I'm just getting my feet back on the ground after a long weekend in Maine. When I left DC, we were just starting to feel the shockwaves of the Democratic debate. Five days later, it feels like they've only gotten stronger. The Obama and Clinton PR machines are still trying to get a boost (or contain the damage) from last week's 90-second argument over diplomacy with rival countries.

I did some reflecting on what all this means when I was in Acadia National Park, one of the country's most beautiful places (I thought about posting a picture of Clinton or Obama, but this shot of Acadia's Otter Point is a much more refreshing sight in the midst of the long campaign season).

This furor started a week ago, so part of me is tempted to move on. Weighing in now only contributes to the outrageous media maelstrom that currently surrounds electoral politics.

But this is one of those rare moments in which the ongoing media storm actually serves the country well. If it gets big enough, both candidates will have to make moves. For both candidates, the right moves politically are the right moves policy-wise, too.

Clinton probably got the better of the CNN debate exchange, appearing both prudent and cautious. However, her subsequent attacks on Obama have left the impression that she's cool on diplomacy. There's a way she can bolster her reputation as the seasoned, experienced candidate and still emphasize her commitment to diplomacy: she can outline (perhaps in an op-ed) her strategy for the U.S. to proactively start talks with some or all of the governments of Syria, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.

Primary voters don't need Clinton to promise that she'll meet every Head of State personally. They need to be reassured that a Clinton administration will come to the table instead of holding out and setting preconditions for negotiations.

For his part, Obama hasn't yet decided how ambitious his agenda is. One moment he's invoking the spirit of Ronald Reagan, suggesting that negotiating with adversaries has always been commonsense; the next moment, his campaign is about "turning a page."

The Reagan/Kennedy invocations work for Obama to set the frame and he should keep using them. But let's be honest: no presidential candidate has ever campaigned on a platform of direct, high-level talks with hostile nations.

Obama's campaign seems to be hard-wired to avoid risk and to project moderation, but the candidate needs to resist that push and instead embrace the boldness of his idea. An "Axis of Frank Dialogue" tour would signify far more than even "turning a page." It would mean writing a new chapter in the most progressive, revolutionary way.

What matters most to me in this skirmish is that both candidates are prepared to go to the negotiating table at some level without arrogantly suggesting that others need to ante up first, as the current administration does.

Both candidates have an opportunity to make that point in ways that reinforce their respective identities. Whether it's Clinton's experienced leadership or Obama's future-oriented optimism is of secondary importance to me for the time being. What matters is that we start talking.

Scott Paul

The U.S. has played a formative role in starting the United Nations, and it is a crucial tool for diplomacy and security. However, a small, but vocal, minority has been clamoring to withdraw from the U.N. and cut funding from it due to recent scandals and negative publicity. I’m not saying that the United Nations is perfect, but despite its problems, it is still the most visionary and effective institution for promoting peace and human rights, while running on a budget smaller than the annual budget of a fire department in Tokyo .

The U.N. Emergency Peace Service is the perfect example. Here is an excellent way to update and improve the global response to conflict and genocide that has been perceived as a non-starter because of partisan politics. Peacekeeping has greatly improved in the past decades, but it is not perfect. Both sides agree that it needs to be reformed for the 21st century and the current conflicts occurring around the world. UNEPS would have faster response capabilities, greater interoperability, and improved accountability. It would be able to get into conflicts before they escalate into genocide or spread to other states. Not only would this save millions of lives and billions of dollars, but it would also reform the U.N. in a pragmatic, forward-thinking way.

For the past several weeks, Citizens for Global Solutions has been lobbying on the hill in support of H.Res.213, a resolution that supports the creation of a UNEPS. The sense we’ve gotten from a lot of offices is that it sounds like a good idea, and could be very effective, but they’ve been hearing a lot from the vocal, anti-U.N. minority that I mentioned earlier. One office was pretty enthusiastic and supportive, but didn’t want to sign on because there weren’t enough members of his party on the bill. Keep in mind, this is a proposal that could save millions of lives and billions of dollars. The U.S. needs reform in the U.N., not withdrawal. Partisan politics and negative, one-dimensional approaches to reform only impedes the process, causing even more problems at the U.N. After all, if it didn’t exist, we’d have to make it up.

