Stumbled across this 2001 essay by someone named Christopher Hansen, in which he puts forward the argument that JFK was planning to pull the US out of Vietnam by 1965, but needed to talk tough to get through the re-election campaign first for fear another Joe MacCarthy would attack him for being a communist appeaser.

http://home.c2i.net/chrhansen/jfk/kennedy.html

I'm not trying to argue that old idea, but reading this again did make me think about the actions Bush took after striking Afghanistan, of taking us into Iraq and into one of the largest disasters in American history. It's no a par with Vietnam, and maybe bigger because the implications of lighting the gasoline can in the heart of our energy supply may have much larger consequences in the long run.

Seeing Vietnam in hindsight makes me wonder now how things might have been radically different if this administration had done a couple of things with a more rational view.

If we had focused on making sure the Taliban stayed crushed, on establishing a sense of authentic safety for the population and on building the Afghan infrastructure like roads, schools and power supplies, without triggering the Afghans' notorious prickliness about foreign invaders...

If we had, simultaneously, used the goodwill we still had in the region then to reach out to the Syrians with the goal of getting Asad and Israel to back down from confrontation, particularly in Lebanon, and to negotiate agreements to begin to get those two states to start on the road to cooperation. (Instead of throwing them into the arms of the Iranians.)

And if, also at the same time, the US had maintained an even hand in making Palestinian/Israeli peace negotiations a core goal of American foreign policy...

Imagine the lost opportunities. Imagine a landscape now where Syria and Israel were talking instead of fighting proxy wars in Lebanon; where Iran was not on the ascendancy, and where the Israelis and Palestinians were now, if not best buddies, at least being forced to talk instead of being locked in this endless death grip.

Perhaps none of this would have worked out all that well. Lots of people in that part of the world, as well as here, certainly don't want to see conflict stop... there's too much money to be made, and too much absolutist thinking to make one too optimistic.

But we could not have been worse off than we are now? Our history would have been much different if Kennedy's alleged plans to withdraw from Vietnam, win or lose, had not been short-circuited by his assassination.

Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from both examples.

http://dyn.politico.com/popvideo/kotecki.cfm

It's fair to say that the primary campaign is in its final stages, no matter what side one is on. (I believe it's over and the Democratic Party is in the process of unifying behind Obama, but Hillary has to decide what she's gonna do/be able to do. Your mileage may vary.)

I've still got a LOT of problems with the Clintons. No need to go into them all here. Everyone is familiar with the pros and cons. I don't know what I'd do in November if she were on the ballot, but I'm willing to say that I'll at least think about that when passions recede.

I've come to two conclusions over the last week that are easier for me to see now, in the light of the results from Indiana and North Carolina.

One is a greater understanding of the depth of support for Hillary by women, and some of the reasons for this loyalty. I'm a white guy, so you might say I don't really have a stake in this either on race or gender, but I've had to figure out my own feelings on both issues during this interminable primary season.

At first, I didn't understand how powerful is the symbolism and reality of a woman having a real shot at the top job. Not only that, but I didn't appreciate how important to women (and others) it is that Hillary has refused to back down, or cave in.

I could make the argument that this admiration overlooks the things many of us see in her that are not so praise-worthy, but the two sides have been talking past one another for a long time and, frankly, this argument is getting a bit boring. I can recognize the admiration many have for the character it takes to be persistent in the face of long odds, because that speaks to the daily experience of many Americans. Many, if not most, women, as well as those who are on the lower end of the economic pecking order. Life can be hard and grittiness and a grim determination to persevere is all some people feel they have. So, they appreciate this stubborn resolve to keep standing in Hillary, because that's a strength that has nothing to do with one's bank account. I've come, grudgingly, to understand that allegiance, and actually think that's a core Democratic principle that we may have ceded too long to the Republican. It's about courage to face the challenges of the daily struggle, and we ought to honor that.

That leads to my second understanding, which is that there is a large -- and growing -- lower-middle class and soon to be middle and upper-middle class in this country that is suffering from the global economic system that's been in flux for a while now, but that has seen hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the American Dream they made possible, to foreign lands.

While good blue-collar jobs and those that didn't require a PhD were shipped overseas, as elites and multinationals here bought favorable treatment and laws from both Republican and Democratic administrations and lawmakers, the vast majority of Americans saw the good life bleeding away. A sense of hopelessness and fear is a very real thing out there now, and while BushCo and the Republican Congress has been in the majority, and can be fairly punished in November, it's not only them. Plenty of Democrats have played footsie FOR YEARS with the lobbyists and big-money power brokers, too.

What's become more clear to me, largely as a result of Hillary's campaign (even more than Edwards'), is that there is a great and growing economic injustice afoot, that its' something we must address for all, even the powerless, and that a Republican administration is likely to make things worse. But just any ol' Democratic administration might not be any better, depending on who's been paying their bills.

