| 30.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With the idea of Barack Obama keeping on Robert Gates as Defense secretary floating around for weeks, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Instead, the objections from liberal thinkers continue to be rather tepid. Backers of the notion of keeping Gates aboard observe that he may work in a Republican administration, but he and Obama have a great deal in common. They have considerable overlap in their view of Iraq, and around the same time President Bush was hinting that Obama was an "appeaser" for being willing to talk with Iran, Gates was advocating talks with Iran. Although Gates was also a critic of the Iraq War and as a member of the Iraq Study Group called for the eventual removal of troops in a fashion similar to the one Obama has supported, he is thought by most to being about as good a job managing a difficult war as one can. A top Obama foreign policy adviser has openly suggested Gates would be a good fit in a Democratic administration. Gates has long been as popular as Republicans get with Democrats, and in his biography, he had tons of praise for the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter. If Obama wants to pick a Republican to serve in his administration and have a bipartisan cabinet, Gates is as suitable a candidate as remains with the Bush team. A number of moderate Democrats like Time's Joe Klein or this writer for the New Republic are warm to keeping Gates for all those reasons. They don't, though, often reflect the views of the broader party. So where are the critics of keeping Gates? Matthew Yglesias writes that the major problem with keeping Gates is that, well, he's a Republican: "It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security." The explanation of his objection is not exactly vociferous. Likewise, you'd think an article in the liberal magazine The Nation entitled "Gates to Join Obama? Uh-Oh" would have more negative to say. Instead, the author practically makes the case for Obama keeping Gates. Really, with some party moderates high on keeping Gates, with a key Obama adviser speaking well of him and only mild objections from the left, there's much to making the idea a reality. The biggest problem may be Gates himself. Per the L.A. Times: "When asked at a recent news conference if he would stay on after the end of the Bush administration, he replied: 'The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me.' Gates frequently mentions a clock he carries to count down the minutes until he can return home to his manse on a lake outside Seattle." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| While Barack Obama continues to be Europe's favorite presidential candidate, his stated support for the death penalty gave Europeans an important reality check. Obama disagreed with a recent supreme court decision to prohibit the death penalty for child rape. Apparently suprised by the presumed Democratic nominee's hard-line stance toward the death penalty, German politicians unanimously condemned his remarks. The fact that so many high level German politicians were surprised by his position, speaks to the continued Obama fascination in Europe, but also to a certain lack of insight or naivete about American politics. To win the election, Obama needs to woo independents and moderate conservatives. By demanding the abolition of the death penalty, as suggested by German politicians, he would make liberals happy, but alienate independents and conservatives. The Obama campaign figures since liberals have nowhere else to go in this election anyway, their candidate can only win with his pro-death penalty stance. They are probably right. You can read a good exploration of Obama's political strategy here. Interestingly enough, another high profile issue for Europeans on which Obama has chosen to take a more hard-line approach didn't get much attention across the pond: gun control. Obama, in response to a supreme court decision, stated that he supports an individual's right to possess guns. Surprisingly his remark didn't trigger the same political outrage in Germany as his statement about the death penalty. Maybe because of Euro 2008. What is politically interesting is that Obama has arguably switched to the right on two key issues for conservatives in the last week: gun control and the death penalty. Which brings up the old issue of flip-flopping again. Does this make him a flip-flopper or a savy politician? That probably depends on whether Obama can argue his switch convincingly. What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In my last post, I wrote about whether John McCain or Barack Obama has the advantage on foreign policy in the 2008 presidential campaign, with McCain being thought of as having the upper hand by most but with some challenging that; as it happens, a lot of influential Republicans would prefer that McCain not emphasize his national security experience so much in a year when the economy is foremost on voters' minds. The L.A. Times writes: "Even more puzzling to observers is McCain's emphasis on national security and foreign affairs -- Saturday he met with the leaders of Iraq and the Philippines -- at a time when domestic matters have surged to the fore of voter concerns." Some of those observers, in fact, include two of the top campaign officials for President Bush and John Kerry in 2004. "You can't shoehorn in an issue the American people aren't focused on every day at their kitchen table," Matthew Dowd, who ran Bush's campaign, told the Times. The problem, of course, is that national security is one area where the polls, at least, suggest McCain might have an edge. On the economy, Obama holds an edge. What McCain has done in a few recent instances may be the blueprint for merging the two, with his foreign policy experience rubbing off on some domestic issues. Energy, immigration and trade all have foreign policy elements, and he's focused his attention on all three of late. What's problematic for McCain, though, is that in all three of those cases, he holds positions that divide either his Republican base or moderates who will be key to his chances or both. When the economy's gone south, the president's party always suffers in an election year. Maybe McCain could benefit from focusing on the economy a little more than he has, but McCain's between a rock and a hard place here. He may just have to pick the national security hard place and stick to it. As pollster Floyd Ciruli tells the times: "If people are voting on economics, they're going to vote Democratic... To win, Republicans have to focus this election on national security." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Two pieces Friday -- here and here -- conclude that Barack Obama, not John McCain, might have the advantage on foreign policy. It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the Obama campaign has the same confidence? The arguments for Obama have floated around all campaign long, but sometimes good journalism is about putting the case all in one place. The case is as follows: The public is unhappy with the Iraq War. Advantage, Obama. The idea of war with Iran is unpalatable. Advantage, Obama. In other areas, it's something of a wash. The public is tired of all things Bush administration, so any continuation of his policies comes with a taint; and yet, the public trusts McCain more on terrorism than it does Obama. Obama may criticize hawkish policies, but he has enough of his own to make it hard to paint him as one dimensional; his position on Afghanistan, for instance, is more hawkish than McCain's. And making matters more difficult for McCain is an apparent philosophical divide within his camp. In the Reuters piece, an anonymous campaign aide even says that McCain no longer stands behind his controversial position that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8, one of the most hawkish positions he holds. It no longer "reflects where he is right now," the aide said. Then there's the advantage of this being 2008. Per the final paragraph of the Free Press piece: "'The reason Obama has a decent chance of winning the foreign policy debate is Americans are not nearly as scared today as they have been at other moments,' said Peter Beinart, a foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'That had a lot of resonance in 2002 and 2004. It has less resonance today.'" That's what makes Obama's moves to the center on foreign policy of late all the more fascinating. There's been a huge divide of late among big-name liberal thinkers in particular about Obama's reversal on an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Obama has said he supports the new bill, also backed by the Bush administration. MSNBC personality Keith Olbermann praised Obama for supporting the bill, saying it proves he will stand up to his party's liberal wing" "Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA." Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald counter-argues: "That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated." It's impossible to say whether Obama's shift on FISA comes from a sincere change of heart or a political one. But his trend of moving to the center on foreign policy once the primary ended does hint at the possibility that the Obama campaign may have doubts that his positions are the politically stronger ones. