Office of the Independent Blogger

The egos of the Democratic candidates for President are twin high-maintenance machines that can not be dent on their own flaws. They have no flaws! That is why the flaws of others must be utilized in this war, if either side is to win the election. Barack Obama is hoping that Hillary Clinton’s kryptonite comes from being labelled “John McCain-lite” while the Clinton camp hopes to stick Kenneth Starr upon Obama. Mind if I tag them both with the “Moron” label? I hope there isn’t a single voter on Earth who is moved by the charge that Hillary Clinton is John McCain-lite or that Barack Obama is like Kenneth Starr, but I know better than that. It just disappoints me, because few people dislike Starr quite like I do — I even named my blog after him, sarcastically. But over time, I’ve come to regard Starr’s investigation as a disgrace and the Clinton Administration’s handling of it to be an embarrassment. I think Clinton deserved to have been impeached because he made the decision to lie under oath, but not removed, and I don’t think he deserves any sympathy for his poor political decisions. I just don’t see any parallel between Obama and Starr except that they want to know where his money is coming from. Now is Hillary Clinton like McCain? I don’t think so. Neither of them are spring chickens, they’re both Senators and they’re white, but that’s about as far as the comparison goes. And I’m not sure it’s all that bad a thing to be compared to John McCain, because he’s not a bad man, but people are going to vote for nonsense reasons and that’s a shame.

Here are two articles on Iran’s nuclear program that I thought contained quite interesting copy decisions in their headlines (remember, I am a copy editor): EU Powers Challenge Iran Nuclear Answers to IAEA and US Challenges Iran With Tough Questions. One is Reuters, and the other is the Jerusalem Post. It is important to note that the challenge facing the Iranians is not an American-led challenge but a multilateral, European/American challenge. I even noted here, months ago, the irony of us telling the British to be strong like the French on Iran (how often do you hear that sentence from the Americans to the British about the French: “We need you to be more like them!?”). But the point here is, simply, that we are not acting unilaterally with Iran and we are nowhere near alone. It isn’t even a multilateralism comparable to the Iraq War’s multilateralism, where we were working in tandem with numerous governments but perhaps not credibly; with Iran, we are more a part of an entirely credible coalition, as we should be because a) coalitions are infinitely (although not inherently or necessarily) better for the legitimacy of an international action and b) the Iranians must be confronted to prevent them from aggression or holding a nuclear wildcard. It’s sound policy, all around.

In other Mideast news, President Bush says peace is possible and he’d like to achieve it in Israel/Palestine before his term is over, because there’s plenty of time left even if things are looking bleak, and I agree that it’s possible and necessary, maybe even urgent with news like this:

Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip has created the worst humanitarian crisis since the Israeli occupation began in 1967, aid and rights groups said on Thursday. Food shortages, crumbling health services and a water and sewage system close to collapse are all part of the daily misery facing 1.5 million Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, a report by a coalition of British relief groups said. “As we speak, sewage is literally pouring into the streets,” said Geoffrey Dennis, head of CARE International, one of the eight non-governmental organisations behind the report.

“Over the past three weeks we’ve only been able to send in food and medicine and the aid dependency is rising.”

Israel imposed restrictions on the flow of people and goods and virtually froze economic activity last June when Hamas Islamists seized control of Gaza. It tightened the blockade in January, limiting supplies of fuel and other goods in what it described as a response to cross-border rocket fire by militants. The report painted a picture of an enclave held hostage by the embargo, which it said had worsened poverty and unemployment, crippled education services and made 1.1 million people — 80 percent of the population — dependent on food aid. It said the health system was in tatters, with hospitals facing daily power cuts lasting eight to 12 hours a day due to fuel and electricity restrictions.

