This past couple of weeks, I’ve felt a little disembodied. All this really interesting stuff has been happening at the level of the US presidential election– but here I have been, at JWN and in most of my reading and thinking, focused overwhelmingly on the big shifts underway in world politics.
So maybe some JWN readers would have liked more posts here on US politics. However, honestly I don’t think that’s my comparative advantage. I think Josh Marshall and his colleagues at TPM, and the folks at Think Progress, including Matt Yglesias, have been doing some excellent blogging on the election. So if you want that depth of thoughtful coverage, that’s where I’d advise you to go.
Here, fwiw, are some of my quick notes on where the election is right now:
1. I think the Democrats’ convention in Denver has been brilliantly organized in all the aspects of it that I’ve seen. That includes the stage management (including at two very different venues there), the handling of the ‘roll-call’ vote issue, the choice of speakers, and the content of just about all of their speeches. Standouts from what I saw included Michelle Obama’s speech, Hillary Clinton’s, Bill Clinton’s, the ‘vox-pop’ people they had speaking last night, and the array of retired generals. The excellent organization of this very complex public event indicates that the Obama people have some real organizational and administrative talent, as well as good discipline. A good augur for the way they would govern.
2. I thought Obama’s speech last night was not– by his extremely high oratorical standards– a standout, as such. But that was possibly by design: to counter McCain’s charges that he is nothing more than a ‘rock star.’ In general, it was a better-than-workmanline speech that contained a lot of policy specifics. Look, I have to confess I fell asleep at one point while watching it on t.v. That says something about me being tired– but also something about the speech not being super-great.
3. On foreign policy, he was trying, obviously, to counter allegations that he is “not ready” to be commander-in-chief. To a degree that worried me somewhat he tried to do that by “talking tough”, which I am certain is what all his campaign advisers have been urging him to do. But he did also speak forthrightly about several ways in which his foreign policy would be different from that of Pres. Bush and John McCain.
4. This morning, McCain just announced the relatively youthful Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running-mate. In choosing a woman he seems to be making a clear bid to pick up anyone, from any party, who was a strong Hillary supporter and still resents the fact that Obama beat her. But Palin is also reported to be strongly anti-abortion, which probably limits her ability to attract the ‘pissed-off-Hillarites’. Also, if McCain’s supporters have been trying to raise concerns that Obama is not ‘ready’ to govern, then what about this woman, who is young and completely untested in national or international politics? Given McCain’s age, the readiness of his running-mate to take over has to be a real concern. Palin looks like a female version of the youthful and untested Dan Quayle, who was picked by George H.W. Bush in 1992 to try to meet concerns about him being old and out of it… Quayle was a total disaster for the ticket.
… Anyway, I need to get back to writing about the global power balance in which Pres. Obama will — I hope!– be operating come January 20th.
6 thoughts on “A note on US politics”
Comments are closed.
Obama, the tough commander-in-chief:
First, his “don’ts” and “can’ts”
*You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq
*You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington
*You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances.
What will Obama do, militarily?
* I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.
*I will end this war in Iraq responsibly
*and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
So it looks like Obama will, militarily (how else?):
* defeat a terrorist network in eighty countries
* protect Israel by going after Iran
* somehow stand up for Georgia
* give troops a clear mission and send them “into harm’s way” (he’s supported army & Marine increases)
* on certain conditions, end the Iraq war
* continue the Afghanistan war (and expand it into Pakistan, he’s said before)
* do all this without authorization from Congress
Oh, “And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.”
But that works because, as we all have been repeatedly told, US troops that are sent into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to have the equipment they need in battle are “peacekeepers.”
Don – You didn’t really think that a candidate of either party could be elected without some tough talk and parroting of the standard lines about our friends and the bad gguys, did you? Anyone who doesn’t demonize Iran, praise unequivocably Israel (and now Georgia) promise to get Bin Laden and rebuild our military doesn’t stand a chance. The American public demands certain positions, even if they have no idea why. The proof will only be seen in how they actually govern. On the face of things, Obama is marginally better than McCain on foreign policy within the constraints allowed. And he is not burdened with McCain’s bad temper and lack of reflection. BTW, excellent bio piece on McCain in todays Wapo. Worth reading.
