The Sound of Silence

I've read quite a few commentaries declaring that Obama has some form of moral duty to speak out on Israel's invasion of Gaza, ranging from the cautionary, to the cynical, to the hostile. This criticism comes in two forms: The first assumes that Obama secretly supports the invasion, and the second assumes that Obama has secret criticisms or concerns but is blind to "obvious" benefits of stating them now rather than keeping them to himself.

The former assumption, to me, seems silly. There is no political downside in this country for Democratic leaders who take a 100% pro-Israel stance on any aspect of the conflict, devoid of any framework in historic fact. Just ask Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Or Senator Clinton, as opposed to the tight-lipped Secretary of State-Designate Clinton. Obama's silence may not indicate disagreement, but given how easily he could express unreserved support it should not be assumed to indicate agreement.

The idea that Obama loses credibility on the Arab street by not speaking out? Quite interesting, really, but last I checked he didn't stand for election as President of the Arab street. More to the point, what comments would satisfy the Arab street? Even if we assume for the moment that some of the more bizarre anti-Obama allegations made during the election are true - he's a secret Muslim, out to destroy Israel. Let's imagine his throwing aside this (imagined) life-long cloak of deception, and calling for "Death to Israel". Whatever the reaction of the Arab street, that would be the last moment he had any chance of affecting or resolving the conflict. If we return to reality, what type of statement do the critics anticipate? Something ranging between, "I support Israel's right to defend itself, but I disagree with their tactics," to "I support Israel's right to defend itself, but this military action against Gaza is wrong."

Further, it ignores Israel's position in Gaza, prior to this invasion:

Israel has given up any claim to Gaza. It has pulled out its settlers. It isn't trying to win hearts and minds, or create democracy. And it's in an ugly position - it knows that by the time its missiles strike the civilian neighborhoods where Hamas "militants" were launching rockets, the "militants" will almost certainly be gone. So they're striking civilian infrastructure (and perhaps civilians) because the alternatives are to either do nothing or send in ground forces, either of which probably worsens things for Israel and the latter of which generally kills and injures even greater numbers of civilians.

Sure, we could reiterate the ugly history of mistakes, bad acts, and missed opportunities that led to the now-former status quo, but finger-pointing won't change the fact that it was the status quo. Even with new Palestinian elections, there was no realistic chance of Fatah being able to assert control over Gaza and, even overlooking that reality, no realistic chance that a Fatah-governed Gaza would be able to stop Hamas rockets. So what advice should Obama have given? "Stop the invasion, ignore the rockets, wait until I'm President, then we'll work on this"? And when Israel ignored that advice, how much credibility would Obama have on either the Arab or the Israeli streets?

There's a reason that there's near universal support within Israel for "doing something" in Gaza, and it's understandable why the government is choosing a military option that it hopes will work as opposed to one that results in a quick return to the status quo. But unless you're willing to tell Israel, "That status quo, with rockets coming into Israel from Gaza, is one we expect you to live with," there is no other viable short-term option. The tragedy is, this one probably won't work, and stands a good chance of making things worse for everybody.

The most cynical interpretation I might offer of Obama's silence is that he's waiting to see what happens. If this "works" to the point that Hamas is crushed, the rockets stop, new Palestinian elections can be held, Fatah wins and successfully reasserts control over Gaza, and everybody happily returns to the negotiating table, well, great. If it doesn't work, it's difficult to say what comes next. But Obama's going to inherit what he inherits, and nothing he says is going to have any impact on Israel's actions. (As Moshe Dayan once quipped about U.S.-Israeli relations, "We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.") So why not take a "wait and see" approach?

Further, what's the benefit of attacking Israel's current leadership? If you were hoping that the next election would bring to mind Israel's apparent succession of incompetent, corrupt leaders, how do I break this to you. One way or another, Olmert's going to be gone, taken down by his ineptitude and criminality. But who's waiting in the wings to take over? Bibi Netanyahu. Somebody who is apt to condemn any military action taken against Arabs or Palestinians (other than his own) as being far too restrained. What statements can Obama make that reinforce his credibility on the Arab street, without simultaneously helping Netanyahu win the election? After which time the odds of any meaningful resumption of peace talks drop to about zero.

The Clinton-Obama silence on this incursion, to me, doesn't suggest either support or condemnation. It suggests that they don't want to say or do anything that may poison their planned efforts to bring the parties back into negotiation and, ideally, negotiate a resolution that brings this conflict to something reasonably approximating an end. Right now, realistically, what could Obama say that would help him achieve positive long-term goals for this multi-generational conflict?

The Clintons' Bad Gamble?

It has seemed like even after he won the nomination the Clintons, and perhaps especially Bill Clinton, wanted Obama to come with hat in hand and say, "I just can't win this without you." More cynical people (and yes, there are some more cynical than I) have suggested that the Clintons secretly hoped Obama would lose so that Hillary Clinton could run again in 2012.

But if things keep going the way they're going, the Clinton's 1992 observation that it's "the economy, stupid" is going to prove itself correct, and Obama will "do it without them." In which case it not only would have been better for the party, but better for the Clintons, had they immediately and unreservedly gotten on board with Obama from the moment he became the inevitable nominee.

Note, I'm not suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have stopped campaigning one moment sooner than that. Note also, as I have previously suggested, I'm of the opinion that Obama could and should have done more to mend fences with the Clintons after the primary campaign ended.

Qualifications Don't Matter?

At the American Conservative, Dan Larison continues to display shell shock over McCain's choice of Palin:

But one sign in Albuquerque may have summed it up for Republican stalwarts: “Sarah - you had us at hello.” ~The Los Angeles Times

That really is the point, isn’t it? All Palin had to do was to show up, and these people were overjoyed regardless of what Palin had or hadn’t done. Much of the enthusiastic response from rank-and-file Republicans seems to be based in a simple desire for validation from the higher-ups, and in satisfying this disturbing hunger for approval it is as if all of McCain’s errors are forgiven and forgotten. This is exactly what Bush thought would happen when he nominated Harriet Miers on the assumption that evangelicals and religious conservatives would see her as one of them, and to some extent that is what happened. When the Bush administration tried to browbeat critics of the Miers nomination (which, I must stress, was a terrible nomination) with accusations of sexism and elitism, the same kinds of people who are now flinging those charges at Palin’s critics were outraged and became even more fiercely opposed to Miers.