But the point is, Hillary was right to focus on economic issues, on the plight of those who're less advantaged. I still believe that she's too flawed to carry the banner over the River Jordan, and that Obama is the better choice, but I grudgingly admit that she has raised some important issues, and has made advocacy for those who need an advocate in the White House a more visible issue.

I'm trying to come to terms with America's reaction to Obama, as an Obama supporter who's feeling a little bitter after our primary here in Pennsylvania on April 22.

I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan, but do like to read her because she's often provocative and gives me a non-crazy glimpse into the mind of the Right. The normal right, I'd call them.

This today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

So: Pennsylvania. As seen from the distance of West Texas, central California and Oklahoma, which is where I've been.

Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's
problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty
lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the
candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made
in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten
misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country
allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about
D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands
who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there
was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain
learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at
grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her
long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history?
Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's
why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder
if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of
country – any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about
Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did
he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism?
But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its
content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean
forward to hear.

This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II.
Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the
plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr.
Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the
convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins.
But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.

Thoughts?

OK. I've survived the primary nonsense here in Pennsylvania, and the poor white and Catholic vote has been heard from: "we got a problem with the black guy for no particular reason, and race is more important than whether Hillary is a shameless liar."

Ok. I get it. Now I'm bitter. :-)  But the best line I've heard this silly season is one I've traced to an Obama supporter and blogger named Jack Nolan, back in March. I just wish I'd seen this a week ago, because I guarantee this one line would have turned some votes here to Obama.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rednecksforobama/gGB2vD

Here's the quote:

"...Asked about the possibility of a joint ticket, Obama responded today:


"We are just focused on winning the nomination. That is my focus. I
respect Sen. Clinton. She has been a tenacious opponent. It is
premature to talk about a joint ticket."



PREMATURE? The Clintons are the exact OPPOSITE of the hope Obama
inspires. How DARE he even contemplate pushing that vile woman on us,
his loyal supporters? He owes us at LEAST that much!!!



The correct answer to that question is - with Obama angrily waving his finger at the camera:



"I will NOT have political relations with that woman!"



Clinton is using this "dream ticket" concept to her advantage - vote
for me, she implies, and I'll bring my lackey boy Obama along. He's
just an uppity Jesse Jackson anyway - right, Bill sweetheart?



If Obama won't stand up for his supporters and free them of the
outright FEAR of Hillary coasting along on his ticket, right into the
White House -



I mean, seriously - can you imagine a "Do ANYTHING to Win" Clinton with
an itchy trigger finger, only a heartbeat away from the Presidency...



It's BEYOND political suicide...."

That about sums it up for me: I will not have political relations with that woman. Thanks to Mr. Nolan for the best snark I've seen this week.

I'm confused.

My wife and friends will volunteer, a little too eagerly, that this is not unusual.

However, help me out here.

I'm seeing three (at least) general themes emerging now about the Clinton campaign strategy. It can't be all three at once.

One, which can fairly be described as the Clinton's most positive argument (CMPA), is that there is still a good chance that the super delegates will swing over and support her, and that in the end the party will unite behind her as the nominee and all this unpleasantness will be forgotten.

The second theme, most prominently proposed by Maureen Dowd on Wednesday, is that Hillary and Bill are setting out to damage Obama as much as possible so that he will lose against McCain and she'll have a clear shot in four years to run again. Hence the repetitive negative attacks (Rev. Wright, he's just a 'black' candidate, etc.) (Scorched Earth)

The third, which I saw floated on Andrew Sullivan's site this morning, (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/dissent-of-th-9.html)  is the idea that we're witnessing delusion and madness of epic proportions, namely "a woman who’s incredulous at finding herself in the losing position and
who hasn’t shaken the assumption that the nomination is her destiny,
reality and consequences be damned." (The Madness of Queen Hillary)

Personally, I believe it's a combination of "Scorched..." and "Madness," with a fair amount of the sense of entitlement clouding their otherwise excellent political judgment, making them believe that imitating Sherman's March to the Sea is somehow OK, and missing the backlash against any future plans that's rising rapidly.

What say you all?

Excerpt from Obama's remarks at a town hall in Indiana.

One is free, of course, to read this and conclude that it's all an elaborate lie by an "empty suit," but if that's your viewpoint then you're not really open to anything, anyway.

I believe cynicism and partisanship are what're really tearing our soul apart as a nation. I'm appalled by the raw, elemental hatred that seems to be welling up everywhere, on these boards and elsewhere, as a result of the Ferrarro and Wright instances. I'm deeply offended by the tone of the campaign managers and the nasty and evil willingness to do anything to win.

I'm not offended by the candidate, Obama, though. I'm still inspired.

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart
and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the
awful grace of God." quoted by Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis, 1968, on the occasion of the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The video:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jPYNb4ex6Ko"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jPYNb4ex6Ko" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Just words....

"Barack Obama addressing: Town Hall Meeting at Plainfield High School, (Plainfield, Indiana)

Just words...

