Kevin Sullivan

Iran for Obama?

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I think Robert Spencer is making too much of these foreign “endorsements.”  Of course the reigning regime in Tehran wants an American president who will talk to them–the current one has them flanked.  Senator Obama, incidentally, has also said he’d bomb Iran if necessary. 

So, take these things with a grain. 

Judas is Taken

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

So what timely and pertinent cultural reference can James Carville use to express his Mafioso-like displeasure with Robert Reich for endorsing Obama?

This reminds me of a discussion I was having with a friend about VP possibilities, were Obama to secure the nomination.  I have long proposed Gen. Wesley Clark, who, despite my policy differences, would make sound electoral sense for Obama.  He has military experience, and he is a white old man (Yes, I think this is a factor).  Unlike Clinton, I believe Obama would need to essentially find himself a Dick Cheney–an old, experienced party elder with presumably no aspirations for Obama’s job.  Rather than a potential successor, Clark can represent the wise “advisor” that could balance out the senator’s youth and inexperience.

My friend, however, protested.  “Clark would never do it, he’s a Clintonite,” he said.  Well, I think Bill Richardson and perhaps Robert Reich have proven that the Clinton Whip operation isn’t all that it’s, uh, cracked up to be.  If Obama wins the nomination, look for the machinery to crack and crumble there.  James Carville will be a “Hope Monger” in no time. 

More at memeorandum

Barack Obama: Jedi Knight

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Funny stuff:

Obama’s Gaffe

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Big winner here?  John McCain. 

 The “Liberals think you’re too stupid to make choices” argument is very safe territory for Republicans; which Hillary Clinton should keep in mind as she jumps all over this.  But distinctions aside, I have to believe McCain is laughing it up over all this, especially considering the “100 Years” distortion he has had to endure. 

“Really, Senator Obama?  People are taking your words out of their appropriate context?  Spinning them, perhaps?”

(Insert maniacal laughter)

More at memeorandum 

Mental and Moral Vacuity

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Steve Clemons puts it on display for us regarding Senator Obama’s repudiation of Jimmy Carter:

Apparently, he’s OK meeting Israeli leaders because they disavow terrorism — but still they protect and establish illegal settlements and have installed more roadblocks and inhibitions to Palestinian mobility than was the case since the November 2007 Annapolis Summit. And while knocking Carter’s efforts, Obama fails to articulate how any negotiation that does not include in some way a wrestling match and attempt at a negotiation with Hamas will be stable enough to believe in.

Ahh, it’s all of the old classics.  Naive moral equivalence, followed by a kowtow to terrorists and a quick cheap shot at the Evil Zionist Occupiers.  Just one problem: Settlements were forcefully removed from the Gaza Strip, the place in question, back in 2005.  If the terrorist regime in Gaza displayed even half of the Israeli propensity to rein in on their own radical elements, the entire region would be an exponentially better place.  Instead, Hamas chooses to concoct mini-crises, while they skim profits and fuel off the top for their own gains.  By fostering misery in their pseudo-state, they can mold and mobilize the kind of public sentiment that justifies firing shrapnel-laden rockets into school yards.  This organization–which refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those they terrorize–belongs at the discussion table, according to Clemons.

But wait, he gets dumber:

The correct position for Obama to have taken is to say that he would be open to what someone like a Jimmy Carter. . .or a Colin Powell. . .or a Tony Blair, Joschka Fischer, Javier Solana, Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, or Saudi King Abdullah might be able to achieve by way of Hamas and Fatah. Emissaries are important, and they can create opportunities a President can’t often take the risks to do himself or herself.

Obama, in my view, has tarnished his foreign policy credentials here. If he can’t embrace what these Americans have been able to do — and what Senator Chuck Hagel has suggested be done with Hamas — then what use is his new vision?

What is his position today if not one that has been influenced by special interests whose political weight has undermined the strategic interests of the United States?

And we have an (albeit veiled) AIPAC jab!  Ding ding ding!  All we need now is something about the Rothschild family, and we can give Clemons his trophy.

