It was strangely coincidental that as Samantha Power's image was being plastered on the news I was, as I noted in my last Reader Blog, in the midst of reading her new book - Chasing the Flame, about Sergio Vieira de Mello, the late UN diplomat and Special Envoy to Iraq who was killed there in 2003. It seems also interestingly coincidental that I am in the midst of Sergio's lengthy time in the Balkans just as the New York Times places this update on their front page, announcing that Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica has dissolved his government for "failing to support his efforts to preserve Kosovo as part of Serbia." The carnage that Power witnessed in the region when she was working as a foreign correspondent shows up repeatedly in her descriptions of Sergio's work there; though it's almost 10 years since the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo described in such horrific terms in this book and in her previous work, the current news is a scary reminder that nationalism is alive in Eastern Europe and it is not just possible but likely that violence will take hold of the region again. Unfortunately, due to the American foreign policy of the last several years, if Serbian nationalists were to go on the march again, it is unlikely diplomatic efforts this time will succeed in quelling it (not that they were that great the first time around).

The long-held fear of the anti-Iraq-war movement, or at least, among the ones who weren't becoming isolationists, was that our engagement in Iraq would create "collateral damage" on our ability to conduct foreign policy and push diplomatic interests in other areas of the world. Samantha Power, that "dumb" one, to read this morning's NY Post, addresses this idea of "collateral damage" in an extended lecture at Northwestern University. (YouTube is awesome.) She notes that it is not just that our military and economic power are overstretched and unable to respond to other external threats, but also that our "soft power" has been compromised - that concept written about by Joseph Nye that pertains to our nation's ability to convince other countries to follow our interests based on the example we set and the attractiveness of our culture, government, and position. Much of Power's own advocacy of human rights intervention is in the interest of pushing our soft power - not by being the world's policeman, but by being that figure that puts an end to bullying and stands up for what's right as an example to other nations. This was an important, if oftentimes compromised, position that America played with in the Balkans, but regrettably just as the region seems again at the crossroads, we may find ourselves unable to influence those whose nationalism has given rise to terrible violence in the past.

This is one of the reasons why this election is important. Its one of the reasons that I become so uncomfortable when leaders seem less concerned with their ability to repair soft power than they are with proving they can lead armies and maintain military supremacy or diplomatic exceptionalism. It worries me when I read a post by Zvika Krieger on The New Republic's Plank blog that cannot find much in any of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy wonkiness that says anything about public diplomacy or attempting to rebuild our global soft power through the dissemination of American ideas - in a world that exists beyond Iraq and Afghanistan that is still just as unstable as it was before 9/11, regaining American soft power should be the expressed goal of the candidate for president. It should be the first thing they talk about in what is increasingly becoming the most important foreign policy election in recent memory. They should come out and say how they, specifically, are going to heal the image of America abroad; and not just by ratcheting up diplomatic opportunities with nations we have adversarial relationships with, as Barack Obama has suggested, but by making more concerted efforts directed at the publics and nongovernmental organizations that work within those countries. It is our responsibility as Americans, and global citizens, to push this line of questions, to ask not just how the new government will protect us in the short term but in the long term by improving our image abroad.

And it's important to note, we don't improve our image by withdrawing completely and becoming isolationist. This is a mistake that some in the anti-war movement aren't thinking through completely. Believe it or not, following the mess of the Bush presidency, we're going to have to engage the world even more. We're going to have to become global citizens, all of us, in order to fix this. We're going to have to scale back our military power and make more concerted, atoning efforts with our diplomacy. We've been hit with so much propaganda about the weakness of diplomacy, and it may cost those who push for it political points (you should note; Hillary Clinton knows this - this was the seed behind her critiques of Obama's promise to meet with leaders). But in order to fix this, we have to stay involved with countries that threaten global stability. That means engaging diplomatically with a Serbia that is getting more angrier, not being concessionist with strong men in Russia or Zimbabwe that undermine democracy, not standing by when governments and militias commit genocide. We have to, or else we will become marginalized, and less safe.

So when the candidates talk about foreign policy credentials, in the primary now and also in the general, and when they talk about what makes a good "Commander-in-Chief", I hope they will show understanding of the new responsibilities that America must face. Because so far those that are portraying themselves as "experienced" seem not to have learned much from it.

