Today, Haaretz is reporting the results of an independent poll suggesting that most Israelis and Palestinians are willing to live alongside each other peacefully in separate states - 74% of Palestinians and 78% of Israelis.

Dig a little deeper into the polling data, however, and the results are not nearly so encouraging as the organization that conducted the poll, One Voice Movement, would have us believe.  

For example: 

- With respect to final status, 59% of Palestinians polled deemed an Islamic Waqf from the Jordan River to the Sea as "essential," and an additional 12% as "desirable."  71% said "greater Palestine" from the Jordan to the Sea was essential and 11% found that option desirable.  How these apparent preferences square with a two-state solution is left unsaid. 

- In contrast, only 17% of Israelis deemed the "greater Israel" option "essential" while 47% found "greater Israel" to be "unacceptable." 

- The numbers for acceptance of the 2-state solution are only arrived at through some creative math, adding up the 38% who say two states are "essential," 15% who find it "desirable," 10% who say it is "acceptable," and 11% "tolerable." 

- The numbers of Israelis supporting the two-state solution are similar.  32% say "essential;" 13% "desirable;" 16% acceptable; and 17% "tolerable." 

- Among Israelis, the preferred option seems the two state solution, with 45% calling it "essential or desirable" and just 21% unacceptable.  Among Palestinians, 53% found the two state solution essential or desirable and 24% unacceptable.  These are probably the most encouraging numbers.

- A rebuke to those who favor a one-state solution:  the shared state option was found "unacceptable" by 66% of both Israelis and Palestinians.  On this, at least, both sides seem to agree.

- The numbers of pure rejectionists was around equal on both sides: 24% of Palestinians and 21% of Israelis deemed the two-state solution "unacceptable."

- Obviously, though, one has to look closer at what the two sides mean when they talk about a two-state solution.  An overwhelming majority of Palestinians foresee a right of return and compensation for 1948 refugees and their descendants, while nearly as large a majority in Israel find that prospect unacceptable (indeed, such an absolute right of return would destroy the Jewish majority in Israel).  Thus:

- 87% of Palestinians said the right of return and compensation were "essential," and an additional 5% "desirable."  48% deemed the right of return to Israel without compensation as "unacceptable."  The option of limiting the number of refugees to Israel to family members and numbers agreed to by the two parties was deemed "unacceptable" by 75%. 

- The only options that seem even close to passable are (1) Israli recognition of the suffering of Palestinians and resettlement of most refugees to the West Bank and Gaza with some to Israel, deemed "unacceptable" by only 24%, and (2) the UN closing the refugee camps and resettling refugees with compensation outside Israel, which was "unacceptable," to 51% of Palestinians, but at least tolerable to 47%. 

- Israelis were only slightly more flexible on the right of return.  A full 60% found "unacceptable" the option of Israeli recognition of the refugees' suffering and a return by most to the West Bank and Gaza with some returning to Israel.  77% found the right of return with compensation unacceptable as did 83% without compensation (one has to wonder why fewer were opposed to return with compensation than without).  Only 14% opposed resettlement with compensation by the UN.  A large marjority of Israelis would accept or tolerate the return of refugees to a Palestinian state. 

- 93% of Palestinians said it was "essential" that Palestine have an army.  63% of Israelis said that was "unacceptable." 

- On the issue of settlements, 98% of Palestinians said that it was "essential" that all settlers leave the West Bank and settlements demolished.  Among Israelis, 53% said the removal of all settlers and demolishing of settlements was "unacceptable," while the remainder would seem to accept this option.  51% were opposed to dismantling most of the settlements, move settlers to large blocks and exchange land. 

- Another curiosity: "The idea that settlers who choose to stay in Palestine/a future Palestine might like to take up Palestinian citizenship seems to be equally 'unacceptable' to both Palestinians at 61% and Israelis at 69% while having the option to choose citizenship is also rejected at 66% and 58% 'unacceptable' for Palestinians and Israelis respectively." 

- On the issue of borders, 86% of Palestinians ('essential or desirable') would like Israel to withdraw to the 67 Border. 60% of Israelis consider this option 'unacceptable'. The potential for compromise would appear to be for Israel to withdraw to the 67 Border with adjustments through agreement of equivalent exchange of land. This option is 'unacceptable' to 30% of Palestinians and 39% of Israelis and 'essential or desirable' for 49% of Palestinians and 20% of Israelis with another 21% 'acceptable' and 11% 'tolerable.'

- On the issue of Jerusalem, the parties seem to be irreconcilably divided.  91% of Palestinians desribe all of Jerusalem being part of Palestine as "essential."  45% of Israelis say it is "essential" that all of Jerusalem remain in Israel with another 11% saying it is "desirable."

- With regards to the Old City the suggestion that it should be under international control was equally 'unacceptable' to both Israelis and Palestinians at 72% and 71% respectively. Similarly joint control of the Old City was not particularly attractive at 69% 'unacceptable' for Israelis and 59% 'unacceptable' for Palestinians.  Similarly large majorities on both sides also opposed division of Jerusalem in various permutations.

