This is...Our Independence Day!

I am loathe to see much that is politically, socially or culturally viable from the 1996 film Independence Day. It's not really my cup of tea - aliens invade in large vaginal spaceships to destroy the tall erect skyscrapers that are symbols of America's manhood. America's manhood then strikes back with their phallic fighter jets and the only real collateral damage is against homosexuals, uppity women who don't listen to their husbands, and nerds. It's like the cinematic version of a wedgie.

But when I read about this, from a videoconference with military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan, I couldn't help but be reminded of the final act of the film, in which dashing young non-partisan president Bill Pullman forsakes his personal safety to lead the final assault against those terrible femialiens, and his handlers don't do much in the way of stopping him:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

You know what, dude? Go ahead. I think, like in the movie, it would add just the right level of ridiculousness to this shameful international farce.

Obama-Sebelius Versus Clinton-Obama

I have gotten somewhat mired on Foreign Policy in my posts - it's important, of course, but certainly not the topic du jour here at TPM. So I'm going to move more to domestic politics and the election as it stands stateside. I've been hearing some people talking about Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a possible running mate for Obama, even though he has made it clear that it is too early to be talking about such things. I think there are several political advantages not only to Sebelius but to leaking a "shortlist."

More after the jump...

Sebelius is probably best known recently to a national audience for providing the somewhat timidly voiced Democratic rebuttal to the President's last State of the Union address. But in Kansas, she has forged an impressive political career for a Democrat in a largely Republican state. She inherited a $1.1 billion deficit when she came into office and eliminated it, and Time Magazine declared her one of the five best governors in the country. She provides a lot of nice counter-points to Obama, falling somewhat to the right of him, but she is also pro-choice (in Kansas, I say again) and anti-capital punishment. She's pro-business, but was the first governor to refuse permits to businesses that wanted to build plants in her state that didn't agree to new emissions standards and has taken the coal industry to task for its environmental standards. Personally, she's married to a judge, but has created her political career honestly on her own, first getting elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986, then becoming the first Democratic insurance commissioner for the State of Kansas in 100 years. She's hugely popular in her state and also, she looks fabulous in turquoise.

A very popular governor (with obvious executive experience) who is also a very believable, pragmatic, and successful feminist figure? I'm sorry for seeming so excited but it's nice to be reminded that out in the country there are actually many figures in politics with more positives than negatives.

There's been a lot of talk about her as his possible running mate, but I think that the Obama campaign, or someone associated with the Obama campaign, would be well served to mainstream these discussions. The candidate doesn't have to be public, but surrogates should be. I think that if you float a figure like Sebelius you start to to ease the tension created when people feel they have to choose between the identity politics ideals of blacks and women. For Clinton, who has run a somewhat anti-feminist campaign so far and can easily be accused of inflating her own record, Sebelius acts as a successful, experienced, and popular counterpoint.
Now, there are those who will say that it's too early - as Obama has said on the stump. And there are those who will correctly remind that the running mate choice doesn't usually make that much of a difference. But Clinton has already attempted to float the running mate possibility for political gain - she's the one talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket, essentially trying to ease the tension herself by presenting the idea that they will be getting both of them and taking the easy way out of the decision. Even Obama supporters have taken up this argument, arguing that such a ticket is a possibility, but it should be the other way around, with Clinton as the VP.

My thought is - with popular and actually qualified possibilities like Sebelius... Why should Obama have to settle for Clinton?


(Crossposted to the TPM Readers Blog)

"The Magic Is Over"; and A Request of Hillary Supporters

Interesting story that showed up this morning: Bernard Kouchner, the progressive French humanitarian, founder of Médecins Sans Frontières, former UN envoy to Kosovo, and Nicolas Sarkozy's unlikely Foreign Minister, talked with the International Herald Tribune and others at the launch of the Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris.

Asked whether the United States could repair the damage it has suffered to its reputation during the Bush presidency and especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Kouchner replied, "It will never be as it was before."

"I think the magic is over," he continued, in what amounted to a sober assessment from one of the strongest supporters in France of the United States.

