My thoughts on Iran have been swirling all weekend. Broadly, I have been reflecting on the way this spectacle renews the lesson we seem to have to relearn periodically about the importance for us here in the 'City on the Hill' of managing our expectations for the rest world. Hard realities and so on.

If it is not clear yet, I suspect it will be clear by noon today (Monday) that the weekend's events have dealt a considerable public relations blow here at home to the Obama program of engagement with Iran, and potentially even to his broader vision of engagement toward 'the Muslim world' outlined last week. I don't believe the merits of that approach have been changed at all, but in terms of a swing of conventional and elite opinion on the question, I think Obama will be on his back foot starting Monday morning. I hope I am proved wrong about that, but I think it is likely that the narrative of a young president displaying hope and optimism only to be presented with a response such as this will be too much for a cynical media to pass up. Should that happen, it will be worth asking oursleves whether it had to be the case.

First a counterfactual: consider the impact a legitimate Ahmadinejad victory might have had. Would it have backlashed against the engagement initiaive as much as I expect the events that did transpire will? It is true that this is rather moot, as it appears such a victory was utterly out of the question. But had it appeared less clear that Ahmadinejad would lose (or conversely less likely that Mousavi was going to win, or at least force a run-off), would a legit Ahmadinejad win in fact have been a more desirable outcome for those of us hoping for engagement than what we have seen? On balance I think it would. Of course, we didn't know what was in store. But in retrospect, it appears to me that the spectacle of the 'green wave' served primarily to bring greater Western media and chatteringclass attention to Iran's elections than had a landslide Ahmadinejad victory been both expected and observed. Western hopes and expectations for major change in Iran were only heightened due that attention, and it seems that we have arrived at the worst of all possible outcomes: maximum international attention to a horrendous, anti-democratic spectacle of tyranny. (The coup language is curious, as a coup is something that happens to a paty in power, not that is done by one. This is an anti-constitutional -- depending on Iran's constitution -- act of tyranny.)

Greater attention would have magnified the effects in the West of a legitimate Ahmadinejad victory as well, of course. But I think that what we have witnessed lends a special kind of (let me be clear: public relations) rebuke to Obama's approach, an approach which I still unequivocally support.

Expectations games are very difficult to win (though the Republicans seem to have little problem winning them consistently).  I should make clear that I was not on the right side of my own 20/20-hindsight advice here. I was quite expectantly hopeful. (The 'expectant' part being key; simply having a preference and hoping for it to carry the day is of course part and parcel of any democratic process.) But I can say that as I observed optimism here rising, I made a point of considering what the consequences of raised hopes and heightened expectations in the West for this election might be, should the (in some quarters) hoped-for outcome not come to pass. I suspected it would be the standard fare from the usual suspects. I certainly didn't foresee a coup-in-reverse. But I did note, along with my rising expectations and foreboding about what they might entail, that I had absolutely no idea how much confidence to place in the transparency of any part of Iran's election system: vote, vote-count, reporting, official deferrence to results, etc.  So the question is, tomorrow morning are we looking at the usual carping from the usual quarters, as we might have had had Ahmadinejad won outright (even with raised expectations), or are we looking at a changed foreign-policy-opinion landscape? We'll know in a few hours.

Either way, given the above, and given the fact that a change in the office of president of Iran is in any case a rather less significant event than some might think or others wish it to be, it seems clear that this is a case of having to re-learn a tough lesson (manage expectations, including your own) the hard way.  We'll soon enough find out how hard that way turns out to be.

The odds that Obama will get rolled into a war with Iran just went up about 50%.  It's as simple as that.

I know it's been a while since I rapped at ya, but I've ha a bunch of crazy stuff has been going on in my life lately, and...wait that's a different column.;)

I just watched most of the debate again on CNN with a close eye on their tracker.  Holy shit, uncommitted female voters in Ohio f*&@ing LOVE Joe Biden.  My God, that orange line just jumped for him, time and time again.  The green line (guys) wasn't far behind.
Men seemed to respond better to Sarah Palin than women (shocked!).  But they also responded very well to Biden, especially during his closing statement.  The very final moment of the debate was the end of his statement, and both of those lines, but especially the women, were pushing the very top of the happy-meter.  
Additionally, as Palin started to speak, women tended to dial down a bit, warming somewhat as they listened.  But then often something Palin said would lose them again.
It's universally acknowledged that security moms lost Kerry the 2004 election.  Democrats haven't won men for decades; women are the ultimate swing demo.  And women in Ohio are the precious gems all campaigns dig their fingers off for.
I think it looks possible that the pick of Joe Biden, especially as compared to McCain's crude, ugly play for Hillary voters, might turn out to be a strategic death blow that the Obama campaign quietly dealt to McCain's chances some six weeks ago.

