Today Gen. Petraeus and Amb Crocker came before the Sen. Foreign Relations and Defense Committees. I was interested to see how the presidential candidates handled it. There is a running diary by Tom Ricks on the WAPO that gives a good summary of the days events. Here’s a post at DailyKos that also discusses how the hearings transpired. Overall I think Hillary went for the outraged gentile attack, McCain took fire for his party as the ranking minority member, and Obama came across as seriously focused and down to business.
UPDATE IV: George Voinovich was very impressive; I’ll try to find a transcript. Obama is up right now. He’s getting right on to asking questions instead of making a speech. He corners Petraeus about Al Qaeda in Iraq, saying they weren’t in there before we invaded. And he’s asking whether we can ever reach a point where AQI couldn’t reconstitute themselves. He’s trying to pin down Petraeus on some metrics. This seems like a windup for a big pitch. I LOVE that he mentioned that Maliki said there was no room in the security forces for the Sunni Awakening groups and yet he recently added 10,000 Shiite Badr Brigade members, and he’s picked up on Sen. Boxer’s point that the Iraqi government is as pro-Iranian as the “special groups” that Crocker claims is the source of all Iraq’s problems. I think Obama’s remarks reflect a facility with the situation on the ground and a reasonable expectation of the goals we can expect in Iraq when we eventually withdraw. Best of all, Obama is doing his job instead of grandstanding. He added that the two malign groups Crocker and Petraeus keep discussing, AQI and Iran, were a DIRECT result of our initial invasion. He did an excellent job.
Read the Obama Transcript here for the entire conversation but here are a few particular exchanges that I thought were enlightening. You must read the whole exchange to really get a feel for his handling of it as he sets the groundwork perfectly then he jumps in with the tough questions once Petraeus and Crocker were in vulnerable positions. He wasn’t there for a gottcha moment but rather to get them on record on the true nature of the Iraq debate.
OBAMA: Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you’ve been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ: Well, I think the question, Senator, is whether Iraqi security forces over time, with much less help, could deal with their efforts to reconstitute. I think it’s…
OBAMA: That’s my point.
PETRAEUS: I think it’s a given that Al Qaida-Iraq will try to reconstitute just as any movement of that type does try to reconstitute. And the question is whether…
OBAMA: I don’t mean — don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to sharpen the question so that — because I think you’re getting right at my point here.
I mean, if one of our criteria for success is ensuring that Al Qaida does not have a base of operations in Iraq, I just want to harden a little bit the metrics by which we’re measuring that.
At what point do we say they cannot reconstitute themselves or are we saying that they’re not going to be particularly effective and the Iraqis, themselves, will be able to handle the situation?
PETRAEUS: I think it’s really the latter, Senator, that, again, if you can keep chipping away at them, chipping away at their leadership, chipping away at the resources, that comprehensive approach that I mentioned, that, over time — and we are reaching that in some other areas already.
…
OBAMA: OK. I just want to be clear if I’m understanding. We don’t anticipate that there’s never going to be some individual or group of individuals in Iraq that might have sympathies toward Al Qaida. Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace, but rather to create a manageable situation where they’re not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks outside of Iraq. Is that accurate?
It is being reported that Zimbabwee President/Dictator Mugabe may be looking for a way to leave power and turn things over to the opposition. (Update: BBC is reporting this is not the case according to the opposition and the government) This comes after an election where observers say the opposition clearly won (we are talking exit polling essentially, which can mean little especially in a politically under-analyzed and politically undeveloped location where voting priorities and allegiances may be obscured.), while the official results are being delayed. Initially it was thought the results were being delayed so that falsification of the results could occur and Mugabe could be named the winner, but it is increasingly looking like that possibility will not be coming a reality.