What's the difference this time? Larison expresses concern about the "irrationality of mass democracy" and suggests why individual voters might react differently to the two situations. But the difference isn't coming from the bottom. I suspect that the "grass roots" would be as hostile to Palin as they were to Miers if they were told by their opinion leaders that they should oppose Palin. The difference is, key opinion leaders are ecstatic about Palin because they believe she is firmly wedded to a particular orthodoxy, and to them that is far more important than any understanding of the issues, experience, or objective qualification. They were uncertain about Miers - did she hold their political beliefs, and if so was she sufficiently dogmatic in her beliefs that she could be counted on to consistently hold their way as a Supreme Court Justice - so they advocated against her. They don't have those doubts about Palin.

You want to talk sexism? Take William Kristol, who can't seem to avoid making treacly, condescending comments about women.

Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women… it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that’s led them to defeat year after year… White Women are a problem - but, you know… we all live with that…

“It’s the tears. She pretended to cry, the women felt sorry for her, and she won [the New Hampshire primary].”

If not Pawlenty or Romney, how about a woman, whose selection would presumably appeal to the aforementioned anguished Hillary supporters?

When speaking about men, Kristol finds experience to be of the utmost importance:

The two leading G.O.P. prospects have been Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. But with Biden’s foreign policy experience as a contrast, could McCain assure voters that the young Pawlenty is ready to take over, if need be, as commander in chief?

What word would Kristol give to his application of a different standard to the genders, such that what disqualifies a man in no way disqualifies a woman?

Should voters be alarmed by a relatively young or inexperienced vice-presidential candidate? No.

Kristol didn't suddenly triumph over his misogynistic tendencies. He's comfortable with Palin's rigidity on certain issues he deems key, and thus to him her inexperience and lack of qualification is irrelevant. One moment he's lobbying for Lieberman, and in almost the next breath he's lobbying for Palin. While I have joked about the differences between those candidates, let's not overlook the commonalities near and dear to Kristol's heart - with her sincere Pentecostal beliefs she is unlikely to retreat from the Iraq war, and perhaps broader war in the Middle East, Kristol is comfortable that her positions on the war align with her own. Just as he was comfortable with Lieberman's dogmatism on the war.

Note also that although Kristol was quick and strong in his dismissal of Pawlenty on the basis of inexperience, his lobbying for the choice of Palin long predates that column. There was not one sincere word in his opposition to Pawlenty.

Even now, as he defends his vice presidential candidate of choice, Kristol finds himself unable to speak to her merits. Instead he sneers at the media for daring to ask such questions as,

Who is Sarah Palin to suddenly show up on the national stage? We didn’t vet her. And we don’t approve of her.

You know, a media reaction like this:

I'm disappointed because I expected John McCain to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished track record on the national issues - someone like Joseph Lieberman, Condoleezza Rice, or Mitt Romney - to say nothing of Elizabeth Dole, Meg Whitman and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Sarah Palin has an impressive record as a small town mayor and a couple of years as governor. She has no national or foreign policy credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Having polls this close meant everything rode on this nomination - and that McCain had to be ready to choose a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that McCain flinched from a fight on social issues. Palin is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of McCain.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about a possible McCain administration - leaving aside for a moment the future of the country? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is McCain more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong McCain presidency? What are the prospects for gaining solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2008 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after McCain?

Yes, that approach is absolutely deplorable when you're not at the heart of it. Then it was "How dare they call us sexist for opposing a clearly unqualified candidate." Now it's, "Qualifications don't matter, and it's sexist to even look at her history as governor and mayor." The common theme? People like Kristol spin up accusations of sexism as a shield against addressing the issues - why is Miers unqualified, or why is Palin qualified?

The Vice President has two job responsibilities. First, she presides over the Senate and casts an occasional tie-breaking vote. Second, she sits around waiting to see if the President dies, in which case she assumes his office. Kristol assures us that this second role is some sort of historical footnote.

Should voters be alarmed by a relatively young or inexperienced vice-presidential candidate? No. Since 1900, five vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency during their term in office: Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, Calvin Coolidge in 1923, Harry Truman in 1945, Lyndon Johnson in 1963, and Gerald Ford in 1974. Teddy Roosevelt took over at age 42, becoming our youngest president, and he’s generally thought to have proved up to the job. Truman was V.P. for less than three months and had been kept in the dark by Franklin Roosevelt about such matters as the atom bomb — and he’s generally thought to have risen to the occasion. Character, judgment and the ability to learn seem to matter more to success as president than the number of years one’s been in Washington.

Did you catch that? Experience is irrelevant even in a President, because what really matters is "Character, judgment and the ability to learn". I suppose that makes this comment a demonstration of media misogyny?

And what exactly is her extensive experience in foreign policy or in anything? She's been a senator for six years. Obama's been a senator for two years. So, I mean, big deal.

She hasn't passed any legislation. He hasn't either. She sat in the White House while her husband was president.

And let's not forget Kristol's sneering at Obama's inexperience. Asserting different standards for a white candidate than a... no, let's not play Kristol's game on that one.

Good News for McCain - Hillary's Available

McCain is apparently upset that Obama didn't pick Clinton as his running mate.

Lucky for him, as he sees her as such a great choice, he can now choose her for his own campaign.

Will McCain run ads endorsing Clinton as "speaking the truth" if she turns her sights on him?
__________
Addendum: Even better, McCain's picking Hillary Clinton will reassure Bill Kristol that the GOP doesn't have a "glass ceiling". Apparently, that's a huge concern for Bill....

A Nasty Two-Way Street

One thing that continues to hurt the Democratic party, and results in an absurd number of self-described Democrats to say they're "undecided" or inclined to vote for McCain,¹ is the party's tendency to devour itself. You saw the same thing going on during the Republican primaries but, now that they have their candidate, for the most part they're pulling themselves together and presenting a unified front. The Dems have never been that disciplined.

Making it worse, of course, is the continued tension between the Clintons and their supporters and the Obama team. You'll still find Clinton dead-ender sites saying it's Obama's fault that race is presently an issue in the campaign, or that picking Hillary Clinton as a Vice Presidential candidate would be a magic cure-all for Obama's campaign, but portending disaster if he picks somebody else. Meanwhile, this type of conduct is also blamed on Obama:

Snow asked Clinton, "Do you personally have any regrets about what you did campaigning for your wife?"

With his arms folded and looking a bit tense, Clinton replied, "Yes, but not the ones you think. And it would be counterproductive for me to talk about it."

Barely pausing for a breath, he added, "There are things I wish I'd urged her to do, things I wish I had said, things I wish I hadn't said. But I am not a racist, I never made a racist comment, and I didn't attack him personally," a clear allusion to Sen. Barack Obama.