Recipe for a free-for-all:
Ingredients: - 1 imminent economy-threatening financial meltdown - 1 massively unpopular 0.7-trillion-dollar Wall Street        bailout proposal advanced by a White House with a 26-percent approval rating - 2 mutually-non-respecting Presidential nominees locked in a tight and bitter late-stage race
1. Combine meltdown and bailout in Congressional pressure-cooker; simmer over low-to-moderate heat for 2-1/2 days.

2. Add presidential candidates; increase heat to media-frenzy temperature.  (Stand back).
3.  Serve over long-awaited foreign-policy (+ economics) debate.  
4.  Enjoy guests' ooohs and ahhs.

Have been about the following in order of conscious intent for John McCain/his campaign:
1.  Debate expectation-lowering and stake-raising
2. Heading off major press coverage of Davis' complicity and Palin's debacle, which together would have amounted to a semi-collapse
3. Ensuring a bailout but avoiding being tied to it

John McCain's debate finance crisis answers are going to be all about this phantom alternative plan McCain's trying to scare up among Congr'l. Repubs right now.   Also, all the Repub unhappines with the bailout talks as they now stand certainly has its legitimate aspect -- they really are, at least in some cases.  But it's also a blindingly obvious presidential politics assist to McCain -- they need to undermine perceptions of support for the deal that was done in principle before McCain arrived today in order to justify his presence/gambit.   
further, Joe Scarborough just made the point to D. Gregory that I neglected in my previous post but I think was implied: the ramped-up interest and the fact that Obama insisted on the debate raised expectations massively for O whileattempting to get out of it crushed them down for McCain.  In fact, I think that's what this was ALL about: Repubs always ALWAYS seek to radically win the expectations game around debates.
Obama needs to come through tomorrow and his bar -- of his own lifting -- is now set way, way higher that 36 hours ago.

I know it won't endear me to anyone, but I think Karl Rove has a point in this WSJ op-ed: 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230655620873931.html
If what Karl says is true (I know, I know!  I said IF!), and Obama did lobby hard to have the first debate on foreign policy, then his advisors either disagreed that the first debate is the most critical, or they must have believed that Obama is actually STRONGEST on foreign policy.  I think it must be the former, because even though I agree Obama is or should be seen as stronger than McCain on foreign policy, as a matter of comparative advantage I think it indisputable that Obama is MOST strong vis a vis McCain on economics and domestic policy.  Mind you, this is all speaking politically, not substantively.
Well, that was how I would have called it before the last two weeks.  NOW, I don't think that there can be any doubt about it: this upcoming debate will be the most important, or at least most anticipated, political event of the season, as McCain's ploy and Obama's standing firm have ramped up interest.  This would be good for Obama, except that, officially at least, the topic of the debate remains foreign policy.  If that remains true in practice, then what Obama is really insisting on here a major coup for McCain: a sudden subject change to McCain's relevant strength, one which McCain in all actuality suggested against.
If I had been counseling Sen. Obama this morning, I would have advised him to respond to McCain's attempt to get special treatment from the debate commission by seeing and raising McCain.  I would have had him make this statement:  "I agree that the planned event this Friday is not entirely appropriate to events as scheduled.  A debate on our who has the best ideas and temperament to keep this country safe and strong in this new century is the most important task we need to accomplish in this campaign, and it must take place in a setting of clarity and national reflection.  The ongoing negotiations about how to best address the acute economic crisis now facing our country do not provide that setting of reflection.  However, the grave economic conditions our country currently faces does not allow us as leaders simply to postpone our responsibility to communicate to our citizens a plan to restore responsibility and get the economy back to work.  Therefore, I call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to officially change the topic of Friday's debate to the economic challenge that now confronts our nation, so that the American people can hear from us about what it can expect us to do to restore America's economic promise and let us begin to believe again in the American Dream.  If the Commission will agree to such a change, then I believe the debate in Oxford must go forward on Friday, and I will be there, as I hope Sen. McCain will be.  If the Commission insists at this moment of acute economic uncertainty that a foreign policy debate would serve the country best, then I am afraid I must disagree because I do not believe this is the right moment for that debate.  I will not be suspending my campaign."