- Asked to identify the problems with the peace process from a list of 20.  The top five for Palestinians were 'The freedom of Palestinians from occupation/Israeli rule' 1st at 94% 'very significant' (15th on the Israeli list); 'The settlements' 2nd at 89% (13th on the Israeli list); 'The substandard living conditions of the people in Gaza' and 'The security wall' 3rd and 4th both at 88% 'very significant' (16th and 21st on the Israeli list) and 'The Independence of the Palestinian economy' 5th at 87% (17th on the Israeli list).

- The top five problems for the Israelis were 'Terror has reinforced the conflict' 1st at 65% 'very significant' (15th on the Palestinian list) followed by 'Maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel' 2nd at 62% (16th on the Palestinian list) then 'Incitement to hatred' 3rd at 52% 'very significant' (20th on the Palestinian list); 'Agreements not implemented for lack of trust between Palestinians and Israelis' was 4th at 48% (12th on the Palestinian list) and 'The problem has become global' 5th at 42% 'very significant'.     

If, as former Washington Post publisher Phil Graham once famously said, journalism is the "first rough draft of history," what can one say about "live blogging?"  At virtually every major event these days we are treated to shots of some youngsters sitting in a special area at their laptops and headphones engaged in this pursuit.  But I wonder, is it just me, or does anyone really get anything out of them?  No knock on Josh Marshall, but take a look at his live blog of tonight's presser.  Maybe it's the format - it's tough to pay attention to what is going on and write something meaningful at the same time.  So let me coin my own, hastily conceived, iteration.  Live blogging is the note taking of history.  I can wait for the rough draft. 

Perhaps too much ink has already been spilled - or more accurately, bytes expended - on the Chas Freeman appointment.  For a relatively obscure appointee to an intelligence post that most of us probably have never given a moment's thought to and aren't likely to again, the subject has been blogged and flogged beyond recognition, touching on such blood-pressure-raising issues as the influence of the so-called "Israel Lobby," the scope of its influence, the "divided loyalties" of Israel's supporters, and the role of the United States in the Israel/Palestine conflict.  With the fallout over Ambassador Freeman's withdrawal and the debate sure to continue, I'm posting this clear-headed analysis by Freeman supporter, David Rothkopf, from Foreign Policy (via Jeffrey Goldberg) that shines a light through some of the heat generated on both sides.  Along the way, he makes some apt observations about the nature of the blogosphere, specifically responding to the anti-Freeman effort, but that apply equally to many of his defenders. 

Full disclosure:  Unlike Freeman's detractors, I can't say I was terribly moved one way or another by the prospect of his taking the position.  On balance, I found the arguments against him a bit more compelling, though not necessarily significant enough to scuttle the appointment.  While I am not opposed to diverse voices, including critics of Israeli policy, in the foreign policy/intelligence community, Freeman's writings and speeches struck me as excessively focusing blame on one side only.  Moreover, his "realist" perspective, carried to its logical extreme, offended my beliefs as to the moral dimension of foreign policy.  My not-so-strongly-held belief was reinforced by Freeman's intemperate statement withdrawing his name for consideration that seemed to justify the worst fears of his critics.  What I found more interesting, though, was the debate surrounding the appointment,  In particular, rather than engaging the substance of the critique that originated from diverse sources across the political spectrum, MJ Rosenberg and other "pro-Israel, pro-peace" advocates depicted the spectrum of opposition as a coordinated effort by the monolithic Israel Lobby, opposition to which is seen as necessarily for the good.  By lumping all criticism of Freeman together under the banner of his most reactionary foes, these commentators ape the methods of those they seek to oppose and perpetuate a narrative that does a disservice to their cause.  

That said, here is Mr. Rothkopf's post.

There was a lot I didn't like about the Chas Freeman debacle, but the thing I did not like most was the degree to which it offered apparent support to the "theories" of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. 

Freeman's own response to his lynching-by-blog cited the Israel lobby in language so full of anger that you can easily tell it was written in the heat of the moment. For those who would argue this proves he was too intemperate for the job, please. He was publicly pilloried, his exceptional career negated by arguments that were for the most part lies and distortions. He had been unable to respond publicly to them for weeks. Frustration built up. And frankly it is easy to see how and why he may have concluded that his downfall was proof of the existence of the Israel lobby. Personally, I have really been struggling with that issue for the past few days myself, wondering whether it was time to acknowledge that perhaps Walt was right.

Walt, needless to say, did a little victory dance as well, offering commentary that was supposedly focused on the injustice done to Freeman but which really was a smug "I told you so" laden with a list of co-conspirators with names so Jewish that I could hardly read it without cringing. He added his obligatory "some of my best friends are Jewish" sentence listing some Jewish supporters of Freeman and threw in his tired old "I am the one who is a real friend of Israel" trope saying, as he always does, "I really have the best interests of that country at heart and if they would only listen to me they would be much better off."

Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose "views" were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power.  In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear.

Believe me I don't lightly come to the ultimate conclusion that this incident should not change my view of their work. I was appalled by the mob mentality generated by the blog debate on the Freeman nomination. It produced some serious misgivings on my part regarding even being involved in the blogosphere because so much of what passes for discourse in this world is undistilled opinion and emotion designed to bind and stir up like-minded audiences. The rest is more like grafitti than thoughtful commentary, designed to leave a wannabe commentator's mark on the side of a passing issue.