So he won't go into the mistakes that he regrets, but he'll stick in something he wasn't asked about - something that as being "counterproductive" goes can only help McCain - the implication that Obama or Obama's supporters wrongly branded him as a racist.

Seriously, folks, other than some poor choices of words that one would not expect from a politician of Clinton's skill, has anybody said, "Bill Clinton's a racist"? Does anybody believe that Bill Clinton's a racist? If so, I'd like to meet this person. There is a population that views some of the Clinton team's comments as having been intended to draw attention to Obama's race, and imply the rhetorical question, "Can a black candidate win the election", but there's a world of difference between believing the Clintons engaged in some low road politics and believing that they're racist. (And no, I don't care if their perception is entirely fair, entirely unfair, or somewhere in between - it exists, and thus it's something that must be dealt with.)

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman asks why the Obama camp isn't engaged in rapprochement. And he raises a valid point. Obama is too slow to credit Clinton, either individually or as a Democratic President, when contrasting the 90's to the Bush II years. And perhaps as the nominee, Obama should take the initiative.

But at the same time, unless they've been secretly told with 100% certainty that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, I think it would do wonders if the Clinton camp would stop playing up Hillary Clinton as the best, perhaps only, V.P. choice, and start campaigning unreservedly for Obama. And if they have been told that Hillary Clinton will be the V.P. choice, they should already be doing just that.

As it stands, there's something to the Hillary Clinton dead-enders' claim - which to me comes across as a gloat - that Obama will be harmed by any choice of V.P. other than Clinton. If he picks a woman, "Why is she more qualified than Clinton?" If he picks a man, "Why not a woman?" But you know what? If the "white voter" concerns Hillary Clinton raised are as pressing as she suggested at the time - and pretty much everybody concedes that there is a block of voters that is unlikely or unwilling to vote for a black man - I don't think that his picking her will help him with that block. I'm not sure that any pick will, but unfortunately I suspect that the type of voter at issue would be most influenced by the presence of a white man on the ticket.

Meanwhile, something brooding , negative comments don't help overcome are the Clinton's negatives with large numbers of voters. Sure, they're mostly Republicans, but some are independents or "swing" voters. Clinton's negatives raise valid concerns for the Obama team that adding her to the ticket could hurt him in the polls. A cheery, enthusiastic Clinton team pressing right now for Obama's victory (whatever their personal feelings may be) could help demonstrate both that the Clintons can help Obama win and that concerns about Hillary Clinton's negatives are overblown. A sulking, half-hearted "he's the candidate"-type endorsement, accompanied by the reciprocal nursing of grudges over a hard-fought primary? The Clintons are more than smart enough to know where that leads. Here's an idea: no more of the childish refusal to endorse Obama as qualified to be President.

I guess this goes out to Obama and both Clintons: You need to be in this to win, and to the extent that it means you have to "get over yourselves", do it.
__________
1. I think there's an inherent absurdity for any person, after proclaiming ideological alignment with one political party, to then say, "But I'm going to vote for the other party's presidential candidate." If your party affiliation is that tenuous, why claim it in the first place?

Sexism In Politics

At The American Conservative, Leon Hadar is dismissive of sexism in politics:

The New York Times is continuing to focus our attention on the charges of sexism that Hillary [Clinton] and its supporters have leveled against the media, quoting a leader of one woman group making it clear to America’s misogynists that “We’re certainly not going to take this lying down”.

Now…can anyone imagine the husband of a leading American female political figure winning political office by running on the coattails of his wife? Or is it conceivable that this man could win the support of the public, and especially that of male voters, by exploiting the sympathy he could receive after it was discovered that his wife had cheated on him with a younger man? Mmm. . . I don’t think so. Such a man would probably be ridiculed by men and women alike as a “loser” and a “girlie” man.

I think there is no question but that there were some appalling displays of sexism during the primary campaign. I also don't think it affected the outcome of the Democratic primary. But that doesn't mean it's somehow unreasonable to take note of it, and to regret that it occurred.

But perhaps more to the point, in attacking Clinton's supporters for raising the issue of sexism, Hadar illustrates their point. He sees it as somehow within the rules of the game to make sexist attacks on women, because a man who complained of similar treatement would be seen as a "'girlie' man" - that is, they're compared, unfavorably, to women.

No one is really shocked when men who run for political office - especially for the job of the US president who is also the nation’s commander-in-chief - are judged by their leadership qualities that tend to be associated with male attributes: strength; toughness; potency; charisma; ability to play political hardball.

And that somehow makes it defensible to define the qualities associated with womanhood (or "girlie man-hood") as evidence of weakness, prissiness, or inability to lead? Should I even have to explain this? There is simply no comparison between a form of "sexism" that asserts certain gender traits as positive with bona fide sexism that asserts certain gender traits as negative. The tendency to paint men who fail to meet this measure of "strength; toughness; potency; charisma; ability to play political hardball" as "girlie men" itself is a manifestation of sexism.

It goes with the territory of dirty politics. Male and female candidates don’t win brownie points by playing the role of the victim. No one expects that a male politician losing an erlection would accuse his opponents and the media of sexism or “anti-manism”. That would sound as either pathetic or ridiculous, or both.

And we delve even deeper into the absurd. It may be unfair to hold up a caricature of manhood (Hadar points to "military figures or football players" as doing well in politics, but sneers at male models, apparently forgetting that behind the action figure facade Gov. Schwarzenegger has more in common with the latter than with the former) as an ideal, but it's not anti-male to depict masculinity as a positive. Of course it would sound absurd if somebody deemed this to be "sexist" against men - and Hadar already told us what the response would be: The complainer would be deemed "a 'loser' and a 'girlie' man."

This hints at one of the peculiarities of the election. Even though it is widely assumed that racism played a role in some primary outcomes (with polls in some states showing a substantial population of voters who aren't comfortable voting for Obama due to his race), under present societal mores public figures and media figures are on the whole cautious about saying anything that would be construed as racism. While many are similarly circumspect about making statements that could be construed as sexist, there have been some surprising candor in the expression of sexism toward Clinton. A candidate can make a reasonably substantiated accusation of racism without being falling into Hadar's "girlie-man" archetype.