An edited version of a comment I posted under Greg's excellent summary of the Palin selection story to date:

The frame of this story needs to shift to being about McCain's judgment and therefore his readiness to lead. Gov. Palin is not the problem, but rather McCain's cynical, impulsive, manipulative, and irresponsible decision to nominate her for an office she is not in a position to hold responsibly.

The press will need to be pushed to this necessary frame; right now a great deal of resistance stands in the way, by way of their swallowing the Republican's claim to be holding a non-political party convention, with the consequence of Democrats' response being stifled.

Consequently, it is imperative that this shift of framing be initiated here in the blogosphere, where the one-sided putative time-out on politics is not in effect.

My comment on Greg's excellent sum-up of the story thus far:

The frame of this story needs to shift to what this says about McCain's judgment and therefore his readiness to lead, and the increasing likelihood that his advisers have been dishonest with the media about the vetting and the candidate's awareness of the Governor's various ongoing circumstances. Gov. Palin is not the problem here, but rather McCain's cynical, impulsive, manipulative, and IRRESPONSIBLE decision to nominate her for an office she is not in a position to hold responsibly.

The press will need to be pushed to this necessary frame; right now a great deal of resistance stands in the way because they have swallowing the Republican's claim to be holding a non-political party convention, with the consequence of Democrats' response being stifled.

Consequently, it is imperative that this shift of framing be initiated here in the blogosphere, where the one-sided putative time-out on politics is not in effect.

We are all happy for Miss Palin and congratulate her on her engagement.  Senator Obama's statement that candidates' families are not to be part of the political debate is a laudable position as well.  I believe no one intends to make Bristol Palin's situation a political issue, myself certainly included.
What must happen, however, is that serious questions be asked about Ms. Palin' readiness for the office she is a candidate for, and about how his selection of the Governor reflect on John McCain's judgment and readiness to lead.
Bristol Palin's pregnancy seriously undermines the notion that Gov. Palin is ready to take over as the first in line to the presidency. The Governor is the mother of an infant who will have special needs throughout childhood, and now we find out that another one of Bristol -- who is seventeen years old --is pregnant as well. Gov. Palin has a poor record of keeping personal and family matters separate from official duty, by which I refer to the firing of the AK public saftety commissioner. This record does not assure the public of Gov. Palin's ability to attend to the obligations she will face in the next four years in being a parent to both a child with special needs as well as to a teenager with an infant child of her own, AS WELL AS manage the rigors of the continuous preparation necessary to be ready at any moment to become the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military as well as the chief executive of the entire U.S. government.

If it is true that John McCain did know of the Bristol Palin pregnancy when he made his decision, this shows a stunning lack of seriousness about the real-world, post-election importance of the vice presidential selection. Conversely, if he was not aware, this only serves a further evidence of the minimal vetting Gov. Palin received before her selection. Either circumstance raises significant questions, despite his experience, about Sen. McCain's judgment and therefore to his claim to be 'ready to lead.'

These are legitimate questions about Senator McCain's judgement as well as Governor Palin's ability to serve in the office for which she will be nominated in two days.  Asking them does not turn the pregnancy into a political issue.  Rather, it raises necessary questions about John McCain's judgment and readiness to lead, as well as serious concern about leadership at the top of the U.S. government in the unlikely but possible event of Sen. McCain's election and quick incapacitation as President.
The press must not be intimidated by the Bill Bennetts among them into credulously neglecting these real questions, and should they be, the Obama campaign must not be afraid to raise them directly.  False charges of sexism or fear of undue politicization of candidates' family circumstances cannot be allowed to prevent a full examination of voters' legitimate concerns.

The following is an email reprinted at Marc Ambiner's blog at The Atlantic online.  Comments?

To the George Washington University College Republicans Chairman, Brand Kroeger

Greetings,

My name is Daniel Boehmer and I am a member of the College Democrats here at George Washington University. I additionally served as a member of Nicole Capp's cabinet as Assistant VPJLA to Andrew Salzman and on the Joint Elections Committee (JEC) this past year. A long time supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton these past 16 months of her campaign, the selection of Sen. Obama has placed me, like many other Democrats, in an odd position. For me however, the debate between 'loyalty' to my party and voting based on my conscience was quickly settled. I determined that my support would, in lieu of Sen. Clinton's nomination to the Democratic Party, be given to Sen. John McCain. In light of this development, I believe that the GW College Republicans community finds itself with a certain measure of responsibility with regards to the members of the Democratic Party who wish to support John McCain in the Fall. Providing these individuals with some form of organizational support, in my opinion, is a valuable step towards weakening the sway of Sen. Obama's supporters on campus and would ultimately lead to John McCain seeing more support on campus and in the Washington community at large.

