularly Africa and Central America).

As I have written a million times before, expanding these kinds of treaties (NATO), particularly to include Countries that are politically, militarily, and economically unstable and are not at peace with their neighbors (and thus don't meet traditional requirements for NATO membership) would expose the U.S. and its military to unnecessary risks. NATO expansion would add more responsibility to a military that is already overstretched. Ultimately, this policy doesn't match up with Obama's efforts to focus more on domestic issues. These kinds of strategic moves overseas can easily derail his domestic agenda....an agenda that is already coming off the rails. Neo-Con Lite, despite what it says about improving relations around the World, seems to be deliberately testing Russia and appears to be willing to manufacture a crisis in Eastern Europe.

And what does the U.S. and NATO get for killing U.S.-Russian relations, taking on all these new responsibilities and risks, destabilizing Eastern Europe, and risking an arms race? Absolutely nothing of any substantive value. Georgia and Ukraine don't offer much militarily to NATO. In fact, the two Countries would be more akin to dead weight. Adding these Countries would be symbolic...another way for the U.S. to thumb its nose at Russia.... but this time the U.S. is dealing with a resurgent Russia. Such a move would only motivate the Russian Government, and its people (who once supported the U.S....but who now basically hate us) to do even more to work against American interests...whether in Iran, in the UN, on energy, North Korea, Iraq, the global economy and in other aspects.

I guess Neo-Con Lite and her 'reset button' nonsense was the gimmick that I thought it was afterall. That's exactly how the Russians are seeing it right about now.

How Clinton Got the "Reset Button" Wrong

Amazing story.... lol

I told you all....

But I Thought Hillary Clinton Pushed the Reset Button?

Here's why Hillary Clinton's meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was part of an empty photo op... just like I said it was. The "reset button" was one of the dumbest gimmicks I have ever seen from a Senior U.S. official. I knew there was something pretty symbolic about Clinton getting the translation completely wrong. (also see report from the UK Times).

Just like I stated a few days ago... it will take more than gimmicks and empty photo ops to change the situation between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. will have to decide to make real substantive changes in its foreign policy if it wants to get back on track. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to understand the situation with Russia...at all. He is getting horrible advice from the Cold War relics that he has surrounded himself with. He is allowing the hawks in his administration (and just about all are Democratic Hawks... I also like to call them "Neo-Con Lite") to run his foreign policy regarding China, Russia, the Middle East, and other hot spots. And he's going to find himself in a situation where many of his domestic ambitions will have to be canceled or watered down due to misguided policy abroad. The U.S. can't afford an arms race or another major conflict, yet Obama is leading the Country down a road that will lead to one or both of those two outcomes. He is continuing many Bush Administration policies that were already leading to an arms race in Europe.

I don't think Americans will begin to pay attention to this until something major happens or until they see how Obama's right wing foreign policy will impact their domestic programs. At some point they will see that Obama's foreign policy is not much different from that of Bush & Cheney. Then they will take notice. But unfortunately it will take a couple of years before people start paying attention.

And the Russians are looking at more than just an arms race and strengthening their nuclear weapons arsenal... they are also considering basing their strategic bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. To put that into perspective.... the U.S.S.R. didn't even have long range bombers in the Caribbean during the Cold War period. In public statements, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen and Obama officials are saying that this would be no big deal. But in their private meetings they are worried about these developments.



In terms of Cuba.... it's Obama's own fault for not taking advantage of the rapid changes in that Country. If the U.S. doesn't fill the void, and doesn't take advantage of business and tourism opportunities there, then the Cubans will seek support elsewhere. And that's exactly what they are doing...while the Obama Administration sits on its hands. The Europeans have already been putting more investment into Cuba. Now the Russians and the Chinese are making more connections to the island....all while the U.S. has stood by and has failed to establish a comprehensive, sensible, robust policy towards Cuba. Raul Castro has made it clear that he wanted to take his Country in a new direction and signaled that he wanted to revamp the broken economy. He also signaled that he might be open to political reforms. Cuba should have been one of the first Countries that Obama visited as President... but the U.S. hasn't even sent a high level figure to the Country. That was a signal to Raul Castro that he probably wasn't going to see much "change" from the new U.S. President. Now we are seeing some of the consequences from those failings (which started under the Bush Administration long ago).

Much of this is bluster on the part of the Russians to hit back at the U.S. for meddling in Russia's back yard - instigating conflict with Georgia and establishing bases throughout the Caucus's. The Russians are also upset (and rightfully so) about NATO expansion...which is now out of control. But the Russians could and likely will go ahead with this strategy if NATO is expanded any further east, and if Obama goes ahead with placing Missiles in Poland (and it looks like Neo-Con Lite Inc. has convinced him to go forward with this suicidal policy which, by the way, won't improve anyone's safety and security). They don't want you to know this...but the Polish and the Czech public ...and most of the people in the EU were against this missile plan from the beginning. European leaders never allowed this issue to to be voted on by the people in a referendum... because it would have been soundly defeated. The public is still against this move because they rightfully fear that it will lead to an unnecessary Cold War situation, will spark an unnecessary arms race, and will reverse all the the gains made over the last 20 years in the realm of East-West relations.

_______________________

Related article from the New York Times

Obama Foreign Policy to Include "America Houses"

Here's a great post from the ladies at "Whirled View" detailing possible foreign policy approaches of the new Administration. One of the initiatives discussed by Clinton will involve more "America Houses" overseas, particularly in the Arab World.

The War In Israel and America's Double Standard

It was just 6 months ago that the Bush Administration was criticizing Russia for using disproportionate force against the Georgians in its effort to counter Georgian aggression against Russian soldiers and civilians in South Ossetia this past Summer.

But now the White House and the State department are not saying a word about the disproportionate force used by Israel in its current battle with Hamas in Gaza, where civilians are dying by the dozens. As of this posting, there have been more than 800 people killed and thousands wounded, including many women, children and elderly. On the Israeli side, there have been fewer than 20 dead at this point. Is that what the U.S. calls proportionate.... or a measured response?

