YouTube and the Death of Pandering

Sorry for the radio silence on the blog ... life is the biggest enemy of the writer in some cases.

In any event, this TPM piece on Bill Clinton is a must read. The big takeaway is that in the decade plus since Clinton last campaigned for president, things have changed:

"He's obviously got the same shrewdness and political canniness on many levels. But again and again through this cycle, in little ways and big, he's shown he's not quite in sync with this political era, doesn't quite grasp the new mechanics -- both the ideological texture and the nuts and bolts of the networked news cycle."

Now, juxtapose that analysis with this recent interview with Mark Penn from The Guardian. The whole interview is fascinating, even though he's mostly marketing his book on micro-targeting. Here's the money quote from the piece:

"Thus it was that Bill Clinton's successful 1996 election strategy, overseen by Penn, targeted "soccer moms", a label he coined. And thus it was, Penn's critics argue, that for too long Hillary's campaign was a muddle of small, contradictory, cautious messages, when what the moment required was passion, inspiration, and a promise of change."

Some folks would criticize the use of small, targeted, sometimes mutually exclusive messages. In the best cases, it's merely "knowing your audience." In the worst cases, it's pandering. Bill Clinton campaigned in a world wherein it was nearly impossible for anyone but the most embedded insider to have a meaningful interaction with those contradictions. Fast forward to 2008, and we have a hugely prevalent 24 news cycle, a hyperactive blogosphere, The Daily Show, and a seemingly bottomless trough of online streaming videos.

In short, "gotcha" can now be played passively.

-Education Dude

30 Years from Now, This Won't Seem Like a Good Idea

Secretary Gates notes that the weapons systems we develop should be focused on winning the wars we are currently fighting:

The Army program, whose total cost could exceed $200 billion, “must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face,” as well as for the full-spectrum of conventional conflict for which it was designed, Mr. Gates said.

As we've argued, exclusively focusing on asymmetrical conflicts now will lead to potentially catastrophic consequences in a future war with a country like China.

-Law Dude

Life Imitates Two Fairly Liberal Dudes

Daily Show's take on the Meet the Press Interview where Hillary's campaign chairman incorrectly said that Russert's father is dead.

While you're there, check out this interview with Doug Feith. The interview concludes with Jon's standard pitch for the author's book: "The book is very footnoted, and makes for SLOOOWWW reading."

The Calendar and the Democratic Primaries

The more analysis I see, the more it seems that the calendar of primaries was probably the greatest strategic obstacle in the nomination process ... especially given the Democratic candidates' near cookie-cutter policy platforms. Three particularly salient examples:

1) Michigan and Florida - Nothing that hard to master strategically here, but the struggle over the delegates in these two states continues to illustrate the jockeying that goes on to dominate the calendar itself.

2) Early Caucuses, Late Primaries - This Politico profile of Obama's delegate counter is telling. Obama was able to build nearly insurmountable leads by understanding the calendar. Yes, there were big states on the horizon for April and May when Obama's team was toiling in the February/March caucuses, but accumulating delegates early was the right strategy given his evident weaknesses in states where working-class voters dominate Dem primaries.

3) Candidate Identity - Check out this Ben Smith post on Sen. Clinton. I have seen arguments that say things like, "Had Hillary embraced the culturally conservative, gun-loving, champion of the working-class persona earlier, she could have won." Smith debunks this completely by illustrating how there is virtually no chance that a more conservative Clinton would have done better in the early primaries given that: 1) earlier states had more liberal, affluent voters; and 2) John Edwards had already cornered the market on the populist persona, and much more convincingly at that.

Anyway, I thought that was fascinating. Makes Obama's imminent victory all that much more remarkable, given that he was - for the most part - able to stick to a single, coherent message throughout the primary season.

-Education Dude

Foreign Policy Realism: Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli

The National Interest turns in a funny, yet prescient comparison of US foreign policy alternatives to the Corleone family's strategic concerns in the first Godfather movie.

The punchline is that Michael's realism dominates in a world of emerging multi-polarity. Both Sonny the neocon and Tom the liberal institutionalist seem antiquated by comparison, given their mindset of hegemonic Corleone power.

Also check out the May/June Foreign Affairs for a fantastic analysis of what a multipolar world might look like, and how a blend of hard and soft power is more likely to deliver advantageous results than an either/or strategy.

-Education Dude

Clinton Campaign’s Chairman = Best MTP Guest Ever

Terry McAuliffe says Tim Russert’s father is dead during a meet the press interview. Turns out he’s alive.

MR. McAULIFFE: Absolutely. We will be together. This is--we're in a primary, we're both trying to win the nomination. But it's not impossible for Hillary Clinton to win. A lot of people have said that. Big Russ, if he were sitting here today, nothing's impossible. Jack McAuliffe, if he were with us today, they both--they're probably both in heaven right now, Tim, probably having a scotch, looking down and saying, you know what, this fight goes on. It's good for the Democratic Party. Millions of people coming out to vote. It's exciting.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, Big Russ is in the Barcalounger still watching this. God bless him.

Luckily that wasn't awkward at all.

