Establishments

There's something a little silly about Hillary Clinton's efforts to label Barack Obama "the establishment candidate" considering that she's also bragging about her lead in superdelegates, is running on experience, and is backed by the bulk of the senior leadership cadres from her husband's administration. And of course, her husband used to be president.

At the same time, it's clearly true that many well-established figures have flocked to the Obama banner at this point. It's not like he's running a small gritty insurgent campaign based on a handful of longtime loyalists from his home state plus a rogue political strategist. From Day One in the Senate, Obama's attracted very experienced, very high-profile people to his cause and the further he goes the more that happens.

The main difference is that the establishment that's behind Clinton comes much closer to being worthy of talked about as a unitary entity. Team Clinton is composed of people from all dimensions of politics -- from interest groups like AFSCME to national security hands like Holbrooke and Albright to pure politics people like Wolfson and Penn -- who've all been working together and working for the Clintons for a long time. Obama has behind him a much more disparate group of people. They're not "outsiders" -- Peter Rouse worked for the Senate Minority Leader, Ted Kennedy's been important forever, Samantha Power won a Pulitzer Prize, all kinds of random prominent pundits like him, Zbig Brzerzinski was National Security Advisor -- but they weren't on the inside of the Clinton administration.

In that sense, an Obama win would represent an alternation of elites. Important left-of-center people who haven't happened to be the most important left of center people over the past 15 years or so would rise to leadership. A Clinton win would be the return of the people who ran the show in the late 1990s and who continued to be the predominant influence in the 21st century. But in neither case are you getting a real toppling of hierarchies and massive infusion of outsiders.

Comments

Romney is dropping out.

I'm heading to the Corner at NRO with some popcorn to enjoy the fireworks. Anyone care to join me?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 7, 2008 12:29 PM

This is why I'm so attracted to the Obama campaign: It'll bring in not just a new president, but a new collection of people. I'm ready for something fresh, and Clinton and all her friends from the 90s - as much as I respect them (OK, most of them - Penn is a major exception), I want a new beginning. Plus, anyone getting Samantha Power's stamp of approval is OK by me. I'd love to see her with some high-profile position in the State Department, keeping people honest and humane.

Posted by John | February 7, 2008 12:31 PM

Romney's statement said he doesn't want to prolong the campaign and hurt the general election chances for the GOP allowing Hillary or Obama to win and "aide the surrender to terror."

Classy.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 7, 2008 12:36 PM

Matthew writes "It's not like he's running a small gritty insurgent campaign"

Actually it's very much an insurgency campaign run by outsiders. Obama is one of us. He's not a man coming to us, but a man coming from us. And now we are coming to Obama. With his fresh face and ability to unify our nation, we can remake this nation from the stale Clinton years. This time it's different, and it's not because of Obama. It's because of you and me. His ability to inspire has unified us in order to achieve the common purpose of defeating the Clintons. And his game changing politics makes it possible for it to happen.

Posted by TLM | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

Which one does Sally Quinn like?

Posted by Carl | February 7, 2008 12:44 PM

The Clintons still think it's 1992, and they've come to save the Democratic Party from itself.

Posted by David B. | February 7, 2008 12:45 PM

A Clinton win would be the return of the people who ran the show in the late 1990s and who continued to be the predominant influence in the 21st century.

More than that, I think. An HRC Administration means that there's a good chance that--absent catastrophe--the Clintonistas end up being a massive influence on the party for a good chunk of the rest of Yglesias's life. There's a reason that Nixon hands, for example, keep turning up like bad pennies in even the GWB Administration, some thirty years on: they're the ones that had their tickets punched with valuable and necessary experience. You can see it on the Democratic side, as well: IIRC, Tony Lake and Richard Holbrooke turn up in The Best and the Brightest as rising stars nearly forty years ago.