Israel should have the right to defend itself, but it should not be allowed to use indiscriminate force or to violate international law. But once again, the green light from the U.S. to operate as they please, and this Country's efforts to constantly cover for Israel, has given the Israeli's carte blanche to do whatever they want, without fear of being held responsible by the international community.
In addition to the lopsided casualty figures, Israel has not been very picky about what targets to hit. So far they have attacked a clearly marked UN truck, killing the driver, and they have also bombed several UN facilities.... including UN schools, killing as many as 40 people at one school where civilians had sought shelter. Entire apartment blocks have been flattened. Israel is tightening its grip around Gaza city, and the number of casualties will likely begin to rise even faster.

All this for what? Yes, there are the rocket attacks from Hamas Terrorists. I am not defending Hamas... I am annoyed by both sides. But it seems as if Israel is falling into the trap of Hamas. Once again Israel is trying to destroy an ideology with tanks, bombs, warplanes, artillery, and helicopter gunships. But you can't kill an ideology this way. In fact, the rocket fire, which Israel had set out to stop, has continued despite the carnage. Israel should have learned after its disastrous war in Lebanon 2 years ago against Hezbollah, that these efforts rarely have the desired outcome. After the war in Lebanon, Hezbollah - in some ways - came out stronger. The same could happen with Hamas. Hamas strives on chaos and war. This is where Hamas derives its power and strengthens its legitimacy. Hamas uses Israeli military action as a billboard to its people saying- "look at what the evil Israelis are doing to us... they killed an entire family today". These events only serve as tools for recruiting more militants.

I waited for several days to post on Israel & the conflict in Gaza because I am fatigued by this conflict. That's on top of being exhausted by the political coverage of the past few months. This particular conflict is just draining and annoying to me. The constant state of chaos and conflict in the region can be traced back to 1947 and 1948 and Western colonialism, when Britain and the U.S. mishandled the "official" creation of Israel. The Palestinians, who have every right to their own land, have been alienated and exploited (often by their own) ever since.

It doesn't help when Israel is killing Palestinians with bombs, warplanes and attack helicopters from the U.S., nor does the fact that Israel receives billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money every year. In addition to that, the U.S. constantly protects Israel in the UN, no matter what Israel is accused of doing. This lack of balance has made it difficult for the U.S. to be respected in the region as an honest broker. This is why the U.S. has never been able to negotiate a lasting peace. Over the past 40 years, U.S. peace efforts have been only partially successful. As long as the U.S. is seen as being biased in favor of Israel.... seen as not being even-handed, then not much will change. The Bush administration's lack of leadership and Obama's silence this week have ironically been very revealing for me. Obama is signaling that his "Neo-Con Light" foreign policy team plans to maintain business as usual...in many ways a continuation of the last 8 years. Foreign Policy analysts are starting to pickup on what I have been saying here for months... that Hillary Clinton is a hawk, and that having her on Obama's foreign policy team will not be much of a break from the Bush Administration. Some say Clinton's foreign policy approach could be even more hardcore. Hear what Foreign policy analyst Hillary Mann Leverett had to say this week about Obama's silence and about what future U.S. foreign policy might look like under Clinton. Leverett is a former State Department Analyst and former member of the National Security Council, and she was commenting on Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC. I couldn't agree with her more.

"There is a lot of fear that Hillary Clinton and the advisers that she is bringing with her (as Secretary of State) will make us long for the Bush days"

This is what I have been saying here, even before the Primary elections, back in 2006 and 2007. This is why I am critical of Obama's sharp turn to the right, or his perceived turn to the right as compared with his campaign rhetoric. When you have Neo-conservative warmongers...and members of the dreaded PNAC with their crazy view of the world, praising your choice for Secretary of State and expressing fondness for your National Security team.... then it just proves the point that the Obama Administration may not be the Change that anyone had been hoping for.

Hear a great discussion from NPR's Onpoint, which describes in detail the political and socio-economic conditions for Palestinians in Gaza. Americans, and in fact, most Westerners, don't understand the blockade that Palestinians have been living under for the past several months.

Hillary, It is Time to be Great!

Eight years ago, when many in the US thought that it really didn't matter who was president and that the country could run on automatic pilot, George Bush was elected. At the time, he was thought to have had the greatest foreign-policy team of all time. Colin Powell. Dick Cheney. Condoleezza Rice. Incredible credentials. Yet, after the last eight years, to describe President Bush's foreign-policy as being a disaster is simply being kind. He's made little or no progress in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, some may suggest at this point that his administration has actually taken the peace process backwards five or ten years.

On January 20th, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have to hit the ground running. The lack of American leadership is palpable around the world. Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip for the last four days. They did this in retaliation to multiple rocket attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. This is a typical scenario. Israel takes a pounding and then retaliates disproportionately. The retaliation inevitably causes an international outcry. Sometime soon thereafter, Israel stops the offensive and we go back to square one. Soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must break this cycle.



Personally, I think it is important that we support Israel. The Palestinians, though, are living in abhorrent conditions. Their standard of living must be raised. If you have something to live for, then you are less likely to want to turn yourself into a human bomb. Hillary Clinton must find the balance that has escaped George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and her husband, Bill Clinton. She must find a way to get all the parties involved to begin the discussion and to find a solution to the problem. This means including Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. (Some of these Arab countries have treated the Palestinians like unwanted stepchildren.)

From a political standpoint, this is a huge time bomb. If Barack Obama spends a lot of political capital early in his presidency on trying to fix the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and can't find a solution, that will hurt some of his domestic agenda. On the other hand, we have seen what eight years of neglect does. On the surface, this seems to be a lose-lose proposition. But, as an optimist, I think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will need to (and, with luck, will be able to) balance this with the many other crises around the world. We do need to defeat Al Qaeda. We do need to do better in Afghanistan and make it a functioning nation. We also need to help Pakistan, not only with its relationship to India, but also with its relationship to Afghanistan. We need to get out of Iraq and develop a presence in Africa. We need to bolster Africa's attempt to control some of its violence within its own continent (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Darfur for come to mind). As a nation, we cannot ignore the problems of South and Central America. In addition, the growing challenges of Asia, which include the vulnerability of some Asian countries to Al Qaeda, may be as daunting as any challenge that I've yet mentioned. I have to make a special mention of North Korea, of course, since it was an original member of the Axis of Evil.