U.S. military supremacy endures, Kouchner noted, and the new president "will decide what to do - there are many means to re-establish the image." But even that, he predicted, "will take time."

I've been saying on here that this, at least to me, is a very important issue in the campaign, even if it is not an issue that seems on the minds of most voters. Obviously the economy is tanking - we say we're on the verge of a recession when by all accounts we seem to already be in one, only staying afloat on the back of a weak rhetoric that imagines that "things could get much worse." Foreign policy issues, at least to most Americans, seem to stop at the edge of how it affects their families and friends who are immediately affected by the Iraq war. With the disastrous failure of that policy, the instinct for these Americans is to become isolationist (a bad idea). Foreign policy issues seem to fall under that "bourgeois" category of things that only people who have all their other problems solved can afford to worry about.

More after the jump...

I don't buy this. Much of America's predominance, power, security, and safety have been shakily maintained in the 20th century because of how the rest of the world sees our internal and external actions. Our greatest foreign policy successes have been a beacon that others want to emulate - when we have inspired, through disseminating our ideas or ideals, oppressed people to rise up in self-determination. Our greatest foreign policy blunders have been when we have ignored the power of international public opinion and demonstrated either a double standard regarding human rights or a contradiction to our values. And these rising and falling levels of international image in an increasingly globalized society affect the economic well-being and security of even those not "bourgeois."

I don't know if its as bleak as Kouchner describes. I think perceptions are generational. A whole swath of the Muslim world can be inflamed against us just as their children (as was reported in the NY Times about a week ago) are feeling disenfranchised from radicals. These are the people we should be targetting with a radical break from the diplomacy and the militarism of the past. A president can do this. The candidates should be taking a leadership role, saying that we need to encourage democracy as a reparative - not using the language of George W. Bush, diplomatic exceptionalism (not meeting with leaders), and "commander-in-chief", but rather by demonstrating a willingness to be internationalists.

The United States should never allow itself, for example, to put itself in a situation like the recent one with China, where the US issued a report criticizing their human rights record, and China turned right back around and issued a long report accusing the US of being just as bad a human rights offender. Regardless of the leg they have to stand on in that regard, the US response was tepid - basically it said that yes, maybe we are a violator of human rights. But we have free speech so at least we could talk about it if we wanted to.

That is unacceptable. That makes us less safe, and that creates problems more difficult and challenging than others getting far more play in this election.

Now, I've said I am an Obama supporter. I am a supporter of his partially because he makes a good amount of proposals to combat the declining American image abroad. I am also a supporter of his because I feel that Hillary has not been able to prove to me that she is thinking about these problems. She seems, like I've said, to be a strict statist, and overwhelmingly statist positions usually result in those foreign policy blunders above.

Of course, in deference to the Hillary supporters, I wonder if this is just because, like a large amount of the American public, she wrongly thinks this isn't as important to talk about. Certainly she spends a lot more time talking about those bread-and-butter, kitchen-table, "insert-cliche-here" issues. So I would ask her supporters to express to me the ways that she is going to combat this growing problem. What will she do to win the war for hearts and minds abroad? How can she bring the magic back?

Because there was magic. It may feel like some alternate past history, or science fiction, but it did exist. And it kept us safe and idealistic and was a force for benevolence. And I think it's important that we talk about how we bring it back.


(Crossposted onto TPM Reader Blog.)

How the "Obama Is Muslim" Smear is Making Us Less Safe

On March 2nd, the Washington Post online published a Q&A with Barack Obama regarding his foreign policy positions. Much of it is similar to what we've heard previously in speeches and in the debates, regarding the redistribution of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, opening up diplomatic possibilities with adversaries, enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increasing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. One point that I have been impressed with in my own readings about Obama's position but hasn't gotten as much play in the recent campaign is highlighted early in the Q&A:

Q. You have said that within your first 100 days in office, you would give a major speech in a "major Islamic forum" in which you will "redefine our struggle." What is that redefinition? What would be the substance of that speech?