There is no doubt that a small group of virulent supporters of Israel were at the heart of the movement to undo Freeman. This group was very effective in getting its message out and in mobilizing some in the government such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer to become their advocates. That in this instance, this small group acted to lobby on behalf of what they viewed as the interests of both Israel and the United States cannot be denied. But here is where the Walt argument starts to break down for me. The implication is that because these people had an interest in Israel, they put that interest before that of the United States, and I know for a fact that many of the people listed by Walt as Freeman's attackers certainly do not. Walt self-servingly implies that because some argue for strong U.S. support for Israel that means they are not putting America's interests first -- whereas it is also possible (and I think for the most part true) that these people feel that it is precisely because they put U.S. interests first that they end up advocating a close relationship with our most dependable ally in the Middle East. 

You want to debate whether Israel is a good ally? Fine. I'm ok with that. It even seems like a reasonable thing to do on an on-going basis as far as I am concerned.

My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States whereas those whose position is essentially to step back from America's historically strong support for Israel are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S. at heart...that somehow Walt & Co. are better Americans. 

That's the insidious heart of this. (Although there is almost something comical about arguing that it is "realist" to bank on the benefits that will accrue from better relations with Arab regimes that are notoriously willing to say one thing publicly today and do something entirely different later on and which are, in a number of case, at serious risk of being toppled. This is precisely the brand of "realism" that led to our successful support of the Shah, Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, and a host of other leaders who have permanently tarnished America's reputation in the world. )       

Furthermore, of course, there are several other problems with the Walt argument that remain even after the events surrounding Freeman's appointment. First, is related to an earlier point: The implication that when the U.S. government supports Israel it's because of the actions of this lobby and not because it is actually in the interests of the United States to support Israel. There is the notion that support for Israel comes from a monolithic group rather than one that is not only ethnically, geographically, economically, and otherwise diverse but one that holds a variety of nuanced views on a host of issues regarding Israel and the Middle East. 

There is also the idea that somehow this group is so powerful that it is dictating policy rather than trying to influence it like every other lobbying group in Washington, that somehow it is privileged or more successful among interest groups. More successful than the farm lobby in winning government appropriations? Hardly. And our farm subsidies because they are so hugely distortionary to trade are a source of tensions in a host of relations worldwide. More effective than a Cuba lobby that has gotten the United States to support a ridiculous, failed policy for 50 years? Not. (We allow more open exchange with North Korea than we do with Cuba, an impoverished, literally crumbling nation with no strategic significance whatsoever.) More inclined to put cultural considerations first than any of this country's national or ethnic special interest groups? Come on. Why, why, why, you have to ask yourself would you want to single out this lobby for special criticism? And why, if your purpose was to argue for a different U.S. policy in the Middle East, would you choose to focus your efforts on attacking the people who support an opposing view rather than on the merits of the policy you advocated? What makes the idea of this particular lobby more sinister than all those farmers or Cubans or African-Americans or gays or union members or Arabs or Taiwanese or Christians? 

No, there is only one reason to argue that the Israel lobby is somehow special or of special significance. It is to suggest that American policy in the Middle East is being driven by the interests of an especially unsavory group of ultra-powerful people who are masters at manipulating Washington. And we know who they are right? Well, actually, we do...it's the oil companies. But therein lies my point. The "Israel Lobby" is a distraction, a distortion and a vessel in which to carry and by which to explain and even excuse the hatreds and prejudices of a small group. It distorts reality, implies coordination where there is none, implies consensus across a group of people with widely divergent views, misinterprets the actions of a few as a plan of the many, overstates the influence of those it argues are involved, indicts the motives associated with a whole class of ideas enabling them to be dismissed before they are fairly considered, and seeks to argue that normal behavior in a democracy is somehow sinister for one group when it is healthy for others. Further, it tars opponents as members of a lowly lobby while reserving the intellectual and moral high ground for the views of Walt & Co. -- "you lobby, we are patriots." 

Did a small group of misinformed, intellectually intolerant individuals stir up a wave of criticism of Chas Freeman that distorted his record to the point that it was impossible for him to assume the role for which he was nominated? Yes. Are many associated with historical support for Israel? Yes. In so doing did they lead to a great disservice being done to Freeman and to the U.S. government? Also yes. But is it fair to say that they represented the views of the broad spectrum of people who support a strong U.S. relationship with Israel? No. Is it fair to say that all were part of an orchestrated attack? No. Further, while I hate what happened, as Americans we must defend the right of the Freeman opponents to lay out their views...and many of those concerns, the ones based on facts, were perfectly legitimate to raise. The problem is when political leaders cave to the sentiments of the electronic mob. In so doing, it is they and not the critics of the choice who debase the process and rob the government of the diversity of perspectives it needs. The actions and arguments of some members the anti-Freeman crowd disgusted me. But it was in the capitulation to them that the greatest disservice was done.             