If history shows us anything, it is two definitive paths which have not yet led to the settlement of this long conflict. The first path was taken by President Clinton, which was to wait to the end of his presidency then throw his whole weight behind the peace process. He, like Bush, was a lame duck and, because of that, could not get an agreement. Then there is President Bush's way... ignore the problem and hope it will go away, which doesn't work either. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must choose a different path. It is time for Hillary Clinton to be great.

Worlds Most Dangerous Flashpoints for 2009

Here is my new list of the Worlds most Dangerous Flashpoints.

Here is the list from the previous year.... and it looks like I was pretty close on a few. In parenthesis below, you will see last years spot for each location or conflict zone. Notice which locations and conflict zones moved up.

New list (for the coming year, 2009)


1. Israel - Iran (4) **
2. Persian Gulf/U.S. - Iran (3) (How will Obama’s Neo-Con Light Foreign Policy Team approach this situation? It bothers the Hell out of me…I have been let down by the signals given by Obama’s transition so far). **
3. Georgia (6) **
4. Pakistan (1)
5. Afghanistan (10)
6. Russia (13) (Russia can officially be called a dictatorship) **
7. Pakistan - India (14) **
8. Caspian Region (12) **
9. Ukraine- Russia (17) **
10. Darfur (Sudan) (5)
11. Iraq (2)
12. Somalia (22)
13. Chad (7)
14. Congo (15)
15. Turkey/Iraq border (Turkey's battle with Kurds) (11)
16. Chechnya, Russia (18)
17. Israel- Lebanon (9)
18. Israel - Syria (8)
19. China - Taiwan (16) ** (now that the Olympics are over... and with the global economy tanking, China may again make a push to take Taiwan. A Nightmare scenario. The good news is... a much less bellicose Government is now in charge in Taiwan-- the confrontational Pro-Independence Party was recently defeated-- which may decrease the chance of a conflict with China).
20. North Korea (the North Koreans have been waiting for a Democratic Administration… but with the Neo-Cons simply being replaced by Obama's Neo-Con Light, it is unclear how negotiations will play out.) **
21. Kosovo (23)
22. Thailand (new to the list)
23. China - Japan (26)
24. Poland - Russia /NATO vs. Russia (new to the list) Not so unthinkable anymore, thanks mostly to U.S. foreign policy. In fact, it’s more likely today than 30 years ago during the height of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is nearing powder keg status once again thanks to Bush's plan to place an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland- one of many Bush policies that Obama and his Neo-Con Light crew are likely to continue.
25. Israel- Palestine (new to the list) I typically think of this long never ending conflict as being isolated to the region. That's mostly true...but it still manages to heighten tensions and affect negotiations elsewhere.
26. Greece- Turkey (25)

Dropped from list: Myanmar/Burma, Sri Lankan Civil War, Venezuela

** = locations and conflicts of particular interest.

Mr. President-Elect, Listen to Abner Mikva

.

This is feeding off an article over at The Field, by Al Giordano:

Mr. President-Elect: Judge Abner Mikva Is Right

Who is Abner Mikva?

He's one of those folks that when they say something, you listen, because, over his long and distinguished career in public service, he has come to be known as a ' truthteller'. Being from Mikva's homestate, I can tell you that what he's saying isn't just reverberating in Democratic, but also GOP circiles, cause Mikva rolls like that.


Abner Mikva - former federal judge, law professor, member of Congress, reformer of Chicago politics, chairman of the Illinois Human Rights Commission... and former White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton - told the New York Times today:

The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is "complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides," said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. "There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public."

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad.

Associates of the Clintons said that Mr. Clinton was likely to have to make significant concessions and that he was inclined to do so. Among other things, they said, he would probably have to agree not to take money for speeches from foreign businesses that have a stake in the actions of the American government. Another obvious issue, Democratic lawyers said, would be whether Mr. Clinton's foundation should accept money from foreign governments, businesses or individuals for the foundation's philanthropic activities and if it should disclose those donors publicly.

"The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.

"It's not just what he does or says - it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

MOA has been upfront since the beginning of anything having to do with Hillpatine with regards to the President-elect. EVEN IF you actually believed Hillary Clinton could do a good job at anything, it's NEVER JUST ABOUT HER.

She comes with Bubba.

And, with Bubba comes those DONOR LISTS.

You know...the ones to the Library and the Foundation.

I believe, and so do a great deal of MOA readers, that Bubba made checks his butt couldn't cash...

THAT is why they were so insistent on getting Hillpatine as VP.

Now, maybe MOA readers are like me - proud, honest, tinfoil hat wearers.

Maybe we're just being ' paranoid'.

But, it sounds like Judge Mikva is wearing his own tinfoil hat.

Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State? Will An Obama Administration = A Third Clinton Term?

Any thoughts on this?

Most readers probably know how I feel about Hillary Clinton by now. I can't stand Bill Clinton either.

I will be posting more over the weekend about what the Obama win means for me.... but for a glimpse of future blog entries on this - part of what has been bothering me, especially over the past week, is the idea that an Obama Presidency may = a third Clinton term. Is this the "change" he has in mind?

He has already chosen a Clintonite to lead his transition team...and another to run his Government (John Podesta and Raum Emanuel respectively). Then we find out that he may be considering yet another Clintonite, Lawrence Summers, for Secretary of the Treasury. Now Hillary Clintons name is floating around. (this is among other possible Clinton appointments.)

This is looking more and more like a third Clinton term to me. This is probably not what Obama supporters were hoping for when they stood in line, sometimes for 2 or 3 hours,...sometimes in the rain, to cast their votes on November 4th.