Perhaps this isn't an issue if we think policy positions are a function of a relentless technical application that grinds out straightforwardly, if not easily, answers. If you think that ideology/posture/etc. influences those outcomes, you might think it's a problem.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM

"a rogue political strategist

with WMDs!

"A Clinton win would be the return of the people who ran the show in the late 1990s and who continued to be the predominant influence in the 21st century."

Ok, Matt - out of all of the people who've argued one way or the other - with just a single sentence you've managed to remove every last teeny shred of uncertainty from my mind: I am so primary-voting for Obama -

- Whether us PA people will actually get to matter, of course, well . . .

Posted by Dan S. | February 7, 2008 12:55 PM

Thanks for stating the obvious, Matt.

Posted by Israel | February 7, 2008 1:02 PM

"- Whether us PA people will actually get to matter, of course, well . . ."

Ed Rendell will do everything he can to deliver this state's votes the HRC. He can just smell a cabinet apointment. (Of course, if he succeeds in the primary and the general, that means CBK takes over this state, but that's a whole 'nother ball o'wax.)

Posted by Shawn | February 7, 2008 1:14 PM

What matters, I think (and Matt alludes to this), is not how many "outsiders" or "insiders" each candidate has advising them, but what impact these advisors will have as a group on the policy and decision making of the two candidates.

As Matt has often noted, the people with whom Sen. Clinton has surrounded herself will likely ensure a return to the type of policy-making and politics that we saw in the 1990s, including a more hawkish foreign policy.

I think that Obama's particular mix of advisors, even if some (or many) are "insiders," will lend support to his propensity for more outside-the-box thinking and his willingness to examine new and different approaches.

And finally, Matt, I don’t understand how Samantha Power winning a Pulitzer makes her an "insider" (or not an "outsider")? I've always thought of Samantha Power as possessing uniquely non-traditional, inside-the-beltway foreign policy experience and points-of-view. And one of the reasons that I was attracted to Obama's candidacy early on was because of the judgment and instinct he displayed in asking Samantha Power to advise him on matters of foreign policy.

Posted by Aaron M | February 7, 2008 1:18 PM

Obama: "I don't think anybody is clamoring for more debates," Mr. Obama said. "We've had 18 debates so far."

They've had a single one-on-one debate.

This is clearly the strategy of someone quickly becoming quite 'establishment'.

If HRC said that about debates, and used that weasel word (or rather, number), Obama supporters here would be screaming bloody murder about her lack of respect for the voters in these other states, and would characterize her comments as famously 'Clintonian'.

Posted by Andruw | February 7, 2008 1:22 PM

If HRC said that about debates, and used that weasel word (or rather, number), Obama supporters here would be screaming bloody murder about her lack of respect for the voters in these other states, and would characterize her comments as famously 'Clintonian'

The point of the game is to win. As I recall, one of the charges against Obama is that he doesn't know this, while the Clinton's do. So be of good cheer.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 7, 2008 1:26 PM

Well this could use a reality check. Once you look at Team Obama at the granular level it is chock full of Clinton people.
Jeffrey Liebman and David Cutler (2/3rds of the Economics team) worked for Clinton. And as I go down the list of Obama's National Security team all I see is 'former Clinton' and 'National Securty Council', he seems to have captured much of the core team. WaPo: War over the wonks

"Important left-of-center people who haven't happened to be the most important left of center people over the past 15 years or so would rise to leadership." Who on Obama's list actually meets that description? Tony Lake? Dennis Ross? Ivo Daalder? Richard Clarke? I don't have specific objections to any of them but they are far from outsiders newly brought to the corridors of power.

I look at Team Obama and see a relentlessly centrist campaign advised by largely centrist advisors. Perhaps somebody could name me some names to restore some progressive street cred here. Not for the first time I see people projecting onto Obama positions and world view that they would like to see, or even need to see, but the specifics always seem to be just out of our reach

Posted by Bruce Webb | February 7, 2008 1:33 PM

This is a serious exageration on Matt's part. There are loads of ex-Clintonites on the Obama campaign. Take Donna Brazille, for example. Tony Lake. And so on.