I'm sorry, I'm going to need a minute.  I am very upset about the announced resignation of Samantha Power as a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama.  For those of us who follow foreign policy and human rights policy in particular, Samantha Power is a fascinating and inspiring figure - a brilliant woman who has lectured and written equally from her heart and her head.  Her Pulitzer-prize winning book A Problem From Hell is a passionately argued and beautifully written description of America's at times shameful and always complicated history during the genocides of the 20th century - it remains my favorite non-fiction book; the first one I will recommend to friends and colleagues and has inspired more than one of my own written works.  (I'm currently reading her newest book, Chasing the Flame about Sergio Vieira de Mello - I also recommend.)  Her profession, and her approach to it, makes her a somewhat undiplomatic politcian, but I was still absolutely thrilled that she joined Obama's campaign, and was one of the first reasons that I became an Obama supporter - clearly he was attracting the top minds, many of whom were critical of the practices of the past (Power, like myself, is very critical of the Clinton years - the inaction on Rwanda, the ignorance of the power of strong leadership in the Balkans).  Her statements were in this diplomatic vein, and however much some of us may agree with her statements, they weren't in the best taste.  Certainly, though, they weren't any worse than the Clinton campaign trying to paint him as America's "hip Black friend".

Power's resignation probably wouldn't have happened if the Clinton campaign hadn't taken such offense to it and pushed for her to be fired.  But this is all part of a trend, and a strategy which I think is insulting.  It's very unfortunate that Power is a casualty of it.

I lament that my first three reader blog posts on TPM have all been very pro-Obama and anti-Clinton posts.  I remember very clearly a time, early in this race, when I said - whoever wins, we'll have the best candidate we've had in 30 years.  This race of juggernauts will serve only to sharpen the arguments for the Democrats, and excite the electorate to get involved (isn't Celebrity Jeopardy so much more exciting than regular Jeopardy?).  But as this race has been dragged into the rough, Clinton's strategy has become maddening and damaging.  Every time someone has made a political push against her, rather than engaging (as is the norm, in politics), she throws up her hands and plays the victim, either herself or through one of her surrogates.  It's as if she is saying that she must be judged by different standards than other candidates, and her strategy of victim-hood and "all these people are ganging up on me" is working - her supporters, especially women, run to her aid.  Unfortunately for women in this country, if she wins the nomination using this strategy, it will not be on feminist terms, but on anti-feminist terms.

If Hillary is such a fighter, and has spent most of her political career trying to downplay the negative stereotypes of women in politics, she now has no trouble embracing them.  By portraying herself as the weak woman who must be protected from the big bad Obama campaign, or the big bad media, she is praying on the kinds of psychology, both among women and men, that have repressed women in Western societies for the last century.  Even her statements that she eluded to in the debates about being "tested" were perceived (at least in the media and it seemed by the audience in attendance) to be sympathy-drawing statements about her marriage to a no-good man.  Feminism is not about playing the victim, it is about your womanhood being a source of power.  Feminism is not asking to play on a different level from the men but by being treated as equal to men.  Ultimately, any power that is achieved through shows of weakness or helplessness, or is granted because of "special rules" is not real power.  It is merely temporary support that can be removed as easily as it is given.

(You have to wonder how it would look is Obama framed his campaign and his responses as being victimized by Clinton, the same way Black men are victimized in America.)

Feminism is very important, and recognizing it, as opposed to false feminism, is vital.  Feminism is not claiming that everyone is against you and trying to play by different rules.  It's challenging yourself to become a major intellectual, challenging male-centric foreign policy circles and bringing a respected and distinctly feminine voice to the practice of human rights advocacy.  It's certainly becoming a major Democratic Party figure defined more by your actions and positions than by the fact that your husband was president.

Feminists fight the stereotypes of weakness.  Not by acting too weak to play with the boys.

More than a couple bloggers/soap-boxers/analysts have used the metaphor of "Scorched Earth" to describe Hillary's strategy in Ohio and Texas - her campaign was aware that the numbers didn't add up to a possible nomination, so from the outside it seemed like she was doing everything she could to destroy Obama even if it destroyed the party.  Ultimately, I find this an ineffective metaphor - Hillary is not stupid, and the idea that people have been floating that she's destroying Obama and giving McCain an easier shot at the presidency so she can rally and come back in 2012 is beyond ludicrous.  If anyone in the campaign was thinking that, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person who e-mailed that stupid photo of Obama in Somali garb to Matt Drudge.

Her victory, and what the next few weeks are looking like, have given rise, at least in my mind, to a better metaphor: Hillary as hostage taker.

It's not a nice thing to think about.  The math has not changed, essentially - the net delegates won was very small, and Clinton would have to present near impossible numbers, something in the 70's, in all the remaining races to catch up.  Obama is actually in a much better position than that because he has this mystery fundraising number to disclose and some time out in the open without a race for the next couple weeks, which is traditionally when he does better.  This, however, is small potatoes, because one major thing has changed in the race (and it's not momentum). 