Hadar suggests that complaints about Clinton such as "She only got where she is because she was married to Bill Clinton", or "She wouldn't have stood a chance if people didn't feel sorry for her because of Bill's cheating", aren't sexism, because we would view a man who attempted to obtain office on similar terms as being weak, feminine and unsuitable for office. But sexism is not a defense of sexism. The woman may not suffer the same stigmatization as a man, because she's a woman and the assertions against her fit within predefined gender roles. It's okay for a woman to be a woman - but it's not okay for a man to be like a woman. Hadar may be right that a man cannot publicly complain of that, but there can be no missing that attempts to depict political opponents as weak and effeminate are a big and continuing part of politics. And under this model, being "like a woman" is a huge negative. Even if the target is a man, that's a manifestation of sexism against women.

Which brings us back to the current election campaign.

Had Mrs. Clinton been the candidate, she would no doubt have faced more attacks for being too mannishly abrasive or, conversely, too emotional to play the manly role. But Mr. Obama should expect similar damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t gender assaults. He will be cast either as the epicene metrosexual who can’t protect the country or else as the modern heathen with a suspicious middle name.

The attacks are already under way, as is evident if one enters the words “Obama” and “effeminate” into a search engine. The effeminacy canard lurks in Mike Huckabee’s imaginings of Mr. Obama tripping off a chair and diving for the floor when confronted by a gunman, and in the words of Tucker Bounds, Mr. McCain’s campaign spokesman, who depicted Mr. Obama as “hysterical.”

News media blatherers and bloggers are taking up the theme. On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Obama “kind of a wuss”; Joe Scarborough, the morning TV talk show host, dubbed Mr. Obama’s bowling style “prissy” and declared, “Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man”; and Don Imus, the radio host, never one to be outdone in the sexual slur department, dubbed Mr. Obama a “sissy boy.”

And on it goes.

Turn Off Your IQ At The Door

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the primary? According to Rep. Heather Wilson (R, NM), it's because she was overwhelmed by the formidable liberalness of the victor... Dennis Kucinich?

Campaign "Damage Control"

I see "damage control" like the Clinton campaign's in relation to the RFK assassination comments, and all I can do is wonder how Clinton managed to pick such herd of belligerent, incompetent advisors and spokespersons. It serves to reinforce my impression that the leading reason, and perhaps the only reason, she is behind in the race is the fact that she ran a poor campaign.
__________
Update: And along comes Lanny Davis....

All He Has To Do To Win....

In a column by Maureen Dowd that you'll be shocked to know, isn't really worth reading, she shares this insight:

Charlie Peters, the legendary former editor of the liberal Washington Monthly who ran Jack Kennedy’s campaign in Kanawha County, W. Va., said Obama should study how J.F.K. managed to win there despite raging anti-Catholicism.

* * *

“The point of West Virginia in 1960 is that you can change attitudes,” Peters, an Obama supporter, said on Tuesday evening. “But if you don’t act to change them, he could lose West Virginia and I think he could lose the country.

“He has to change those perceptions of the people who think he could actually agree with the Rev. Wright.

* * *

Peters says Obama needs imagination and a “tremendous effort” to dispel bias in West Virginia, and quickly, “because once it’s set in concrete, you’ll have a hell of a time.”

This, to me, is barely above saying, "If he wants to win, all he has to do is convince more than half of the people in each state to vote for him." It's not quite that bad, because Peters ties things back to Rev. Wright. But the problem with Obama's distancing himself from Rev. Wright, or from the whisper campaign that he's actually a Muslim, is that nothing he can say or do will convince people who believe such things otherwise. They aren't interested in looking at his record, and they don't believe his denials.

In this regard, I think it will take the strong effort of people who already have credibility with the doubters to make a clear case that in fact Obama is telling the truth. That, of course, would have to overcome a simultaneous GOP smear campaign intending to convince people otherwise. That smear campaign is underway, as highlighted by this absurdity from Kent County, Michigan. Daniel Larison (who, as if it needs to be said about an amconmag.com contributor, does not support Obama) reacts,

I don’t know what I find more depressing–that the GOP is so absolutely, unspeakably intellectually bankrupt that this is all it has to offer, or that this sort of tactic might very well win them the presidential election.

It's much easier to engage in this type of "see what sticks" mudslinging than it is to refute each new smear.

There are two sources of "bias" that Obama arguably needs to "overcome". One, racism, already is "set in stone". He's not going to budge more than a tiny number of the people who will not vote for him because of his race. How much effort should he direct at those people? None. The likely return on investment of time and resources is vanishingly small.

That's not to say that he can't shift perceptions of himself, such that he's more of a "Colin Powell" black man than a "Rev. Wright" black man.

Susan Dzimian, a Clinton supporter who owns residential properties, said outside a polling location in Kokomo that race was a factor in how she viewed Obama. "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it," she said of a black candidate. "If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him."

That's the kind of voter who had Peggy Noonan tied up in knots, before the Rev. Wright story emerged and enabled the political right to start painting Obama as a "scary black man".

As for the skeptics of Obama who are less concerned about race, but are concerned about issues like Rev. Wright, the whispered smears that Obama's secretly a muslim or is hostile to Israel, or the overt Republican attacks on Obama's patriotism, as I previously indicated, Obama's teaming up with credible people who will refute those charges could help him gain votes. For those who think an Obama-Clinton "unity ticket" is the thing? So far, Clinton has chosen to benefit from those concerns rather than trying to shift voters toward more accurate views. I don't see how she can credibly commence with a defense of Obama, let alone be a credible running mate at the bottom of the ticket, given that history. As for McCain, it's pretty clear that he intends to run a dirty campaign if that's what it takes to win, and he has lots of proxies (for example, the Kent County GOP) willing to roll around in the gutter on his behalf.

To put it mildly, in terms of making solid inroads with voters who are hostile to him, Obama and his allies have a lot of work to do.
__________

Update: Giving credit where credit is due, Hillary Clinton is coming out against McCain's "Hamas" smear.

"Gas Tax Holiday" Pandering Is A "Big Deal"

Paul Krugman is right about this much: As compared to other economic issues, the "gas tax holiday" is small potatoes. But to the extent he is trying to minimize the significance of this particular pander, or to suggest that it's politically worse than Obama's use of certain right-wing talking points in criticizing health insurance mandates, I disagree.

If the test is, "Will a candidate embrace right wing talking points", how would this example give me faith in Hillary Clinton? The entiire idea of a gas tax holiday originated with the McCain campaign. When Obama took the grown-up path, rather than joining the irresponsible pandering of the other presidential candidates, what did Hillary Clinton do? She attacked him, directly and through her campaign, as elitist and out-of-touch with the needs of working people. When confronted with the economic realities of her proposal, what did she do? She made a statement dismissive of economists.