To the extent that it is true, however, do you really think that Zbignew Brezinski represents a bold, new approach to foreign affairs? He's a realist who's just slightly to the left of Henry Kissinger. Do you really want him over Holbrooke?

I remain seriously unimpressed that Obama really represents something new, a force for change. He is inspiring a lot of people, as I was inspired by Bill Clinton in 1992. But is he really that different?

Posted by Think Twice | February 7, 2008 1:33 PM

SCMT: "The point of the game is to win."

As I recall, however, there is one candidate pledging a "new politics". This is stance is as "old" as politics gets.

Or is criticizing inconsistencies and deceitful rhetoric only operative if the candidate is named Clinton?

I can just feel the hope...

Posted by Andruw | February 7, 2008 1:35 PM

Think Twice is right. Also, Susan Rice is with Obama. Really poorly thought through post on Iglesia's part.

Posted by Violet | February 7, 2008 1:36 PM

@Andruw: If, if, if. I may have even made a few of them myself, but I'm sure sick of these "If So-and-so did _____, then Such-and-such would be all _____." The realities are murky enough to sort out; getting into this kind of hypothetical is a waste of time.

But more importantly: "Quickly becoming establishment" is oxymoronic. You cannot quickly become establishment (or even "establishment" in scare quotes). You can quickly become popular with established peers -- but it would be tough for anyone to argue that was a bad thing if, say, they were campaigning on the idea that experience is of paramount importance.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 1:36 PM

"or even "establishment" in scare quotes"

Actually, they weren't scare quotes.

If you scroll up enough, you will see that it is quoting the title of the post.

Posted by Andruw | February 7, 2008 1:40 PM

Oops. I meant to say:

"I've always thought of Samantha Power as possessing uniquely non-traditional, NON-inside-the-beltway foreign policy experience and points-of-view."

Sorry.

Posted by Aaron M | February 7, 2008 1:41 PM

I'm going to give Matt the benefit of the doubt that he's just had a brain cramp on this one, since it is so unbelievably lame and wrong. Bruce Webb and Think Twice are exactly right.

In fact, doesn't this all reinforce the point that there really is very little policy difference between them? (Except for health care, where Hillary is more liberal.)

Boy, the Atlantic has really gone down hill since James Bennet took over.

Posted by Stan | February 7, 2008 1:41 PM

Aaron --

Zbig Brezinski is "outside the box"??? Really? He is a foreign policy realist. Maybe that's what we need now. But it is hardly outside the box thinking. It's back to the '70s, realpolitik thinking.

Posted by think twice | February 7, 2008 1:46 PM

@Andruw: Good enough. Then my point only becomes stronger.

Posted by moff | February 7, 2008 1:52 PM

Brezinski may be a realist but he was against going into war with Iraq. Many foreign policy insiders were in favor of the war. So if you look at it that way, one can say that he wasn't really part of the current foreign policy establishment.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 1:56 PM

Oh come on. Many realists were opposed to the war. This was the neocon war, remember?

Posted by think twice | February 7, 2008 2:00 PM

Oh for God's sake

..they're both establishment candidates, look at the special interest money coming their way.

Get a grip folks, Obama is Clinton circa 1992 sans the courage to raise taxes [which is the reason the 90's turned out the way they did].

Wake me when this long national nightmare is over.

Posted by S Brennan | February 7, 2008 2:04 PM

True dat S Brennan!

Posted by Violet | February 7, 2008 2:11 PM

Oh gimme a break. Yes many realists were against the war but their views were not taken seriously. The media shut out their views.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 2:19 PM

S Brennan, I absolutely agree.

Wake me when this long national nightmare is over.

The election? Or a politics without anything resembling a Left?

Because if it's the latter, you better have a great, big bottle of Ambien.