March 15, 2008

Let me just close my initial remarks by talking about bringing this
country together. You know, Bobby Kennedy gave one of his most — gave
one of his most famous speeches on a dark night in Indianapolis. Right
after Dr. King was shot. Some of you remember reading about this
speech. Some of you were alive when this speech was given. He stood on
top of a car. He was in a crowd mostly of African Americans. And he
delivered the news that Dr. King had been shot and killed. And he said,
at that moment of anguish, he said, we’ve got a choice. He said, we’ve
got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and
letting it fester and dividing us further so that we no longer see each
other as Americans but we see each other as separate and apart and at
odds with each other. Or we can take a different path that says we have
different stories, but we have common dreams and common hopes. And we
can decide to walk down this road together. And remake America once
again. And, you know, I think about those words often, especially in
the last several weeks - because this campaign started on the basis
that we are one America. As I said in my speech at the convention in
2004, there is no Black America, or White America, or Asian America, or
Latino America. There is the United States of America. But I noticed
over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to
raise their ugly heads again. And I’m not here to cast blame or point
fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there’s been this
shift. You know, that you’ve been seeing in the reporting. You’ve been
seeing some of the commentaries of supporters on all sides. Most
recently, you heard some statements from my former pastor that were
incendiary and that I completely reject, although I knew him and know
him as somebody in my church who talked to me about Jesus and family
and friendships, but clearly had — but if all I knew was those
statements that I saw on television, I would be shocked. And it just
reminds me that we’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in
this country. We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and
misunderstanding. But what I continue to believe in is that this
country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions. That this
country wants something different.

I just want to say to everybody here that as somebody who was born
into a diverse family, as somebody who has little pieces of America all
in me, I will not allow us to lose this moment, where we cannot forget
about our past and not ignore the very real forces of racial inequality
and gender inequality and the other things that divide us. I don’t want
us to forget them. We have to acknowledge them and lift them up and
when people say things like my former pastor said, you know, you have
to speak out forcefully against them. But what you also have to do is
remember what Bobby Kennedy said. That it is within our power to join
together to truly make a United States of America. And that we have to
do not just so that our children live in a more peaceful country and a
more peaceful world, but that is the only way that we are going to
deliver on the big issues that we’re facing in this country. We can’t
solve health care divided. We cannot create an economy that works for
everybody divided. We can’t fight terrorism divided. We can’t care for
our veterans divided. We have to come together. That’s what this
campaign is about. That’s why you are here. That’s why we’re going to
win this election. That’s how we’re going to change the country."

Just words...

There are two issues super delegates and other elected officials ought to be considering, and suspect they are even in the midst of this incredible snow job Bill and Hillary are staging for our stunned amazement and entertainment.

One is that, as the example in Denny Hastert's former district proves, Obama's coat-tails are going to be a lot longer and wider than Hillary's ever can be. If you all want to increase the Democratic margins in Congress, and even get yourselves elected down-ticket, you probably ought not pick the wrong horse to back now. The clock is ticking. Hillary's not going to pull this one out, but she may make you wish you'd decided to back Obama sooner after she makes us all suffer through a few more weeks of crazytown stuff.

The second point is in reaction to that Ioway congressman's stupid little publicity stunt... You know, Obama's name is gonna make the puritanical jihadis dance in the street and all that.

He's not to be taken seriously. But what is to be taken seriously is the definite strategic advantage Obama as president will represent. This is the second thing I wanted to point out to you.

Muslims aren't as stupid as our Congressmen tend to be, and they know perfectly well that an Arabic middle name doesn't mean squat. He's not one of them. They know it. We don't, apparently, but they do. Some of them would rather kill him than a Marine, because he is the apostate son of an apostate father, and that's really bad, I guess.

But what IS important, were we to actually elect the man, is that this would send a tsunami around the Middle East, which has been fed a diet of propaganda that America is a hater of Muslims, is a nation of crusaders, is a nation that hates anyone who is not white.

What do you think Al-Qaida's best recruting argument has been, after all, if not this very argument? Abu Gharab was just gravy, a gift that keeps on giving.

If America elects a black man with his background and outlook, we will have given ourselves the greatest strategic advantage we've had since 9/11, when BushCo pissed away what sympathy we had.

We would suddenly no longer be quite the racist, bigoted, imperialstic nation of Crusaders. (OK, I realize Osama is not gonna listen, but a few million ordinary Jordanians, and Palestinians, and Iranians, and a bunch of others would feel like they just got smacked with a truth stick. At the very worst, the election would cause some serious rethinking overseas about us, and we sorely need the benefit of the doubt about now. Is that really such a bad thing, now. Really?

Of course it isn't.
So to the superdelegates, even if you don't have much of a spine and only care about yourselves, you've got a reason to back Obama. And if you do still have a spark of patriotism, you have another good reason. Win-win.

What are you waiting for, an engraved invitation? Try to keep up with us, the people, too, will you? We're getting kind of tired having to drag you along to do the right things all the time.

Thank you for your kind attention.