Helena
Don’t appologise. I gave up on any interest in the US elections about two minutes after the announcement of Paris Hilton as McCain’s running mate.
Perhaps I can help focus matters by starting with a list of the real problems floating around the world that are going to be an absolute bitch to solve.
1 Iraqi Refugees. We can’t allow 5 million Dragons Teeth to fester and despair.
2 outside organsiations hijacking the US government and its firepower. Mearsheimer and Walt talked about the Israelis but the speed with which Saakashvili got us into a game of Battleships in the Black Sea is worrying. Reigniting the Nagorno Kharabkh nightmare gets everyone into armed conflict in the Caucuses so lets beware of the Armenian lobby.
3 The collapsing global economy
4 Pakistan, how do you manage to do military intervention there without upsetting the first and second generation immigrants living in the UK Midlands. Some UK cities are 20% Muslim.
4 Water Today’s Independent has a piece on Israel’s primary source running out. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-biblical-tragedy-in-galilee-912338.html
5 The Nile Valley
6 Turkey has all the ingredients of the situation in Iran prior to 1979
7 Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan
8 Kurdistan and Kirkuk
9 The Gaza Ghetto and the Palestinian situation.
I am sure you can think of a few more
Jack,
I agree that now Obama has got himself so deep into the staus quo that he can’t change — but he’s the one that is trumpeting change.
Probably you, or I, or any other sensible person would be capable of running a smarter campaign than Obama has done. We would be able to climb all over the Bush presidency, talk about how America has gone in the wrong direction on I/P, Iraq, torture, Afghanistan, FISA, secret prisons, corporate welfare, Patriot Act, executive privilege, drug war and corruption. We wouldn’t be virtually tied with a stumblebum like McCain. But Obama was unable to say much about any of these because he has supported most of them, by his votes and otherwise.
So, sure, he’s trapped, but he did it to himself, and that won’t keep me from bringing it up.
Bin Laden? Let’s try some truth: The United States of America, the world’s greatest superpower in history, has been locked up in interminable wars in two Asian countries, costing trillions of dollars and countless lives ended and destroyed, over a guy in a cave? Pinch me, I must be dreaming. It’s farcical, besides being tragic, and somebody needs to say what everybody intrinsically knows.
Georgia? Let’s try some more truth: Georgia attacked autonomous South Ossetia, killing not only Ossetians but Russian peacekeepers who were there by treaty. So Russia reacted, less violently than the US would have done.
Somebody, some day, is going to be strong enough to speak the truth and take on AIPAC, the MSM and the corporations. Where’s a Harry Truman or Dick Nixon type when we need him? Truman seized the steel mills. Nixon, not that he was correct, but with his silent majority (for example) he changed the rules. We need someone who can change the rules, and BO is obviously not the one, from what I’ve seen. All “change” talk and business as usual.
The proof will only be seen in how they actually govern? You got that right, but (1) Obama has a (poor) voting record and (2) Obama’s already saying “I’ll do this and I’ll do that” so we have a good idea, don’t we. The new decider has decided. (see above)
I have NEVER been happy with Obama, and as time goes on I have become even more unhappy. However, McCain frightens me to death. He is significantly more dangerous than Bush, and is a threat not only to the United States, but to the world. Therefore Obama HAS to win. If he doesn’t the world is in even more trouble than it is now.
Shirin
If you aren’t familiar with this loose end of the collapse of the British Empire you may enjoy it at leisure.
http://www.stratfor.com/sitrep/uae_complaint_over_irans_moves_disputed_islands_filed_u_n
August 29, 2008 | 1927 GMT
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) said that Iran has opened offices on the disputed Persian Gulf islands of Abu Musa and the Lesser and Greater Tunbs, and the UAE has sent a letter of complaint to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon protesting the Iranian move, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported Aug. 29.
Abu Musa and the Tumbs have Iranian Garrisons and lots of missiles which would threaten the tanker lanes. You can have a look at them on Google Earth.
One scenario would involve a Beach Assault by a Marine Expeditionary Force to neutralise these positions.
But at least we know Ban Ki Mun is back in play.