This would be an interesting development as it would mean that democratic elections would potentially result in the ouster of this dictator who could easily be said to have taken his country to the cusp of irrelevancy and a dire state of economic distress. I’m personally not that clear on what the opposition will bring to the table that will benefit the average Zimbabwean, but Mugabe and his party have really messed the country up so I assume this is a good thing. But only time will tell if Mugabe actually leaves, peacefully or not, and weather whoever may replace him is any better for the country in the end.
BBC - They are denying any agreement or talks in the works so maybe this is all premature.
Update (4/2/2008): It is looking good for the opposition. The ZANU-PF (Mugabe’s party) is behind 50 to 43%. The Wash Post is still reporting a runoff may be necessary, but that doesn’t make sense considering the opposition party has 50.%
His speech was amazing today and I would be willing to guess that it outlives the campaign. I don’t really have words that haven’t already been expressed here and here amongst may others. The NY Times just released an editorial that is particularly poignant. I hope this is the beginning of a new chapter in the American experience, lead by a statesman who is willing to teach and to direct us through the many difficult and complex issues we face.
The following quote from the NY Times Editorial sums up his speech for me.
Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government. But he did not stop there. He put Mr. Wright, his beliefs and the reaction to them into the larger context of race relations with an honesty seldom heard in public life.
and
We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.
You can view his speech here or read it here, though you must see it to appreciate his tone and presentation. Hopefully this is the beginning of the discussion. This man is exactly what we need in a President, someone who can teach, someone who can lead, and someone who can filter the spurious and irrelevant from the important and valuable.
Bear Stearns has been sold to JPMorgan for $250 million. That is straight up phenomenal. I’m a little disappointed about this part:
The companies said that the Federal Reserve would provide special financing in connection with the transaction and that the Fed had agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns’s “less-liquid assets.”
I don’t think we should be bailing out these fools for getting us into this mess in the first place. That doesn’t pass the sniff test. First we print $200 billion which I hear is half the amount the Fed has available to hand out, and now we are backing the riskiest securities of the now dead investment bank. More info on the steps leading up to this available at DailyKos. Get the money printing press going, time to start printing those greenbacks, money for everyone, at least if you’re an investment bank serving the richest of the rich and only the rich. We wouldn’t want the home in the Hamptons to be foreclosed on.
We have a sub-prime crisis that is ravaging consumers and multinational banks alike. So what do I open today? a notice that I’m eligible for the Economic Stimulus Payment that could pay me up to $600 this year.
Dear Taxpayer,
We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which provides for economic stimulus payments to be made to over 120 American households. Under this new law, you may e entitled to a payment of up to $600 (%1,200 if filing a joint return), plus additional amounts for each qualifying child.
Some may be saying yipee, but I’m sitting here thinking, what does this really do? What am I going to do with $600? I’d prefer the gov’t use it to pay down the debt, but that isn’t going to happen. How does $600 really solve anyone’s problems? At most this is maybe one month of rent, one month of child care, one month of food for a family. It is a small statement and its going to some people who have no need for it. That money would be better spent providing healthcare and other services that would save people much money in the long run. Citizens of this country would benefit more from better healthcare both in cost and care, a solvent Social Security system, VA benefits for war wounded, than they will from this $600 infusion. This is nothing but pandering and is more likely to end up going towards a new plasma TV that it is going to help cover the bare necessities. Does anyone else find this vaguely insulting?
“You lose your home or job? here’s $600 bucks, have a round on me.”
Russia recently “elected” its new President Dmitry Medvedev to follow Vladimir Putin. Many are writing off this change as nothing more than window dressing and expect Putin to continue to hold most of the political power. This may be the case especially due to the current structure of elites, where you have different factions fighting over control of private and public resources, each with the backing of their own security services.
However, there are small signs that he may put his own spin on the Russian political scene. Medvedev is probably slightly less beholden to security services and more closely connected with the economic liberals in the state, elite bureaucracy. The liberal faction and the Siloviki have increasingly been at loggerheads over the past couple years with each side using the courts, prosecutor’s office, FSB (KGB successor), and Drug police to push their own interests at the expense of the other side. Major flashpoints have included the natural resource monopolies such as Gasprom and Rosneft along with the state controlled arms exporter, Rosoroboroneksport, which has been expanding its international commitments and visibility substantially.