A. As president of the United States, I will directly address the people of the Muslim world to make it clear that the United States is not at war with Islam, that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its tactical and ideological affiliates, and that our struggle is shared. In this speech, I will make it clear that the United States rejects torture -- without equivocation, and will close Guantanamo. I will make it clear that the United States stands ready to support those who reject violence with closer security cooperation; an agenda of hope -- backed by increased foreign assistance -- to support justice, development and democracy in the Muslim world; and a new program of outreach to strengthen ties between the American people and people in Muslim countries. I will also make it clear that we will expect greater cooperation from Muslim countries; and that the United States will always stand for basic human rights -- including the rights of women -- and reject the scourge of anti-Semitism. Simply put, I will say that we are on the side of the aspirations of all peace-loving Muslims, and together we must build a new spirit of partnership to combat terrorists who threaten our common security.

This speech that he talks about is tied up with another one of his proposals: the America's Voice Initiative, part of his larger service iniative, meant to expand public diplomacy abroad - sending fluent language speakers, human rights workers, teachers, engineers, and other workers to help to change the damaged perception of America among other communities. These proposals offer the promise that Barack Obama could be the most effective public diplomacy president since Reagan, and offer one of the most convincing distinctions between him and Hillary Clinton: she, in comparison, is severely lacking in her public diplomacy proposals. For all her foreign policy wonkiness, her positions can be spun abroad as being statist. It's easy for important populations (like those in the Muslim world) to perceive her as being just as arrogant as Bush.

More after the jump...

And while Obama has talked about the proposals, he's been a little more reticent of late with this point than with some of his other proposals. I wonder if this is fallout from the baseless smear that he is a secret Muslim Manchurian Candidate. We all know that he is a Christian, that is a fact (well, all of us except Hillary, who believes he is a Christian "as far as she knows"), but the effectiveness and the danger of the smear have possibly pushed Obama's talking points about the war of ideas in the Muslim world somewhat into the closet. This is ironic, as it demonstrates just how far we have to go towards building understanding with Islam. We're perceived in the Muslim world as a racist country who persecutes Muslims - how can we change that perception if the worst thing you can call a man running for president is a Muslim?

The McCain and Clinton campaigns have both trafficked in this smear to varying degrees. They may perceive it as attacking just one man, and those of us informed about the campaign have dismissed it as petty and ridiculous. But we should not underestimate the damage that this smear itself can have on our national interests and national security. It has affected how we speak about issues and how we judge important challenges to the American people, and could have global effects when disseminated to other communities.

Perhaps this is the way that we should be talking about the smear, next time some radio host says Barack Obama's middle name with a sneer, or next time Clinton wades into misinformation about Obama's faith in an interviews; or Hell, even when the Obama campaign feels a little uneasy about bringing up this potentially vital proposal in speeches or debates. It's not just that it's incorrect. It's not just that it's another part of negative campaigning.

Not to sound hyperbolic, but these words and actions endanger the nation by being another confirmation of radical Islam's teachings about the United States. And anyone, Clinton or McCain or their surrogates - who spreads them isn't just being unfair - they're making us less safe.

Where Is the Commander-In-Chief Threshold?

For the sake of argument, I am going to take the Clinton campaign statements about the "Commander-in-Chief threshold" at face value. Clinton stated that both she and Senator McCain have passed it, while Senator Obama has not. Neither Clinton nor McCain have ever served in a position that would be considered the Commander-in-Chief - not even as a governor of a state that would consider that executive position the Commander-in-Chief of a National Guard. Howard Wolfson has even said that Obama has not passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold "at this time." In reading these statements, we can deduce that such a threshhold is not a real thing, but a statement of philosophy. So without any concrete experience, how are we defining what a Commander-in-Chief is? Which philosophy does Clinton believe? I don't think I need to mention that the idea has become somewhat impermanent of late.

More after the jump...

In the Bush era, the Commander-in-Chief philosophy has been synonymous with the unitary executive theory, that pesky Poli Sci 101 term that holds that the President, and not any other government body, has power over administrative actions in the Executive Branch. George W. Bush expanded this past where previous presidents like Lincoln and Truman took it to essentially say that military actions were unreviewable by any legislative body and that the military was essentially an arm of the Executive Branch of government. This is what the "Commander-in-Chief" has become in the modern lexicon: the ultimate Roman imperator from which all military power is disseminated downwards.