Posted by Pesto | February 7, 2008 2:31 PM

Samantha Power was a reporter for The Economist, wrote her famous book, then was hired as a prof at Harvard KSG. She's certainly been influential, but she has not yet been a government "insider". But she's not some crazy radical as various righties allege.

Posted by nbt | February 7, 2008 2:38 PM

I think that since the two candidates are so close in their positions, that speaks to the fact that Democrats/liberals really need to chill out about this. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I would be thrilled with either one in the White House. Especially over McCain. If you don't support Hillary because she voted for the war, think what it would be like with "100 Year War" McCain.

Posted by Think Twice | February 7, 2008 2:50 PM

What Think Twice said. And one more one point we need to wrap this nomination process quickly so that we can focus on the general election.

Posted by MGJ | February 7, 2008 2:59 PM

Obama's foreign policy team represents the George Kennan school of realpolitik with an important and overdue understanding of how the U.S. can NOT have a Middle East policy geared towards doing Israel's bidding. Holbrooke, Dennis Ross (name your poison) are Perle/Wolfowitz-lite. Anyone with any sense knows that the Jordanian King has it right when he points out the dangerous folly of following Apartheid Israel come what may. It puts the entire world at risk especially including the Israeli people themselves. We desperately need the Zbig/Samantha Power/Iraq Study Group/Walt-Mearshimer/Jimmy Carter approach to take hold. And, if that's what Obama's bringing - We Need Him To Win.

Posted by Trevor | February 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Trevor -- So the Democratic party becomes the Republican party circa 1973? No thanks.

Posted by Violet | February 7, 2008 3:20 PM

Violet is right. It would be huge mistake for the Democrats to replace neoconism with real politik, with an anti-semitic tinge, a la Trevor's assumption that all the world's problems are caused by "Apartheid Israel." How unbelievably naive -- and offensive.

Posted by Stan | February 7, 2008 3:23 PM

think twice,

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I readily admit that Brezinski is most certainly not an “outsider”; in fact he is one of the true "insiders" that Obama has on his team of foreign policy advisors.

My only point was that looking at Obama’s FP advisors as a GROUP, they seem likely to "lend SUPPORT to his (OBAMA's) propensity for more outside-the-box thinking and his willingness to examine new and different approaches."

And while, Brezinski (again) is certainly an "insider,” I see him as more of a "former-insider" and one of the few prominent Democratic foreign policy experts who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

The bottom line is I trust Obama more (than Clinton) to take a more common-sense approach foreign policy; I believe that he will be less quick (relative to Clinton and her advisors) to turn to military force*; and I also see him as less concerned about appearing "tough" on defense as Sen. Clinton has demonstrated over the last 7 years.

I find it comforting that we could have a President who thinks like this (or understands this):

“…..for most of our history our crises have come from using force when we shouldn’t, not by failing to use force."

From James Traub’s NYT article on Obama’s foreign policy from last November:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?_r=4&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by Aaron M | February 7, 2008 3:58 PM

How would a person possibly form an opinion on Obama's foreign policy? He hasn't said or done anything of particular note on the subject.

Posted by John Petty | February 7, 2008 4:05 PM

S Brennan,

You said: "..they're both establishment candidates, look at the special interest money coming their way."

While I do not believe that Obama is perfect on this front, he is/has been much better about not taking special interest money than has Sen. Clinton.

There are probably a number of different ways to add up these types of numbers, but here is at least one:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

That's pretty shocking, if accurate.

Obama has also been consistently ahead of Clinton in terms of supporting (and getting passed) government transparency and ethics reform legislation.

See this interesting piece posted by a Daily Kos diarist just today:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/7/101110/2068/766/451817

Anyhow, again, I am NOT saying Obama is a saint (and nor does he claim to be), but I think the "pox on both" houses narrative does injustice to this particular debate.

Posted by Aaron M | February 7, 2008 4:11 PM

"the two candidates are so close in their positions...Democrats/liberals really need to chill out about this" - Think Twice

The fact that the two candidates chosen by the media are "are so close in their positions" is not a reason to "chill out".