This can’t, and won’t, go on forever. Either these two distinct bodies will come to understand that their future is not facilitated by faithless bickering and guerrilla terrorism tactics, that their mutual survival is contingent upon true compromise and respect for the other people or one of these groups will marginalize and/or massacre the other on a level we have not seen since Sudan, or the 1990s, but amplified. This is not to say that this outcome is to be encouraged, not at all, but Palestinian leadership often says that Israel has no right to exist and that the Israelis ought to be destroyed. It is not an uncommon or essentially unusual attitude in this part of the world. Fortunately for Israel, the Palestinians do not have the capability to destroy them, but the Israelis do have the ability to crush the Palestinians and if the Palestinians continue their missile attacks, their refusal to negotiate, then the situation is not going to end well for their people. This that we have is bad but all-out war, which is quite possible and probable in the event that these sides cannot sit down and finally recognize each other with some sense of permanence, would be worse, and I fear what will happen in five, ten, twenty years if these two people cannot, within a generation, resolve their differences in something resembling a civil and understanding manner. Eventually, either side will become so disillusioned by the process that they will make today’s leaders and people appear to be idealists and this will lead to brutal, scorched-Earth military tactics that will make us all ashamed of our humanity. The Israelis have the military potential, the power and if this situation continues their people will demand an end to attempts at indiscriminate violence and pure vengeance, by which I mean the difference between “targeting leadership” and not — the difference between firebombs and sniper rifles. The President has all my prayers and karma, as do the Israeli/Palestinian leadership and peoples.

Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island tonight. It was a remarkable electoral comeback for her but she still has an uphill battle to win the nomination, especially with superdelegates who might be embarrassed to rob Barack Obama of the popular vote and appropriately-delegated delegate totals. It is important to note that the race is becoming tighter and it could become quite contentious if the Senator from New York is allowed to seat her delegates from Michigan and Florida. I expect her to win Pennsylvania, as that is a traditionally strong Clinton state, but we will have to wait and see what happens with the other states, superdelegates and perhaps the assembled at the convention. Could it truly be that a brokered convention is about to unfold? I’ve long believed that the 2008 election would be an historical marvel but it might well wind up exceeding every thought I’ve had and have. Tonight, I celebrated with the Clinton campaign on the northside of Chicago. Tomorrow, we wait and see.

The Colombians, the Venezuelans and the Ecuadorians are marching toward war after Colombia raided Ecuador to kill a Colombian rebel leader. Diplomatic relations broke off, leaders issued fierce denunciations (and rejections) of their counterparts, including Colombia’s assertion that Venezuela gave three hundred million dollars to a terrorist group. Needless to say, the situation is contentious and there’s a chance for war, but I’m not sure that they will launch any significant invasion of each other even if forces are bunched at the borders. Tomorrow the conference of the Americas is meeting and things should cool down but there is the possibility that one of Ecuador or Venezuela invade Colombia. I doubt it, though, because the Venezuelan government is too weak to launch such a conflict and might find itself in domestic trouble if they lose the War, which I suspect they would. Maybe we’ll give them an astrologer to fight Chavez like the British used one to fight Hitler? I don’t think this will devolve into armed, sustained conflict but we’ll have to wait and see.

The UK Times is noting that Barack Obama is hinting at a Chuck Hagel Defense Secretary as well as a Richard Lugar Secretary of State. It is believed that these men would boost support for him among Republicans once he’s been elected President. One question, however: will they endorse him during the race? Probably not. Would they take his Cabinet positions? Certainly, but that’s not announced until after the election and they’re unlikely to campaign for him. Even then, I doubt most Americans will jump into Obama’s arms because of them, even if they do endorse him, since John McCain is regarded for his independence and voters don’t make such decisions unless there’s a greater emphasis on it. Asking Texans to vote for Kennedy because Lyndon Baines Johnson is on the ticket is one thing: asking Nebraskans, Indianans or Southernors is another.

A different Obama note: the smear campaign against Barack Obama has reached Ohio. People are asking whether or not he knows the National Anthem and they claim he’s a Muslim. It’s starting to get ugly in the primaries, with generally liberal people. It’ll ruin politics for another generation of idealists when the Republican Attack Machine gets a hold of him. In a lot of ways, it’ll be a damn shame voters vote on such matters and candidates/parties run using such tactics, but then it’s also a shame when you think that there are people who will quit on politics because of such denigration.