I don't like the Obama team's approach to mandates, both because I think mandates are better policy and because their arguments seem weak. (If arguably better than a blanket statement dismissive of economists, not much better.) There's an equivalence here - in both cases we're dealing with election year politics versus good public policy, with the defenders of the weaker policy engaging in attacks on their opponent that, to me, seem unfair, dishonest and opportunistic.

We could debate whether it says more about a candidate that they engage in this conduct over a major economic issue or a minor economic issue. We could debate what it means that one issue deals with a future, theoretical policy that has not been fully fleshed out, and the other proposes immediate action. I suppose somebody could try to introduce some nuance to suggest that somehow one candidate or the other's proposal is "better founded in economics" than the other. But that's a marginal defense, as what is really important is what these conflicts tell us about a candidate and their approach to responsible public policy. A candidate's dogmatically sticking to a weak or bad economic theory, making little to no effort to explain why theirs is the better theory, then resorting to attack mode and right-wing talking points when confronted on the weaknesses, does not impress me.

McCain on Health Care

John McCain offers some not-so-straight talk on health care. Hillary Clinton gets it right:

In a statement, Clinton said McCain's plan has "fundamental flaws" and charged that it would abandon millions of Americans to expensive, high-risk insurance arrangements. "Older Americans or those with pre-existing conditions would be allowed to get only one type of coverage in a high risk GAP pool," Clinton said. "That kind of arrangement does more to help insurers than individuals."

McCain's "plan" basically involves ending employer-sponsored health insurance (i.e., effectively ending group insurance coverage), then handing you a subsidy ("a $5,000 family tax credit") too small to provide you or your family with good, comprehensive insurance coverage. The type that elites like John McCain and Newt Gingrich apparently believe should be reserved to people like themselves.

If McCain were interested in being honest about this, he would admit that he is catering to two powerful special interest groups: Industry lobbyists who see that, even with tax breaks, health insurance is becoming too costly to offer as an employee benefit. And, of course, health insurance industry lobbyists who don't want a national plan to "compete" with their offerings - because to date, in order to "compete" with programs like Medicare private insurers have required massive subsidies.

McCain's proposal for people like himself, who (if given a choice) insurers wouldn't touch?

McCain sought to answer those charges Tuesday by saying he would create what he called a guaranteed access plan, or GAP, to help provide coverage of last resort for the sick and other "high-risk" people until the marketplace has matured enough to take care of them.

Let's compare that idea to Michigan's reality, where within the existing private market,

The Blues argue that as insurers of last resort they have to cover the sickest patients and take the most risk. Other firms, they argue, can dump their customers by raising their premiums to unaffordable levels and stick the Blues with them.

McCain's proposal for keeping this from happening with his newly created guaranteed health insurance plan for the uninsurable? He doesn't have one. Candidate McCain, how would this program work? How would it be financed?

He gave few details of how such a program would work, who would run it or how it would be financed.

Oh, let me throw out an idea for financing it, consistent with McCain's stated economic policy - we'll have indefinite war in Iraq, slash taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and pay for everything else with the savings that result.

McCain advisers said such a program could cost as much as $7 billion a year. But McCain vowed not to "create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control." He added: "Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate."

Sure... because as the private health insurance markets insure, private companies will suddenly become willing to take a massive loss by providing individual health insurance policies to people presently deemed uninsurable. Why, isn't that exactly what is happening in our current "free market" system? I suspect that if the "guaranteed" plans for uninsurable people become a reality, $7 billion will look like a bargain. We switch from the current system, replete with delays and denials of care, and the cancellation of policies for specious reasons, to one where the policy holder deemed "too expensive" is simply handed off to the government plan - or quits the private plan in favor of the government plan to avoid the bureaucracy, delays, and specious denials of care.

But McCain says he won't let the unknown costs of his undefined program "get out of control", so who am I to question his claims?

Clinton Makes It Hard....

You know, with Obama's association with Wright, and with his "bitter/cling" comments, even with full consideration of her own errors and misstatements I sometimes start to think, "Maybe Clinton really is the better candidate." But for some reason she has to make it hard.

Clinton, who toured the Miller Veneers wood manufacturing company in Indianapolis, said "there are a lot of people in Indiana who would really benefit from a gas tax holiday.

"That might not mean much to my opponent, but I think it means a lot to people who are struggling here, people who commute a long way to work, farmers and truckers," Clinton said. She has called for a windfall tax on oil companies to pay for a gas tax holiday.

Clinton has to know the realities of her proposal. Here, she's in the world of President Bush, with his prevarications that drilling in ANWR would lower gas prices, capping it off with innuendo that Obama doesn't care about working people.

Clinton is lucky that there are other issues in the race, because on the issue of the "gas tax holiday", Obama's the only candidate who is acting like a grown-up. (But then I'm still disenfranchised, so I guess neither of them have to care what I think.)

Gas Prices

This seems terrifically circular. Hillary Clinton's proposal to deal with high gas prices involves "Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months". Under the McCain plan, the oil companies can be anticipated to raise prices to take in part (perhaps all) of the "tax break" as profits. Under the Clinton plan, the oil companies can be anticipated to raise prices to recoup the money they pay under the "windfall profits tax". (And are we really supposed to believe that a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies would survive Bush's veto pen?)

Clinton also proposes "Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills". By this, she means ending "the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits." Again, even if this repeal of subsidies were to pass, how would it survive a veto? (I did suggest cutting those subsidies as an alternative to to McCain's ideas, but I'm under no illusion that McCain would embrace the idea or that it would survive a White House veto. I think, in pitching something like this as a "plan", a candidate needs to address political reality - or it's just more pandering.) I'm also curious as to whether this includes or excludes subsidies of corn ethanol - if we are entering a world where cutting the subsidies is considered realistic, let's make sure we get rid of ethanol subsidies as well. Finally, however admirable the goals, as proposed by Clinton this particular idea has nothing to do with gas prices.

Clinton's other proposals relate to crude oil,

• Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;
• Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries
• Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Except these ideas, even if we assume them realistic, won't affect gas prices. Summer gas price spikes are "justified" by refinery capacity, not whether oil is at $90 or $120/bbl.

It's the same story every year.

Each spring, just before the summer driving season, gasoline prices skyrocket. And every year, these four words appear in news reports nationwide as a big reason for the runup: "lack of refining capacity."

Then experts call for more refineries, politicians pledge to make the dirty behemoths easier to build, but guess what? Nothing really happens. Next year, repeat story.

So why hasn't a new refinery been built in the U.S. since 1976?

That question was asked by CNN Money more than a year ago. If Clinton wishes to be taken seriously on the issue of gas prices, what's her answer?