Naturally it will be the responsibility of the new president to undo this damaging paradigm - they will need to allow the legislative and judicial brances of government to reassert control if our democracy is to retain its health. In this situation, I think that in vetting these candidates we should ask exactly where the Commander-in-Chief threshold is. Is it where the Constitution places it, as a war-monitoring position, or is it where George w. Bush has placed it, as a war-making position? So far Hillary has not effectively made that distinction, instead saying that she has crossed the line and therefore should be president. But making this distinction is important, because having someone who has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold would be damaging to the country if that threshold is where Bush has placed the line.

There's been a big fight between the ideologues and the non-ideologues in the Democratic party, and by and large they have aligned behind the two separate candidates: the ideologues who essentially want to reverse the Bush situation and bring the traditional Democratic communities into power over Republican communities have aligned behind Hillary, and the non-ideologues who would like to bring a bipartisan unity between the two parties in an effort to redefine and pluralize the nature of left and right have aligned behind Obama. It is important that both sides understand, though, exactly how the government structure and the practice of power would be different with either candidate. Whereas on these bread-and-butter issues they may not be different, I believe Hillary and Obama have very different ideas about how their government would be run, and we haven't had enough discussion of this beyond the repeating of phrases and concepts like "Commander-in-Chief", "experience", "national security", and "change" which can mean very different things depending on who is saying them. When the meanings of words and concepts have been changed and warped by the previous president, I think it is important that we take some time to remind ourselves of the vocabulary and reestablish some definitions.

Human Rights and the Hurricane

Like many who watched the television in horror back in 2005, I had hoped for a silver lining to the cloud that was Hurricane Katrina: perhaps the sudden, naked reality of the poverty that destroyed the lives of so many African Americans in New Orleans and the coming efforts to rebuild the city would allow us to have an important discussion in this country about the seemingly unbreakable bond between race and class. Now almost three years later, New Orleans is still in shambles, recovery efforts have been unfairly implemented, and we haven't had that important discussion about race. In fact, if Barack Obama ends up being the nominee for the Democrats, we may not get a discussion of Katrina in racial terms as much as in accountability terms. It would be quite foreseeable that Obama's handlers would steer the discussion away from the more racially divisive language to appeal to well-meaning whites who believe Obama is a post-racial candidate. (This is not a disparagement of Barack Obama, just a statement of political probabilities.) Accountability is much easier - we're more comfortable with blaming poor leadership and compartmentalizing the event rather than seeing this thing that already seemed too big as representative of an even larger problem.

Someone is talking about it, though. Last week, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a report and a request to the United States government to stop the demolition of public housing units in New Orleans on the grounds that it violates the human rights of African Americans.

More after the jump...

"A number of reports suggest that federal, led by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and local government decisions concerning public housing in New Orleans would lead to the demolition of thousands of public housing units affecting approximately 5,000 families who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The demolition of the St. Bernard public housing development apparently commenced the week of 18 February 2008 and others are planned for the Lafitte, B.W. Cooper, and C.J. Peete public housing developments. Meaningful consultation and participation in decision-making of communities and families affected by these demolitions and related redevelopment proposals appears not to have taken place. While we understand the intention to replace the demolished housing, we understand that only a portion of the new housing units will be for residents in need of subsidized housing and the remainder will be offered at the market rate. Further, we understand that the new housing will not be available for a significant period of time nor will there be one for one replacement for housing units destroyed. These demolitions, therefore, could effectively deny thousands of African-American residents their right to return to housing from which they were displaced by the hurricane. The authorities claim that the demolition of public housing is not intentionally discriminatory. Notwithstanding the validity of these claims, the lack of consultation with those affected and the disproportionate impact on poorer and predominantly African-American residents and former residents would result in the denial of internationally recognized human rights."