The fact that their SHARED positions are largely right of NIXON should send chills down those Democrats who still have spines.

Posted by S Brennan | February 7, 2008 4:18 PM

Matt, in the biggest understantement of the 2008 election:

There's something a little silly about Hillary Clinton's efforts to label Barack Obama "the establishment candidate"

Two words: Terry F$%#ING McAuliffe. The Clintons' establishment moneyman and former head of the DNC.

I cut some slack for Hillary's feminist fans, but you had Pelosi up there behind Bush during the State of the Union. A lot of feminsts worked hard and suffered for that, but still. The Clintons keep insulting our intelligence. Day after day.

Posted by Peter K. | February 7, 2008 4:41 PM

"A lot of feminsts worked hard and suffered for that, but still. The Clintons keep insulting our intelligence."

Anytime I hear "The Clintons" in regard to HRC's candidacy, it reinforces her status as AN anti-establishment candidate.

Posted by fairy tale high | February 7, 2008 4:48 PM

I don't think it's very easy to consistently predict how these NSC guys/gals will respond to given situations(although some obviously have their leanings). After all, Cheney was firmly against an occupation of Iraq/dislodging of Saddam when he was with Bush I and we all know what happened after that.
Samantha Powers notwithstanding, I do find the incestuousness of the potential NSC pool disturbing- no doubt prone to groupthink. Another point that author David Rothkopf makes about this is that when a new NSC group comes into the administration, they often make the mistake of basing their decisions on how things were when they were last in office(even if it was a decade ago), so the experience helps but also hurts(plus there's the issue of continuity- what if Condi actually makes some progress in the Middle East peace process- how does she pass the baton to a new group?). Thus, I think either Hillary or Barack would have difficulties due to the inherent process of changing administrations.

Posted by kristi | February 7, 2008 4:57 PM

Aaron -
I guess I think the "outsider" versus "insider" framework very unhelpful, and un-enlightening. I mean, they're all outsiders right now in the sense that they're out of power. None of them are true outsiders from where I stand -- Powers, Lake, Brezinski, go down the list -- are all part of the left of center foreign policy establishment. Some of them (although, contrary to what Matt thinks, not all) have been out of power for longer periods of time.

And somehow, that is now being turned into a virture. My recollection of Carter's foreign policy, after all, was that it -- and Brezinski --was a disaster, with the notable exception of the Camp David agreement. But the rest of it -- Iran hostages, Afghanistan and so on was pretty bad.

Sometimes, thinking outside the box is not what we need right now. Remember when Obama said he wanted to keep the option to nuke Pakistan? Definitely outside the box, but not a good idea in my opinion.

Posted by Think Twice | February 7, 2008 5:15 PM

Think Twice,

Forgive me if I recall incorrectly, but I thought Obama said that he would consider striking Al-Queda unilaterally in Pakistan if there was clear intelligence(which obviously, there doesn't seem to be much of these days so it's kind of a moot point). I don't recall him mentioning anything about a nuclear attack. Can you please give me a link to reference this?

Posted by kristi | February 7, 2008 5:34 PM

You're right. He said that he would unilaterally attack Pakistan, but not use nukes. My mistake. But still bad policy, and "outside the box" thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

Posted by Think Twice | February 7, 2008 5:40 PM

Think Twice,

Actually Obama took nuclear weapons OFF the table when it came to Pakistan, AND he was then criticized for it by Sen. Clinton.

From the Washington Post (3/7/07)
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians." And "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html

That's a pretty big misunderstanding on your part, as I would think it would be very important for a voter to know whether using nuclear weapons to go after targets in Pakistan was acceptable.

Obama stated quite clearly that this was NOT an option.