First, let me say that I regret to admit that I myself will be unable to actively participate in such a venture as much as I would like, as a result of the fact that I will be studying abroad in the Middle East this summer and this coming fall semester. With this in mind, these words come more as a suggestion than a pledge of an ability to participate at GW in this effort, though I certainly know of individuals more able to help coordinate this effort.

I suggest that either 1) under the auspices of the CRs or 2) by means of the formation of a separate student organization "GW Democrats for McCain" or 3) under the auspices of the organization "GW Students for McCain" the CRs orchestrate the creation of a Democrats for McCain chapter at GWU. Such an action, I believe, is perfectly justified this year because of the large number of supporters of Hillary Clinton who should be compelled to vote for John McCain over her underqualified former opponent, Sen. Obama. It is of course up to the discretion of the CRs which action they might want to take on this matter; however, I highly recommend providing a means for Democrats at GW to support John McCain as a candidate in the Fall. I myself would certainly encourage many of my fellow Hillary Clinton supporters to do the same.

Although I do not have the ability myself to be fully responsible for such an organization, I still felt the need to put forward my recommendation that it be created. Whatever course of action you may take in further John McCain's candidacy this fall, I wish you success.

Good Luck in November,

Daniel A. Boehmer

 

 

There is a really good diavlog at Bloggingheads with Chris Hayes of The Nation Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard.  They cover a wide range of topics from the McCain campaign's foibles and fumbles to Rick Perlstein's Nixonland and the Packer piece, and on the campaign I think capture pretty well the stalled phase we are in right now. 

They have what I believe is the most reasoned discussion of the pure politics of the appeasement (etc. etc.) debate that raged loudly a week or so ago.  They seem to agree that it is a debate with some potential upside for Obama, if he plays it correctly, and wonder if he should portray his position as a radical break with the past on talking with international actors we see as adversaries.  

I wanted to post my two cents on that question here and see if I get any feedback, because I believe this is maybe a crucial point for Obama's positioning both as related to this topic and overall going into the fall.  This is from the comment I posted on the Diavlog:

"This topic should serve as THE defining point on which Obama connects McCain to Bush: McCain's position is Bush's, except where it's even MORE extreme. (In fact McCain's position is meaningless, since we do talk now to Iran at various levels under Bush, and contrary to Continetti's distorted characterization of the You Tube debate, Obama did not and has not promised to meet with any head of state, only their "leaders." In fact he has not promised to talk with unsavory types at all, only affirmed his WILLINGNESS to do so without PREconditions, which is not the same thing as UNconditionally. But back to the politics, since the merits are not a winner for anyone here, since it's all gibberish anyway since no one is representing correctly what he said, AND McCain's policy is not in place even under Bush.)

Obama must portray his stance on diplomacy not as something radically new, but as the restoration of the American way in foreign affairs: diplomacy first, violence only if made necessary by bad actors, and then according to the Powell doctrine. It's not new; it's tried and true (except when we stray from it and get stuck in unwinnable wars, of course). If he ties McCain to Bush on this question -- which he absolutely MUST do because it is one of the most unequivocal points on which they are in fact tied -- he can allow it to be the symbol of the restoration he would bring of the firm confidence with which America has traditionally confronted the world, and of the overall direction he wants to take the country in.

Watching Hillary Clinton campaign in these final days is painful.  It's painful for me, so it has to be painful for her supporters.

Arriana Huffington has a damning-because-of-it's-sincerity paen to the working class warrior, embracing the partial-triumph view of her defeat that is offered in this Sunday's New York times.  She says that her campaign has "forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out."

I believe a great opportunity is being passed up by Mrs. Clinton noe as she continues in her futile quest for the nomination.  Since Indiana/NC, she has railed againt people trying to push her out of the race, when there were none of those peopleamong the oppostion.  Then she went after press characterizations of the race as over, and now she taking it upon herself to explain to us how many Electoral College votes the states whose primaries she has won represent.  I don't mean to disparage the importance of counting Electoral votes, especially since election law states that only the winner of a given state's party primries are allowed to compete for that state's Elecctoral College votes.  (Right?)