By Megan Sallomi

Today's Washington Post carries an important OP-ED by Gen. P. X. Kelley (commandant of the Marine Corp from 1983-1987) and Robert F. Turner (co-founder of the UVA Center for National Security Law) in which they react to the White House executive order from last Friday in which the President seeks to interpret Common Article 3. It is fair to say they are not convinced - here is the key section:
"In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.""
I am glad that these two individuals weighed in and that the Post gave them the space to make their case - it is vitally important to note the rising tide of outrage directed at the Administrations continued bad faith approach to dealing with the issue of torture. We are a long way from ensuring that the United States respects international law in this area.

----Raj Purohit 

Andrew Sullivan asks an interesting question today about the two front runners:
"That's the question. Do we need to manage the current mess or try and transform it? The former is a rationale for the Clinton candidacy; the latter is the rationale for Obama's. Alas, no Republican so far appears capable of doing either."

Is this a fair framework within which to consider their respective foreign policy approaches? And if so which candidate makes sense for America at this time?

-- Raj Purohit

An independent report by the Law Council of Australia has labeled the trial and detention of David Hicks on terrorism charges as "farcical." The report goes further and unleashes a scathing criticism of the Bush administration's military commissions system and further slams the Australian government for supporting this policy.

An attorney, Barrister Lex Lasry, QC, attending the trial of David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay in March further reports that during the trial the accused was referred to in open dialogue as "the enemy."  Clearly, this raises serious concerns about a system that claims to respect and champion the rule of law, while designating a defendant in this manner before a guilty verdict has been passed.

The following extract gives an indication about how military commissions work:

"Mr Lasry said he also witnessed a lack of transparency during the Guantanamo proceedings, whereby legal questions were often dealt with by way of "private conferences between the Judge and the parties".

"His [Mr Lasry's] report also places the blame for the delay in charging and trying Hicks at the feet of the US Government. While the military commission's chief prosecutor Moe Davis blamed delays on defence lawyers' legal challenges, Mr Lasry blamed the Bush Administration's "desire to maintain complete control over the fate of the detainees at Guantanamo".

By Tom Moran

The Senate won't move on the Law of the Sea until after the August recess. Holding hearings on the Convention this month, ensuring that it won't compete with appropriations bills for floor time in the fall, would've been the right move. But with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden on the campaign trail, scheduling isn't all that easy. Leaders in both parties and the President want action, so this will become a test of Biden's leadership in the fall.

I missed what sounds like a fascinating panel at the American Enterprise Institute on Law of the Sea - fascinating mostly because the event organizers got more than they bargained for. Jeremy Rabkin, the LOS opponent on the panel, reportedly became increasingly flustered as LOS supporters debunked his arguments point by point.

CQ reports on the testy Q&A:

After one long commentary by Rabkin, Navy Capt. Pat Neher, who heads International and Operational Law in the Judge Advocate General's office, leapt to his feet and declared: "I simply cannot sit still anymore for this nonsense." He added that Navy interdiction efforts are "huge operational successes," thanks to the provisions of both the United Nations convention and a 2003 agreement now including 88 nations to thwart terrorists from arming themselves.

Another State Department legal adviser, Ashley Roach, further advised Rabkin that the treaty was "very clear" in not referring to weapons of mass destruction. "I disagree with your interpretation," replied Rabkin. "You can't read," Roach muttered in reply.

Another account of the meeting reveals even more interesting details:

I must admit that Prof. Rabkin delivered the single most important line of the night:

"The Senate won't ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I'm doing everything I can to make a controversy."

Rabkin knows that a rational and substantive debate of the Convention will support its ratification, so he is promoting an alternative - a non-rational, non-substantive approach aimed at creating a blocking minority of senators who either believe something might be wrong with the convention or use the controversy as cover for voting against it.

...

After the event I began to wonder what AEI had anticipated when they planned and scheduled it. I seriously doubt that the organizers of the event anticipated that it would be so heavily weighted toward supporters of the Convention. I don't believe I have ever seen an organization convene an event in which the organization has a stake in one side of the issue where the participation was so heavily weighted to the opposing side. That strikes me as bad planning - where were other AEI staff who oppose the Convention - for that matter, where were AEI Fellows and Scholars such as John Bolton and Robert Goldwin? Do other opponents, such as Frank Gaffney, only come out if they will be in the spotlight?