The UN has been involved for some time with the status of refugees from New Orleans, and have called several officials from the US government to testify in Geneva. In response to the report, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) issued a press release calling for Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations of the UN for not focusing on the right priorities. An interesting point is made in the release:

"What the U.N. has said here today is nothing new, nor does it offer any reasonable or constructive assistance to bing about a successful resolution to this issue. It simply serves as another reminder that this organization is out of touch," said Vitter. "Thankfully, this report has no authority. But this report does serve one purpose: it serves as a useful glimpse of what the future holds if we allow the Law of the Sea Treaty to be ratified. The LOST treaty would grant international organizations like the U.N. the legal authority to interfere in our matters – with possibly drastic consequences."

It goes without saying that we have a complicated relationship with the UN. We were one of the founding states, and our funding constitutes a huge portion of the UN budget. We have previously acted, however, to act as an exception to UN rules. We were one of the last developed countries to ratify the UN Convention on Genocide, for example, for fear that other states could retroactively accuse the US of genocide for its internal practices. It's not surprising that we have trouble with someone outside "our immediate family" criticizing us about our internal politics and culture. We think racism is a part of every day life in America, a seemingly incurable (but not untreatable) disease. Racist actions in America are systemic problems, not human rights issues.

Or are they? Perhaps we should embrace this, rather than questioning the motives or the focus of the UN. It could provide an opportunity to foster a discussion of race and poverty as a larger American problem, but could also be a leadership opportunity for the nation on human rights in general. Findings like these, whether we take them seriously or not, send messages abroad, and attacking the UN in committee or threatening to remove funding sends the wrong message when many of our international relationships are on a knife's edge.

If we want to pursue human rights issues internationally, especially those that align directly with our national interest, we will have trouble ratcheting support from our allies if our human rights wrinkle was ignored because we got to play by different rules. Multilateralism will be the name of the game from here on out if we want to get anything done, and we will make a better case to other nations if we take reports like this seriously. Our public diplomacy, additionally, is hurt if we are perceived to be a racist country (making Barack Obama the president will help, but it won't fix everything). How other countries perceive us does matter, and I believe this is something we should be talking about in the upcoming election. (Both Democratic candidates could use talking points on public diplomacy, something both of them, especially Hillary Clinton, lack.)

And it's quite possible that speaking of race in this country and using the language of human rights could be an important sobering discussion for the country, one that move us past the dismissive excuse that race discrimination is just an unfortunate part of American life. Maybe someone like Barack Obama could talk about this, framing it as a break from the past and a new way forward. Hillary Clinton could certainly use the opportunity to shore up support among African-Americans, a community she has become alienated from.

And for the American public at large, it would allow us to come to a greater global understanding of something whose magnitude we didn't fully realize until we saw it on the news: that the refugee crises, the poverty, and the class divisions we've seen in other countries happen here too, and for all it's exceptionalism, America is one nation in a world full of them.

Foreign Policy Credentials, Please.

It was strangely coincidental that as Samantha Power's image was being plastered on the news I was, as I noted in my last Reader Blog, in the midst of reading her new book - Chasing the Flame, about Sergio Vieira de Mello, the late UN diplomat and Special Envoy to Iraq who was killed there in 2003. It seems also interestingly coincidental that I am in the midst of Sergio's lengthy time in the Balkans just as the New York Times places this update on their front page, announcing that Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica has dissolved his government for "failing to support his efforts to preserve Kosovo as part of Serbia." The carnage that Power witnessed in the region when she was working as a foreign correspondent shows up repeatedly in her descriptions of Sergio's work there; though it's almost 10 years since the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo described in such horrific terms in this book and in her previous work, the current news is a scary reminder that nationalism is alive in Eastern Europe and it is not just possible but likely that violence will take hold of the region again. Unfortunately, due to the American foreign policy of the last several years, if Serbian nationalists were to go on the march again, it is unlikely diplomatic efforts this time will succeed in quelling it (not that they were that great the first time around).

More after the jump...