Reuters ran an article today asking “How did Hillary fall so far?” by which they meant that she was the presumptive nominee at the beginning of this race, having been forecast as a successor to her husband since 2002 when it began to look clear(er) that Al Gore would not run again in 2004 and now she’s fighting for her Presidential future with a novice candidate who has precious little political background and nothing but platitudes to his name. I’ve spoken with friends who work for the Clinton campaign as well as friends who volunteer for the campaign over the last several months and most of them, even on television and in print, are critical of the media. “If the media didn’t spend so much time swooning over Senator Obama, we’d be winning!” or “If the media didn’t stifle our message, we’d have sown the nomination up by now!” but I find that excuse shallow. Howard Dean used it in 2004, too, but he lost because he spent his time campaigning against Bush inside of general election states instead of focusing on, say, the primaries and the primary primaries. Hillary, similarly, has little blame to assign the media. The truth is that they’ve run a poor campaign: they thought they’d have won it all by Super Tuesday and took a conservative approach as a result. Even worse is the angle they’ve pictured Hillary in: the candidate of experience. Experience! “Experience” does not work in the Democratic Party unless you’re the last Vice President and you haven’t had your chance yet (see: Humphrey, Mondale, Gore).

Hillary should have come out of the gates presenting an ambitious economic plan and pledging to end the Iraq War as soon as she enters the White House. It would have allowed her to focus on issues instead of “character” in the form of experience, which has been the great premise of her candidacy. “Experience! I have experience! Nobody else in the running spent eight years in the White House!” It almost reminds me of Joe Eszterhas’ hilarious characterization of Bob Dole’s 1996 run for President: “Bob Dole tells the truth! Bob Dole loves America! Character character character!” Democrats don’t like to hand things to their candidates and by basing your campaign on your ability to drive the car because you’ve driven it before and the other guy is just a kid learning — well, Democrats aren’t going to swallow that, because it’s not in any way shape or form inspiring. Can you think of another Democratic campaign not run by a Vice President which was boring like “Experience!”? McGovern promised pot, peace; Carter promised the truth and that he was the man from outside; Mondale was a sacrificial lamb and a Vice President; Dukakis pledged to make the country work and cited his experience as a “Technocrat” in Boston to do it (unfortunately the Economy went bad in his state during the race and he had the charisma of a snail crushed by tank); Clinton promised change, economy; Gore was the sitting Vice President; Kerry, lost, and ran on his ability to take Bush on because of his background as a prosecutor, “Purple Heart” winner. Hillary? Experience! Just a poor course to embark upon, and for that her advisers and her self deserve much criticism. If they win this nomination now, it’ll be a miracle.

Something else deserves consideration in addition to the bungling-and-complacent campaign they’ve run, however, and it is something that I have given thought to. Hillary isn’t particularly likeable or entertaining. She’s a brilliant woman, and I admire her very much, but I’m not sure people have ever really taken to her in an electorate. New York, perhaps; she’s been elected by healthy margins twice, but each time she was in a liberal state that loves celebrity Senators and her candidates weren’t particularly strong. Her advisers should have softened her image with more positive public relations chances, they should have given her a stronger campaign with a more concrete image of competence and change (”We will return to the days of sound economics!” rather than “We will be a steady hand as we have been here before!”) and they should have cut Barack Obama down with more force earlier. They’re trying to make up for it now, as they believe negativity to be the best weapon to use now, but it might be too late and that’s a shame.

Few candidates have won the Presidency by coasting. And these are not coasting times for anyone. Obama understands that: he’s desperately trying to sink Clinton on Tueday and he’s spending an enormous amount of money to do it. McCain certainly understands it, and his advisors do too because they’re Republicans and Republicans know how to campaign. Hillary’s not coasting anymore, but that’s because she was dropped off her flotation device and surrounded by sharks which have wounded her significantly, and now is the time to fight back.