I was very glad to see the large turnout of Convention supporters for this meeting. I think it would be conservative to say that at least 75% of the audience was supportive of ratification and many of them were in uniform.

Finally, the last and most important development regarding Law of the Sea is former Secretary of State George Schultz's letter to Dick Lugar, indicating that he supports U.S. accession to LOS and that President Reagan would have as well. The letter reads:

The treaty has been changed in such a way with respect to the deep sea-beds that it is now acceptable, in my judgment. Under these circumstances, and given the many desireable aspects of the treaty on other grounds, I believe it is time to proceed with ratification.

It surprises me to learn that opponents of the treaty are invoking President Reagan's name, arguing that he would have opposed ratification despite having succeeded on the deep sea-bed issue. During his administration, with full clearance and support from President Reagan, we made it very clear that we would support ratification if our position on the sea-bed issue were accepted.

So there. Creating a controversy irrespective of the merits of ratification is the only tactic Professor Rabkin, Frank Gaffney, and their ilk have left.

Scott Paul

Check out this op-ed article by David Cole about the executive order signed by President Bush purporting to ensure that interrogation practices meet restrictions layed out under the Geneva Conventions. The article is telling, highlighting the ambiguities in the language and arguing that this order will make little difference to the treatment of detainees. The following paragraph is worth quoting in full:

"The executive order's most revealing words come at the end. Its final section states that the order creates no rights enforceable by any victim against the United States or its employees, while expressly offering CIA employees a defense against any attempt to hold them liable for abuse. The ultimate purpose of the law, in other words, is to protect the potential perpetrators, not the potential victims."

Click here to read the executive order.

Last Friday President Bush signed an executive order to ensure that CIA interrogation tactics do not violate the Geneva Conventions. CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a statement that:

"The order provides specific requirements that ensure a CIA-run terrorist detention and interrogation program would be in full compliance with U.S. obligations under Common Article 3,"

This certainly appears to be a step in the right direction. That said though, there are still some serious grey areas that have not been addressed. These include the current status of any CIA detention and interrogation program and exactly what measures will be used. The White House has come under repeated fire for the use of waterboarding – simulated drowning – amongst other tactics and it is unclear whether or not this would be discontinued under the new guidelines.

Furthermore, there is still a lot of room for interpretation based on these guidelines, which outlaw the use of:

- Torture or other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation and cruel or inhuman treatment.

- Willful or outrageous acts of personal abuse done to humiliate or degrade someone in a way so serious that any reasonable person would "deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation.

- Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of an individual.

Certainly promising, but it depends to a great extent on what exactly one defines as torture.

Yesterday it was revealed that the Senate will take up the FY 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill after the August recess. This is set to take place immediately after tackling the Department of Homeland Security appropriations. The latest indication is that the Conference Committee will meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate version of the bill during the fall session.

With countries that have not signed bilateral immunity agreements with the U.S. in danger of losing economic support funds (ESFs), this is a sign of good leadership from the Senate and is a promising development as we continue to advocate for a more constructive U.S. - ICC relationship.

A few years ago I was talking to a former high level official from the Clinton Administration about Pol Pot. Specifically we were discussing why he was never brought to trial for his crimes in the weeks before he committed suicide. The official told me that there was a real desire on the part of the Administration to bring Pol Pot to trial in the U.S. but that our criminal code was far too narrow to allow for a prosecution to occur. The official correctly noted that the law as it stood only allowed for the prosecution of individuals who have committed genocide within the U.S.

 

I have been working with the IL&J community to push for this gap to be plugged for a number of years. Additionally we have been pushing to amend the U.S. criminal code to ensure that all individuals who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity can be prosecuted in federal court. This type of complimentarity with international law and specifically the Rome Statute is important from a leadership perspective – it shows a commitment to core international legal norms.

 

The good news re: the prosecution of genocide is that the Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senator Durbin titled the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007. The bill seeks to ensure that the U.S. will be able to prosecute future Pol Pot’s. It has a companion version in the House, H.R. 2489, which seems to be stalled at the moment. I really hope we can get this bill passed ASAP – it is sponsored by Rep. Berman and Rep. Pence – and it just makes sense to get this done. Let’s get this to the President for signature by the fall!

by Raj Purohit 

 

It turns out that the pursuit of energy efficiency isn't just some newfangled political fad thought up by climate scientists and mechanical engineers... it's in our genes!  According to a team of researchers at the University of Arizona, humans learned to walk upright because doing so uses less energy than traveling on all fours.  This is a fun fact, all by itself, but I can't help thinking... maybe pursuing an energy efficiency revolution is the next phase of human evolution?

