Left Flank

When I saw this photo of Israel's Defense Minister Amir Peretz, I honestly thought it was a still from some Naked Gun flick, with Leslie Nielson in the background and William Shatner clutching the binoculars.  Amazing that politicians, with instincts about how to arrange photo opportunities, could fall into such a devastating depiction of their own incompetence.

Generally, this blog strives to avoid commentary on domestic Korean issues due to the experiences of Occidentalism's Gerry Bevers.  However, his Western twin, Matt, scores these funny YouTube vids about Japanese views on South Korean editorializing on Japan (in the sense that watching taxis and buses duel for a square foot of curb is funny) posted on Japan Probe.  I couldn't help but sift through a few more of oniazuma's vid collection, and found this one:

OK, it's not as comical, or contentious.  But, I have this optimistic streak!  If only Koreans could face their own inner muttness!

Former Vice-President Al Gore wins!

If only the past were the past, and American politicians could get beyond scoring easy points.

Really, Senator Barack Obama's political courage and articulation is remarkable, but let's call it what it is: luck.  And, let's not, in our collective guilt, grasp for a political leader who possibly (but, unlikely) does not have a comprehensive foreign policy perspective, or the grit to espouse it and adapt with it (unlike Governor Bill Richardson).  Being right is not good enough, because there are no right answers, just lucky breaks, and second-best policies.  What's crucial now is that the American people through its leadership agree upon the best policy in as public a manner possible, with all the major players present, and stake America's destiny on the outcome.  We don't need leaders holding back for selfish or partisan purposes waiting for the next sea change to produce a video or transcript.

And, Obama's plan for withdrawal is a statistical mistake.  Setting a timetable for withdrawal is a tactical disaster waiting to happen.  But even comparing Obama's plan and Senator Joe Biden's 5-point plan, Obama's timetable is unrealistically fast and risky.  It also looks like 'cut and run', whereas the strength of Biden's plan is its emphasis on creating a federal Iraq and letting theater commanders set their own timetable.  Even Senator Clinton's plan threatens a 90-day deadline, if there is not a re-authorization. No plan discusses Afghanistan.  There's a good compromise plan to be built around the Biden, Clinton, and Edwards plans (this is one issue where I disagree with the Richardson campaign). 

Fine, Obama called it, and that's impressive, but he lacks the experience to continue on the same level, and his Iraq plan proves it.

Schoomaker pointed to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons, Uday and Qusay, and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the capture or death of al-Qaeda's leader would have little effect on threats to the United States.

Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush said he wanted bin Laden «dead or alive,» and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, «It is not enough to get one individual, although we'll start with that one individual.»

Bush reaffirmed the goal last September in a prime-time speech, warning bin Laden: «No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.»

But Schoomaker's remarks echoed comments last year by Vice President Cheney, who seemed to play down the value of capturing or killing bin Laden days before the Bush speech. «He's not the only source of the problem, obviously. . . . If you killed him tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with al-Qaeda,» the vice president said.

When you've screwed everything else up, I guess it's easy to sound hawkish and humble at the same time.  Hussein and his boys were not a threat to America, only the Bush administration's pride, but al-Qaeda is.  Just keep your promises, General!

I'm not going to cry over former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's retirement from the 2008 presidential elections (although some will make him into a progressive martyr), but this just doesn't seem right:

Vilsack was always considered a long shot for the nomination, in part because of the financial mountain he had to climb. Federal law limited him to raising $2,300 per person, and he could not use money from any gubernatorial campaign account to finance his bid. But U.S. senators can transfer money from Senate campaign accounts to presidential ones, which effectively means they can raise more money per donor than Vilsack could.

One consultant blamed Vilsack's demise on the dynamics of Senator Barack Obama's entry into the presidential race:

Jerry Crawford, one of the leading Democratic strategists in Iowa, said everyone knew that Clinton would be a formidable fundraiser, but «when Obama got in the race, it just took all the cash out of the room and all of the fundraisers out the room.»

Vilsack formally launched his candidacy Nov. 30 and raised about $1.13 million by year's end. Aides said he was on track to add only about $1.3 million more by the end of the first quarter -- an amount Obama raised at a Hollywood fundraiser on Tuesday -- and already was in debt.

This is a theme John Nichols also repeats, along with the claim that Vilsack's candidacy was just a blocking move Obama undermined.

Had the 2OO8 race begun more slowly, Vilsack might have had a better run. The original plan was for Clinton launch her campaign at the relatively leisurely pace of a clear front runner. With that in mind, Clintonites quietly encouraged Vilsack to get in the race early and to run hard -- in order to prevent the Edwards campaign from gaining too much of a lead in the essential first-caucus state.

But Obama changed everything. After achieving superstar status on the fall 2OO6 campaign trail for Democrats around the country, the senator made it clear in early January that he intended to seek the party's presidential nod. That forced Clinton to move her schedule forward and to hightail it into Iowa in order to counter the Obama surge.