All of this is on top of the fact that Obama appears to be embracing much of the Bush Administrations foreign policy. It's been a week and a half since the election and I am seriously questioning why I bothered to register and vote for the first time. I feel a little duped.

Even if he doesn't choose Hillary... some of his decisions so far call into question his ability or willingness to bring "change".

This is always the danger of stepping out on faith and supporting an empty suit (as stylish as those Obama suits may be). When someone like Obama mentions change, we want to grab it because it sounds so attractive at a time when things are so bad. But in our haste, we forget to demand or even ask that he explain exactly what he means by "change".

My idea of "change"...as it relates to the future, means taking the Country in a fundamentally new and different direction. Choosing Clintonites for key Cabinet positions doesn't represent the change that I had in mind.

Perhaps Obama's idea of "change" is simply thinking that he can accomplish it because he's replacing the Bush Administration. For some voters, that may be good enough.... but not for me. He's going to have to do better than that.

As for the Secretary of State.... I don't want to see Clinton or Richard Holbrooke (another hardline Clinton expansionist... he helped to lay the groundwork for the attack on Yugoslavia...which almost sparked WWIII). Basically whoever will be chosen will be a Republicrat... Because he is choosing from a pool of hardline centrists. There are no real Progressives in the mix.

I'd rather have him pick someone with a background as a diplomat, like a Bill Richardson....(yes, someone from the Clinton Administration, but someone who has fallen out of favor with the Clinton's and who endorsed Obama early on) or someone who has at least a few Progressive credentials, like a John Kerry. A little known Progressive would also be great...someone fresh and new, but who has the background for the job.

Someone like an Adm. William Fallon would make a great Secretary of Defense...
Obama should consider the long list of Generals/Admirals who opposed the way the Iraq War was handled by the Bush administration... let these men run the Pentagon.

Patrick Fitzgerald for Attorney General. As much as I'd love to see the first Black AG, like an Eric Holder, he has too many skeletons in his closet...and he was also part of the Clinton Administration. I'd rather see a top Prosecutor run the Justice Department... a career person for a "change".

Director of National Intelligence....or Secretary of Homeland Security....my choice for either of those spots would be Ronald Noble - One of the best known Law Enforcement Officers in the World. Formerly one of the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S.- and he's a Black man. Not that I want to fill the job with a Black American.... It's just that Ron Noble happens to be one of the best people for the job...and it's just a coincidence that he happens to be Black.
And bring Clark Kent Ervin back as Inspector General.

For CIA.... choose a qualified career man. There are several division chiefs who quit during the Bush years... frustrated about Bush policy and meddling in CIA business.

FEMA... 3 words... James Lee Witt.... and fast... This is one Clinton guy who the Country actually needs... This would be a good pick.

Agriculture .... Tom Vilsack.

Czar or Secretary of Science and Technology (if Obama could help create this new position)... Former Astronaut Eileen Collins. This could be someone who could chair a national Science Committee to help us clean up the environment, mitigate global warming, help establish energy independence within 15 years, treat energy independence like a new Manhattan project, and could help oversee the establishment of a green economy...with green collar jobs, etc. They could help oversee Space Exploration and all the rest... Eileen Collins would be an awesome choice.

Tammy Duckworth for the open U.S. Senate seat (Illinois) or Secretary of Veterans Affairs. (but i'd really love for her to get that Senate seat...hopefully the Governor of Illinois will make it happen).

My list could go on and on... but unfortunately...none of the Obama people will ever read this blog.

And another problem seems to be that Obama is taking direction from the Clinton folks... instead of charting his own path. I understand reaching out.... but this is ridiculous.

And why would Hillary Clinton want to give up her Senate seat anyway? I doubt that she would want the position...one reason is because there is no glass left for her to break in that arena... that's already been done more than once. So it would seem less than attractive to her. The only position that she might have chosen...and that would have given her satisfaction, is the VP slot...and that has obviously already been decided. She will actually have more clout if she remains in the Senate.

But we won't know for sure until she accepts it or rejects it... if it's being offered at all.

What are your thoughts on the possibility of Hillary getting such a key position in an Obama Administration (an Administration that already seems on track to be filled with a ton of Clintonites). Secretary of State and Chief of Staff are probably the two highest positions in an Administration..., not including the President and VP obviously....and for them to be filled with Clinton folks...or even by a Clinton... just seems strange for a man who ran on a promise to fundamentally change Washington D.C.

This is going to drive me nuts until someone retracts the Clinton report...or offers some sort of clarification. I'd like to hear that this is a mistake.

If Obama does this... I will have to really break ranks. During the campaign, I held back.... because I wanted the lesser evil to win the election. I was hoping that Obama would stand for some sort of Progressive principles. But now that the election is over... I won't hold back my opinions nearly as much.

Obama's Cabinet choices will tell me one of two things: #1) Whether he will pursue a Progressive agenda...and whether he believes in Peace and Progressive Principles, or #2) If he will have too much of a Centrist, pro-war, corporate, interventionist (I can imitate a Republican better than you can) type of Presidency. So far it looks as if - as a way to compensate for something...as a way to gain as much acceptance as possible...and to prove he's "tough" - he may be going out of his way to choose folks who are tough on foreign policy and other issues. This kind of overcompensation is something that I was concerned about...hopefully it won't translate into the wrong decisions being made during some sort of crisis or international incident.

The National Organization For Women Throws Support Behind Obama

NOW has officially endorsed Barack Obama. But will it help him? Can it blunt the mindless Palin craze?

According to some Polls, the Palin Bounce has been erased, so this endorsement may have come just at the right time.

But where is Hillary? Notice how she has been reluctant to come out and fight Palin OR McCain on behalf of Obama. A sign to me that the Clinton's and the Democratic Party establishment are still less than enthused about their own nominee. It's a little sickening to watch. Because I don't think he would be meeting such resistence if his skin were a lighter shade. Where have all the surrogates gone? (sounds like the title of a song).