So all of the Israel hatred aside, what is Clemons’ primary point?  Well, the responsible thing for the next president to do would be to embrace some unofficial document drafted and signed at a summit that nobody cared about.  This should be done, apparently, despite the stated position of the United States government; which considers Hamas to be a purveyor of terrorism (which, incidentally, they are).  

What escapes Clemons is the issue of legitimacy.  Senator Obama appears to understand what the United Nations, The Quartet, President Carter and even President Bush fail to grasp.  By negotiating with terrorists you legitimize terrorists, thus codifying the tactics they utilize.  Terrorism then becomes “resistance,” and dolts like Clemons are allowed to wrongly equate road blocks with Qassam rockets.  Like a mosquito with amnesia, we keep flying into the zapper over and over and over again, allowing those who deserve no voice a chance to be heard.  We allowed Yasser Arafat to become the defacto spokesman of of an entire people in 1974; despite his lacking in any legitimate claim to that title.  The Road Map plan has produced much of the same, granting authority to an organization that has no place being at the negotiating table. 

Barack Obama, thankfully, understands the folly in this naive cycle.

UPDATE: Thanks to TMV for the link love!

Sour Grapes on Day One

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

There is so much that’s terribly wrong with Sean Wilentz’s Salon piece on why Clinton should supposedly be winning the Democratic nomination.  Here is the basic crux of his argument: 

If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the “winner takes all” democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she’d pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She’d have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton “stealing” the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

I believe this is kind of like me retroactively demanding a lucrative baseball contract were I capable of throwing a nasty splitter today.  Shorter shorter shorter Sean Wilentz: “If we could change the rules of the nomination process today, we would totally be winning this thing.”

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the Obama campaign would’ve run the exact same campaign were the delegates in each state decided in a winner-take-all setup.  They obviously would not, as their strategy clearly would’ve adjusted to the bigger states, and away from the caucus states that Hillary has otherwise ignored.  Money and manpower would’ve been utilized differently; the targeting strategy would’ve looked different.  The northeast–considered an acceptable stronghold for Clinton under the current proportional rules–would become crucial.  Thus it’s safe to assume that Obama’s team would’ve dumped more energy into these states, directed more advertising there, and probably would’ve lobbied harder for endorsements and support there.  A voter miscount favoring Senator Clinton in Harlem would have been national news; as opposed to the slight blip on the radar it received following Clinton’s commanding win in the state.  If the delegates were winner-take-all, Senator Obama would’ve likely camped himself out in strongholds like New York City; turning the race for the state into a defacto mayoral race moving borough-to-borough.  The GOTV operation in New York alone would’ve looked very different.  And that’s just New York.

This is yet another example of Clintonian entitlement and indifference.  Everyone loves the rules until the rules screw them, and that’s pretty much all Wilentz is saying here.  His theory that Hillary is running a winning general election strategy assumes that Hillary Clinton would still be a ballot factor in an Obama/McCain match up.  She won’t be, and many (if not most) Democrats will come home to their party in the face of a McCain presidency.  Those who might stray will be targeted and cajoled into voting the right way.  Obama’s campaign staff is probably flexible enough to adjust their strategy in the general.  I’m assuming, dare I sound too presumptuous, that the campaign understands the differences between the two races.  But that’s just a guess. 

More at memeorandum  

Throw Them Under the Bus on Day One

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

I find a couple of things troubling about the latest Clinton assault on Bill Richardson.  For starters, I’m still somewhat surprised by what the Clintons seem to brand as “loyalty.”  You would like to think that Bill Richardson’s loyalty was paid in full during his years of service in the White House.  Indeed, as Matt Yglesias noted last week, you would like to think that most presidential appointments are premised on the appointee’s resume; rather than some bizarre expectation of quid pro quo-style patronage. 

This also says something about the way the Clintons view politics.  Working more like a cartel or the mafia, choice is never something that should come into play.  It’s always about entitlement and rank with them.  I understand that these things have always been a factor in American politics, but that doesn’t make it excusable.  The notion that Bill Richardson can’t simply use his judgment and change his mind shows that this concept of “leadership” that politicians love to harp on is really a trifling annoyance for them.  Leadership requires risks and unpopular choices; something the Clintons have no time or patience for unless it immediately benefits them.

