Last night's "probably the last one" Democratic debate, hosted by ABC and moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, has been generating a lot of sound and fury in Blogville today. The chest-beating and garment-rending has been loudest from Obama supporters, who feel their candidate was subjected to too many stupid "gotcha" questions, but even Clinton supporters are noticing how shallow and uninformative the first half of the debate was.

So if you're looking for that sort of thing, it's out there everywhere. Here instead, I'd like to address an actual question that was asked last night about actual policy that received actual answers from both candidates. Call me contrarian, I don't mind.

I know this goes against the grain for commentary on this debate, so I'll open with one cheap shot that everyone else seems to have missed -- the rank stupidity and ignorance of one of Charlie Gibson's first questions.

Continue Reading »

Back in the dim and distant past of this presidential campaign (i.e., February), I wrote a pre-debate column listing questions I would like to hear both Democratic candidates answer. Today's column is a revision of this original. Many of the questions I have are the same, for which I apologize. I don't normally recycle my own material in this fashion, but unfortunately these questions remain largely unanswered, almost two months after the last debate.

As I previously stated, I (of course) have my own biases as to what to ask and what not to ask, so I invite everyone to pose their own questions in response in the comments.

Continue Reading »

The level of bloviation from the mainstream media over trivia is approaching hysterical levels it seems, but if you look carefully there is actually some news from the campaign trail that won't insult your intelligence. All three candidates have made interesting remarks in the past day or so which (if people hear them) might actually help them make up their mind in the voting booth. As opposed to the media's clinging to distractions such as sniper fire and bitterness.

I will leave it to others to microscopically analyze Hillary Clinton's sniper fire story and Barack Obama's recent comments in San Francisco. There certainly seems to be no shortage of folks willing to obsess over such unforced errors on the campaign trail, on both sides. My only comment on the situation is for Democrats to beware, because they are being treated unequally in this mess. During the same time period as Clinton and Obama's recent kerfluffles, John McCain has said some profoundly stupid things. And the media has barely blinked. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should realize this and direct a little more of their fire at McCain instead of each other. Clinton has already played this card once, so she knows that it works -- challenge the media to drop its fawning attitude toward John McCain and start shining a light on his misstatements as well, or else whoever becomes the Democratic nominee is going to have a much worse time of it this November.

Continue Reading »

As this year's Olympic torch wends its way across the globe on its journey to Beijing, it has attracted protestors of the Chinese government's actions in Tibet, Darfur, and on human rights in general.

Some decry this "politicization" of the torch relay. "It's all about the sports, and it has never been about the politics," they say. But this ignores the historic origins of the torch relay itself. Read the following statement on the Olympic torch and see if you agree with it:

"The sportive, knightly battle awakens the best human characteristics. It doesn't separate, but unites the combatants in understanding and respect. It also helps to connect the countries in the spirit of peace. That's why the Olympic Flame should never die."

Continue Reading »

Thus endeth another Petraeus week on Capitol Hill.

I have to say, I was impressed at the caliber of the questions asked, but severely disappointed at the caliber of the answers given. The latter is no real surprise, but the former is indeed an improvement.

Before I begin handing out this week's awards, I'd like to spotlight both Democratic presidential candidates from the Petraeus/Crocker hearings. They both did a fairly good job, actually. An abridged version of all three candidates' questions is available from the International Herald Tribune site [Hillary Clinton's questions begin on page 2, and Barack Obama's questions begin on page 5].

Continue Reading »

And so we enter Phase IV of the Iraq war. Where "special groups" are now the enemy, and both Petraeus and George W. Bush will have all the time they need... at least until January 20th of next year.

President Bush gave an address today, to back up the congressional testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The most telling quote from the entire thing was:

General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.

Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions.

And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

Continue Reading »

Could the recent firing (or, more accurately, recent demotion) of Mark Penn, architect of Hillary Clinton's campaign, save the party's chances in the general election? Has he, in other words, been designated at the official scapegoat for the campaign's viciousness? And will he serve this position well, becoming the lightning rod for Democratic voters to vent their anger and frustration on, rather than the eventual nominee?

Call him a scapegoat, lightning rod, whipping boy, or even sacrificial lamb (choose your own metaphor, in other words), but no matter who the nominee is, will he give sufficient cover so this eventual nominee can unite Democratic voters to produce a win in November?

Continue Reading »

I rarely dip into the realm of fairy tales to describe politics, but sometimes trying to figure out George Bush's logic on Iraq demands it. And so today we will try to explain the current military logic on troop levels using Goldilocks' terms: "too few," "too many," or "just right."

Some facts, first. American troop levels in Iraq a little over a year ago stood at about 130,000. President Bush decided the level of violence was unacceptable and suddenly decided there were "too few" soldiers in Iraq. His answer was the "surge," which was originally supposed to be 20,000 troops, but somehow (hey presto!) turned into 30,000 because of "additional support personnel." This raised the total to somewhere around 160,000 (which was supposed to be "just right"). The "surge" troops are now rotating out of Iraq, having spent a 15-month tour of duty there. They are scheduled to be gone in July, although somehow 10,000 support troops will stay, leaving America with 140,000 troops this summer (again, which is planned to be "just right" -- even though it was "too few" before the "surge").

Continue Reading »

Last Wednesday I wrote an article called "Questions For Petraeus," which I thought would be adequate to begin discussion of how to approach the upcoming congressional testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- in particular, what Democrats on the committees should be asking them. But events in Iraq have been moving quickly, so I offer this column as an addendum to the earlier one. Because after what happened in the past few days, more questions need to be asked.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has just made a bold move, which needs to be addressed, as it could have far-reaching consequences in Iraq and in the region. A lot depends on just what Maliki is up to, and what the consequences will be within the power structure (such as it is) in Iraq.

Continue Reading »

Since the campaigns of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have seemingly taken my advice earlier this week, and are both concentrating on attacking Senator John McCain rather than each other, we have the luxury of getting away from the campaign trail this week and focusing on a few other things -- the biggest of which is the upcoming testimony before Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the situation in Iraq. More on that in a moment.

But while the two candidates didn't rise to the level of a Most Impressive award, they do deserve to be commended for a week in which they both campaigned respectfully and admirably. Obama was noted early in the week for attacking McCain on the stump, and Clinton followed up later with a new cut of her "3:00 A.M." campaign ad which focused on McCain (and not Obama) this time. Add to this the banter between the campaigns over Barack's bowling ability (Hillary called for a bowl-off to decide the race, on April Fool's Day, and Barack jokingly accepted on a morning news show), which was a welcome lighthearted note from both campaigns. Just last night, Hillary Clinton appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and was charming, personable, and actually pretty funny -- an excellent appearance, all around.

So I have to give both campaigns a big pat on the back for running the kind of campaign people actually like to see this week, instead of endless sniping over he-said/she-said stuff that really turns voters (for both candidates) off in a big way.

Continue Reading »