-Law Dude

You Heard it Here First (Maybe)

Obama-Biden ticket.

Sweet foreign policy experience.
Picking a VP who is from a swing state is overrated.

-Law Dude

Was that .... relevance?

This is fascinating:

"Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama."

Just to be clear ... while HRC is fabricating imaginary, politically-motivated, intellectually lazy policies (see: gas tax holiday, 2nd amendment, enhanced citizen-hood for Guamanians) Obama just made headway toward peace in one of the world's most volatile regions.

Remind me, why are we still talking about this primary?

-Education Dude

Truth v. Fiction: Truth Wins

You can't make this stuff up ... two days ago, Sen Clinton made a bold prediction about today's Kentucky Derby:

"'I'm betting on the filly' -- a sentiment that Clinton has expressed. She has picked Eight Belles, the only filly in the 20-horse field."

Well, guess what happened? The filly - Eight Belles - had to be euthanized on the track after breaking both of her legs finishing second. To a horse named Big Brown.

-Education Dude

Don't About the Forget the Future Wars

Time Magazine today analyzed David Petraus’ promotion to head CENTCOM:

Gates has made clear that wants commanders able to carry out the messy, irregular kind of combat championed by Petraeus that the Defense Secretary envisages the U.S. fighting for years to come. The promotion reinforces the message he delivered to young Air Force and Army officers on Monday, when he criticized their leaders for devoting too much time and effort to future potential wars, and not enough to the real wars now under way.

While our military should adopt tactics that will provide military advantage in Afghanistan and Iraq, exclusively focusing on these conflicts endangers our national security. The enemies America fights in the “War on Terror” will never possess the resources to inflict catastrophic harm inside the United States. By contrast, a future war with a country like China easily could result in unprecedented domestic destruction.

Instead of a myopic focus on today’s conflicts, the military should engage in a two-tracked policy that defends the U.S. and our allies against Islamic extremism while at the same time protects America from more serious future threats.

-Law Dude

It's Not About Winning, but How you Win

Hillary’s Argument: "Obama really is highly vulnerable in a general election, so vote for me if you want a Democrat to win in 08."

This is the argument she presented to PA and this certainly is the argument she presents to superdelegates.

But if she wins the nomination, she will be far more of a weakened general candidate than Obama. There is virtually no way for her to win the nomination with the most popular or pledged votes. If she wins the nomination on the back of superdelegates, a coalition of young voters and African Americans will see their will overturned. Not only will these Obama supporters be disinclined to support Hillary, but will potentially sit out the election or even engage in 1968-style Chicago convention protests. Given these potential outcomes, it’s difficult to see how Hillary would be any less of a flawed general election candidate as Obama supposedly is.

-Law Dude

Revisiting When it's OK to Torture

During his tour through Europe, John McCain distanced himself from Bush policy by recognizing that waterboarding was torture and declaring that the U.S. would not engage in any similar practices during his Presidency. With this declaration, it is clear that the next Presidential administration will not permit techniques which much of the world would view as torture.

Given this forthcoming change in torture policy, let's revisit past academic defenses of torture. Most commonly, torture is defended in situations where it would be used to prevent mass loss of life. This lesser of two evils/ utilitarian approach was famously articulated in Charles Krauthammer Weekly Standard article, “The Truth about Torture.”

Under Krauthammer’s view, torture is justified in two situations—1) in the “ticking time bomb” scenario where a terrorist who has information that can prevent an imminent terrorist attack refuses to talk; 2) in the “slow-fuse time bomb” situation where a high level detainee like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knows, but refuses to disclose, plans for future terrorist attacks. In both situations, Krauthammer recognizes the moral abhorrence of torture, but views torture as necessary to save lives.

This approach is flawed, not because it is inappropriate to apply utilitarian principles to determine whether it’s appropriate to torture, but because of the assumption that there are only two ends of the scale—the immorality of torture vs. the number of lives saved by torture.

Instead, there are additional costs of torture that Krauthammer fails to recognize.

1) Evidence of the U.S. torturing detainees will be used as a propaganda tool to recruit more terrorists. Without question, images from Abu Ghraib have been a recruiting boon to extremist organizations that seek to recruit foot soldiers willing to attack American interests.

2) U.S. policies that at least tacitly approve of torture harm U.S. alliances.Widespread reporting of the U.S.’s extraordinary rendition program has chilled U.S. allies’ willingness to support the U.S.’s “war on terror.”

Moreover, 3) evidence derived from torture may not be reliable. Although the CIA may disagree, the FBI does not view information derived after techniques like waterboarding as particularly reliable.

Given these costs and the dubious value of evidence derived from torture, torture should only be used in the most extraordinary circumstance. Under the hypotheticals posed by Krauthammer, torture should only be applied in the most clear “ticking time bomb” circumstance—where the government has removed almost all doubt that massive lives will be lost without torturing a terror suspect. Applying torture in other situations, including Krauthammer’s “slow-fuse time bomb” scenario has undoubtedly dealt a blow to America’s future interests in fighting the “war on terror.”