-Becca 

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon meets with President Bush today to discuss (over the din of Iraq) the situation in Darfur. Mr. Ban has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan and Europe, during which he says Darfur topped the list of his talking points. Ban promises that Darfur will be his top priority in talks with Bush today.

A draft resolution to authorize the hybrid African Union - United Nations force (finally approved by Sudan last month - keep those fingers crossed and don't hold your breath until we see the sun gleaming off those blue helmets on the ground) is currently making its way around the Security Council. Though the resolution calls for member states to finalize troop contributions for up to 26,000 in the next 90 days, sources have said that a hybrid force won't be on the ground in Darfur until early 2008 at best. But Ban is pushing the timeline like never before, saying that the first troops could be sent by October:

"I think this is fast by UN standards but I want to move more rapidly. The political situation on the ground is too fragile, the humanitarian crisis too dire, to waste more precious time."

All of a sudden we are seing a flurry action on Darfur. Peace talks in Tripoli, Ban's diplomatic tour with Darfur talking points, vigorous debate on a Security Council resolution, the union of rebel groups - there's even talk of a Security Council resolution to send peacekeepers to Chad.

Ban asked Bush in April to hold off on placing more sanctions on Sudan to allow more time for diplomacy - now it seems Ban is pushing the envelope to make sure those peackeepers are deployed. When Ban was sworn in as Secretary General in January, he said that ending the atrocities in Darfur and securing a robust protection force in the region was a top priority for his term. This indeed is Ban's moment on Darfur -- hopefully Bush and others will follow suit to finally see peacekeepers on the ground.

Julia Fitzpatrick

I heard Sen. Dick Lugar deliver some insightful remarks this morning on energy, Iraq, and U.S. foreign policy at the 20/20 Vision National Summit on Energy Security. The talk was an acceptance speech for the first ever Energy Security Leadership Award.

A lot of what Lugar has to say on energy is intuitive, but he offered a couple of exceptionally nuanced observations today. Here's one:

"Although securing oil supplies was not the proximate motivation for the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Persian Gulf oil is highly relevant to the difficulties associated with extricating ourselves from that country. Having set in motion conditions in Iraq that could threaten regional stability, American and, indeed, global analysts rightly are concerned that if instability spreads it could threaten oil flows. Moreover, the supposed American greed for oil is used as an excuse by a myriad of Middle Eastern propagandists. The oil dependence of the United States and the West is a pillar of Iranian foreign policy."

As I've said before, it's both easy and simplistic to suggest that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by thirst for oil. The actual reality is more complicated than that, and while Lugar is just skimming the surface here, he's doing it in a very smart, careful, but still bold way.

The other observation Sen. Lugar made is less quotable, but equally important. I've noted before both the impossibility and the irrelevance of the goal of "energy independence" or "ending dependence on foreign oil," or worse, "ending dependence on Middle Eastern oil." At some point I'll outline all the details of why these buzz terms are so misleading, but for the time being, it should suffice to say simply that the U.S. can never insulate itself from energy prices on the global energy market and that nothing the U.S. does unilaterally will solve the global climate, development, or security problems caused by the current energy situation.

As far as I can tell, Lugar generally recognizes this principle. The main reason that he suggests we should reduce oil imports is that doing so would lessen the global demand for oil (I'm not totally sold) and pave the way for others to follow (a smart rationale). After all, it's the global demand for oil that has the greatest effect on U.S. national security interests and needs to be reduced, not U.S. imports specifically. The Energy Diplomacy and Security Act, a bill authored by Lugar and Joe Biden that passed in the Senate last month, rightly takes that approach.

Some commentators, of which Tom Friedman is the most vocal, have basically said we should reduce imports because oil money is going to the "bad guys" in the Middle East. It's a political winner to demonize Middle Eastern governments, but Friedman and his followers ignore a couple of key facts. First, in the global energy economy, if one oil producer profits, all oil producers profit. And second, any oil we don't buy will be scooped up by rapidly developing economies at the same or similar prices.