The long-held fear of the anti-Iraq-war movement, or at least, among the ones who weren't becoming isolationists, was that our engagement in Iraq would create "collateral damage" on our ability to conduct foreign policy and push diplomatic interests in other areas of the world. Samantha Power, that "dumb" one, to read this morning's NY Post, addresses this idea of "collateral damage" in an extended lecture at Northwestern University. (YouTube is awesome.) She notes that it is not just that our military and economic power are overstretched and unable to respond to other external threats, but also that our "soft power" has been compromised - that concept written about by Joseph Nye that pertains to our nation's ability to convince other countries to follow our interests based on the example we set and the attractiveness of our culture, government, and position. Much of Power's own advocacy of human rights intervention is in the interest of pushing our soft power - not by being the world's policeman, but by being that figure that puts an end to bullying and stands up for what's right as an example to other nations. This was an important, if oftentimes compromised, position that America played with in the Balkans, but regrettably just as the region seems again at the crossroads, we may find ourselves unable to influence those whose nationalism has given rise to terrible violence in the past.

This is one of the reasons why this election is important. Its one of the reasons that I become so uncomfortable when leaders seem less concerned with their ability to repair soft power than they are with proving they can lead armies and maintain military supremacy or diplomatic exceptionalism. It worries me when I read a post by Zvika Krieger on The New Republic's Plank blog that cannot find much in any of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy wonkiness that says anything about public diplomacy or attempting to rebuild our global soft power through the dissemination of American ideas - in a world that exists beyond Iraq and Afghanistan that is still just as unstable as it was before 9/11, regaining American soft power should be the expressed goal of the candidate for president. It should be the first thing they talk about in what is increasingly becoming the most important foreign policy election in recent memory. They should come out and say how they, specifically, are going to heal the image of America abroad; and not just by ratcheting up diplomatic opportunities with nations we have adversarial relationships with, as Barack Obama has suggested, but by making more concerted efforts directed at the publics and nongovernmental organizations that work within those countries. It is our responsibility as Americans, and global citizens, to push this line of questions, to ask not just how the new government will protect us in the short term but in the long term by improving our image abroad.

And it's important to note, we don't improve our image by withdrawing completely and becoming isolationist. This is a mistake that some in the anti-war movement aren't thinking through completely. Believe it or not, following the mess of the Bush presidency, we're going to have to engage the world even more. We're going to have to become global citizens, all of us, in order to fix this. We're going to have to scale back our military power and make more concerted, atoning efforts with our diplomacy. We've been hit with so much propaganda about the weakness of diplomacy, and it may cost those who push for it political points (you should note; Hillary Clinton knows this - this was the seed behind her critiques of Obama's promise to meet with leaders). But in order to fix this, we have to stay involved with countries that threaten global stability. That means engaging diplomatically with a Serbia that is getting more angrier, not being concessionist with strong men in Russia or Zimbabwe that undermine democracy, not standing by when governments and militias commit genocide. We have to, or else we will become marginalized, and less safe.

So when the candidates talk about foreign policy credentials, in the primary now and also in the general, and when they talk about what makes a good "Commander-in-Chief", I hope they will show understanding of the new responsibilities that America must face. Because so far those that are portraying themselves as "experienced" seem not to have learned much from it.


(This post previously appeared on TPM's Readers Blog.)

Feminism and Power(s)

I'm sorry, I'm going to need a minute. I am very upset about the announced resignation of Samantha Power as a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. For those of us who follow foreign policy and human rights policy in particular, Samantha Power is a fascinating and inspiring figure - a brilliant woman who has lectured and written equally from her heart and her head. Her Pulitzer-prize winning book A Problem From Hell is a passionately argued and beautifully written description of America's at times shameful and always complicated history during the genocides of the 20th century - it remains my favorite non-fiction book; the first one I will recommend to friends and colleagues and has inspired more than one of my own written works. (I'm currently reading her newest book, Chasing the Flame about Sergio Vieira de Mello - I also recommend.) Her profession, and her approach to it, makes her a somewhat undiplomatic politcian, but I was still absolutely thrilled that she joined Obama's campaign, and was one of the first reasons that I became an Obama supporter - clearly he was attracting the top minds, many of whom were critical of the practices of the past (Power, like myself, is very critical of the Clinton years - the inaction on Rwanda, the ignorance of the power of strong leadership in the Balkans). Her statements were in this undiplomatic vein, and however much some of us may agree with her statements, they weren't in the best taste. Certainly, though, they weren't any worse than the Clinton campaign trying to paint him as America's "hip Black friend".

More after the jump...