And I also dislike labels and find them very un-enlightening. Though please note that Brezinski is just one of Obama's advisors among I group that I happen to admire (see some of Matt's previous posts comparing Clinton's and Obama's advisors). (Though again, Brezinski DID oppose the Iraq War for the right reasons back in 2002, which is a good deal more recent than what he did or didn't do during the Carter Administration.)

Posted by Aaron M | February 7, 2008 5:54 PM

No, I get it. But the point remains that he supports unilaterally attacking another country. Sounds like Cheney.

Posted by Think Twice | February 7, 2008 5:56 PM

"[Obama]...he is/has been much better about not taking special interest money than has Sen. Clinton." Aaron M 4:11 PM

You were smart to use past present and not future. As the article shows below, it's only a matter of time.

http://www.commonblog.com/story/2007/11/21/114918/82

What is wrong with presidential campaign financing
By Jay Mandle -- Guest Blogger

Posted on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 05:19:49 PM EST
Three very disturbing patterns emerge from an analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign. The first is that none of the leading candidates for their party's nominations will be publicly funded. Second is that both Republican and Democratic candidates depend on large private contributions, not small donors. And third, the financial sector of the United States business community provides a disproportionate share of campaign funding.

There is an easy explanation for the first - Congress has underfunded the presidential system. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are raising and spending far more money than would be the case if they participated in the public funding system. The FEC website does indicate that if primary elections had been held in 2007 each candidate would have been limited to about $41 million. That figure will be adjusted upward in 2008, but the order of magnitude will be about the same
The leading candidates have already exceeded those spending limits. Clinton ($91 million) and Obama ($80 million) have dwarfed them. And though the Republicans have not been able to raise as much, both Romney ($63 million) and Guiliani ($47 million) have also exceeded the amount they would have received from the public funding system.

One thing is clear. If we want our presidential nominees to be independent of private interests, the public funding system will have to be increased. Otherwise politicians who wish to be free from dependence on special interests will continue to be at a funding disadvantage.

The second problem concerns the size of the donations received by the leading candidates. In the aftermath of the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the use of the internet by the Howard Dean campaign in 2004 there was the hope that small donations would increase in importance and reduce if not supplant the dominating role of big contributions. The anticipation was that with BCRA shutting down soft money loopholes, candidates would work harder to raise funds from small donors and the internet would provide them with the means to successfully do so.

That hope has not been fulfilled. So far during the 2007-08 political cycle, fewer than 350,000 people, or 0.16 percent of the adult population, have provided political contributions large enough to be itemized ($200 or more).

What is worse, the front-runners for each party, Clinton and Romney, have collected only slightly more than 10 percent of their funds from people who contribute $200 or less and the same is true for Guiliani. Obama is the leading candidate who most depends on small contributions, but even in his case small contributions amount to less than 25 percent of his funds.

It is at the other end of the donation spectrum that the action lies. All four leading candidates raise about one-half of their funds from people who contribute $2,300 or more, with Clinton and Guiliani topping the list at more than 60 percent. Funding presidential campaigns is still the sport of big donors.

The third pattern is the remarkable similarity in the importance of the financial sector in funding all four of the leading candidates. This sector alone contributed slightly more than 20 percent of the money collected by Clinton and Obama. For Romney and Guiliani, contributions from this source came to almost one-third of their respective totals, and in both cases it was the leading fund-raising category.

The role of the financial sector in political fund-raising deserves special mention because of the crisis that is currently threatening the economy. What happened to cause this crisis was that mortgage lenders found ways to induce borrowers to take loans whose costs were beyond their means to repay. At the same time those lenders took advantage of a regulator failure by the Federal Reserve and devised techniques to evade exposure to those bad loans. As defaults mounted, new loans of any kind became more difficult to obtain. With that the case, economic activity has been impeded, threatening the country with a recession.

Posted by S Brennan | February 7, 2008 6:22 PM

What has now become clear is that the democratic phase of the Democratic nomination process is over. Neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough delegates to lock the nomination without superdelegates. In short, the superdelegates are now going to decide the nomination.