Kristol On Debates

Funny, when Kristol was cheerleading for Bush back in 2004 I don't recall him ever complaining, "But Bush is doing the country and electorate a genuine disservice by only agreeing to three debates." No, that sort of complaint is reserved for Democratic primary candidates, who have "only" participated in twenty-one debates. Kristol smirks,

On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.

... For the twenty-second time.

Let's get real for a moment. What's the advantage to Obama in participating in a debate? It's not like G.W., where he was fortunate enough that an obeisant media led by people like Kristol handed him "wins" for performances that, shall we say, involved significant departures from reality. ("I own a lumber business? That's news to me... Need some wood?") Or where hacks and tools like Kristol were happy to facilitate his hiding from any one-on-one encounter where he might actually have to, you know, think on his feet. Even within the context of the exceedingly complex, self-serving rules Bush and Kerry created for their "debates", hacks like Kristol were pleased to see their man avoid further scrutiny in a context where other people might shape the message.

This is no different. Particularly after the shameful performance of the moderators in the last debate, why would Obama choose to risk having somebody else again attempt to define him and his image in the light of various rumors and petty scandals, when he can instead present the image he prefers? Oh yes, there is a difference - for Kristol, it's only the candidate he favors who should be permitted to retreat from debates and control his own image.

There's something to the idea that debates do the public a service, forcing candidates to speak about the issues or address matters they would prefer fall into the background. That's part of the supposed justification for the smearfest at the start of the last "debate" - who cares about Iraq, health care, energy policy, whatever. "We" want to know more about Rev. Wright, and why Obama didn't conduct a full background check and pull a rap sheet for every person he's associated with over the last forty years. Clinton's offer of an unmoderated debate? Do you think she would stick to actual issues - the economy, health care, Iraq, etc., or do you think she'd be right back in the gutter, confronting Obama on the "issues" Gibson and Stephanopoulos prefer? I have nothing against Clinton, but I think at this point it's obvious that she is perfectly happy to splash around in the gutter if it helps her win.

I would prefer more debates. Perhaps Obama should counter Clinton's proposal by offering her a public debate, but only on specific issues - the ones voters supposedly care about, like health care, tax policy, and the Iraq war. No mention of sniper fire in Bosnia or sitting on charity boards with ex-radicals. But barring that, we're likely to get more of the same - and I can't recall the last time I learned something substantive from one of these debates. Like it or not, in the present context, Obama's choice to decline another debate allows him to better control his message and his image. You and I don't have to like it, but that's what they call "good politics".

Nuclear Pandering

Our government has a tendency to inflate petty despots into insane megalomaniacs who pose an immediate threat to the United States. This phenomenon isn't unique to the U.S.. When the facts are finally known, the "dangerous madmen" depicted in Congressional hearings and the media usually turn out to be far less fearsome.

One of our current "madmen" is Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom we pretend is in full control of the country and itching to attack Israel. We're supposedly not sure that the Iranians are rational or deterrable¹ - never mind that the nation has no contemporary history of aggressive war against its neighbors. Their actual contribution to regional instability? They fund terrorist organizations and seek to expand Shia Islam in the Arab world.

But they have a nuclear weapons program, and they desire nuclear weapons. Is that, of itself, "insane"? Hardly. It's entirely rational to want nuclear weapons when your global and regional adversaries have nuclear weapons. It's entirely rational to want nuclear weapons when you are being threatened with attack or invasion. It's entirely rational to want nuclear weapons when they will elevate your status as a regional power. From our standpoint, to put it mildly, the outcome is undesirable, but can you truly pretend that you don't understand why Iran would view a nuclear arsenal as a very good thing to possess?²

What benefits would nuclear weapons offer to Iran in an aggressive war? Let's look at Iran's neighbors. Turkey? Even if we were to dream up some sort of benefit in their trying, they're not going to invade a NATO member state. Iraq? Right now, "that's us" - they're not going to attack U.S. occupied Iraq, and it appears that by the time we leave (assuming we ever do) they will by all appearances enjoy a friendly, Shiite government in Baghdad. Pakistan? Again, to what end. And Pakistan's already a nuclear power, so getting nukes doesn't give Iran any special advantage. Afghanistan? As with Iraq, "that's us." Well, gee... I guess that leaves the oh-so-desirable targets of Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan? Or will anti-Iranian hawks soon be dreaming up "the Iranian Armada", comprised of thousands of ships ready to set sail for Saudi Arabia?

But we live in an age of pandering, and that's not advanced by defeating the idea that Iranians are not wholly irrational beings, bent on self-destruction, and intending to launch a nuclear attack on Israel the moment they have their first low-yield nuclear bomb. That image of Iran also provides candidates with the opportunity for a bit of chest-thumping, "I'm so ready to 'push the button'" machismo. Case in point? Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

I recognize that there are people who lap this sort of stuff up, and I apologize in advance to you if you're one of them. This is reckless, shameful pandering. First, its idiotic to presuppose that Israel needs the U.S. to provide nuclear deterrence. Israel has been a nuclear power for decades, and is generally regarded as having about two hundred high yield nuclear weapons. There aren't even two hundred viable nuclear targets in Iran. While nuclear nutters like to giggle about "turning the desert to glass", once you hit Iran's thirty or so population centers (and that includes some cities barely above 100,000 people) that's pretty much all that's left to do.

So, following the fanciful, suicidal attack by Iran we have two scenarios - Israel demonstrates nuclear restraint in response to an attack, perhaps focusing on military targets and infrastructure while avoiding civilian centers, and Clinton nonetheless cries, "Let loose the missiles!" Or Israel destroys every population center in Iran and Clinton cries, "Everybody's dead, but some of that desert isn't glass yet! Let the missiles fly!" Which of those images does Clinton believe makes her look good?

Oh, I know, we're not actually supposed to think it through.

The funny part? (And I mean "funny sad" not "funny ha ha".) She didn't even stop there. Now we're also threatening Iran with attack if it attacks another nation in the region. Now she may correct me, but I'm not aware of an actual Iranian armada, so as discussed above it's a bit hard to imagine what nation Iran might suddenly decide to invade. Or is it nuke? "It's been such a boring week - let's nuke somebody... Hey, what about Jordan?"

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.”