Dems In Denver: Clinton Rocks The House

After a rather subdued opening night highlighted by Michelle Obama's poignant address, the pressure was building on the Democrats in Denver to rally the party in opposition to Republican John McCain. On Tuesday night, the Democrats--most notably Hillary Clinton--delivered. (Click on any of the links below to see video of the speeches.)

A number of rising stars from the gubernatorial ranks filled the prime time hours--Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, and Ted Strickland of Ohio among them. Though their speeches were largely overlooked by the broadcast networks and even the cable news outlets, these Democratic executives peppered the convention hall with anti-McCain zingers. The cumulative result was more or less effective, though only Schweitzer's revving turn on the podium was truly memorable.

• "I'm sure you remember a girl from Kansas who said there's no place like home," Sebelius told the crowd. "Well, in John McCain's version, there's no place like home. And a home. And home. And home." The line on McCain's houses gaffe was Sebelius' most noteworthy in a speech that was generally unimpressive and lacking firepower.
• "Arizonans are also proud of their political tradition," Governor Janet Napolitano, who endorsed Obama before her state's February primary, continued. "From Barry Goldwater to Mo Udall to Bruce Babbitt. Now, there's a pattern here. Barry Goldwater ran for president and he lost. Mo Udall ran for president and he lost. Bruce Babbitt ran for president and he lost. Now speaking for myself and for at least this next election, this is one Arizona tradition I'd like to see continue."
• Ohio's Ted Strickland, who had been a leading Clinton supporter, finally got the crowd going. Strickland painted McCain as out of touch economy, saying, "John McCain has no problem hitting the snooze button on the economy because he's never been a part of the middle class. And I would say to him, Sen. McCain it's time for your wake-up call because we just can't afford more of the same."
• Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey was able to summon the hall into chants of "four more months" rather than four more years a Bush policies with John McCain, a connection that will be critical for Democratic success this fall. Casey, whose father was famously denied a speaking spot at the party's 1992 convention because of his pro-life views, went on to reinforce the Bush-McCain link, adding, "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time. That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
• David Paterson, installed as New York's governor following the Eliot Spitzer ordeal, had another strong moment in saying, "The question in this race is which of the candidates will make the change that will restore the promise of America. Is it John McCain? No? I'm shocked. Maybe that's because John McCain continues to claim that President Bush's policies have been great for the economy. In 2007, John McCain voted with the administration 95% of the time. So if he is the answer, the question must be ridiculous."
• Montana's Brian Schweitzer, sporting the first bolo tie we've seen thus far in Denver, took the stage just before Hillary Clinton was to speak and after starting slowly, he was able to whip the hall into a frenzy that even attracted some coverage from the broadcast networks. "We simply can't drill our way to energy independence," he told the crowd, "even if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards--including the ones he can't even remember." Schweitzer was folksy and funny, cheery but tough, and ultimately effective in a turn that should really boost his profile across the country.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner delivered the convention's keynote address and, along with Clinton, was to be one of Tuesday's headliners. Warner largely fizzled, however, in a speech that played out more like an advertisement for his Senate campaign. He was too often rambling and other than an attempt to frame the 2008 contest as a race between past and future, he failed to draw any contrasts with John McCain. Instead he hit bipartisan notes, but those are likely the same points that Obama himself will touch on at Invesco Field later this week. "The race for the future is on," Warner began. "It won't be won with yesterday's ideas and yesterday's divisions. And it won't be won with a president who is stuck in the past. We need a president who understands the world today, the future we seek, and the change we need. We need Barack Obama as the next President of the United States." That contrast needed to be more prominent, but it wasn't. Democrats shouldn't expect Rudy Giuliani, the Republican keynoter in Minneapolis, to be so kind to their nominee.

Though Warner was the keynote speaker, the night truly belonged to Hillary Clinton and the obstacles before her were plenty. With the Republicans and the media eager to push the Obama-Clinton divide, her speech was certainly the most anticipated moment of the convention. Right away, she tried to put to rest any lingering questions about her support for Barack Obama, saying, "I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama." She quickly called for her supporters to join with Obama, adding, "Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines."

Reflecting on the goals of her own campaign, she tied them to greater Democratic cause, asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?" Clinton also moved to separate herself from John McCain, who had featured her in a spat of recent ads. "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership," Clinton emphasized. "No way, no how, no McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President."

Clinton was humorous ("sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits") and magnanimous. She acknowledge her 18 million supporters and tied her message to that of Barack Obama. She went after John McCain and did so aggressively, referring to him as President Bush's twin. "It makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart." Clinton did all that was asked of her and all Democrats should be proud of her effort.

The McCain campaign was quick to point out that Clinton did not re-affirm Obama's readiness to serve as the nation's commander-in-chief. Had that been the focus of her address, however, today's reaction would be full of comments suggesting she had been insincere. Instead, she focused on bringing her supporters back into the fold and did so as best she could, despite the best efforts of the media to convince you otherwise. Now, I'm not sure if the healing moment will last, but Clinton did what she needed to do last night. Of course, if this speech is followed with more lackluster campaign appearance from Clinton on Obama's behalf, it may all be for not. But we're getting ahead of ourselves with such thinking.

Heading into day three, the Democrats have gotten what they needed to out of Denver so far (whether the media coverage has allowed voters to see that is another story). Expect an even more aggressive approach tonight when vice presidential nominee Joe Biden takes the stage. We'll be watching.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Dems In Denver: Opening Night Review

Twenty-two million Americans tuned in to the Democratic Convention last night, four million more than party attracted to the opening days in Boston four years ago. The opening day was filled with highs, lows, and unusual choices, but the night should ultimately be a successful one for Democrats.

The surprise appearance from Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, in the midst of a fight with cancer, sent a clear jolt of energy through Denver's Pepsi Center. One of his party's most indelible icons, Kennedy had jumped wholeheartedly behind Barack Obama in February, passing the torch to the young Illinois senator. "It's time for a new generation of leadership," he said then. His appearance Monday was in question just hours before he took the stage and Kennedy acknowledged those doubts in his opening. "Nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight."