The great horror of this is the prospect of a brokered convention that leaves half the party feeling betrayed and enraged by a highjacked election (remember the recount battle anyone?) The prophylactic is obvious enough: the superdelegates need to commit themselves to voting for whomever gets the most votes from primary and caucus voters by the end of the season.

Who can carry this off? It seems to me that Dean should be working on getting both Clinton and Obama to tell “their” superdelegates to go with this plan for the good of the party.

Of course, it would also be helpful if the liberal bloggers embraced the idea honoring democracy in the Democratic party.... Matthew?

Posted by Christopher Anderson | February 7, 2008 10:22 PM

"Not for the first time I see people projecting onto Obama positions and world view that they would like to see, or even need to see, but the specifics always seem to be just out of our reach."

I agree. This is painfully obvious.

John Petty: "How would a person possibly form an opinion on Obama's foreign policy? He hasn't said or done anything of particular note on the subject."

He's made a couple general foreign policy speeches which outline his foreign policy prescriptions.

If you read one of Obama's foreign policy speeches, which I've ripped to shreds here in previous posts, you don't see much in the way of "how to" do what he posits the US needs to do. And what you do see hinted at is...more of the same US interventionism which has proven utterly wrong in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

So he didn't suggest using nukes in Afghanistan or Pakistan - that was obviously a seriously stupid concept, and I'd like to know who ever raised that issue in the first place. Who the hell would you nuke in either country? It's ridiculous.

The problem is that Obama HAS suggested "taking the fight to Al Qaeda" in Pakistan. This is not feasible for the US to do in any meaningful way. And he has not acknowledged that, nor specified how he would do this.

The same applies to Afghanistan.

Worse, Obama has given at least lip service to the notion that Iran is a "threat" to the US and Israel - which it clearly is not. He has recommended more sanctions on Iran to give up enrichment - which Iran can not do by any rational assessment of their circumstances.

This means his lip service to "diplomacy" in foreign policy issues is weak. In the case of Iran, unless some senior people who know what is going on - such as ElBaradei - clue him in on the reality of the situation, he is going to run out of "diplomacy" options very quickly and find himself facing a choice of give in and accept the Iranian nuclear program, or bomb Iran.

Which is not where we need to be.

Obama needs to say that he will work for a "grand bargain" with Iran where Iran gets to keep its nuclear energy program - and even with US assistance, as required under the NPT - plus US security guarantees in exchange for recognition of Israel, and assistance in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as moderating Hizballah, and allowing more intrusive and comprehensive IAEA inspections and a monitoring program to ensure that there is and never will be an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

He also needs to call on Israel to enter the NPT and disarm its nuclear weapons arsenal, to further a Middle East nuclear free zone.

This is the kind of "change mandate" that would make him the best President in US history.

With regard to Afghanistan, he has to recognize that the war there is not only lost, it was pointless in the first place, and pull out all US troops. What happens in Afghanistan is not a US problem.

With regard to Pakistan, he has to recognize that no US military intervention in Pakistan is feasible. He needs to cut off all military aid to Pakistan EXCEPT that which the Pakistani military needs to confront their internal insurgencies and only while such insurgencies continue to exist. In other words, if Pakistan will actually take steps to drive AL Qaeda out, the US will provide the counterinsurgency tech to do so. But no anti-India hardware.

And no India nuclear deal, either.

And with regard to the "War on Terrorism", he has to acknowledge that there is no military solution, and that even counterintelligence and law enforcement solutions are not enough. There must be US foreign policy changes to remove the US as a target for terrorists.

I don't see any of this happening.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 12:28 AM

Wow what an apt surname you have given your worldview Mr. Hack. But I am curious, for what conceivable reason aren't you and Trevor (above) supporting Dr. Paul? He hasn't dropped out yet you know.