Lugar doesn't fall into that trap, but he does give two smart reasons to be concerned about Middle Eastern oil imports. One, which I quoted above, is that propogandists will use consumption of Middle Eastern oil to support their claims that the U.S. is after imperial dominance in that region. The second is that transporting Middle Eastern oil puts a huge strain on the U.S. military, upon which energy companies rely to protect their shipments.

 

 

Even if the goal of ending our energy relationships with Middle Eastern countries is both unrealistic and distracting from the main energy issues, as I believe it is, Lugar's concerns are valid.

Senator Lugar is doing something rare in the soundbyte era of politics: he's speaking to hot-button regional realities, keeping his eye on the main issue, the global oil problem, and elevating the debate above shallow rhetorical devices all at the same time. Presidential candidates need to stop talking down to Americans with energy independence mumbo jumbo and instead follow Lugar's lead.

Scott Paul

 

 

 

Senator John McCain , who seemed well positioned to capture his party’s nomination for president less than one year ago, is experiencing campaign meltdown…big time!

Not only has McCain failed to raise enough money to mount a serious on-the-ground effort in early key caucus and primary states, now comes word that his top two campaign officials and his closest political advisor have resigned.

According to the Associated Press :

In statements, Terry Nelson, a veteran of President Bush's successful 2004 re-election effort, said he resigned as campaign manager effective immediately and John Weaver said he stepped down from his post of chief strategist on Tuesday. But other officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid discussing private conversations, said Nelson was fired.

In another and more shocking staff shake up, long-time advisor and McCain image crafter Mark Salter (no relation to me) has also appeared to have stepped down from the campaign staff and McCain’s Senate office post as well. Salter and McCain finished their fifth book late this summer. As McCain's most trusted advisor, Salter carefully crafted every significant word McCain uttered. Imagine Karl Rove leaving George W. Bush six months before the Iowa caucus in the summer of 1999; that's how big of a loss Salter is to McCain.

As my colleague Charles J. Brown noted on June 6 , McCain’s campaign freefall can be directly linked to his “failure” to completely pander to the base of his party and his unpopular support of the war in Iraq.

I would, however like to take a moment to commend the one person on the Republican side who has managed not to succumb to the temptations of panderpalooza: John McCain. I know that Senator McCain isn’t that popular right now, and I certainly don’t agree with his position on Iraq (not to mention his positions on social issues). And he hasn't completely avoided the siren call of the extreme right -- just look at his position on Iran. But give the man credit: on the war, on campaign finance reform, on torture, and now on immigration, he has stuck to his principles. No matter how much abuse he gets from the other candidates, he refuses to change his positions just because they are outside the so-called mainstream of his party.

Today could be the day that will long be remembered as the beginning of the end of John McCain’s dream of being president. Or, it could be the start of something totally different and possibly better for the Arizona Senator...but I doubt it.

Howard Salter

For the past four weeks or so I've been meeting extensively with Congressional staff about a proposed UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS).

Even without any changes, the UN is very effective at disaster relief and peacekeeping. The RAND Corporation reports that the UN is far more successful at nation-building and peacekeeping than any international institution or country in the world. And the U.S. Government Accountability Office has shown that UN peacekeeping is as cost-effective as it is successful.

But here's the problem: building peacekeeping missions and relief efforts right now is like building a fire station for every new fire. For each new mission, the UN needs to raise funds, recruit personnel, and train them to work together despite differences in equipment, weapons systems, and languages. It's a slow, arduous, and difficult process. Since the early stages of conflicts and disasters are often the most deadly, this is a serious problem.

Right now, the UN defines rapid deployment as thirty days for a simple peacekeeping mission and ninety days for a complex contingency, a situation that involves spoilers or antagonists. The UN has a lot of trouble meeting even this low bar. For civilians caught in the crosshairs of conflict or disaster, "rapid deployment" can seem like a cruel joke.

The UN Emergency Peace Service would consist of 12,000-18,000 civilian police, military, judicial, and relief professionals that could deploy within 48 hours of a Security Council authorization. Envisioned as a 9-1-1 style first responders unit, it could hold down the fort while the international community cobbles together the resources, personnel, and plans for a long-term, sustained mission.

Had UNEPS existed during crises in Rwanda, Haiti, Liberia, or Somalia, hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars might have been saved.