One of the most heartbreaking stories to come out of Gaza during the still-simmering conflict was that of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu El-Aish.  For those who don't know, Dr. El-Aish is a Palestinian peace advocate, fluent in Hebrew, who received his medical training in Israel.  The doctor studied the effects of war on Gazan and Israeli children and promoted joint projects between the two sides of the conflict.  During the fighting, he served as a regular commentator on Israeli TV on the situation in Gaza.

On January 16, Dr. El-Aish's home in the Jebaliya camp was shelled.  Three of his daughters (ages 22, 15 and 14) and a niece, age 14, were killed.  Two others were badly wounded.  (The doctor had also recently lost his wife to cancer).  Dr. El-Aish's grief was captured in a cellphone call to an Israeli anchorman immediately after the attack.  If you haven't seen the video please take a look.  It is as raw and painful as anything you're likely to see.  The anchor managed to secure an ambulance for the doctor's wounded children who were allowed to cross into Israel and taken by helicopter to Tel Aviv where they are being treated.  In a press conference shortly afterward, he expressed hope that his daughters' death would help bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  The press conference turned ugly when the doctor was accosted by a few angry Israelis demanding to know why he had allowed weapons to be stored in his house. 

Dr. El-Aish told reporters he wanted to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.  "I want him to have the courage, to have the concern to meet me to tell me why, without falsification," he told Associated Press Television. "I'll be proud that my children were the symbol of this war - that their blood wasn't futile. That it awakened the concern of some, not the majority, of Israelis."

On Wednesday, the Israeli military confirmed that the girls had been killed by tank fire.  According to the military, the shells were fired because commanders thought there were spotters in the upper floors of the building directing mortar and sniper fire at Israeli troops.  The IDF said the doctor had been contacted previously and urged to evacuate his home because of the intense fighting in the area.  Dr. El-Aish denied that there were any militants in the building and said he never received the pamphlets urging residents to evacuate.

Far more important is the doctor's profound reaction to the unbearable tragedy he suffered.  From Haaretz: 

"First of all, I would like to thank all those who worked, and had the courage and good conscience to shed light on the truth that I always believed. Thank you to everyone who took upon themselves to publicize this truth seeking investigation," Abu al-Aish said in an interview with Channel 2.

The Palestinian doctor went on to say "I have two options - the path of darkness or the path of light. The path of darkness is like choosing all the complications with diseases and depression, but the path of light is to focus on the future and my children. This strengthened my conviction to continue on the same path and not to give up."

No doubt, many have and will seek to exploit this tragedy.  Indeed so many on this site who have lost so much less than Dr. El Aish regularly trade in the vitriol and demonization that is the staple of the poisoned discourse of the Middle East.  The words of this courageous, compassionate and thoroughly decent man stand as a forceful rebuke.  One wishes there were more like him on both sides.      

Haaretz is reporting that Israeli Defense Minister Barak (theirs, not ours) has reached an "agreement" with the settlers occupying Migron, an illegal outpost on Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank to move to another illegal settlement in three years. 

Migron was established in 2002 on private Palestinian land and consists of around 50 families, most living in trailers.  In 2006, in response to a petition by Peace Now, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered that the settlement be removed, but nothing changed while the defense ministry sought extensions to formulate a plan for doing so.  In January 2008, Barak and Olmert told the Court that Migron would be evacuated by August. 

Now, the settlers will be allowed to remain until the new settlement is ready in three years.  The new settlement will consist of 250 houses (with plans for 1400 units) and will be located east of the "separation" wall.  In other words, the residents of the illegal settlement who were directed to leave in 2006, will not be evacuated until at least 2011 while the new, larger illegal outpost housing them is readied.   

This is depressing news even for those who, like me, have withheld judgment of Israel's war in Gaza despite the unbearable carnage and suffering it caused.  Underlying my tepid "support" was the idea that Hamas' rule in Gaza sidelines any prospect of a two-state solution since the movement exists to oppose such a result.  However, even the most ardent supporters of Israel (I'll omit the religious zealots from this group, for obvious reasons) must recognize that the only effective long-term counter to Hamas is a viable alternative to its philosophy of armed resistance.  This means real progress toward a viable Palestinian State and tangible results for the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank that has chosen the path of negotiation.  

The only possible rationale I can see for Barak's move would be cynical posturing in anticipation of the upcoming elections (although I can't imagine him winning many votes among the settlers).  But by refusing to confront its own extremists, Israel sets back the cause of peace, weakens its only viable partner, and provides ammunition to its enemies.     

The mind-bogglingly obtuse action by Israel does provide an opening for Obama/Mitchell to differentiate themselves from the Bush administration and signal a new, more aggressive approach to peacemaking.  They should call Israel out on this, even if only symbolically.  Israelis pay close attention to the words of the American President carefully dissecting every utterance for its implications.  The meaning here should be clear and unambiguous: The settlements must be rolled back.   

[Note:  This was written as a response to Professor Todd Gitlin's post.  His point, if I may paraphrase, is that even those who, like him, oppose Israel's attack on Gaza will have to come to terms with what to do about Hamas.  It's a problem I don't believe has been adequately addressed by those who support Israel but oppose the war and leaves my own questions about the necessity, wisdom and morality of what is happening unanswered.  Anyway, I took some time to write it, so I decided to re-print it on this side of the "cafe."  I welcome your thoughts.]