Posted by lbnaz | February 8, 2008 7:25 AM

>

Richard, now come on. Saying this out loud would be suicide for any candidate in an election cycle, especially one in which the 2 candidates most beholden to the AIPAC would make grand fodder out of 'negotiating with terrorists'. Do you think Reagan himself would've been elected if he had promised to have friendly chats with the Russians while campaigning? At least Obama is giving a little hint by saying he would meet with 'enemy' leaders. Not only that, but from a strategic point of view, Obama is taking the right tack- the Iranians are also watching what he is saying- so he is doing a little carrot-and-stick routine, while Hillary thus far seems to emphasize the stick only(perhaps a better strategy if she actually gets elected but only time can tell- I think it's limiting her options, which is not a good thing).

For what it's worth, I agree with many of your ideas regarding the direction we should take, but considering the current domestic political situation it's much easier said than done. However, I don't think any of the candidates(with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul) have openly described the full details of how they would get from point A to point B. And maybe they shouldn't, as that would strap them into doing exactly what they said...fine if the world map doesn't change from now till January 2009 but it often does. Foreign policy is not a stationary target, unfortunately.

Posted by kristi | February 8, 2008 12:50 PM

Two other allies Obama would have in implementing a better Middle East foreign policy would be Republicans Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. Joe Biden works well with them as well. He could forge a new consensus away from "100 Years Of War."

Posted by Trevor | February 8, 2008 1:20 PM

Do Aaron and those others who favor Obama recall that Zbig B has a heart of ice?? Do they recall that Zbig and Carter's foreign policy brought the world the Khomeini regime in Iran? Which means that Zbig helped bring Ahmadinejad. How about Zbig's help for the Muslim fanatics who were encouraged to come to Afghanistan to fight the Russians??? That led to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and --- 9/11 !!!

Maybe it would be a waste of time to bother voting in this year's presidential election. Especially if you don't like McCain either.

Posted by Eliyahu | February 9, 2008 5:19 PM

Some folks above don't seem to understand why Zbig opposed the US invasion of Iraq. He and many others in the foreign policy establishment have long been in favor of Arab nationalism. Saddam Hussein was a leader, maybe the most prominent leader up to 2003, of Arab nationalism. It didn't matter to Zbig and his cothinkers what Saddam Hussein did to his own population, especially Kurds and Shi`ites, who together made up about 80% of the Iraqi population [the Shi`ites alone making up about 60%].

Now, Trevor has the insolence and contempt for truth to call Israel a land of "apartheid," a lie that any objective observer on the ground here in Jerusalem can see disproved. Trevor might consider the actual apartheid in Saudi Arabia, to which the Zbig and big oil school of foreign policy usually give a free pass on its abuses of human rights. The abuses in the Desert Kingdom happen to be done according to Islamic law which prevails in Saudi Arabia --along with beheadings and limb amputations for thieves. Are the Christians among the foreign workers in Saudi Arabia allowed to have churches or to practice their religion in public???

Neither the Clinton administration nor Carter's disastrous 4 years in office showed any principled opposition to war as such. Clinton had his war against Serbia, for instance, in order to allegedly save the Kossovo Muslim Albanians, whereas Muslim Albanian terrorists [the UCK] were in fact attacking Serbs before the international war against Serbia. Zbig and Carter had their war in Afghanistan. Looking back in hindsight, we might ask if it might not have been better to leave Afghanistan in the Soviet Communist sphere of influence. Zbig --interviewed after 9/11-- said that he was proud of his accomplishments in Afghanistan which --he claimed-- had led to the fall of the Soviet Union. So Zbig's accomplishments --according to his own logic-- boil down to getting rid of the Communist USSR and getting al-Qa`ida in exchange. Do Aaron and Trevor want more of Zbig's accomplishments??? Do they want to "engage" fascist Syria or do they prefer a Lebanon independent of Syria?? Which situation is more in the American interest as Aaron and Trevor see it??

Posted by Eliyahu | February 9, 2008 5:48 PM