So I undersatnd her wanting to help us all undertand these vagaries better, but how about this for a modest proposal:  What if, rather than extending an a stultifyingly venal five-month-old discussion of arcane Democratic Party nominating rules, she picked one or two or eight of the issues facing our country that she feels most passionately about, and tuned her campaign into a powerhouse effort to drive the direction of her party where she wants it to go substantively.

So Barack's health plan isn't universal?  Well, get him to make it so!

Don't like his views on merit pay for teachers?  Get him to cave to the NEA!

Don't like his views on role of lobyists?  Make him hire some!

Against talking with dictators unless they give in to your every demand before negotiations start?  Make him renounce his 'willing'ness to do so!  (Okay, I just coudn't think of much beyond that first point, but certainly she could--and if not, well, more later on that...)

Hillary is now occupying that sweet spot at what will be the height of her influence, no longer bound by the strictures of having to avoid any possible incident of misspeaking.  If she played her cards right, and cared to, she could plausibly stand to affect the policy priorities of a major party's presidential ticket more than any figure not appearing on it in, well, a long time I suppose.

She should ask herself then: what was all of this about?  What was it for?  Are there things she wants to see the Democratic Party do with their coming majority (of which she will be part)?  Or was she really just running primarily so that young girls of the future would be able see themselves in higher office, as the Times piece seems to suggest might be the most significant (possibly lost) opportunity that her candidacy represented? 

And if that is the case, if there wasn't an animating reason for her campaign that related to our country's needs and not who she is, she should ask herself why it needed to be her, and not one of those girls who she implies we would never elect if we didn't elect her--but who we surely will.

And if there was, is, such vision for the meaning and purpose of this two-year meatgrinder she has put herself through, let's hear about it, Hill!  You're a tragic hero in the eyes of half a party!  Make it count! 

In a previous post today, I wrote that the Republicans today landed a two-punch combination in the general election for president, and that the Democrats did not respond effectively. I wrote that the party had better wake up to what kind of fight they are in, and that means unifying. Commenters assured me this was one just news cycle, to relax, that the Knesset stunt was a joke, and so on. I'm responding here. First, to amend my initial assertion that a one-two was landed against Obama today. Make it a three-punch combo. I tend to agree that the actual Knesset speech was the least effective attack pf the day. But once it was seconded by McCain and elicited such a tepid (and non-candidate-specific) rebuke from Hillary Clinton, I think it is safe to say it had some effect. The upshot of the episode then, as has been exhaustively pointed out, was that McCain's 2013 vision speech was ecclipsed. However the consensus view that this is helpful to Obama is mistaken. If it were isolated as the majoor story of the day, the 2013 withdrawal scenario would be treated as a major policy reversal and potential epic panderin the mainstream presspress. As it happened, however, the misdirection allowed McCain to put on the record his pivot without it being focused on widely as the flip-flop it is. Then for the topper, McCain doubled down on the negotiting with terrorists theme on a blogger conference call, broadening the attack into a thundering bodyshot to Barack Obama's fitness for the Commander in Chief role. As i said earlier, this will be a major weakness for him until he is endorsed by Hillary Clinton in a speech that fully retracts her own questioning of his readiness and makes clear it was a cynical campaign overstep that she never truly believed. Anything short of that from her is a shiv in the side of his candidacy (and her own party). All that aside, here is the larger point that I am confident is being drawn from today in Chicago and other Democratic strategy centers: Polyannism regarding good Democratic fundamentals is not going to get the man elected. Yes, this is one news cycle, but it is a key one. Memes get implanted early, and while we are all celebrating California, independents tonight are quietly noting McCain's left-face on Iraq and the party's silence on his calling Obama unfit for the office. All news cycles are not equal. Democrats have lost elections before that they should have won (more than once) (and more than twice) because of media snowflakes that turned into avalanches. The overconfidence coursing through the party these days chills me to the bone. The candidate (who to me seems thankfully to be suffering less than most from this malady) must always put on a confident face. But we rank-and-file should be more vigilant. In every campaign there are slow days, standard days, and important days. And then there are a few signal days. My whole point is that this is a signal day. We found out what this campaign is about today, and we found out that John McCain and the White House are playing to win. And we saw them take the initiative from a campaign that is still quite tied up in resolving matters in its own party.