 

Yesterday, breaking my vows of chastity and humility, I shamelessly solicited recommendations from those fed up with posts that sift through data to make the implausible claim that somehow we’re right where we want to be at this stage of the game. These posts come in many flavors, but in my (humble) view elevate wishful thinking above the sober reality that we have ample reason to fear. I received a number of responses (as usual thoughtful and informed) calling my attention to another pernicious side of the same coin. These are the posts prematurely lamenting the state of the race in near apocalyptic terms. In the interest of fairness and balance, I thought I’d devote equal time to them.

You know the type. The theme usually goes something like this: It was “Obama’s race to lose, which is about the only thing he’s doing a good job of.” This is followed by some example of how Obama is blowing it and a prescription for the only way he can salvage his campaign before it’s too late – if it isn’t already.

Many of our beloved dissidents are former Hillary supporters (I am one myself, so I know whereof I speak) still carrying their disappointment and hanging on to their belief that Clinton would have made a better candidate. Obama’s perceived stumbles validate this view and an undercurrent of “I told you so” permeates their criticism. At the least there is often an implicit comparison in which Obama comes out on the short end.

In yesterday’s Slate, Christoper Beam reviews (to comic effect) the conflicting advice urged on Obama by the backseat drivers.  To summarize for those who can’t bear to tear themselves away and check out the link: Tie McCain to Bush!/Don’t Just Tie McCain to Bush!; Get Mad!/Don’t Get Mad!; Take the High Road!/Lie Like McCain!; Go After Palin!/Ignore Palin!; Use The Clintons!/Ignore the Clintons!; Fewer Big Rallies!/More Big Rallies!; Screw the 50 State Strategy!/Screw the Swing States!; Get Specific!/… But Not Too Specific. If you ask me, my advice to Obama would be continue being yourself. Gore and Kerry both tried to be someone else. Let’s not go there again. On the other hand, you need to talk more about the economy in ways people will understand, punch up your answers, etc. . How easy to fall into that trap.

The constant second guessing seems a uniquely Democratic phenomenon. Rarely do we see the Republicans savaging their own with the same gusto. Sure, James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh had their problems with McCain, but now that they’re back in the fold, united against the common enemy (which includes the vast majority of Americans), we hear scarcely a peep from disaffected Republicans (More insidiously, David Brooks affects a phony stance of disagreement while surreptitiously carrying Republican talking points.)  Maybe it's the effect of losing so many elections. Or maybe that’s why we lose elections. Maybe that’s just our nature.

To state the obvious, the race right now is a tossup. It never really was “Obama’s to lose.” In fact, he’s always faced a hard road as an outsider with an unconventional biography, a young, relatively unproven, African American candidate.  It really does require a leap of faith.  That he's convinced so many thus far is an amazing story.  And let's not forget he's running against the only Republican seen as independent of Bush whose long love affair with the media is only now beginning to wane. Even as the press bemoans the dishonesty of the McCain campaign, they can’t help but point out what an honorable person he is. That’s a tough image to crack.   

So, you ask, if I decry in equal measure misplaced confidence and premature fatalism, what’s a poor boy to do? Well, you could turn your fury against me for leading you on this fruitless endeavor. You could move on to other, worthier topics like trout fishing in Alaska or the financial crisis. You could continue reading both types of posts as, truth be told, there are many interesting and worthy points made on both sides. Or you could get out and do your best to make sure Obama wins this Fall and we all go home happy.

Finally, I only reiterated my whoring for recs in the interest of symmetry. It is a practice of which I strongly disapprove. In fact, I don’t even care if anyone recommends this one.

There have been a spate of posts recently professing that everything is going fine, that there is nothing to worry about, that Team Obama has everything under control. 

Sometimes, the posts delve into the minutiae of the latest polls, explaining that, yes, while Obama may be trailing in Ohio or some other crucial swing state, the fundamentals are sound.  Statistics are broken down into their component parts to show the solidity of his support among this or that sub-group.  In the end, the poster arrives at the pre-ordained conclusion.  Look beneath the numbers that show Obama trailing and they will show that he is marching to a certain victory.  Generally, the logic is inscrutable, the details mind-numbing, so who's to argue?  

A second variant is the, "don't worry, we trust Axelrod and the campaign.  They vanquished the 'Clinton Machine,' so this old coot McCain and the scary-dumbass Palin will make easy pickings.  Just wait and see.  The plan will unfold."  Some have even gone so far as to say that Obama is employing a rope-a-dope strategy.  Obama is intentionally letting McCain take his best shots, absorbing them, and will emerge at the end the stronger fighter.  Somehow, Obama's falling behind is seen as an ingenious master plan.  Call me a cynic, but I'm fairly confident that falling behind at this stage was not part of the master plan.  

Another variant is to say, don't bother with the polls.  Obama's voters aren't counted.  We're relying on the ground game, which is more highly developed than McCain's.  It's hard to answer this one except to say that my recollection was that (with the exception of North Carolina), the polls during the primary season actually overestimated Obama's strength.   