So, what will the next 4 years look like under Medvedev? An increase in prominence of the liberal St. Petersburg Liberals, or the strengthening of the FSB aligned organizations? I think initially the liberals will gain in influence, especially as people become tiresome of the corruption that reigns at the local level. The state control of national industries is not really about nationalization and the common good but the pocketbooks of powerful bureaucrats and politicians. State action for “the people” is really just a mask for appropriation by another group of criminals. It is the 90’s only the owners happen to be state representatives who are buying nice dachas.
I then predict a big push, motivated by declining oil and gas production yields due to low investment, towards reducing corruption in the major state industries and possibly more partnerships with western companies. Russia will not be able to fulfill all the export contracts it has signed and will end up in a bind reducing its position as the energy provider of first resort for Europe. Russia’s quick rise to prominence over the last 7 years will then collapse as the domestic situation continues to get worse and unrest grows.
The Putin high can only last so long and eventually major change will occur. Whether this becomes a gradual change to political liberal democracy or more authoritarian rule is anyone’s guess, but I would hazard to guess the hybrid Putin created is over. Only time will tell and I can only provide my thoughts as a starting point. What does anyone else think?
This post is inspired by a posting that was made on a media newsgroup. It described the new Unofficial Ron Paul “Revolution” video by Aimee Allen (already has a song that many probably know titled Revolution) as a response to the will.i.am “Yes We Can” video made in support of Obama. Both are embedded below. I don’t believe the Ron Paul video matches Yes We Can in message, impact, or effectiveness.
The Ron Paul video (embedded above) is slick, well produced and appeals to our pop sensibilities. But that’s exactly the problem. It is a pop video that utilizes a political message. The message is token, the depth lacking, and the lasting power or internet phenomenon potential limited since in reality its just a music video. I must caveat this by saying that who knows what Aimee Allen’s true intent was. Maybe she wasn’t looking for the same respond will.i.am’s video received and maybe the Ron Paul campaign is just losing steam. It is definitely more engaging to the eye than the “Yes we can” video due to the visual content (looking at celebrities over and over gets old after the first minute or two). BUT, I think the Ron Paul video triggers the pop culture part of our minds more than the political side. The message gets lost in the glossy packaging. It is ineffective as a political rallying cry since the minute they throw in the Suicide Girls, people will be thinking about them and what will come next visually rather than any message that is in there. They might pull in a few young eyes who think Aimee Allen is hot, but I’m not sure how SGs translate into revolution or Ron Paul. Not to mention
half the time they yell Ron Paul it could just as easily be Run Pull. More pop using a little political messaging rather than political messaging utilizing a pop medium. Don’t see the emotional tug that will.i.am’s originally had.
More “that was cool” than “what a great message”
The Obama video (embedded above) on the contrary is minimalistic, almost reminiscent of the NBC public service announcement ads. The Message is political, the format is political and it uses a pop medium to that end. The celebrities are almost inconsequential, as most B and C celebs are anyways. Its the words and message that gets all the focus, as its repeated over and over again. Yes it helps that its a very well crafted tag line, its tough to beat “Yes we can”, but as with the adoption of “change” by every candidate the message is also in the packaging. I believe Obama’s unofficial ad really found a balance between pop and politics
Share your comments below.
Update: As you can see from one of the comments below, the Aimee Allen video is actually not an official video, but was an early version that was prematurely leaked. I think the analysis still stands as when, what, how, or why it was released is not as important as what is on the web now. Maybe the official video will have a completely different feel to it, but this is the content we have to consider for the moment. I look forward to the official version. At a minimum the original video had a lot of potential, so in the end it could blow the Obama ad out of the water. I hope they still complete it and post it even though Ron Paul has now discontinued his campaign activities.