Clinton's moves were smart, and effective. She's holding her own in a state where it was thought she would have a hard time. But the former First Lady's fast start turned Vilsack's candidacy into little more than an annoyance. There was no longer a need to have a homeboy candidate keep Iowa's county chairs on the sidelines -- either backing their former governor or at least refusing to make endorsements that might embarrass him. In fact, Vilsack was in the way. Whatever money might have slid into his campaign accounts from DLC-tied donors dried up, and the Clintonistas who had been giving him encouragement were now encouraging him to quit the race and let Hillary grab up as many of his Iowa backers as possible.

It's good news for the GOP-one less Democrat to steal its candidates' thunder.  And, who can pick up Vilsack's 10%-15% in the Iowa polls will probably win the caucuses. I really hope it's not former Senator John Edwards.

«I voted for this war. I should have not voted for this war. I was wrong to vote for it,» the former North Carolina senator said in Nashua, the second-largest city in the state that helps to kick off the 2008 White House race.

«I have to take responsibility for that, and I do. Nobody else has that responsibility,» he told a crowd of about 125 people in the home of a New Hampshire state senator.

Why would anyone vote for a guy who was wrong and whose stump speech reiterates an apology?

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is making a strong move for...er, Secretary of State (via Matthew Yglesias).

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign can rely on its finance workhorse, Bill:

Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations -- are worth an estimated $10 million to $50 million, according to Hillary Clinton's most recent disclosure form. That is attributable primarily to the speaking fees and to the seven-figure book deals that both Clintons signed shortly after leaving the White House.

The fortune they have amassed gives the Clintons a nest egg for the first time, and it allows them to tap into that wealth for a campaign if Hillary Clinton, as expected, forgoes public financing in her race for president. It also suggests a sometimes close connection between their personal finances and her political career.

Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 -- putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton's top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004. Last year, it committed $5.5 million for Clinton's Global Initiative to help encourage entrepreneurship and financial education among the poor.

Asked about the companies and their relationship to the Clintons, Jay Carson, a spokesman for the former president, said, «It certainly makes sense that reputable New York companies who support the policies and works of President Clinton and his foundation would also be supportive of their senator.»

And then, there's the Clinton campaign's One Week, One Million promotion (currently it has raised $519, 131).

From Angus Reid, Clinton trumps Obama, and Giuliani trumps McCain, but both Republicans can beat the Democrats' top three contenders.

The Clinton-Obama Feud and Vilsack's retirement obscured good performances at the AFSCME convention in Carson City, Nevada (except for Junior Moonbeam Dennis).

Stop putzing around, Dems!

Rodger presents The Comedy of Great Power Politics, as opposed to the tragic part most Americans try to avoid in their foreign policy.  It's like the author in Stranger Than Fiction, who changes her mind about killing her male leading character on the last page of her latest book. She is consumed with, and agonizes, over the manner of his death, until he takes control of his situation and confronts her.  Instead of the masterpiece she planned to write, she opts for a lesser, yet happier ending (or at least one where he's not dead, only wickedly injured in about ten places with a piece of a watch embedded in his body determining if he continues to live or not). Confrontation causes her to reconsider the noble ending she had devised for him, and grants him this sadistic, drawn-out comedy (My wife summed it up rightly: who has to pay the hospital bills?). 

In the same way, when you stop to consider the values people consider more important than the dark tragic themes, ambition, power, etc., and how people will quarrel over more immediate concerns, like money or love, you begin to hanker for some sense of symmetry again.  It's hard to live in a bronzer age, especially when you cannot distinguish unalloyed cooper for gold.

According to a February 7 Public Financing Update, Senator Barack Obama said he would not accept public financing for the primary and general elections if were the Democratic nominee.  However, now Obama has requested a ruling from the Federal Election Commission on an artful dodge. Here's the background scenario behind Obama's request (filed on February 1):

This gambit would allow Obama to take the high road through the primary season, betting that he can sustain his campaign on small contributions, while his opponents who refuse public money are forced to raise money without the future help of the FEC.  He also looks like a reformer as he's doing it.  The verdict scheduled for Wednesday will be interesting, but, for me, Obama has already violated what's called the «11th Commandment».

Clinton lashed out first, blasting Obama for being hypocritical.

«He decries the politics of 'slash and burn,' and yet his chief supporters in California are engaged in the politics of slash and burn,» said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's spokesman.

Obama returned serve, saying, «The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.»

Right now, I see no difference between the Clinton and Obama campaigns.  (The case of Leonard Peltier, whose pardon I do support, BTW, is a red herring, and Geffen still sounds like a loser.)  The Clintons are consummate mud-slingers, but they are also excellent counter-punchers, as Chris Matthews has argued.  Barack Obama needs to descend a whole couple rings in hëll to reach that level of skill.  But, with my Senate rule (senators should not be presidents), and Obama's morally consistent, yet still calculated, opposition to the Iraq War, neither candidate will get my vote in the Democratic primary.  The two candidates who impressed me most in the aftermath of Geffen-Blab were Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson.

That's not to say the public financing system needs reform, but Obama doesn't get the big prize for his service.