Those who profess unease with the direction the election is headed in, or with Obama's 'strategy' - if in fact there is one at this point - are dismissed as "concern trolls."  I'm certainly no troll, whatever that life form may entail.  I am squarely behind Obama and will be heading out to those swing states soon to try to swing them the right way.  Nor am I "concerned."  Actually, alarmed would be the better term.  Shocked.  Dismayed.  Freaked out.  As I sit here wondering how McCain has seized the initiative and is fighting the election on his turf while Obama seems headed in the direction of other recent candidates of our party - complaining about the underhanded and dishonest tactics of his opponent, chastising the so-called MSM and insisting that he is correct on the issues while being drowned out by the Republican noise machine.  

Yes, there is plenty of time, and much that can change between now and November (the financial meltdown being one, as I watch my life savings disintegrate, another source of agita contributing to my expanding ulcer).  Obama will have a good opportunity to present his agenda in the debates.  But I am not comforted by wishful thinking and cheerleading that avoids the reality:  things are not going well and we need to turn this thing around now.  

Finally, this is the first time I have explicitly requested a "recommend" -- a practice I find generally distasteful in others and for which I am somewhat embarrassed, though not enough to refrain from "trolling"     

During the primaries, Obama managed to catch fire with an amorphous message of “change.”  The lack of a clear definition worked to his benefit.  To some, it meant a candidate who opposed the war from the beginning.  To others, it meant a different kind of politics, elevating civil discourse, empowering individuals and freeing government from the corrupting influence of lobbyists.  Others hoped to usher in an era of sweeping liberalism in contrast to the “poll-tested” “small-bore” initiatives and perceived centrism of the Clintons.  Still others saw in Obama himself the personification of change, of reconciliation between red and blue, liberal and conservative, and most important, black and white.  By presenting himself as the candidate of change - a concept that he allowed to mean different things to different people - Obama skillfully to set himself up as an alternative for a Party fed up with leaders perceived as having failed to stand up to the Bush administration. 

 

But by failing to offer a concise and compelling definition of “change,” however, the Obama campaign seems to have lost the initiative.  It has been distressing to watch over the past few weeks as 26-year Senate veteran McCain, representing the party of the deeply unpopular incumbent has managed to wrest the mantle of “change” away from Obama. 

 

Sure, McCain’s message of “change” seems to consist entirely of his opposition to earmarks (true in his case, patently false in the case of his running mate), an infinitesimal portion of the federal budget that mostly goes to fund worthy projects such as hospitals and schools.  But by focusing on a few extreme examples, he has captured some of the disgust with Washington that fueled Obama's success and portrayed himself as a genuine reformer.  Similarly, while the rest of his party, egged on by his noxious running mate, spews a steady stream of toxic rhetoric, McCain himself points to the few occasions in which he has bucked his party to further his bona fides as someone not afraid to take on his own party. 

 

The challenge for Obama now is to reclaim the change mantle.  Complaining about McCain’s underhanded and dishonest campaign tactics will not do.  Obama’s response thus far is eerily reminiscent of the Republican primary of 2000, when one George W. Bush beat back John McCain’s “reform” message by re-branding himself a “reformer with results.”  McCain’s response was outrage over the sleazy campaign of his opponent.  We all know who won the nomination. 

 

Yes, Obama needs to call out the deep dishonesty of the “straight talking” McCain, and to remind voters that on matters of significance, he really does represent “more of the same.”  But to capture the imagination of voters, Obama needs to put some meat and bones on his message of “change” that will set him up as the real alternative.  In other words, Obama needs to articulate more specifically the type of change he stands for, to give people a reason to vote for him. 

 

As always, I am interested in people’s thoughts as to how best to accomplish this, or alternatively, as to the utter pointlessness of such an exercise, and by extension, this post.

 

    Yes, that's right.  In anticipation of the wave of clutter sure to follow here after Barack's speech tonight, I thought I'd be the first to get in with my review.  I must confess, I haven't seen it yet, nor have I read the excerpts released a little while ago.  Indeed, it's still more than two hours away.  But why should that stand in the way?  The speech that has yet to occur was amazing.  Fantastic.  Inspiring.  A home run.  Hit all the themes he needed to and then some.  The energy was palpable.  The torch has been passed.  [Insert additional cliches below].  And how about that Bruce Springsteen performance that never occurred?  What a warmup!  Onward to victory in November.  I'm hung over already.      

There has been much ink spilled and breath consumed the past few days over the alleged rift between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Despite their many similarities as candidates, the Washington Post explains a profound estrangement arising not just from Bill's distress over charges that he had used racially coded language, but also from a generational divide.  To be sure, it is in both their interests for Bill Clinton to begin to heal the division (whether overhyped or not) with a rousing endorsement of Obama tonight.  Nothing less than his legacy and future influence in the Democratic Party is at stake as are the principles on which he has staked his political career.  

But there's another side to this issue that hasn't received a lot of attention and that's the Obama campaign's seeming reluctance to embrace Clinton's legacy, an eminently sensible step politically and one that would broaden his appeal considerably.  Of course, running against Hillary (and by extension Bill) in the primaries, Barack had to present himself as the candidate of change - which to a party fed up with leaders seen to have given Bush his way on the war and other depredations and suffering from Clinton/dynasty fatigue was a necessary and winning strategy.  He even went so far as to point to Ronald Reagan as the most transformative politician in recent history. 