Regarding Darfur, today's best-publicized humanitarian crisis, President Bashir has alternately accepted and rejected UN intervention, manipulating the UN's slow ramp-up to derail momentum towards peace. Were UNEPS a viable option, this kind of posturing would not be possible.

Not only is UNEPS a common sense way to save lives and money, it would also be an important step for UN reform. Since the force would be permanent and voluntary, its participants could be trained together in the same language and with a clear chain of command, use the same weapons and communications equipment for greater interoperability, and have a greater level of commitment to the success of their missions.

And since its members would be employed by or seconded to the UN, any abuses like those alleged in Congo and Sierra Leone would be could be quickly investigated and punished as necessary under the UN's strict code of conduct.

Most Democrats and a good number of Republicans should support UNEPS. Granted, black helicopter conservatives will be startled by the idea, but most of my meetings with Republican staff on Capitol Hill have been very positive. It turns out that the potential to save lives is remarkably compelling, not to mention the compelling national interest in greater accountability, interoperability, and financial savings in Security Council-authorized and UN-run peace operations.

Given the current state of America's image in the world and the more permanent dynamics of the UN General Assembly, any such proposal would be doomed to fail if it were submitted by the United States. But moving the idea forward in the U.S. is still important, since other countries that have shown interest in UNEPS will look to the U.S. before stepping forward. Right now, there is a widespread perception that Congress won't go for it.

That's why Reps. Al Wynn (D-MD) and Jim Walsh (R-NY) have introduced a resolution expressing Congressional support for UNEPS. With more and more organizations and Members of Congress jumping onto this bandwagon, I'm hopeful that, when their resolution passes, they get the recognition they deserve.

Obviously, I can't explore every detail of the proposal in a short blog post, and many of the details still need to be ironed out. But the fact remains that the time for a UN emergency capacity has come. Three months is far too long to wait for help in a disaster or conflict zone.

Hopefully I'll have more to report on this soon.

Scott Paul

The first post I ever wrote for this blog focused on the importance of political consultants in today’s presidential electoral process.

For more than 50 years, the people behind the candidates have played an increasingly larger and more influential role in shaping everything from a candidate’s message to his or her policy positions, even where they go on vacation.

Recently, David Plouffe, Senator Barack Obama’s strategist, penned a memo and sent it around to an array of journalists, opinion makers, bloggers and political geeks (yes, I belong to that club and wear my “geek button” as a badge of honor).  Plouffe was trying to make the case that Senator Hillary Clinton's advantages were those of incumbency, that she had thin support and that his guy is the real deal. You can read Plouffe’s memo here .

Not to be outdone, Clinton strategist Mark Penn decided he should write a memo; after all, one political memo deserves another, right?  As today’s Washington Post points out, Penn – while making a grade school boo-boo – decided to let current polling numbers speak for themselves and his client, Senator Clinton.  You can read Penn’s memo here .

Memos like these are not unusual, especially in the high-stakes poker of presidential campaigns.  However, both of these campaign memos are interesting.  The Obama campaign is trying to make the case that Clinton is being treated in the media and in the Democratic Party as the incumbent, ala a sitting president or vice president. 

For example, take this snippet from the Plouffe memo:

One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses. Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it. It is clear you did not in this past quarter and we would encourage everyone to keep our sights focused on doing well in the early primaries and caucuses, and then using our organizational advantage nationally to clinch the nomination in February.

Just as a refresher, below are some Democratic primary national polls going back to 1980. You’ll see how effective they have been as crystal balls.

* 2003: In August 2003, Joe Lieberman led the national polls, in September, Howard Dean led, in October, Wesley Clark led, and in December – one month before the Iowa Caucuses – a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed John Kerry, the eventual nominee, in fifth place trailing among others Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt. Yet after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry vaulted to 49% in national polls before the end of January, This has been true in nearly every previous Democratic nomination contest:

There is some truth to the “quasi-incumbent” comment in Plouffe’s memo.  Over the past weekend, a key strategist for one of the leading Democratic political campaign firms told me that “there is a lot of pressure on all of us to support Hillary.”  In other words, the party and the money makers behind the party are twisting some arms.  Does that make her an “incumbent”?  In my opinion, no; but it does illustrate that she is the establishment candidate of the Democratic Party.