Power's resignation probably wouldn't have happened if the Clinton campaign hadn't taken such offense to it and pushed for her to be fired. But this is all part of a trend, and a strategy which I think is insulting. It's very unfortunate that Power is a casualty of it.

I lament that my first three reader blog posts on TPM have all been very pro-Obama and anti-Clinton posts. I remember very clearly a time, early in this race, when I said - whoever wins, we'll have the best candidate we've had in 30 years. This race of juggernauts will serve only to sharpen the arguments for the Democrats, and excite the electorate to get involved (isn't Celebrity Jeopardy so much more exciting than regular Jeopardy?). But as this race has been dragged into the rough, Clinton's strategy has become maddening and damaging. Every time someone has made a political push against her, rather than engaging (as is the norm, in politics), she throws up her hands and plays the victim, either herself or through one of her surrogates. It's as if she is saying that she must be judged by different standards than other candidates, and her strategy of victim-hood and "all these people are ganging up on me" is working - her supporters, especially women, run to her aid. Unfortunately for women in this country, if she wins the nomination using this strategy, it will not be on feminist terms, but on anti-feminist terms.

If Hillary is such a fighter, and has spent most of her political career trying to downplay the negative stereotypes of women in politics, she now has no trouble embracing them. By portraying herself as the weak woman who must be protected from the big bad Obama campaign, or the big bad media, she is praying on the kinds of psychology, both among women and men, that have repressed women in Western societies for the last century. Even her statements that she eluded to in the debates about being "tested" were perceived (at least in the media and it seemed by the audience in attendance) to be sympathy-drawing statements about her marriage to a no-good man. Feminism is not about playing the victim, it is about your womanhood being a source of power. Feminism is not asking to play on a different level from the men but by being treated as equal to men. Ultimately, any power that is achieved through shows of weakness or helplessness, or is granted because of "special rules" is not real power. It is merely temporary support that can be removed as easily as it is given.

(You have to wonder how it would look if Obama framed his campaign and his responses as being victimized by Clinton, the same way Black men are victimized in America.)

Feminism is very important, and recognizing it, as opposed to false feminism, is vital. Feminism is not claiming that everyone is against you and trying to play by different rules. It's challenging yourself to become a major intellectual, challenging male-centric foreign policy circles and bringing a respected and distinctly feminine voice to the practice of human rights advocacy. It's certainly becoming a major Democratic Party figure defined more by your actions and positions than by the fact that your husband was president.

Feminists fight the stereotypes of weakness. Not by acting too weak to play with the boys.

(This post previously appeared on TPM's Readers Blog.)

Hillary Takes Hostages! Film at 11!

More than a couple bloggers/soap-boxers/analysts have used the metaphor of "Scorched Earth" to describe Hillary's strategy in Ohio and Texas - her campaign was aware that the numbers didn't add up to a possible nomination, so from the outside it seemed like she was doing everything she could to destroy Obama even if it destroyed the party. Ultimately, I find this an ineffective metaphor - Hillary is not stupid, and the idea that people have been floating that she's destroying Obama and giving McCain an easier shot at the presidency so she can rally and come back in 2012 is beyond ludicrous. If anyone in the campaign was thinking that, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person who e-mailed that stupid photo of Obama in Somali garb to Matt Drudge.

More after the jump...

Her victory, and what the next few weeks are looking like, have given rise, at least in my mind, to a better metaphor: Hillary as hostage taker.

It's not a nice thing to think about. The math has not changed, essentially - the net delegates won was very small, and Clinton would have to present near impossible numbers, something in the 70's, in all the remaining races to catch up. Obama is actually in a much better position than that because he has this mystery fundraising number to disclose and some time out in the open without a race for the next couple weeks, which is traditionally when he does better. This, however, is small potatoes, because one major thing has changed in the race (and it's not momentum).

Hillary Clinton has proven that she can wound Barack Obama.

I know. It didn't seem possible. He seemed to be playing a different kind of politics. He seemed to be a master at inoculating himself against a host of different attacks and making her seem exactly like every negative stereotype much of America imagines her to be. Yet now she has proved she can hurt him, and she has demonstrated she will continue to hurt him as long as she has to and as harshly as she has to. She's like the hostage taker, and she's taken Obama hostage, the gun to his head, presenting an ultimatum to get what she wants.