The situation now is quite different.  With the economy emerging as perhaps the most significant figure, all Obama needs to do is point to the eight year run of prosperity enjoyed by the last Democratic administration, a shocking contrast to the mess the Republicans have made over the past eight.  Despite his personal failings, most Americans still believe Clinton to have been an outstanding executive.

Tying himself to the Clinton record would not only help to ease the rift but also helps alleviate the concerns (unwarranted in my view) among voters concerned that they "don't know what Obama stands for."  A large number of the undecideds profess unease with Obama's message of change (owing, it would seem, to unfair perceptions about his race, fair perceptions of his lack of executive governing experience or just plain sour grapes). With the primaries over, Obama should be doing everything he can to affiliate himself with the positive legacy of the most effective Democratic president of our lifetime.
 
I am not saying Bill Clinton is a Saint.  There are many valid reasons to be disappointed in him as a person and as a President.  But Democrats do themselves no favors by tearing down Bill, whose abilities were widely admired when he left office. By way of contrast, the Republicans have turned Reagan into a bona fide hero, a thought that sickens those of us who lived through his Presidency.  Our past two candidates have done their best to run away from Big Bad Bill.  Look where it got them.  If Barack can successfully embrace Bill without becoming smothered in the process, it will accomplish more to bring the bring the party together and take control of the torch than anything Clinton says tonight.    

Last night I fell asleep feeling generally pleased that Hillary Clinton had, with her rousing personal appeal and endorsement of Barack Obama, done her part to bring her wayward followers off the ledge.  And indeed, as I warily scanned the cable networks via remote's-eye-view I was pleasantly surprised to find even die-hard HRC cynics like Matthews and Olberman praising her speech, dropping for at least a night the shopworn negative narratives they seem eager to apply to the Clintons' every move ("it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "her sense of entitlement"... etc.)  Sure, there were the stories and interviews of the now infamous PUMAs, but they were portrayed with admirable restraint, not as representative of the convention, but closer to Japanese holdouts coaxed out of their island bunkers to be told the war is officially over.   

So it was in that spirit that I picked up the New York Times this morning, looking forward to some bland coverage of the speech and its reception.  What I got instead was something closer to the National Enquirer:  speculation from unnamed and unidentified "friends" and "aides" offering up dubious insights into the Clintons' purported feelings and motivations.  The upshot of these thinly (to be charitable) sourced innuendos?  You guessed it: "it's all about her"... "setting herself up for 2012" ... "still bitter" ... etc.  The coverage could just as easily have been written about Jen's next moves after Brad.  (Sources close to Jen say she remains bitter ....)

The examples speak for themselves: 

With her husband looking on tenderly and her supporters watching with tears in their eyes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingered.

Mrs. Clinton, who was once certain that she would win the Democratic nomination this year, also took steps on Tuesday — deliberate steps, aides said — to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency. She rallied supporters in her speech, and, at an earlier event with 3,000 women, described her passion about her own campaign. And her aides limited input on the speech from Obama advisers, while seeking advice from her former strategist, Mark Penn, a loathed figure in the Obama camp.

she betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels, friends say, and that has especially haunted her husband.

Mrs. Clinton is in the midst of a “catharsis,” friends say, Mr. Clinton remains angrier than people realize about the Obama campaign’s portrayal of his wife as deceitful and of his administration as middling and his political tactics as, at times, racially charged. Friends have been urging Mr. Clinton — who speaks on Wednesday night — to move on, and counseling the couple to focus their energy and emotions on Mr. McCain.

At one point in her speech, though, Mrs. Clinton herself paid homage to her husband’s successes — in one sense, making up for the absence of praise from Mr. Obama.

Far from giving a valedictory at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said she wanted the speech to reflect the leverage that she retains in the Democratic Party — that she, far more than Mr. Obama, has the influence to move her supporters to his side. (The Clinton camp did not even provide a final draft to the Obama campaign well in advance of delivery, working on it until the last minute.)

At the same time, advisers said, Mrs. Clinton wanted to ensure that her star turn at the convention could never be portrayed as insufficiently enthusiastic, should Mr. Obama lose the election in part because swaths of her supporters ultimately did not vote for him. Mrs. Clinton is almost certain to run for president in 2012 if Mr. Obama fails this time, several Clinton advisers said Tuesday, and any such plan could possibly founder if the Clintons’ negative feelings show through this year.

 

If it hasn't been obvious all along, the nefarious manipulations of the calculating Clintons are becoming apparent. You may have thought Clinton was out to submarine Obama, clearing the path for her own election in 2008 and to hell with the fate of the nation forced to endure four more years of Republican misrule.  No, the Clintons are far more shrewd than you gave them credit for.  The plan, revealed tonight, is to ensure Barack Obama's election, not for the good of the country, mind you, although that is an added benefit.  No, Obama's successful election and reelection in 2012 will pave the way for Hillary's grand scheme - 2016.  Rather than inherit a country further broken by Republican depredations, she takes over a more prosperous and peaceful land.  Then, she will secure her legacy by building on Obama's record of achievement, thinking not of the betterment of our country, of course, but for her own aggrandizement. 