-Law Dude

Am I reading April Fools Op-eds? Because these guys can't be serious...

A NY Times op-ed argues “The West needs to change its approach to Mr. Mugabe. Years of isolation and ineffective sanctions, with which he has fueled his propaganda campaign, have only driven Mr. Mugabe downward.”

Really? Maybe the author should have tried to get this article published before Mugabe got trounced in the elections. Because the only “conversation” the West should have with him should be about respecting the results of a democratic election and stepping aside.

. . . .

This op-ed does not deserve a response other than the observation that Republicans must really want Hillary to win the primary. This article appears to be a Republican's attempt to weaken Obama by continuing to discuss Wright and taking advantage of people who didnt see the Obama speech by bringing up "sensational charges about white racism." For someone who saw his speech, it's hard to say that Obama's discussion of white racism was "sensational."

-Law Dude

A Half-Full Kristol

I agree with Education Dude that Bill Kristol erred by not acknowledging in his op-ed the serious disparities between blacks and whites under numerous indicators of well-being. In addition to the education statistics cited by Education Dude, African Americans lag behind whites in income and access to healthcare and are arrested and incarcerated at rates far disproportionate to their size in the general population.

Certainly, a way to reduce this inequality is to explicitly target disadvantaged African Americans with government assistance. But this goal can also be achieved through race-neutral government action. The government can reduce poverty, poor education, and injustice in the legal system in a color-blind way (say by infusing money into inner-city job and education programs and eliminating the crack-cocaine/powder-cocaine sentencing disparity). African Americans will be disproportionately helped by such measures and racial inequality will be reduced. When Kristol speaks of a “results-oriented” approach, I hope he is thinking of such measures.

-Law Dude

A Half-Empty Kristol

I had an incredibly visceral reaction to Bill Kristol's pronouncement that, for the younger generation in America, racism isn't an issue. Perhaps the tremendous rhetorical and cultural integration of the under 30 crowd signals that sort of telos, but our political institutions tell a completely different story. My specific expertise is in urban education - hence my moniker - wherein the "achievement gap" between white and black students remains remarkable. So, while cultural discourse tells one story, our institutions tell a different one, notably a story that is fraught with the same divisions as those of earlier American generations. We cannot let folks get away with this sort of nonsense.

-Education Dude

Conservatives and Obama

Good piece from the Chicago Tribune's Chapman. Pretty interesting stuff from a conservative guy. I'm fascinated by the divide in conservative reporting after the "race speech." There are even signs of dissent on Fox News.

-Education Dude

Life Imitates Two Fairly Liberal Dudes pt 2

Excellent article on when politicians should be blamed for the actions of their surrogates. Choice quote:

"And it's worth knowing that Hillary's top political adviser, Mark Penn, has spent the campaign delivering preposterously self-serving spin, since he'd presumably continue to deliver preposterously self-serving spin in a Hillary White House. "

This article supports our previous argument that it is ridiculous to claim that Hillary is the victim of sexist attacks when she is criticized for the actions that Bill takes on the campaign trail.

-Law Dude

This is not going to turn out well….

The New York Times reported today that that Pakistan’s newly democratically elected government seeks to negotiate a truce with militants in the country’s tribal areas. The last truce between the Pakistani government and these militants resulted in the creation of a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, resulting in increased violence in Afghanistan.

If the Pakistani government moves forward with this plan, the U.S. is faced with some unattractive options. The U.S. can continue providing aid to Pakistan as a reward for the transition of power to a democratically elected government, despite that government following a policy directly counter to U.S. interests. Or the U.S. can make aid contingent on the U.S. being able to engage in predator attacks on suspected militants in this region, thereby risking destabilization of the democratic Pakistani government.

There are no easy answers to this situation. How a Presidential candidate would respond would provide valuable insight into the judgment he or she will exercise as commander and chief. I hope that the media asks the candidates what they would do in Pakistan.

-Law Dude

Finally Someone Is Saying It ...

Politico's VandeHei and Allen have a mythbusting piece out today: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D1491726-3048-5C12-0099B6F95FDE6303

The myth?  That there is any planet in this universe of the next on which HRC has a chance of winning the candidacy that doesn't mean:

"An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else."

Are there still hotel rooms left in Denver??

-Education Dude

Handicapping the Richardson Endorsement

He couldn't have done this before OH/TX?!  With that out of my system ...

I actually think there's a positive interpretation to the Obama camp rolling out this endorsement now.  I've heard folks say that Richardson's cred in the Latino community beyond his home state is questionable, so maybe the impact on TX's strong Latino community would have been minimal.  Plus, given the fact that it seemed like the Gov was leaning in the Obama direction for a while, the endorsement was sort of like keeping "one in the chamber" in case some stuff went down.  And stuff decidedly went down.

So, while not positioning this endorsement before some states where Richardson's voice might have had a bigger impact, this timing actually demonstrates how remarkable the Obama campaign functions vis-a-vis long-term strategy.  I think that as much as anything else bodes well for a presidency.  Especially given the recent talk about McCain's lack of vision at TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184584.php) and elsewhere.

-Education Dude