More at memeorandum         

A Gift Basket for Michael Gerson

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The Obama campaign should get on one, and pronto, for columns like this one.  Perhaps Barack Obama’s abortion ”extremism” could become a more salient matter in the general election.  But in a nomination process that has exposed Obama’s problems with older white females, attacking Obama on abortion is perhaps just what the doctor ordered. 

And not one of those crappy gift baskets, I’m talking about the good kind!  Like those edible flowers, or something.

More at memeorandum   

Barack and Mahmoud

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Blake Hounshell advises caution:

My hope is that Obama doesn’t literally mean he will sit across the table from Ahmadinejad, but rather that he won’t be afraid to negotiate with Iran and will drop preconditions that only ensure that talks will go nowhere. But it’s worth pointing out that the United States has tried in the past to ignore Iran’s power dynamics and negotiate with its preferred interlocutors. That approach simply doesn’t work, because the hardliners will work to torpedo any deal that doesn’t include them. Plus, they’ve got Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on their side, and he’s the big boss. There will be no deal without his approval.

Well, kind of.  Houndshell is right, it makes little sense to pick out our preferred “reformers” from within the regime and expect to get anywhere with them (this was Bill Richardson’s proposed policy towards Iran, which soured me on his campaign).  However, Ahmadinejad does in fact have budgetary influence over the Iranian economy, and he can spend or not spend on a wide array of projects or sectors that the Supreme Leader frankly doesn’t care about.  And if Khamenei were to step in, it would be in more of an appellate fashion than a preliminary one.  So, even if the Ayatollah puts the kibosh on something he determines to be a form of “Westoxication,” we could still argue that Iranian leaders sat down with Americans and agreed to agree on stuff. 

I think Khamenei understands that a huge chunk of his people want negotiations with America, so this could serve to our benefit.  However, unlike Hounshell, I think the whole “preconditions” matter is a great big canard.  Each party knows what is expected of the other, and the “on the table, off the table” stuff is all a bunch of posturing I think in the absence of actual negotiations.  The Iranians are in a unique position, one that’s unusual for them.  They can offer us assistance in securing Iraq (which we’ve already negotiated over), and use this as a way to secure their own nuclear ambitions.

I’m not a nuclear Iran alarmist.  I think agreements can be made that will allow Iran to domestically produce more of their own energy, and the U.S. could play a productive role in helping them meet their growing urban consumption needs in the coming decades.  However, we can’t sit down at the table with the world’s biggest purveyor of global terrorism and not talk about terrorism.  To me, this is far more important than the nuclear question, and it must be addressed and remedied in any kind of sit-down with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Taking My Ball With Me on Day One

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Let me preface all of this by stating that I don’t believe Clinton supporters would vote for John McCain were Obama to get the nomination.  I think, once given a moment to lick their wounds, they would smarten up rather quickly.

However, if it’s true that there’s some segment of bitter Clintonites out there willing to sabotage their chance at the White House in spite of Obama, than it’s worth examining why they might prefer this option.  It can’t be based on policy, since Obama and Clinton are much closer in substance than Obama and McCain are.  Perhaps, as one Clinton supporting friend of mine put it, it’s about judgement and “acumen.”  But if this is the case, hasn’t McCain exhausted such acumen by standing by the Iraq War?  If you’re a Liberal Democrat in favor of withdrawal, national health care and environmental protection, wouldn’t McCain be a disastrous and illiberal choice?

The problem, as I’ve argued before, is that Hillary Clinton has imparted her sense of entitlement upon her supporters.  In running the way she has run this campaign, in crafting the message she has crafted, Clinton has turned the Clintons into the biggest entitlement program in the party.  After all, were it not for the Clintons, the party may find itself in a different place here in 2008.  The Clintons are tested and electable, and history is their proof.  The Democratic Party owes them this election, and Hillary has convinced her followers of that. 

That’s why Bill Richardson gets compared to Judas.  That’s why Clinton has passed the presidential “threshold,” while Obama has not.  They’re entitled to the 2008 election, and if they don’t get it there will be hell to pay.  They’ll take their ball and go home; even if it means losing the White House in 2008.

There’s always room for an “I told ya so” in 2012.