And who is the ultimatum to? The Democratic Party (she took them hostage, too). She knows that the only way she wins the nomination is if it is essentially given to her in an extrademocratic way by the superdelegates. They see the race going towards Obama. With this result, and her vow to "fight on", Hillary is saying that if this goes where the math says, I'll take him out. You've just seen I can do it. And then what will you have for the general? If you don't want that to happen, you step in and you put a stop to this silliness. You fuel a jet, put it on the runway, and send it all the way to Denver, or else.

There should be no confetti right now, for anyone. Not Obama, because he's lost a lot of his control over the race and what happens here on out (oh, he could keep winning - it probably won't matter). Not the superdelegates, or the party, because they're on the cusp of losing this race that should have been an easy win when they essentially make the choice for the electorate. Not Clinton certainly - she shouldn't be happy about doing this, regardless of how poisonous she believes an Obama nomination would be in the general. This is the worst possible position the Democratic party has been in since the beginning of this race.

I think we need a negotiator.

(This post previously appeared on TPM's Reader Blog.)

Obama's Israel Comments and the Politics of Absolutes

James Kirchik has a post up on The New Republic's "The Plank" that takes Barack Obama to task for his foreign policy "naivete" demonstrated in his recent Ohio speech on Israel:

[J]ust because anti-Obama smear artists exist does not mean that legitimate questions about his positions ought also be categorized as scurrilous. A telling line in Obama's speech last week is illustrative of these concerns: "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." .... Such protestations about the all-encompassing power of "Likud" is a trope in the victimization rhetoric of peace-processors who constantly blame Israel for the region's woes while pretending to be valiant friends of the Jewish State.

Hillary couldn't find a better example of Obama's foreign policy naivete than his attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of our most important ally in the Middle East. Given that Likud will probably form the next Israeli government, why would Obama go out of his way to ridicule the party and declare that its sympathizers in America have a nefarious influence on our politics? Statements such as the one Obama made last week are highly unusual and ill-advised for a presidential contender, never mind a president.

I think this demonstrates a misreading of Obama's comments, but also is representative of a larger trend in criticisms of Obama's political language. Kirchik tries to make a direct link between Obama and Jim Moran, who outright criticized the Likud. But piggy-backing Obama onto this doesn't seem appropriate, excepting the fact that both men said the word "Likud."

More after the jump...

To describe Obama's comment as "ridicule" of Likud is ridiculous - questioning unwavering support is not a removal of all support. Throughout his remarks he shows a strong support of Israel but in these short passages rightly calls for Israel to take responsibility for itself and prove its ability to handle itself diplomatically; and that American support is not something set in stone if they prove themselves not deserving of it.

But on that subject of "unwavering support": much of Obama's appeal among the weary post-Bush electorate has been his abandonment of the politics of absolutes. Voters remember the false criticism of John Kerry as being too "nuanced"; now they want a careful Executive who does not rush into things for the wrong reasons and weighs all options. His populist supporters even hope that he may be an Executive who will speak about the pros and cons of decisions and relationships to the American electorate with a transparency we haven't seen in the last eight years, rather than providing a pat "you're either with us or against us" type of response. Kirchik may read this statement as being dangerous, or being offensive to Israel, and perhaps many in Israel may believe that it is. But in no way does he remove support from Israel, just demonstrates a care and caution that is vital at this point in time. This kind of language I believe demonstrates a reaffirmation of American interests as a mediator of the conflict, not one who must always take sides. If Obama must take sides in this issue to please certain allies, then perhaps it is up to them to demonstrate to him (and hopefully publically to the American people and to the State department, populist fingers crossed) that a hardline support is in America's interest.

This is not to say that Israel is not in danger - of course it is. And this is not to say they shouldn't be our ally - of course they are. Obama agrees. But it seems to me that after the last eight years, and the most damaging foreign policy decision in American history, to speak about absolutes is not the most intelligent way to go about our foreign policy. To me, this isn't naive.

(This post previously appeared on TPM's Reader Blog.)