Hillary Clinton has proven that she can wound Barack Obama.

I know.  It didn't seem possible.  He seemed to be playing a different kind of politics.  He seemed to be a master at inoculating himself against a host of different attacks
 and making her seem exactly like every negative stereotype much of America imagines her to be.  Yet now she has proved she can hurt him, and she has demonstrated she will continue to hurt him as long as she has to and as harshly as she has to.  She's like the hostage taker, and she's taken Obama hostage, the gun to his head, presenting an ultimatum to get what she wants.

And who is the ultimatum to?  The Democratic Party (she took them hostage, too).  She knows that the only way she wins the nomination is if it is essentially given to her in an extrademocratic way by the superdelegates.  They see the race going towards Obama.  With this result, and her vow to "fight on", Hillary is saying that if this goes where the math says, I'll take him out.  You've just seen I can do it.  And then what will you have for the general?  If you don't want that to happen, you step in and you put a stop to this silliness.  You fuel a jet, put it on the runway, and send it all the way to Denver, or else.

There should be no confetti right now, for anyone.  Not Obama, because he's lost a lot of his control over the race and what happens here on out (oh, he could keep winning - it probably won't matter).  Not the superdelegates, or the party, because they're on the cusp of losing this race that should have been an easy win when they essentially make the choice for the electorate.  Not Clinton certainly - she shouldn't be happy about doing this, regardless of how poisonous she believes an Obama nomination would be in the general.  This is the worst possible position the Democratic party has been in since the beginning of this race.

I think we need a negotiator.

James Kirchik has a post up on The New Republic's "The Plank" that takes Barack Obama to task for his foreign policy "naivete" demonstrated in his recent Ohio speech on Israel:

[J]ust because anti-Obama smear artists exist does not mean that legitimate questions about his positions ought also be categorized as scurrilous. A telling line in Obama's speech last week is illustrative of these concerns:  "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." 

Such protestations about the all-encompassing power of "Likud" is a trope in the victimization rhetoric of peace-processors who constantly blame Israel for the region's woes while pretending to be valiant friends of the Jewish State.

Hillary couldn't find a better example of Obama's foreign policy naivete than his attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of our most important ally in the Middle East. Given that Likud will probably form the next Israeli government, why would Obama go out of his way to ridicule the party and declare that its sympathizers in America have a nefarious influence on our politics? Statements such as the one Obama made last week are highly unusual and ill-advised for a presidential contender, never mind a president.

I think this demonstrates a misreading of Obama's comments, but also is representative of a larger trend in criticisms of Obama's political language.  Kirchik tries to make a direct link between Obama and Jim Moran, who outright criticized the Likud.  But piggy-backing Obama onto this doesn't seem appropriate, excepting the fact that both men said the word "Likud." 

To describe Obama's comment as "ridicule" of Likud is ridiculous - questioning unwavering support is not a removal of all support.  Throughout his remarks he shows a strong support of Israel but in these short passages rightly calls for Israel to take responsibility for itself and prove its ability to handle itself diplomatically; and that American support is not something set in stone if they prove themselves not deserving of it. 

But on that subject of "unwavering support": much of Obama's appeal among the weary post-Bush electorate has been his abandonment of the politics of absolutes.  Voters remember the false criticism of John Kerry as being too "nuanced"; now they want a careful Executive who does not rush into things for the wrong reasons and weighs all options.  His populist supporters even hope that he may be an Executive who will speak about the pros and cons of decisions and relationships to the American electorate with a transparency we haven't seen in the last eight years, rather than providing a pat "you're either with us or against us" type of response.  Kirchik may read this statement as being dangerous, or being offensive to Israel, and perhaps many in Israel may believe that it is.  But in no way does he remove support from Israel, just demonstrates a care and caution that is vital at this point in time.  This kind of language I believe demonstrates a reaffirmation of American interests as a mediator of the conflict, not one who must always take sides.  If Obama must take sides in this issue to please certain allies, then perhaps it is up to them to demonstrate to him (and hopefully publically to the American people and to the State department, populist fingers crossed) that a hardline support is in America's interest.

This is not to say that Israel is not in danger - of course it is.  And this is not to say they shouldn't be our ally - of course they are.  Obama agrees.  But it seems to me that after the last eight years, and the most damaging foreign policy decision in American history, to speak about absolutes is not the most intelligent way to go about our foreign policy.  To me, this isn't naive.