While Kennedy's speech was the highlight of the night for many, a speech from former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach was one of the low points. Leach, who represented Southeast Iowa for 30 years before a surprising defeat in 2006, failed to deliver red meat to the crowd as Zell Miller did for Republicans four years ago and as Joe Lieberman will likely do next week. Instead, the mild-mannered (and, quite frankly, boring) Leach talked of bipartisanship and praised the Democratic nominee. The speech fit nicely into Obama's call for unity, but it seems like a missed opportunity. Was Leach was the best Obamacon they could find?

There were a few other curious decisions as well. Jimmy Carter made only a brief appearance after a video tribute was shown in the convention hall. It was a surprisingly small part for an former president to play. Carter insisted today that the decision not to speak before the delegates was his decision, but I have to wonder if the Obama campaign would have welcomed him, having already drawn negative comparisons from his Republican rival. Carter famously refused vetting before his 2004 convention speech, one of the few to explicitly go after President Bush. Since, he has also drawn criticism for a number of statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Still, Carter's ex-presidency has been filled with humanitarian accomplishments and is a model for those who followed him in the Oval Office. His brief role last night is simply curious.

The prime time spotlight (and the attention of the broadcast networks) belonged to Michelle Obama and she made the most of it. Owing to her "proud of America" comments in February, the would-be First Lady is a controversial figure to many. Introduced by her brother Craig Robinson, who showed an unmistakable family resemblance, Michelle Obama's speech was as much a reintroduction of her as it was an introduction to her husband. Twenty minutes later, she had hit one out of the park. She talked of her own middle class upbringing, her relationship with Barack, and her children, exemplifying her own American story. Her goal was to connect with the hopes and struggles of the average voter and with visible emotion she did just that. Daughters Malia and Sasha joined her on the stage as their dad spoke briefly to the convention from Kansas City, Missouri. All in all, it was a powerful appearance and one that could only help her husband's campaign.

Not everyone was happy with the evening's events, however. Former Clinton strategist James Carville suggested his party had wasted their first night in Denver. "You haven't heard about Iraq or John McCain or George W. Bush--I haven't heard any of this. We are a country that is in a borderline recession, we are an 80 percent wrong-track country. Health care, energy--I haven't heard anything about gas prices," Carville said on CNN, calling for his party to become more aggressive. In 2004, John Kerry barred virtually any criticism of the Bush Administration--a decision he probably came to regret. "I guarantee on the first night of the Republican Convention, you're going to hear talk about Barack Obama, commander-in-chief, tax cuts, et cetera, et cetera."

While Carville is correct that the Democrats need to put the focus on the Republicans, Monday night was not the right venue for such attacks. Bush-bashing will certainly help unite a fractured party, but it would have been out of place coming from the candidate's wife. The Democrats will almost certainly use Tuesday and Wednesday to lay out their message against John McCain (Thursday will be about Obama's vision) and the effectiveness of those attacks could set the tone for the campaign's final seventy days. It seems the weight of that task will fall largely to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in the days to come, as if those two needed any more pressure.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Democratic National Convention - Tuesday Night Open Thread

Tonight is Hillary's night.

And Mark Warner does the Keynote.

Discuss what you want.

'The Cost of Silence' - now it's the BLACK WOMAN'S fault that White Feminists don't defend Michelle Obama? HELL NO

From The Root.com:

The Cost of Silence
By Corinne Douglas and Jacquelyn Gray TheRoot.com
Black women's attacks on white feminists during the primaries may be coming back to bite Michelle Obama.

Aug. 25, 2008--Tonight is Michelle Obama's night at the Democratic Convention. She will reintroduce herself to America, try to convince us that she and her family, especially her husband, are just like us and worthy of our support.

Expect her to be phenomenal. Expect her to be attacked, as well.

Republicans and their surrogates have already tried to diminish the achievements of the Obamas and to mute their widespread appeal by portraying Michelle Obama as an angry black woman. She has been caricatured, and she has been mocked. But the angry, fearful reactions that Ms. Obama's depiction has stirred up in men were not that different from those generated by Hillary Clinton during the 1992 and 2008 primary election seasons. And the recent failure among so many African-American women to stand up for Clinton—regardless of how they intended to vote in the primaries—gave many male political commentators tacit permission to do the same thing to Ms. Obama.

The misogynistic savaging of Hillary Clinton was one of the most inexcusable elements of the primary campaign, and the silence from black women in the face of those attacks, because they supported Obama, was, at least, a tactical mistake. It is entirely unacceptable to go along with unfair attacks against women simply because you disagree with the particular woman under attack.

Well, you do understand why I stopped quoting this article.

Let me get this straight.

When Michelle Obama is unfairly attacked, and White Feminists refuse to stand up for her, it's the Black Woman's fault because they did not defend Hillary Clinton?

G-T-F-O-H

Black women were too busy, Ms. Douglas and Ms. Gray....

Too busy trying to keep up with the RACEBAITING that came DIRECTLY from Camp Clinton. We didn't even have to go to the MEDIA to create the ClintonAttacksObama Wiki and its 50 Incidents. Hillary Clinton and her surrogates kept us quite busy.

Why didn't I say anything about the ' sexism' surrounding Hillpatine?

Well, not only because I was sitting there, fuming at the Racial Dogwhistles coming from Camp Hillpatine...
But, I also got the message loud and clear from White feminists. I'm shocked that you didn't hear it:

Miss Anne Aint Studdin' About Your Black Behind

From Gloria Steinem to Geraldine Ferraro, I was told loud and clear, that all I was good for was to sit in the back of the female bus. That you two can so profoundly overlook the obvious racebaiting that happened with Obama from the CAMPAIGN AND SURROGATES - not the Media. If we counted the media, I don't even know how many incidents would be in the Wiki.

I'm very clear about who I am as a Black Woman.