Howard Salter

It’s time for a post-Fourth of July 2008 Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee sweepstakes update. While the Iowa caucuses are six months away, a few trends are beginning to appear in the Hawkeye state.

One, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney may have already put a stranglehold on winning Iowa on the GOP side. The Politico’s Jonathan Martin pens a piece that asks “Does Romney Have Iowa Locked Down?” Martin’s story echoes some similar thoughts I first wrote about on June 25.

Romney’s strong field presence in Iowa, along with the drastic falling of Senator John McCain in national and Iowa polls have Romney well positioned to garner momentum early in 2008 with a big Iowa victory. His money and organization on-the-ground are also preventing other top-tier Republicans – Fred Thompson and America’s Mayor – from taking a strong stand. In fact, Thompson, who was expected to officially announce his candidacy this past weekend, has yet to visit Iowa and may skip the caucus altogether and focus his early efforts on New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side of the ledger, Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen writes that the GOP field in Iowa is chaotic, while the Democratic candidates – especially Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards – are looking for ways to derail the Senator Clinton machine. As I wrote last week, Clinton’s front-runner status will be severely tested in Iowa, and Yepsen picks up that point:

In the Democratic race, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in the lead. Depending on the poll, their rankings move around. Clinton has moved up a bit in recent weeks, thanks mostly to good debate performances, so I'll rank it Edwards, Clinton and Obama at this point.

Nobody has broken out, and the Democratic scrap has settled into something of a high-stakes siege. Edwards has got to win Iowa to move into contention in later states. Obama needs to defeat Clinton to slow her front-runner status in the race. If Obama breaks through Clinton's lines in Iowa, he could well be headed to Richmond, er, Denver and the national convention. Clinton needs a win in Iowa to keep her front-runner status - and keep others from trying to flank her lines the way John Kerry did to his rivals when he won Iowa in 2004.

Howard Salter

Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson ran an intriguing piece yesterday worth mentioning. In Global Safeguards for a Global Economy he suggests a “modest proposal” to take “the regulated, more-social capitalism that created mass prosperity in this nation and Western Europe in the second half of the 20th century" and re-create it on a global scale. I’m tempted to quote heavily from the piece, but it’s probably easier if you give it a quick read and come back to continue the conversation…….

……. that was quick – glad you are back. OK, here are few paraphrased points to think about:

• The debate on how the U.S. should relate to the rest of the world isn’t fruitful. Realists believe advancing our interests requires abandoning our values. The other side believes our interests are served by advancing our values with our allies (liberal viewpoint) or by ourselves with force (neoconservative viewpoint).
• None of these viewpoints take into account the global economy, which presents many problems that can only be solved globally.
• Globalization, economic stability, and “economic opportunity in the United States will require regulating markets and empowering labor on a global scale.”

This leads to Meyerson's penultimate thought that “…over time, the globalization of the economy will compel progressives to create, haltingly and piecemeal, a form of global government, just as the transformation of the American economy from a locally to a nationally based one between 1865 and 1935 compelled the progressives of that time to create a genuine national government.”

Meyerson’s singing my song, but a bit out of key. He suggests that this should be the “centerpiece of the liberal project for the 21st century.” If he means liberal very broadly in the classic sense of emphasizing individual rights and equality of opportunity, then this could make some sense. But in the context of U.S. politics, this should not be a liberal project. Nor should it be a conservative project. Liberal vs. conservative is the wrong frame to use for this discussion. A better way to look at it is internationalist vs. nationalist. Like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since the League of Nations nationalists have successfully fought to limit U.S. participation in global institutions and agreements. The long list of un-ratified treaties – from the Test Ban Treaty to the International Criminal Court – is a testament to their determination and their ability to portray these instruments in a light that makes them unpalatable to conservative internationalists.

Internationalist sucesses, like the formation of the United Nations or the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, are the result of coalitions between liberal and conservative internationalists. The momentum to ratify the Law of the Sea convention is based on a similar alliance.

Meyerson’s framing of what is perhaps the most important endeavor that humanity has ever undertaken as a “liberal project” could doom it to failure. Granted, the desire and motivation to embark on this long term effort resides more in the liberal/internationalist domain. But it will never succeed without conservative internationalists playing an integral role.

Let me know how you think we should frame this project to bring “into an uncertain future our economic achievements and democratic ideals.”

Don Kraus