That's a more sensible policy than Clinton gave for an attack on Israel. If Iran were to attack one of our allies, Iran could expect a broad military response with "all options" implicitly on the table. Yet it further highlights the absurdity of her position in relation to Israel - we'll threaten Iran with nuclear annihilation if it attacks a country that has at least a generational lead on Iran's military, and that can presently turn Iran into a smear? But we're going to be more circumspect if Iran launches a nuclear attack against one of our other regional allies? Without asking if Iran might do that, exploring why Iran might do that, or whether getting involved in the conflict would serve our strategic interests?

With due respect to Clinton's nominal goal of assuring other states in the region that they don't need their own nuclear weapons programs, we can persuade our allies in the region of that by continuing arms sales and threatening to stop those sales or cut back on aid money if they initiate nuclear weapons programs. The other nations in the Middle East probably won't be listening to us.
_____________

1. On the question, Hillary Clinton notes that some believe Iran is "not deterrable, that they somehow have a different mindset and a worldview that might very well lead the leadership to be willing to become martyrs. I don't buy that, but I think we have to test it." I'll give her credit for her qualified rejection of that belief, although it makes you wonder why she finds it necessary to articulate her "nuke 'em 'till they glow" policy.

2. I am giving due consideration to the NIE assessment suggesting that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program. But they nonetheless have an expanding nuclear program and by all appearances aspire to possess nuclear weapons.

The Stupid News Story Of The Day

Presidential Candidate X says "I'm the most qualified on issue A". Presidential candidates Y and Z deny that.

Er, no kidding.

Obama, describing what he would want in a running mate:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area - foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

Clinton's response:

She laughed, actually, before responding on Fox News. "Well I’m somewhat shocked by that since I don’t see any evidence of it," she said. "This is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee.

"I don’t know," she continued. "I’m speechless. Making an assertion like that belies the facts and the record."

Okay, Candidate Clinton, what are the facts and what is the record? Laughter doesn't cut it - please give us the specifics. No puffery this time around, please.

McCain's proxies answer:

Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said in an earlier statement, “Perhaps in an effort to one-up his own ridiculous assertions about John McCain’s record, Barack Obama laughably claimed to have more foreign policy experience than Senator McCain. Even by Obama’s standards, this is a horrifyingly false claim without a shred of supporting evidence. Perhaps the junior Senator from Illinois should focus on explaining to voters what exactly his foreign policy experience is before comparing it to John McCain’s wealth of experience on the issue.”

It's fascinating to me that the Republican response to Obama is to lie about what he said, particularly as they're accusing him of misrepresenting McCain on the "100 years in Iraq" quote. Obama didn't say a word about McCain's much touted experience. He indicated that he believes he knows more about foreign policy issues than John "Iran is training al-Qaeda" McCain. He suggests that he has a better understanding of the world than John "100% behind the invasion of Iraq" McCain. You know, because experience is not a synonym for either knowledge or understanding.

Although Obama didn't raise the issue, it may also be noted that experience does not automatically translate into good judgment.

In any event, this is good campaigning by Obama. He is confronting his opponents squarely on the issue where they claim to have superior qualifications. He's couched it as an opinion, so there are no facts or foibles of memory that can be disputed. So far, his opponents' responses have been, dare I say, pathetic. Didn't they see this coming? (See my joke campaign song recommendation for Obama.)

She Proved Me Wrong....

I had expected Clinton to delay releasing her tax returns until after the primaries were over, and even then to perhaps enter into a quiet understanding with McCain that they would agree not to make disclosure an issue. But she finally came through:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton reported more than $109 million in gross income since 2000, the Clinton presidential campaign announced this afternoon.

Of that amount, the Clintons have more than $57 million in after-tax earnings and paid more than $33 million in federal taxes, the campaign said. It released tax returns from 2000 to 2006 and highlights for 2007.

* * *

Both Clintons have done well as authors. During the years, former President Clinton earned more than $29 million for his books and Sen. Hillary Clinton earned more than $10 million.

Bill Clinton earned more than $51 million from speeches, the campaign said.

It's not bad work, if you can get it....

Krugman on Obama on Health Care

I agree with Krugman's general thesis - McCain's health care plan is a joke, and Clinton's is better than Obama's. I'm not sure, though, about this point:

Worse yet, Mr. Obama attacked his Democratic rivals’ health plans using conservative talking points about choice and the evil of having the government tell you what to do. That’s going to make it hard - if he is the nominee - to refute Mr. McCain when he makes similar arguments on behalf of such things as privatizing veterans’ care.

One criticism of Obama, and a valid one, is that he refuses to support mandates. I haven't yet seen evidence to suggest the innuendo sometimes cast about, that he's adamantly opposed to mandates. If Congress sends him a bill that does everything he has proposed but also includes mandates, I expect that he would sign it.

As for whether Obama would hold hands with McCain in an effort to savage the V.A. hospital system, I very much doubt it. Whatever mileage the Republicans might try to gain from Obama's talk of freedoms, privatizing veterans' care is one of those issues that you should be able to undercut with a standard, Republican-style, "Our troops are getting injured right now, and those hospitals are the best source for the specialized care they need after leaving the military! Why don't you support the troops?"

Talk of "choice", really, is to reassure people that if a national health plan passes the government won't be picking their doctor or defining their medical treatment. (That job will remain with a bureaucrat in their HMO.)

Liars, Liars Everywhere....

Is anybody else tired of the silly accusations that are launched back and forth between Clinton and Obama supporters? With every mistake of memory, large or small, cast as an evil lie that totally disqualifies the candidate for office? Take this example from the latest of the tiresome streams of anti-Obama screeds on TalkLeft. In 1996, twelve years ago, Obama scrawled a few notes on a questionnaire about his political positions. An aide completed the questionnaire and returned it. Somebody apparently asked Obama about the differences in his opinions as expressed on the questionnaire and those expressed in public, and the difference was attributed to the aide's submitting the questionnaire without review. So we get, "Ah hah! If we take the least consistent interpretation of his notes, and insist that the only way a 12-year-old memory of a forgettable moment can deviate from the truth is due to intentional deception, Obama is a liar!"

Wow. How compelling.

A lot of this "he's a liar" stuff is being kicked up in response to Hillary Clinton's rather amazing story of her trip to Bosnia. That inspired my earlier post on the vagaries of memory, although it was not meant as a perfect defense. When memory departs from historical fact, you're not "lying" when you misremember. CWD commented that he wouldn't much care for a politician whose memory was quite that malleable, particularly in relation to dramatic moments experienced as an adult. That's a fair position to take, although peripheral to my point about memory.