I'm a BLACK woman. I know that my fortunes are tied to the Black men in my life: My father, uncles, nephews, future husband and possible sons. I know that I'll not be divorced from them. So, when the Racial Dogwhistle was blown, I knew where I stood. I make no apologies for not keeping any pretense of 'Sisterhood'.

I've challenged others, and I'll challenge you. Make up your own ObamaAttacksClinton Wiki based up on all these ' sexism' charges that I hear bandied about. But, here's the catch: you must only include Camp Obama and their surrogates. Get me 10 incidents. I'm not even asking for 50. Just 10. The media doesn't count.

I won't hold my breath.

Maybe I'm just a wee bit suspicious at the ' timing' of this article. Why now? Part of the Hillpatine Bitching and Grievance Committee to make trouble in Denver, IMO.

Well, I care as much about the ' sexism' pushed towards Hillpatine as you obviously did about the blatant and recorded Dogwhistle Racial remarks towards Senator Obama.

You don't worry about Michelle Obama. There are plenty of us out here, willing to defend her. Thank goodness we didn't wait on the White Feminist Establishment. They can stay wherever the hell they've been while Michelle Obama has been under attack.

We know what time it is with them.

Democratic National Convention: A Schedule

The 2008 Convention: Americans Gathering To Change The Course Of A Nation

Program Schedule

Monday, August 25 – One Nation

Barack Obama’s story is an American story that reflects a life of struggle, opportunity and responsibility like those faced by Americans everyday. The opening night of the Convention will highlight Barack’s life story, his commitment to change, and the voices of Americans who are calling for a new direction for this country.

Monday’s headline prime-time speaker will be Michelle Obama.

Other Monday night speakers include:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; Barack Obama’s sister Maya Soetero-Ng and Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama’s older brother; Jerry Kellman, mentor and long-time friend of Barack Obama; Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.; former Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton; Tom Balanoff, President of Illinois SEIU; Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America; NEA President Reg Weaver; AFT President Randi Weingarten; Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan; State Comptroller Dan Hynes; Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis; Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle; and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

Monday night will also feature a tribute to Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Read more »

Why is it when 'WE' figure out how to win using the rules, they're suddenly changed?

This is what instantly same into my mind when I read this story:

Clintons Still Want To Kill Caucuses: The Latest Round

The Clintons hate the caucus system, and they want to see it die.

First they finished third in Iowa. Then they were out-organized by Barack Obama's campaign in the caucuses after Super Tuesday. Finally, they lost the showdown at the rules committee over how to reinstate delegates from the banned Michigan and Florida primaries.

According to one well-placed source, President Clinton himself is still raw over reports of caucus tampering in Iowa that he believes could have tilted the race in Barack Obama's favor, and has mentioned that possibility several times in conversation. A separate source who is also close to Clinton says the idea that people were "bused in" from Illinois to caucus is still a concern, as well. (The Iowa Democratic Party is not required by law to release its caucus rolls, and has not done so.)

In part, this fits with the pattern of retrospective analysis and persistent "what-if" thinking on the part of some Clinton officials, such as when communications director Howard Wolfson remarked on Fox News that John Edwards cost Sen. Clinton the nomination -- a claim that was later partially debunked.

So while a debate about the use of caucuses might seem moot to some, it remains terribly important to Clinton loyalists. And thus the battle over their use rages on -- sometimes in private, and sometimes in quasi-public forums. The most recent flash point was last weekend's DNC platform committee meeting in Pittsburgh. Included among over 100 proposed amendments to the party's platform was Amendment 93, which would have banned caucuses from future nominating contests.

The Caucus system was just part of the Democratic Party Nominating Process.

UNTIL

Barack Obama maximized them on his way to winning the Democratic Party Nomination.

In my post How Obama Won - The 50 State Strategy, I pointed out this not-so-small fact:

There were caucuses in the following places:
Iowa
Nevada
Alaska
American Samoa
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Maine
Hawaii
Texas
Wyoming
Guam

Out of this list, Barack Obama LOST the DELEGATE COUNT in ONE Caucus - American Samoa.

Even though he ‘lost’ the Nevada Caucus, he received MORE DELEGATES than Hillary Clinton because of his success in RURAL Nevada.

He only tied her in one place, delegate wise - in Guam, which he won by 7 votes.

Everywhere else, he BEAT HER in the caucus states.

His final Pledged Delegate Tally from the Caucuses: 326
Hillary Clintons? : 176



Who is the usual participant of the Caucus system?

High-information voters; party activists.

I remember something Chuck Todd said on Tim Russert's weekend show: that the problems for Hillary Clinton should have been obvious to the media because of two factors:
a) she could ONLY get 200 SuperDelegates to commit to her beforehand
b) the strong resistance of the party activists towards her, as evident through the caucus system.

So, this Caucus System was ok. Sure, there was grumbling every once in awhile, but NOW it's a complete affront to democracy.

CAUSE THE BLACK MAN WON.

PERIOD.

This is the Black story in America. You can call it 'moving the bar', 'changing the goalposts', however you want to tag it, but the story is still the same:

When Black folk figure out a way to win by the rules, suddenly the rules need to be changed.

For all the talk about Barack Obama opening doors for future Black candidates, I'll never forget a comment I read over at Field Negro - I'm paraphrasing:

They are studying Obama with precision, cause they're going to close everyway possible for any Negro coming down the pike. They ain't NEVAH gonna give another Negro the chance to explode the way that Obama did.

Earlier in the week, dnA wrote a piece for The Prospect:Obama's Racial Catch 22.

In Obama's Racial-Catch 22, in the comments section, posters discussed Tiger Woods, and how, Augusta had been FINE. It had been FINE through the years of Hogan...the domination of Palmer, then Nicklaus.

But, Tiger Woods wins TWO Masters, and suddenly, Augusta and other major course around the country, had to be ' re-designed.'

Same song, over and over again. Doesn't matter the arena- Sports, Politics, Business...

The moment we learn the rules enough to master them....either..
a) the rules are changed
b) a new rule book, that's NEVER been there before, appears.