Let's make Hillary's dream a reality and elect Barack Obama!

A few weeks ago after Barack Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination, John Dickerson asked on Slate how, as the nominee, Obama would replace the Clintonian “triangulation” he ran against. 

Since Dickerson asked the question, Obama has (1) given a hawkish speech before AIPAC, (2) announced his support for the FISA “compromise” that looks awfully similar to previous versions he had opposed, and (3) expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision rejecting the death penalty in cases of child rape.    

Obama’s moves have sparked a lively discussion on these boards as his supporters try to reconcile these moves with their expectations of the candidate shaped during the nominating contest.  Is Obama turning right or is this where he stood all along?  Has he taken these positions out of conviction or expedience?  Is he a progressive or centrist?  Reformer or ‘typical pol’?

I believe there is an element of truth in all of these.  But the answer to Dickerson’s question seems pretty clear.  At least for now, triangulation is alive and well.  The promised transformation will have to wait.    

Ah, triangulation.  During the primary season, the term was tossed around haphazardly as an insult, shorthand for appeasement, spinelessness, selling out, the absence of principles, a stand-in for “everything we hate about the Clintons.”  As a candidate for the nomination, Obama criticized triangulation.  "We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics," he said on one occasion. "That's not what we need right now.”    

Lost amid the invective was the origin and meaning of the term.  Triangulation is a strategic choice, not a political philosophy.  The term was coined by the justly reviled Dick Morris during the 1996 election.  After the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, Clinton “triangulated” as a matter of survival, pre-empting wedge issues the Republicans had used to bludgeon the Democrats and addressing them through more progressive policies.  Morris described it as using your tools to fix their car, the most notable example being the issue of welfare reform, long a wedge issue exploited by Republicans.  Clinton took the issue from Republicans while promoting higher funding for child care and stronger financial support for working families.  An imperfect solution, to be sure, but far better than the alternatives.  Most important, Clinton was able to appropriate the terrain that Republicans had successfully controlled to that point. 

Despite his anti-triangulation rhetoric, his promises to transform politics as we know it, Obama’s campaign has adopted this tactic from the start.  On health care, Obama attacked the Clinton and Edwards plans from the right arguing against coverage mandates that “force every American to buy health care,” a talking point that could easily have come from a Republican playbook.  On Social Security, Obama repeated the mantra of the privatizers that the system is in “crisis” and urgent solutions are required.  Rather than laying the blame for many of the nation’s problems at the feet of the last eight years of Republican rule, Obama blamed the corrupt system, casting blame on both parties. 

Seen in this light, Obama’s recent positions should come as no surprise.  Lest anyone get any ideas about Obama’s sympathies, Obama’s speech to AIPAC placed him squarely within the mainstream of foreign policy thought.  Faced with an imperfect FISA “compromise,” Obama made a smart political choice, emphasizing that the need to provide tools for fighting terrorism over holding the telecoms accountable and the constitutional concerns with the bill, depriving the Republicans of an issue on which to hammer him this Fall.  Obama’s statement on the Supreme Court decision reminded voters of his crime fighting bona fides. 

Yes, Obama ran as a different kind of Democrat, one who would transcend partisanship and politics as usual, who would face hard truths honestly, who would assemble a new, bipartisan coalition. 

It’s easier to promise to end partisanship than to actually do so, however.  Governing an enormous and fractious country is rough business.  It requires compromises and choices among less than ideal alternatives.  I realize we are at an early stage, yet despite the soaring rhetoric, I fail to see how Obama’s politics rise above the triangulation he so forcefully denounced.  Maybe that’s not such a bad thing, but those who believed Obama would somehow rise above the fray are either naïve in the extreme or deluded. 

Even as all the shifting rationales the Bush administration has offered for the Iraq debacle have been debunked, I have still been skeptical of the claim that it was really all about oil.  This story makes me think twice.   

To summarize: After losing their oil concession to nationalization 36 years ago, four Western oil companies – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP – are set to receive no bid contracts to develop Iraq’s oil fields.  The companies prevailed over other offers by more than 40 companies, including companies from Russia, China and India.  They were awarded by the “sovereign” government of Iraq’s oil ministry, which is still being advised by Americans.  The oil ministry said the contracts were awarded to the companies because they had been assisting the ministry without charge for two years.  However, a total of 46 companies had memorandums of understanding with the ministry yet were not awarded contracts.  In one instance, the Russian company Lukoil had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but the contract was awarded to a consortium of Chevron and Total.  Although the contracts are relatively brief, they give the companies a huge leg up when development rights are handed out later.    

Is this the vision of Iraq as a showpiece for democracy that would transform the Middle East?  The Iraq envisioned by Bush and McCain looks more like a dystopian nightmare.  A country segregated into semi-feudal ethnic cantons each with its own militia, riven by low level sectarian violence the lid of which is precariously kept on by American troops hunkered down in gigantic mega-bases being fed by Burger King and supplied by Halliburton, while American companies extract the oil that feeds our economy and destroys our environment operating under the protection of contractors hired by Blackwater and the like who are unaccountable to both the military and the Iraqi government.

A shining light indeed.