In the Obama example, he may be lying. Perhaps he did review the answers before they were submitted. Perhaps at the start of his career he did take a slightly different position on issues of gun control and the death penalty, whether out of personal belief or political expediency, and his needs or views have changed. Perhaps an aide really did misunderstand his scrawls, then completed and returned the questionnaire in a manner not entirely consistent with Obama's views. If Obama's being dishonest, it's a pretty standard version of dishonesty for a politician - shading or moving away from past political positions that may harm the present campaign. But he may also be telling the truth, or recounting the story as he remembers it.

In a lot of these cases, conception seems to matter more than reality. In some contexts, the preconception of the opposing candidate leads to an exaggerated response to a "lie" (real or perceived). In other contexts, the response to the "lie" is a deliberate effort to try to shift popular perceptions against a candidate - classic, Karl Rove style gotcha politics. To see both in action, let's turn to the inimitable Christopher Hitchens. March 5, before the Bosnia blowup:

Hugh Hewitt: 20 seconds, who’s going to be the next president of the United States?

Christopher Hitchens: Hillary Clinton.

Hugh Hewitt: Oh…because of yesterday?

Christopher Hitchens: No, no, I’ve feared it for a long time, and there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power.

Hugh Hewitt: The Mummy is back.

Christopher Hitchens: …people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end.

Hugh Hewitt: Mordor. Christopher Hitchens, a pleasure. Thank you for joining us from Vanity Fair.

Hitchens is entirely consistent here - he's been bashing the Clintons pretty much since day one. The Bosnia claims are a useful tool, but get jammed into his pre-existing narrative. So now we get,

The first [form of lying] involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

(Is Hitchens "the thinking man's Ann Coulter"? Some smart people seem to like him, despite his preference for invective over honest debate.)

Hitchens argues that landing in a war zone under fire is unforgettable, then makes the leap of illogic that since he can't forget his own experience landing under fire it is impossible for somebody to believe it has occurred when it has not. He then goes on to suggest that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the delayed U.S. military intervention in Bosnia, because intervention would supposedly overshadow her healthcare initiative.

Hitchens assures us, that's exactly the way he remembers it. I'm sure it is. But he needs to consider that he views his memories through his prism of Clinton-hatred. If he doesn't realize that, perhaps he believes that his childish name-calling serves as a clarion call. If he does, this is just strongly worded political advocacy. Maybe he's just preaching to the choir.

To me, though, this also raises questions about Hitchens, as it appears that despite the Iraq debacle he still perceives military intervention as a humanitarian obligation. He reinvents history, sometimes quite literally, to advance a particular agenda. The Iraq war had to be fought for humanitarian reasons, and every flaw in its planning, execution, and in the subsequent occupation should be ignored - if everything had been done "correctly" it really would have been "candy, flowers, and democracy breaking out all over." You can't let such mundane things as reality interfere with your good intentions. There was no reason good enough for Bill Clinton to not immediately intercede in Bosnia, as to Hitchens no such reason can possibly exist.

Through his Clinton-hating prism, he attributes failure to the most vain and petty of motives, and to the extent that other interpretations may exist he is happy to disregard political, practical and diplomatic realities. And when confronted with reality, rather than dealing with the facts he bristles and responds with a series of condescending insults and bromides.

Doesn't that make him a pretty good example of everything he claims to hate about the Clintons? His worship of power is more acceptable, because he wishes to direct that power at causes he perceives as righteous as opposed to selfish?

An honest case can be made that Hillary Clinton's memory raises serious questions about her candidacy. But that doesn't justify anti-Obama "your candidate's a liar, too" exaggerations, nor does it justify pushing the story into overdrive (hyperdrive) to advance an almost conspiratorial anti-Clinton agenda.

The Foibles Of Memory

Hillary Clinton is taking some pretty hard hits over her faulty memory of a trip to Bosnia. Many have been willing to accuse her of making up a story to augment her claims to be a foreign policy expert and Commander in Chief. While I understand the concept that people should have perfect memories, should be able to recount personal experiences as if they are describing videotape, and should never make mistakes of memory this significant, that's not how memory works.

In psychology, there's a famous example of a faulty memory reconstructed from the stories of others, provided by Jean Piaget.

I can still see, most clearly, the following scene, in which I believed until I was about fifteen. I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Elysees, when a man tried to kidnap me. I was held in by the strap fastened round me while my nurse bravely tried to stand between me and the thief. She received various scratches and I can still see vaguely those on her face. Then a crowd gathered, a policeman with a cloak and a white baton came up, and the man took to his heels. I can still see the whole scene, and can even place it near the tube station. [Piaget, J., Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, (1951), p. 188]

The problem? Piaget's nanny had fabricated the story in order to try to collect a reward. He learned that the story was false when he was fifteen, but he nonetheless continued to have vivid memories of something that never happened.

What does this have to do with adult memories? Well, our memories are faulty as well. One famous example?

In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan repeatedly told a heartbreaking story of a World War II bomber pilot who ordered his crew to bail out after his plane had been seriously damaged by an enemy hit. His young belly gunner was wounded so seriously that he was unable to evacuate the bomber. Reagan could barely hold back his tears as he uttered the pilot's heroic response: "Never mind. We'll ride it down together." ...this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film "A Wing and a Prayer." Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source [Schacter, Daniel L., Searching for Memory: The Brain, The Mind, and The Past (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 287).

It now appears that Clinton's memory was contaminated by accounts of a trip to Bosnia, albeit one taken by others six months prior to her trip. It's possible to see how the memory may have been constructed. As Clinton is preparing for her trip, she hears tales of the trip that preceded her. She's traveling with Chelsea, so this worries her. As they fly in, due to concerns about danger, she and Chelsea really are moved to the cockpit and the plane makes a fast descent. What followed? A landing strip greeting probably indistinguishable in any meaningful detail from hundreds of other such greetings she experienced as First Lady. Over time, the mundane details of the trip are forgotten. Meanwhile, she confuses the story of the prior, more harrowing trip with that of her own trip. This didn't happen immediately, but occurred over a period of years. During that time as she retold and built upon her story, nobody stopped to correct her - the memory became historically inaccurate but was real to her.

Everybody's head contains distorted memories; most of us are fortunate enough that nobody cares what we remember, and it's not a media story when our distortions come to light. Here's one of Joe Scarborough's:

…[T]his Bosnia story smacks of gotcha politics. If [Hillary Clinton] had the reputation of being an exaggerator-in-chief, like Al Gore, it would matter. If she had said I invented the Internet, it sticks. One of these gaffes sticks when it compounds an existing problem…

Do you, like Joe Scarborough, remember Al Gore saying that he 'invented the Internet'? If so, you're remembering something that never actually occurred.