I want to know when this Primary will finally come to some resolution. It is really a draining experience. I feel lie a drug addict and my drug has become the constant flow of news and political gossip flowing through my veins. Just make it stop. But what happens when it does stop? Uh oh, maybe football season will be here by then….
MSNBC Debate…. Well the debates have been interesting enough, in the same way watching dough rise is fun. Hillary looks like a shrieking hyena in its death throws, while Obama sits there like he’s been here 19 times before, oh wait he has. She continued to come off looking petty to me, manipulating and distorting her way to her convoluted non-points. She complain about Russert, she complained about Obama, she complained about a pillow or something and hey she even managed to weave SNL into the debate. Does anyone even watch that show anymore? Tina Fey is so very not funny and never has been.
Many bloggers, I mean professional gossip commentors, a.k.a ME, seem to think Russert sucked and was badgering Hillary and Obama too much….huh!!!!???? I thought he was great, for once he wasn’t going to just let the candidates regurgitate their talking points and instead would call them on it when what they were saying was not the true. Hillary couldn’t get outta that NAFTA argument no matter how hard she tried cause she was flat out lying. Why do progressives some how think that type of grilling is bad? I’m starting to come to the conclusion that they just can’t handle seeing those they support get asked hard questions. Maybe Russert is harder on Dems than Elephants, but seriously that doesn’t mean in the Dem primary that good accountable journalism for once is a bad thing. Grow up you whiny nincompoops. If you can’t answer Russert effectively you have no place being in this election. Its as if they fear the next swift boating. Progressives better be ready this time for the attacks that are going to come the Dems way, and Russert can’t even tough how bad they’ll be (Case in point).
You’ve also gotta love how she basically tried to call Obama an Anti-semite when everyone expected her to say something nice and defend Obama. Rather she just looked like a twit … again.
On March 4th….Hillary should be forced to leave after the March 4th Primaries. Maybe that’s why a few high level dems are waiting to endorse, so they can nail the coffin shut when it really needs to be nailed. I see Obama winning by 10 points in Texas and over performing the current polling and pulling even in Ohio. If he wins Ohio by any margin or loses by any number less than ten she still should be outta here. I don’t see how she can raise the money to keep her in the race through April 22nd and the Pennsylvania Primary, essentially her last, last, last chance. But even that is down to a 6 point margin so what choice does she really have? If she stays in the pressure will become unbearable and all she’ll be doing is ruining any reputation she’s got and maybe screwing over Obama’s general election prospects in the process. Pariah numero uno. I just don’t see it happening.
So, expectations should be high that she’ll be outta here on the 5th or shortly thereafter, maybe after a moment to reflect and appreciate the magnitude of the moment.
So….. lets hope this doesn’t drag on too much longer because new episodes of House are coming back on and lets get real, that is what is most important in America.
As many have probably heard the Clinton campaign used the Drudge Report to leak a photo of him in African tribal wear to make an underhanded attack against him (for those who haven’t follow the link). This is reminiscent of the comments used by Good ol’ Bill in South Carolina.
The worst part is when the Obama campaign called it exactly what it was, racial baiting, the Clinton campaign sought to say that Obama must find something wrong about this and he’s the one with the problem. mmm, whoa back the horse up…..you release a picture you know is meant to inflame racial tensions in America and then its the subject of the hit who is responsible? Once again the Clintons have reached a new low.
I hope they fry for this and I’ll do my best to help contribute to that process. This is the dirtiest of the dirty and obviously means that the Clinton campaign will attempt a scorched earth policy, pulling out all the stops to bury Obama. Sadly for Obama he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. This story needs to die because its a question he doesn’t want to answer, because it makes the campaign about race, a distinction he has explicitly avoided.
It is up to us to fight this fight for him and contact all those super delegates and tell them not to stand by her on this one. Tell them this type of campaigning is unacceptable, and we won’t stand for attack a man just because its black. We expect that of Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, but definitely not the Democratic party.