We know the drill.

Clinton's Name To Be Read As Possible Nominee

Clinton's name will be read at the Democratic Convention, a move that some believe will unite the Party. But I don't see how that shows unity. It will only be a sign of more confusion and the media will use it to speculate about discord within the Democratic Party. It is also still not clear whether this will lead Clinton to call off the dogs once and for all. There are groups of Clinton supporters who just don't want to cooperate. Several plan to try to disrupt the event. The idea of Obama becoming the official nominee is just unacceptable to many Americans, regardless of Party affiliation or ideological leanings - The Clinton/Obama fiasco has proved that. Conservatives and Southerners don't own the patent on bigotry.

Will the Clintonites finally be satisfied or will they still give Obama the cold shoulder? I have a feeling that some may find other reasons not to support Obama. But I hope it helps Obama in the long run. I am not crazy about the idea of an Obama administration.... but I am horrified by the idea of McCain being in the White House.

I hope the Convention doesn't turn into a media circus centered on the candidates....while the platform for the American people gets ignored. Dems have to make clear what the differences are with the Republican candidate....they have to convince voters why a Democrat should be elected....regardless of what background that candidate happens to come from.
Obama must also develop some kind of lasting positive image....an image that the American people will be comfortable with.

Hillpatine's Latest Maneuverings

So, I'm watching Good Morning America, waiting for the Michelle Obama interview, and I'm subject to listening about the latest shenanigans of Camp Hillpatine. The reporter states, ' Even now, Senator Clinton doesn't believe Senator Obama can win.'

To which I replied to the tv, Who gives a rat's ass what Senator Clinton thinks? SHE LOST.

This really is the bottom line.

She had every advantage known to any modern politicial Presidential Candidate, including Dubya...

AND SHE LOST.

She lost to the first term 'nobody' from the middle of the country who only gave ' one good speech'.

So compelling a candidate was she that she lost the nomination to 'that guy'.

That's what her opinion about Obama's chances should mean - SQUAT.

Do you really think that if the situation were reversed, they'd even be commenting about what Obama thinks? No, because they would have run him out of town after the Wisconsin Primary.

The 'Entitlement' Syndrome of Hillpatine and her supporters truly knows no bounds.

There have been so many articles since I saw the first one last night and knew that I wanted to write about this.
It began for me last night catching these two articles:
Clinton still not over it

And Sen. Hillary Clinton Not Ruling Out Having Name Put Up for Vote in Denver

Then, this morning:
Have the Clintons Gotten Over It?

First Thoughts:More Clinton Drama
Chuck Todd asks the million dollar question:

But we've asked this question a million times and we ask it again: Would the Clintons have been as deferential (or be expected to be as deferential) to Obama if the roles were reversed?

To answer Todd's question, it's a simple sentence: Begins with HELL and ends with NO.



See, our friend craig hickman isn't too far off, is he? He's only been saying this for weeks.
We have from Political Radar: The Note: Obama vs. Clinton: The Battle Continues

ABC News' Rick Klein writes in Thursday's Note: Sen. Barack Obama is set to leave for his much-deserved vacation with one very big loose end that doesn’t want to be tied -- and that’s not counting the veepstakes.

It’s the drama that won’t go away, the storyline that’s too delicious to recede, the symbol of a party’s divisions the very mention of which brings smiles to the faces of editors and producers: Obama vs. Clinton. (Welcome back.)

To former President Bill Clinton’s missing praise (to say nothing of what he is saying), we add this: A steadfast refusal by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to rule out allowing her delegates to vent in the peculiar fashion of voting for her on the convention floor, instead of the candidate she’s campaigning for.

“I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected,” Clinton, D-N.Y., told a gathering of supporters last week, ABC News reported Wednesday. “We do not want any Democrat either in the hall or in the stadium or at home walking away saying, well, you know, I’m just not satisfied, I’m not happy.”

“It’s as old as, you know, Greek drama,” Clinton said. (We couldn’t agree more.)

I don't care if they're happy. They lost, and this is complete and utter BS. Period. Never have I seen a bunch of folks who don't understand that they got outsmarted, outwitted, outmaneuvered, outorganized. They thought they were ' the shit' and wound up being informed, 'eh, you're not all that much'.

And, of course, your companions in the media are enjoying this. Anything and everything to undermine Obama is ok with them.

Then, we get this: from Politico.com:Clinton, Obama reiterate unity

and Clinton, Obama Seek to Defuse Talk of Contested Floor Vote

With rumors flying about whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will seek to include her name in a roll call vote of delegates at the Democratic convention, the Clinton and Obama campaign teams issued a rare joint statement on Wednesday night confirming that they are "working together" to come up with a suitable solution.

"At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement on behalf of the two camps.

I understand the Obama Camp, and why they have to go along with this charade. Doesn't mean that the rest of us who see what's up with the Camp Hillpatine foolishness can't speak up and out.

Let's say it right now: Don't want to hear one more word about her so-called 18 million votes. I also don't believe Obama should raise a frigging PENNY more for her, considering nearly all of that debt was obtained post-WISCONSIN - the night when it became mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in Pledged Delegates, and thus the only way she could ' win' would be by THIEVERY. So, if she wanted to push forth, then she should do like Romney - EAT THE DEBT. Or, she should make an appeal to those 18 million voters - send her a $1.25 a piece, and she'd be debt free. But, the debt she incurred during the time of it being a lost cause, should never be Barack Obama's concern. Nor the concern of any of his donors, ' little fish' or 'big fish'.

Our calming friend, Al Giordano, over at The Field, has his own take on this: Greek Drama Week Begins.

I'm not nervous about Camp Hillpatine...I'm PISSED. My last Black nerve has been continuously plucked by this bunch of overweening egos who thought they were ENTITLED to the Presidency of the United States.

But, a little thing known as democracy got in their way.

The Democrats can let this foolishness in Denver proceed if they dare. But, it's past time that this crowd was shown the door, told to go somewhere, sit down, and STFU.