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| France is usually a dirty word on the U.S. campaign trail, but does America's frenemy offer any lessons for the two presidential candidates on a subject over which the two have been feuding this week? John McCain sees nuclear power plants as a path to energy independence and clean air. Barack Obama sees potential in it, but worries about safety and how to dispose of nuclear waste. France, meanwhile, as the country most reliant on nuclear power, likes where it gets its electricity for all the reasons McCain is touting the atom, and doesn't fret about the things Obama does. America gets something like 20 percent of its energy from nuclear plants, compared to nearly all of it in France. This excellent series extensively documents the effort in the U.S. to steer U.S. energy policy toward nuclear power. It's got a little momentum, and would get some more under McCain, who wants to construct 45 more reactors by 2030; Obama has aptly been described as "lukewarm" about it. But the problems with popularizing nuclear energy here have been many-fold. Some of them are fairly unique to the U.S., like the political winds against storage of nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain taking a strong turn in 2007, when Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the Senate Majority Leader, a position from which he can exert considerable influence. The U.S. experience with Three Mile Island has no comparison in France, and while anti-nuclear activists exist in both countries, they appear to have been more successful pleading their case in America. This PBS piece explains that France has its own unique cultural reasons for embracing nuclear power, including a stronger-than-usual desire to be independent of the Middle East (or anyone else) and an affinity for large technology projects. In some ways, America has both, too. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the federal government has relentlessly sold the French public on the value of nuclear power. Wrote the PBS producer of his tour through Civaux, cite of a nuclear plant under construction: "The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear." The most remarkable aspect of this is that France overcame resistance to storage of nuclear waste. How did the government do this? By convincing the populace that waste wouldn't be permanently buried and stored -- it would be "stocked," the major difference being that the latter emphasizes the waste would be detoxified later down the road. Tied into the plan was a commitment for scientists to work on that problem. Could something like that work in the U.S.? Perhaps, but it would take a monumental public relations campaign like France's, or bigger. The policy approach would be a difficult sell. France's policy is, in essence, "Let's keep enjoying the fruits of nuclear power, and worry about this whole nuclear waste thing another day." You could argue that's America's energy policy, too, but with oil. The difference is that nuclear power is not as ingrained to the American lifestyle as it is in France, so the momentum in the U.S. has been to keep exploiting the thing that is and fear the new problems that might come with adapting to something else. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama praised Germany for the development of its solar power industry and urged the U.S. to follow suit. In a speech outlining his energy policy in Las Vegas he said: "Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that." Obama is correct in stating that Germany over a relatively short time has become the world leader in solar, but also in the wind power industry. (You can find a good analysis of Germany's renewable energy policy here.) He is also correct in his assessment that Germany's renewable energy production has skyrocketed and created jobs - by how much depends on which time frame one takes into consideration. Obama's statement that German companies used technology that was developed using U.S. tax credits is probably also correct, but not all that remarkable in a global business environment. (The MP3 player, for instance, was invented by a German scientist working for a German research instution funded to a large extent by German taxpayers, but cleverly marketed by a company called Apple.) And is also true that the German government provided the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart the renewable energy sector. What Obama left out, however, was the tool by which the German government collected the money to allocate these investments: the ecological tax or ecotax. The basic premise of the ecotax, which was implemented starting in 1999, is that energy use is taxed. Therefore consumers as well as businesses have an incentive to save energy and use energy efficient products. As part of the ecotax the gas price in Germany increased 3.07 Euro cents (ca. 5 U.S. cents) per year per liter (0.26 gallons) from 1999 to 2003. Obviously, many Germans were not very happy about paying not only more at the pump but also for energy consumption in general. And even today, the ecotax is a divisive topic in Germany, that had to be taken up by country's highest courts. So yes, Germany in a pretty short time established a viable renewable energy sector. But it comes at a price. And someone who brands himself as a new kind of politician like Barack Obama should tell people not just the goal, but also name the price. In his speech on energy policy he didn't. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Referring people to the Wall Street Journal is a little like suggesting they check out this little movie called The Wizard of Oz -- odds are good they've already seen it. But this piece does a great job of tracking a variety of positions on which Democrat Barack Obama has shifted to the middle, including a number of key foreign policy stances, so I recommend everyone to it anyway. Besides, it ran on A8. Maybe fewer people saw it because of that. The piece starts with Obama's change of heart about whether he would support any bill rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that contains retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies. I examined the subject in-depth here, and it remains the biggest issue on which Obama's position changed dramatically since becoming the presumptive nominee. But the Journal collected some other good examples of Obama shifts, too, among them his positions on Iraq, Iran and Israel. There's a little domestic policy stuff in there, too -- if that's your kind of thing. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The European Union deserves a big round of applause by Barack Obama and John McCain. After the Bush administration thanked the EU for adopting new sanctions on Iran, both presidential candidates should do so as well. Why? Because over the years the Europeans have been criticized by the U.S. - rightfully in my opinion - for trying to have it both ways on Iran. Europeans have always detested President George W. Bush's saber rattling, but have also not been willing to impose tough economic sanctions as an alternative out of fear it could hurt Europe's trade with Iran. That has changed. The EU, and Germany in particular, as a traditional trading partner of Iran, have stepped up to the plate recently and done their homework. The latest round of sanctions against Iran's Melli Bank combined with travel restrictions for officials underscores the EU's seriousness on the issue. While McCain and the EU have a different take than Obama on the usefulness of direct talks without preconditions with Iran, both candidates should be appreciative that the EU is participating in the effort to halt Iran's nuclear plans. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We all know there are many things one just doesn't say, even if they are true. That applies to conduct in private life. And it applies to conduct in public life and the political realm. John McCain's senior advisor Charlie Black violated that basic rule of conduct by telling Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack against the U.S. would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential contender. Black's remark was in bad taste and shouldn't have been made. We all know as well that sometimes people do say things that they shouldn't have, even if they are true. That, too, applies to private and public life and the political realm. So what does one do, if one said something that shouldn't have been said? Apologize. And that is exactly what Charlie Black did: "I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," he said. So Black made a mistake and apologized. Since no one really was hurt, except perhaps John McCain and Charlie Black himself who has been critized for his past lobbying work, it's time to move on. Just for the record: The Obama and McCain campaigns reacted as expected to Black's remark. And Mark Finkelstein at the conservative media outfit Newsbusters pointed out that former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had made a similiar remark previously. Which is good to know, but doesn't make Black's remark any better. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A new U.S. report on lax safety standards for nuclear weapons stored in Europe has Germany's parties on the left calling for their removal, but it may be a moot point. The next president of the United States was likely to answer their call before it even was made. As the International Herald Tribune points out, just last month, Republican John McCain said that "in close consultation with our allies, I would like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce - and hopefully eliminate - deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe." Democrat Barack Obama's position on the precise issue of nuclear weapons in Europe was harder to discern, but one can infer that since 1. he wants to reduce the overall U.S. stockpile and 2. eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely, he would favor the removal of nukes from the continent. So that's that. Maybe there's some value in it politically to the Social Democrats and other opposition parties in Germany to make the call they did, as the IHT suggests; maybe, that same group is aware of the difference between campaign goals and presidential policy and this puts pressure on Obama and McCain some how to stand firm in their position. But everyone's on the same page with this one, post-Bush administration. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of the challenges John McCain faces in this campaign is being perceived as a flip-flopper by the electorate. I wrote about this a few days ago. Now McCain is being accused by the Obama campaign of trying to have it both ways on immigration. It all started with a private meeting McCain held with Hispanic leaders in Chicago on Wednesday. Since the meeting was private, no official transcript of McCain's remarks exists. Between Wednesday and the weekend two different accounts of what the presumptive Republican candidate said to the group of Hispanics have emerged. Rosanna Pulido, who attended the meeting and heads the anti-illegal-immigration group Minuteman Project in Illinois, says that McCain talked about immigration reform before the assembled Hispanic leaders. "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another," Pulido told Political Punch's Jake Tapper. "I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus." According to Pulido, McCain's "mantra" at the meeting was comprehensive immigration reform. This would run counter to his promise to focus on border security first before tackling immigration reform. McCain made that promise after his immigration reform proposal failed in Congress. You can find a good analysis of McCain's stance on immigration here. As mentioned above, Pulido's version is one side of the coin. The other is presented by Rafael Rivadeneira, a vice chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Illinois. "This was not a secret meeting," he told the AP. Rivadeneira added: "There was nothing he said that they wouldn't want people to hear." While the McCain campaign has been silent on the controversy until now, the Obama team hasn't. Obama's communications director lashed out against McCain, saying he was having a "tortured debate" with himself on the issue. Whether McCain really is trying to have it both ways on immigration or not doesn't really matter politically. What matters is that if McCain continues to open himself up to charges of flip-flopping like he has been some of them will surely stick over time. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama made a move to the middle in the first major foreign policy-related test of how he will pivot from primary to general election mode comes next week, expressing support for an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules that the administration favors but that the left despises. In doing so, he reversed a position he held just months ago, and angered many on the left of his party. Obama was silent for a couple days on the new legislation. Politically, it's easy to see why: No matter which way he votes on the bill, he is going to catch hell. So sensitive is the matter that he even caught hell for not speaking up. Liberal bloggers had been pounding him, casting him as perhaps their only hope for stopping the bill. During the primary, Obama voted against an earlier version of the bill, with his campaign saying that he was particularly concerned about granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies who are being sued for their alleged role in the president's warrantless surveillance program. The new version of the bill would almost certainly result in the same thing, but in a more roundabout fashion. Obama says he opposes that part of the bill, but it's hard to read his support of the overall legislation as anything other than a stark reversal, since he once said he would support a filibuster of any legislation that provides retroactive legal immunity. Obama could have angered some moderates by voting against the bill, and given John McCain a target for more national security-related attacks. It is not clear how the electronic surveillance issue will play out in the general election; Republican attacks against Democrats who voted against the Bush administration's position in 2006 did not prove effective. It also may not register with voters who are more preoccupied with the Iraq War and gas prices. But Democrats remain wary, after decades of being cast by Republicans as weak on national security, of stepping into any traps. If that trap is going to ensnare Obama, it would be here, in the general election, instead of during primary season. One of the things, however, that has marked the Obama campaign is a certain willingness to stand firm on a national security-related position even if Republicans are likely to attack because of that position. It may be that other factors were at play here in Obama reversing that practice -- like the fact that as president, he might benefit from the enhanced spying authority in the bill, or the fact that congressional leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had backed the new bill, forcing him to think about party unity or being labeled as more extreme than the San Francisco Democrat. No matter the motive, the pivot is extremely noteworthy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The second largest country in the world doesn't usually get much press coverage by its smaller southern neighbor - or by many other international media outlets for that matter. But when a U.S. presidential candidate visits Canada during his election campaign, all eyes are briefly on the only constitutional monarchy on American soil. But to be frank, even then the focus was not really on Canada, the focus was on what John McCain and Barack Obama made out of the McCain's trip to Ottawa. A trip with a special history. Earlier this year a memo by the Canadian government had been leaked that said Barack Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just political posturing and not meant seriously. So the Republican candidate had travelled to Canada to emphasize his support for free trade and NAFTA and to distance himself from his Democratic rival. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, McCain didn't say anything surprising. He pointed out that "cross-border trade has more than doubled since NAFTA came into force." He suggested harmonizing U.S. and Canadian energy policies. And he took a swipe at Barack Obama, by saying that "even now, for all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate" and by promising his audience that "if I am elected president, have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments." So how did Obama respond to McCain's trip and his remarks? Poorly. "It's interesting to me that he chose to talk about trade in Canada instead of in Ohio or Michigan", the Democratic candidate said on Friday, adding that thousands of jobs had been lost in those states during President George W. Bush's tenure. That is simply not logical. Does talking about trade in Canada exclude doing the same elsewhere? Who said McCain will not talk to voters in Ohio and Michigan about trade? In fact, McCain will have to address trade and NAFTA in detail in those must-win states. It looks like, Obama's reaction to McCain's trip to Canada will be water under the bridge for those skeptical about the Illinois Senator's perceived isolationist economic tendencies. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Rudy Giuliani stepped back into presidential politics Wednesday to boost John McCain's national security-based attacks on Barack Obama, but got an earful from the media, Democrats and bloggers when he made negative remarks about Obama's views that were similar his own views at one time -- and about stances that put him at odds with McCain. What's fair is fair. If, when Hillary Clinton sticks up for Obama, the Republicans jump all over both of them, they should expect the same back. The most compelling material dredged up on Giuliani is that he criticized Obama for his laudatory remarks about the 1993 World Trade Center case, but Giuliani himself had praised the same convictions for the same reasons back in 1994. Then, of course, there's the matter of previous Republican primary sniping between McCain and Giuliani. McCain criticized Giuliani for having negligible national security experience -- the very attack he's leveled at Obama. And Giuliani and McCain likewise fought over the legality of interrogation techniques back then, a noteworthy point because it mixes up the message Giuliani was trying to send on behalf of McCain Wednesday about legal issues in the "war on terror." As I wrote about with Clinton vs. Obama, the issue of Guiliani vs. himself and Giuliani vs. McCain probably won't get the same attention upon subsequent Giuliani forays back into a political campaign, since memories fade. But Wednesday? They were still pretty fresh. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| John McCain has a problem. He has to play to the Republican base whose support he desperately needs to be viable in November. But at the same time he has to court moderates and independents since conservative votes alone won't win him the election. Sounds like a tightrope walk? You bet. And if McCain doesn't tread real carefully he might end up like John Kerry, as the FT explains in a brilliant take on the Republican candidate's strategy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We all pretty much know what the major countries in Europe and the rest of the world think about Barack Obama and John McCain. We wrote about it here many a time and it was also reported by various other outlets. But how do smaller countries in Europe feel about the election? Are there aspects that are important to them that are neglected because we tend to look only at the big players? On that note, there is a good piece on Obama and McCain's foreign policy stance from a Hungarian perspective in Budapest Analyses, which is worth checking out anyway if you are interested in other international topics. The bottom line of the article is that both McCain and Obama want to bring back a multilateral approach to U.S. foreign policy. For NATO members this will mean a new push by the U.S. to contribute to global missions. Both parties, according to Budapest Analyses, are unhappy with the work of existing international organisations, which underscores the fact that continuity in American foreign policy is more of a pattern than discontinuity. Because America's interest remains the same it would be delusional to believe that Obama would bring radical change, writes Budapest Analyses and quotes Josef Joffe. Therefore the only real foreign policy differences between Obama and McCain are the Democratic candidate's anti-free trade stance and his Republican opponent's tough position on Russia especially on security matters. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| These two pieces in the Tuesday editions of the Wall Street Journal and Hartford Courant took a look at the Middle East foreign policy team of Barack Obama, but the details are disappointingly short. We're given names, but little information on where they've stood in the past on issues, how they're hashing out any differences they have behind the scenes of a campaign that has bucked some conventional foreign policy wisdom, etc. So far, the reporting on the behind-the-scenes struggle in the John McCain campaign has been both more interesting and contained more information, in particular on the tug-of-war between foreign policy pragmatists and neocons. The Journal uses its profile to delve into some of the well-worn arguments and counter-arguments about meeting with enemy leaders, with its most telling details being about the group's influence on Obama's speech to AIPAC... but there's little examination of what some saw as a shift back toward more mainstream foreign policy concepts. The Courant piece -- actually a column, unlike the Journal's news piece -- at least asks a question about whether his group of advisers is sufficiently seasoned. But it doesn't come up with an answer, and may be missing the point. Wouldn't Obama boast that his advisers' lack of experience is a good thing, since he argues that what is needed is a fresh start and new approaches? An examination of the pros and cons of an experienced foreign policy team vs. a fresh-faced one with historical specifics would make for enriching reading, especially since that goes to the crux of one of the major Obama-McCain arguments over which of them to trust on foreign policy. At least we know this: One of Obama's foreign policy advisers says everything we need to know about national security, we can learn from Winnie the Pooh. This strikes me as exactly the kind of thing that Republicans might jump on, regardless of whether the adviser's point is sound or harmlessly anecdotal. If they don't, I'll be surprised. It seems Democrats often forget how eager Republicans are to portray them as soft on terrorism, weak on national defense and the rest. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It wasn't so long ago -- 2004, actually -- that Democratic presidential candidates like Howard Dean only supported free trade agreements if the country on the other end of the deal raised its environmental and labor standards to match ours. But from the way Barack Obama has been talking lately, he will only support expanding trade with South Korea if it LOWERS its safety and environmental standards. Set aside the question of whether South Korea's beef with our beef safety standards is a product of legitimate concern or nationalism or both. There are experts who think their concerns are rational, and experts who think their concerns are paranoid. Although Obama claims our standards are higher than South Korea's, the New York Times fact check linked above concludes that the truth remains that if South Korea adjusts to American standards in this case, it will be lowering those standards. Likewise for South Korea's automobile size-related tax. On Monday, Obama complained about the imbalance in car imports and exports between the U.S. and South Korea. But the reason for their tax is at least in part because of environmental standards. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Guess what the Swiss business community and China's Communist Party have in common? That's right, both are skeptical about Barack Obama's "change" platform. I wrote about the Swiss' reasons here. China's Communist leaders for the first time in this campaign gave some clues on their view of the candidates. Of course they didn't come out themselves and speak their mind. Instead they let the government's main newspaper do it for them. In the English language overseas edition of the People's Daily, senior desk editor Ding Gang analyses the "Obama phenomenon in (the) U.S.". But while both Reuters and AFP interpret Gang's article as a clear rebuke of Obama, I am not so sure that it really is meant as one. What I gather from the article, which is at times difficult to understand, is that Obama will not be able to deliver all the things he has promised during the campaign and that his presidency would not end America's racial problems. Let's review the article then. According to Gang, the Democratic Senator's skin color and his change rhetoric are the dominant aspects of his candidacy. They are also the reason why Western media outlets are fascinated by Obama. So let's look at the skin color argument, as presented by the People's Daily. He is "the representative of the racial merging rather than a symbol for assimilation. So his rise has not done away with privileges for the white Americans but reinforces their privileges on the contrary", writes Gang in a sentence that I don't understand. Never mind what Gang means by the privileges he is writing about. But how does Obama's multi-ethnic background reinforce those privileges? Also, according to Gang, Obama, has a "different skin color (than whites do), but shares the same American background". Then a few lines later, Gang asserts that Obama because of his skin color "needs all the more to display his American values than any white presidential candidates." That doesn't make sense. First, to even emphasize that someone whose skin color is not white can also share an American background is very revealing about the author's thinking. And second, if Obama shares the same American background then why does he need to display his American values more than any white presidential candidate? Are American values not automatically part of an American background? Now let's look at the second major factor, as seen by People's Daily: change. "In the case of (the) Iraq war, Obama is quite determined and resolute with his attitude against the war", writes Gang. He adds that it is very hard to believe that Obama's approach to simply bring the troops home as soon as possible is feasible because the issue is too complex for such a move. "And similar or identical issues also exist in such fields as economy, social security and education." Most experts agree that a rapid withdrawal of American troops regardless of the situation would be counterproductive. It seems pretty obvious that Obama is aware of this and would not pull out all troops immediately. As to the other fields mentioned by the People's Daily - economy, social security, education - Obama hasn't really made revolutionary promises. To sum it all up: Will a President Obama deliver everything he said and turn the country upside down? Probably not. But most people with experience in democratic election campaigns inside and outside the U.S. are aware of this. Perhaps for some people the mere fact that a person with a multi-ethnic background can become president of the U.S. is already change enough. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If the world could vote Barack Obama would be the next U.S. president. There are however still some international holdouts. Switzerland, or the Swiss business community to be exact, is one of them. "McCain is for free trade and a free market economy and against protectionism and government interventions," Martin Naville, CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, told the Swiss business publication Cash. While Swiss companies had nothing to fear from a President John McCain, a leftist President Obama might hurt the Swiss economy in several ways, writes Cash. Swiss pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and Roche would face lower margins in their most important market due to Obama's plan to lower drug prices through imports from other countries. Swiss banks and their booming wealth management sector would suffer from Obama's goal to restrict the exodus of capital to low tax countries like Switzerland. And finally, according to Cash, Obama is skeptical about globalization and has vowed to curb outsourcing, which would also affect Swiss suppliers. But will Obama as president really be as radical as he was during his campaign, asks Cash. "He has talked so much about 'change' that he can't really wiggle his way out of it," answers the CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, Martin Naville. "After the Bush era it might very well be that the pendulum now swings back to the opposite side." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It happened already two days ago, but you know that we can't let a good story just zip by us. On Thursday night, more than three months after John McCain effectively sealed the Republican nomination, Ron Paul ended his presidential bid. And while Paul never stood the slightest chance of becoming the nominee, let alone president, the news of his decision reverberated around the globe. From MTV in the U.S. to Le Figaro in France, from Scotland's Herald to Germany's Focus Online to China's Xinhua – never have so many outlets reported news about a candidate without a chance. Of course, for regular Across the Pond readers Ron Paul's international newsworthiness doesn't come as a surprise. I wrote - and wondered - about the maverick Republican's global appeal earlier. And quite frankly, I am still perplexed by it today. But I am also happy that Ron Paul stuck to his spiel and left with a bang that won't rock the world, but serves as a nice closer for his campaign: The Republican candidate announced that he would support not his party's candidate John McCain, but instead campaign for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. However, this may not be the last word regarding Ron Paul's support for a presidential candidate. That's because another maverick contender out there has also reached out for Paul fans: Ralph Nader. The former Green party and now independent candidate is always good for a surprise or two himself. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| How's this for a fascinating notion: Barack Obama is considering going on an overseas tour during his presidential campaign. Presidents have sometimes left the country during presidential campaigns. McCain is scheduled to go to Canada next week. But not since I've been following presidential campaigns have I heard of anyone doing a full-on tour. McClatchy, linked above, has a good take on on the pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it could offer a boost to his foreign policy credentials, perhaps, and a rebuff of John McCain's criticism about Obama not having visited Iraq since 2006. On the minus side, he'd have to make some tough decisions about where to visit and how. One note left out of the McClatchy story: It might be hard for Obama to get an unvarnished view of Iraq should he go there. There'd have to be a heavy security presence, and lawmakers on previous trips -- including McCain -- have sometimes confused life inside that particular bubble with what the rest of Iraq is like. That's assuming the Secret Service would even allow it; one presidential candidate visiting instead of both -- as McCain once offered -- might be more feasible. This overseas tour is an ambitious, risky concept. The trip may not happen; an Obama adviser would only go so far as to say "it's on the table," in effect. But it fits in with an Obama campaign theme that he could restore American esteem around the world, a notion that may not have mattered much in previous elections, but could be something voters take into account this go-round, with the United States increasingly disliked around so much of the world and with some Americans sensing the country has lost its leadership role. A positive reception abroad would stand to bolster his case. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The Washington Post Friday morning raises one more interesting point -- besides those previously raised by Michael and myself -- about the Supreme Court ruling on the Bush administration's detention policies and how it affects the presidential candidates. Buried deep in the Post's analysis is this: "[President] Bush has long expressed a desire to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and his administration has moved in recent years to return large numbers of detainees to their home countries. But of the 270 still detained there, about half are considered too dangerous to release, even though the government does not have enough evidence to charge them -- presenting a serious dilemma to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have promised to shut down the facility if elected. In commenting on the Supreme Court case yesterday, neither candidate offered a detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge." McCain did, on Friday, suggest Congress should adopt legislation to address the court decision. That would, if successful and constructed properly, mean McCain would avoid having to deal with "a detailed prescription" for dealing with that segment of potentially dangerous detainees. But given that the court has now repeatedly struck down restrictive policies on this front, it may only be successful until that legislation was scrutinized by the Supreme Court again. And getting the legislation through what is expected to be a Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't sound easy. McCain also left the door open to eventually supporting a constitutional amendment narrowing habeas corpus rights. Such an amendment would have a difficult time getting enacted, to say the least, but it would at least avoid the courts. Because of the unlikelihood of any of McCain's proposals coming to fruition, in the end, McCain is headed in the same direction as Obama -- in need of a "detailed prescription for how he would fulfill his pledge." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On certain issues there is a clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. The legal status of foreign terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, also called unlawful combatants, is one of them. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied foreign terrorism suspects access to courts, unconstitutional. That same day the presumed Republican nominee, McCain, was still carefully mincing his words. He stated, that he had not read the ruling yet, but the decision concerned him. He added, however, that it was time to move on. That sounded like the end of the story. Not quite. On Friday, McCain had apparently decided it wasn't time to move on too quickly after all. "I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," he blasted. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution." Tim wrote about the ramifications of McCain and Obama’s position for various voter groups yesterday and pointed out that McCain has been carefully trying to distance himself from President Bush while at the same time agreeing with certain positions held by Bush. Obama on the other hand, has been trying to portray McCain's Guantanamo stance as a mere extension of Bush’s Guantanamo policy. With his statement today McCain made not only clear where he stands on the issue, but also made it so much easier for Obama to link his Republican opponent to President Bush. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Today's Supreme Court ruling on the detention of terror suspects prompted reaction from both the candidates. The reaction of each points to how they'll discuss the issue in the general election, as Ben Smith suggests. Let's delve into that. Voters overall have been fairly split on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, although none of the polls here, from last year, get into the nitty gritty of what the actual Supreme Court ruling was about. John McCain, who was the leading voice on the law that the Court overturned in part, has to cater to a couple different constituencies. First, Republican voters have, since Sept. 11, largely endorsed the idea that the president should have flexibility to do most anything to pursue terrorists. McCain's "concern" today that the Court's ruling gives "unlawful combatants" status they don't deserve is red meat for those voters. But independent voters who are attracted to McCain because of his own independent streak are uncertain about Guantanamo. McCain's restatement of his desire to see Guantanamo closed -- which he has indeed expressed in the past -- is for those independents. On that point, McCain is also emphasizing distance between himself officials in the Bush administration who talk about closing Guantanamo eventually but not, like McCain has advocated, "immediately." Smith gets the politics of the Obama rhetoric right. Emphasizing civil liberties is big for many hardcore liberal voters. It's also big with a smaller swath of independents with a libertarian bent. By emphasizing "bring[ing] terrorists to justice" too, though, Obama is appealing to moderate Democrats and independents who are willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties (and/or, in this case, those of foreign terror suspects) for an increase in security. And it gives Obama another chance to tie McCain to President Bush, since, on the question of habeas corpus, the two have been in harmony. With the economy taking center stage, and Iraq and Iran dominating many of the headlines that have a foreign policy twist, the Court's ruling doesn't have the look of an issue that will come up very much in the campaign. But for those crucial independent voters, it could factor into the overall equation, and the wrong answer for each candidate's base could deepen intra-party doubts about both men. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Haven't heard from Col Muammar Gaddafi in a while? Yep, it's true, since the Libyan leader morphed from strongman of a rogue state to partner of the West, he has managed to tone down his rhetoric. But now Gaddafi is back. In a speech in Tripoli he not only attacked, but insulted Barack Obama. Referring to Obama's speech earlier this month at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the Democratic presidential candidate stated his support for Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, Gaddafi said Obama was either ignorant of Middle East politics or lying to further his campaign. Gaddafi elaborated in his speech marking the 38th anniversary of the departure of U.S. troops from Libya: "We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites." And just for good measure, Libya's military leader threw a bit of conspiracy theory in the mix. "We suspect he may fear being killed by Israeli agents and meet the same fate as (assassinated former U.S. President John Fitzgerald) Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear program," Gaddafi speculated about the reasons for Obama's pro-Israel stance. What does this tell us? First, that an old hand like Gaddafi, once called a "mad dog" by President Ronald Reagan, doesn't learn new tricks. And second, it might make Barack Obama rethink the usefulness of his approach to talk to leaders of rogue states unconditionally. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Very interesting analysis by Stuart Rothenberg regarding the Obama/McCain electoral map. According to Rothenberg there exists a "serious possibility" of a repeat of the situation in 2000. One candidate could win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To find out where Barack Obama and John McCain end up in this scenario click here. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Just in time for the campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama to start in earnest, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has kicked off a new blog. Called The McCain Report, the first entry was posted yesterday by Michael Goldfarb, formerly of The Weekly Standard. The new blog is apparently an addition to McCain's already existing blog. The official goal of the McCain Report is to give journalists and bloggers more insight into the campaign and "to provide quotes and information you won't be able to get anywhere else." Another, unstated goal of the blog, appears to be to poke fun at Obama and to mellow McCain's image as an old Cold Warrior with a history of getting angry. The subtitle of the McCain Report, "A blog you can believe in", is obviously a spoof on the Obama theme "Change you can believe in" - albeit one that's not exactly knee-slapping funny. The other goal, mellowing McCain's image, is tackled by displaying a picture of McCain from 2004 that shows the Arizona senator clad in t-shirt and baseball hat holding an alligator. And, by revealing that McCain is an ABBA fan, Hillary-leaning readers are invited to "Take a chance on McCain". Also not exactly hilarious (pun intended), but you shouldn't judge a blog by its first posts, so let's wait and see. Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, McCain has been very active in reaching out to the internet community. Obama, of course, has been regarded as a master of utilizing the internet to pull in money and connect with voters. But John McCain, at least as outreach is concerned, doesn't lag far behind, and may even be on par with Obama. For details about McCain's internet strategy, check out this piece from The Nation. Obama, of course has had a blog - the Obama blog - on his site for quite some time. Unlike McCain's new blog, it is a pretty straightforward campaign tool with lots of excerpts from Obama's speeches and quotes by campaign managers. No effort to be humorous or reshape Obama's image. What's good about the Obama blog is its interactivity through readers comments and its savy use of the internet with videos, pictures and social networking sites. Overall, the Obama blog has a sleaker, hipper feel to it than the McCain Report. However, should the McCain Report over time become a tongue-in-cheek campaign chronicle that doesn't take both Obama and McCain too serious, it could fill a niche. And win McCain some sympathy points as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech today that she will support Barack Obama on the campaign trail, but tops among the issues where she will find praise for Obama challenging is foreign policy, the area in which the divisions between the two Democrats have been the most stark. Republicans have already begun an effort to haunt Obama with Clinton's remarks during the primary race, and, notably, many of her criticisms they highlighted were on foreign policy -- both because of those divisions and because that's the area where Republicans want to attack Obama, too. Of course, remarks during heated primary fights have not proven decisive or even particularly influential in subsequent general election battles. It was George H.W. Bush who saddled Ronald Reagan's economic policies with the label "voodoo economics." Scathing though it was, Reagan opponents could not use the term to stop him in 1980. And Bush ended up as Reagan's vice president, the same place Clinton reportedly is angling for with Obama. But at least for the near-term, any time Clinton talks about Obama's foreign policy, reporters are likely to highlight areas where she has criticized Obama in the past and praised John McCain over him. Republicans will try to keep those Clinton criticisms at the forefront. While the two often staked similar policy stances, they also often fought sharply over each others' records. Although they feuded over their respective past positions on Iraq, their policies going forward were quite alike. On Iran, the two candidates used strikingly different rhetoric despite positions that were very similar at their most basic -- with the exception of whether and how they would meet with leaders of that country and other enemies, but where Obama's position is harder to read these days. On free trade, the two candidates had heated exchanges over who had previously offered the most support for NAFTA. Clinton's criticisms of Obama on those points will be used by GOP opponents to cast him as a flip-flopper on Iraq and free trade, and squishy on Iran and other dictators, for starters. Clinton and Obama will be able to finesse those feuds to a certain degree, given their basic agreement. The remark that will surely be thrown into their faces the most, though, are comments along these lines from Clinton during the primary campaign: "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on day it defend our country and keep our families safe. We need a president who passes that test. The first and most solemn duty of the president of the United States is to protect and defend our nation. And when there is a crisis and when the phone rings whether it’s 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 a.m. In the White House, there is no time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference. I think since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold. I believe that I have done that and certainly Senator McCain has done that. You will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.” Clinton's remarks today did not touch on Obama's foreign policy in any meaningful way, briefly mentioning the need to get troops out of Iraq, the urgency of conquering global warming, how the world would be different on foreign policy if Democrats had been in charge of late, and a general declaration that Obama has proven he is capable of being president. Carl Bernstein, a Clinton biographer, said on CNN today that Clinton will have to get around to explaining why Obama is suddenly qualified. That will take not just finesse, but an almost total reversal. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A couple of days ago, I wrote about a new Gallup poll that said a majority of Americans think Barack Obama's idea to talk to hostile leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, makes sense. According to the poll, even half of the Republicans questioned felt that way. These figures were a slap in the face for John McCain who has attacked Obama constantly on this issue. That's what I wrote then, because that's how it looked then. Now, three days and two polls later, the picture of how Americans feel about talking to Iran looks different. A new survey by Public Agenda finds that 47 percent of Americans think using diplomacy is the best way to deal with the current situation in Iran, while only seven percent feel military action is the best way to handle Iran. This seems to confirm the findings of the Gallup poll, but only at first glance. The Public Agenda study, which didn't receive much press coverage (Democracy Arsenal, Think Progress, and the Iranian outlet Press TV, being one of a few who reported it), is part of a larger, multi-year study called the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The survey was conducted from mid-March to the beginning of April and therefore long before the Iran debate between McCain and Obama started to really heat up. What's more, due to the nature of the Public Agenda study, the questions are more general: Probably most people would agree that diplomacy is the best idea to try to deal with the current situation in Iran. But as we have learned, what one means by diplomacy is very much up for interpretation. In a nutshell: The Public Agenda poll is not a valid indicator as to whether Americans support Obama's Iran policy or not. The latest Rasmussen poll is. According to the survey, conducted on June 3, most likely voters (45 percent) agree with Obama and think it is a good idea for the U.S. president to meet with his Iranian counterpart. However, when asked whether Iran should be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities, 59 percent answer with yes. When asked who would do a better job negotiating with the Iranian president, McCain and Obama fare the same, each receiving 42 percent of the vote. The Rasmussen Poll was also not widely reported, CQ's Polltracker being one the few to do so. (Iran's Press TV didn't mention the Rasmussen poll.) So what do the results of both polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, mean for Obama and McCain's position on Iran? Americans want a middle of the road approach. Most people favor negotiating with hostile leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but not under any circumstances. Their message for McCain and Obama is: Let's try something new and talk to Iran's president, but only if Iran shows some goodwill as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Let's get meta! This may be the only opportunity of my life to write for a German news website on American politics, from America, about the U.S. reception for a German newspaper's coverage of politics in the United States -- as originally covered by yet another German newspaper. So here goes: Die Tageszeitung's headline following Barack Obama's clinching primary win reads, "Uncle Barack's Cabin." Spiegel Online poses a question about the headline: "Offensive or satirical?" This is exactly the kind of thing that, if a U.S. newspaper did it, would lead to all kinds of outrage. But since it's in Germany, the reception here has been more restrained. The biggest U.S paper to give it any attention so far is USA Today, which asks: "Is German paper's Obama headline racist?" The rest is a rather sober rehashing of the Spiegel article. The Village Voice finds in the "Uncle Barack's Cabin" headline a certain commendable quality, based on the editor-in-chief's justification of its intended satirical quality and his response of "tough luck" to any readers who don't understand it. Writes the Village Voice: "When's the last time you heard an editor of a major U.S. daily say that?" And just to close on a meta note, the satirists over at Wonkette do their own satirical take on the Die Tageszeitung headline: "Ha ha, here is some great newspaper from Nazi Germany that comically names the White House 'Uncle Tom’s Cabin,' because a slave may soon call it home." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Worldwide reactions to Barack Obama securing the Democratic nominiation for president against his tenacious rival Hillary Clinton were overwhelmingly positive, sometimes bordering on hysteria. We wrote about international perceptions of Obama many times in this blog. But it is fair to say that all the enthusiasm about Obama's win in the U.S or Europe pales in comparison to how Africans feel about this historic event. Kenya, Obama's father's native country, obviously leads the continent in elation about the Senator from Illinois' nomination. Mukau Mutua in The Daily Nation calls it an understatement that Kenyans are ecstatic about the possibility that Obama "a Kenyan-American of Luo extraction" might become president. "Judging by word on the street, one would be forgiven for thinking that Mr Obama was poised to become either the president of Kenya, or of Africa. There are many reasons for the hysteria, but the immediate one is national, racial, and ethnic pride that a black man can become 'king' of the empire." Ugandans, too, are excited about Obama's victory, and optimistic that he can defeat Republican John McCain in the general election in November, writes Uganda's New Vision. According to the paper, Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa described Obama's win as historic because a black man was for first time contesting for the U.S. presidency on the ticket of a main party. Ray Hartley comments in his blog The Wild Frontier for the South African Times that Obama's ascendency "has raised the hope that the US will finally assume its role as a responsible super power that will extract itself from the conflict in Iraq." For Hartley, Obama's win "signals the long overdue deracialization of American politics. Should he become president, it will go a long way towards removing racial loyalty from politics." How important the Obama nomination is to Africans becomes clear when Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade calls it "a revolution". "I think the fact that whites can choose a black candidate to represent them in presidential election is a good thing," Wade was quoted as telling reporters, adding that "this is akin to a revolution of attitudes in the United States." But what underscores the relevance of Africa's feelings about Obama even more is the fact that the Chinese news agency Xinhua published this story refering to a report by the Senegalese News Agency. While Africans are generally enthusiastic about Obama and his prospects, there is also scepticism whether Obama can fulfill high African hopes. Makau Mutua writes in Kenya's The Nation that "the United States has had a structurally racist and exploitative relationship with Africa." Mutua continues: "It is partly because of these traumas that Africa is so underdeveloped and marginalised in global politics. That is why to America, Africa has either been an afterthought or an object of pity and charity. It would require an ideological shift by the U.S. to change its relationship with Africa to base it on equality, fair trade and investment, and a voice for Africans in global institutions." According to Mukau, this cannot be done by the president alone because it requires a realignment of U.S. foreign policy away from what he calls Eurocentrism. I think Mukau makes an interesting point about Africa-U.S. relations. Where I and probably many Europeans and Americans disagree is that American foreign policy still is Eurocentric. In recent years, the U.S. has refocused its foreign policy away from Europe (military, diplomatic, economic). This has been much maligned here. However, the benefactor of this realignment was not Africa, but Asia. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On a night when the race took another conclusive step toward becoming a general election campaign, both Barack Obama and John McCain spent large swaths of their Tuesday evening speeches focusing on Iraq. But to whose advantage? The Washington Post's editorial page (hat tip Foreign Policy), which strongly supported the Iraq War, sees ample evidence that Obama will have to shift his Iraq stance. The major reason is the fact that May was the least deadly month of the entire Iraq War, among other security improvements and some of the most optimistic assessments of Bush administration officials yet. When those details become widely known, it would not be surprising at all to see public opinion polls show a slight favorable shift toward the Iraq War. But it would be surprising to see the Iraq War become popular in any way whatsoever, let alone enough to be of aid to a candidate -- McCain -- whose identity is closely tied to it. Americans love winners, to be sure, and just as surely want success in Iraq. It's just that, after years of lives and treasure consumed for what turned out to be a faulty justification for war, few Americans want to see any more consumed. The proof is in the same polls. Since the surge, the security situation in Iraq has gotten better. And yet, the Iraq War is as unpopular as ever. This question, for an ABC/Washington Post poll, is particularly telling: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" Since the beginning of 2007 through mid-April, the percentage of people who answered "worth it" has not crossed 40, and at last count stood at 34. What's more, the Obama campaign -- whether ingenuously or sincerely -- has left itself options should Iraq's turn for the better continue. Obama's position, and that of all the Democrats who ran, has always been that he will consider the facts on the ground in deciding when or if to pull out troops. The only thing he's truly committed to is not staying in Iraq for 100 years -- a commitment that plays on a remark McCain made about that span of time and that Democrats have been using out of context. That flexibility will make it easier to mitigate any McCain gains if the war continues to move in a good direction. McCain has little alternative but to try and capitalize on the improving situation in Iraq. He can't run from Iraq, at least not very much, nor has he really tried. But short of a 100% victory, a ticker tape parade and a sudden transformation of the Middle East because of it, it's hard to see how Iraq in 2008 is a political issue that can hurt Obama. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| International reactions to Barack Obama's victory and Hillary Clinton's defeat are pretty much as expected. Most commentators are not surprised and glad the Democrats finally have their candidate. You can find an overview of global reactions here and here. Let's look at two more interesting takes on the end of the Democratic campaign: In an editorial titled "The Weaknesses of Barack Obama," Austria's Die Presse argues that John McCain stands a good chance of becoming President because for many Americans Obama is "too liberal, too black and too aloof." Obama's pros are his drive, his refreshingly positive style – and McCain's age, adds the paper. But Obama's long campaign against Clinton has revealed weaknesses. "The black darling of the educated elite has considerable difficulties with white workers and in large states, which were all won by Clinton. Should McCain manage to hold on to Florida and Ohio, and win Pennsylvania, than the Democrats have a real problem on the 4th of November." Torsten Krauel, Washington correspondent for the German daily Die Welt, lists eight reasons why Clinton lost against Obama: 1. Clinton focused on the large states and neglected the small ones. 2. Clinton neglected important new donors in Silicon Valley and instead relied on her old Hollywood connections. 3. Clinton's election campaign was still from the 20th century while Obama's was from the 21st and harnessed the power of the internet. 4. Bill Clinton's vicious comments that often had a racial undertone. 5. Lack of Brutality: When the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced Clinton could have played them constantly in her campaign and seriously damaged Obama's chances. She chose not to for fear of dividing the party. 6. She hesitated to distance herself clearly and convincingly from her vote for the war in Iraq. 7. Proportional representation hurt Clinton. In this campaign there was only one chance to build a lead among delegates: Super Tuesday. Had it not been for proportional representation, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee on February 6th. 8. Race beats gender: Clinton thought women's rights were the core question for liberals. She was wrong. The race issue was. What is your explanation of Clinton's defeat and Obama's win? What are Obama's weaknesses in the race against John McCain? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Was there ever previously a major campaign issue where the positions of the candidates were so loaded up with caveats, apparent contradictions and ambiguities the way there has been with the 2008 debate over how and whether the next president should meet with the leaders of enemy countries? That debate kicked into a higher gear a couple weeks ago when President Bush, in a speech in Israel, made a cloaked allusion to Barack Obama's stance about being willing to meet with the leader of Iran and implied that Obama favored a policy of "appeasement," akin to those who favored negotiating with Adolf Hitler. Set aside the apparent reversals, or, at best, subtleties in Obama's actual position on meeting with Iranian leaders. As it happens, Bush himself not so long ago indicated he had no problem meeting with leaders of Iran. According to excerpts from a 2007 interview with Bush by an NBC News war correspondent, Bush said: "We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much." That contrasts with Bush's statement in Israel ridiculing those who would "negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Around the same time Bush said that in Israel, his Defense secretary was saying of Tehran, "'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,' [Bob] Gates said. 'If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.'" Maybe Bush can explain the difference between his two statements, but they are contradictory on their face. So, too, is the apparent "triangulation" by Obama on meeting with controversial foreign leaders at a time when polls suggest its popularity, and John McCain's continued assaults on Obama's position despite its positive reception from voters. But then, the latest twists and turns in this debate are par for the course. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It looks like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make the world outside the U.S. happy tonight. Obama by becoming the official Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November, Clinton by finally deciding to end her campaign and by her willingness to be Obama's vice president. Lots has been written about the world's infatuation with Obama, here and elsewhere. With Obama's candidacy assured, however, how he is perceived by an international audience and what is expected of him becomes more important. No more fantasy football. Now it's the big leagues. A lucid analysis of Obama's international role and its possible problems offers Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund of the United States: Entitled The Dalai Obama, Stelzenmüller writes that Germans' high hopes for an Obama victory are not unfounded, but they may still be dissappointed. First, because John McCain is a veritable opponent. Second, because no one knows whether racial prejudices will play a role on November 4 or not. And third: Should there be a deterioriting financial situation or a downturn of events in Iraq, Americans are more likely to vote for someone who stands for security than for someone promising change. Even if Obama defeats McCain and becomes President, the end of the euphoria is foreseeable writes Stelzenmüller. "Obama will call on the help of Germany and the rest of Europe to combat authoritarian regimes worldwide. Iran, NATO in Afghanistan, engagement on Europe's borders, diplomacy in the Middle East, and perhaps stabilization assistance in Iraq. As an idealist, Obama hopes his appeal to Europe's sense of responsibility, but if that fails, he must continue as a realist - without Europe." That sounds about right. What many people in Gemany and Europe who hope for a Democrat in the White House don't realize is that a President Obama can and will ask for so much more of Europe than President Bush ever could or John McCain will or can. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Food for thought for John McCain. According to a new Gallup poll, 67 percent of Americans think it's a good idea that the U.S. President meets with leaders of countries the United States considers enemies. This sentiment is so strong it even holds when asked specifically about Iran, the nation that is perceived to be the country's biggest enemy. When asked whether it would be a good idea for the U.S. President to meet with his Iranian counterpart 59 percent answer with yes. Interestingly, not only most Democrats and Independents agree with the idea, but also almost 50 percent of Republicans. What did McCain do the same day the poll was released? He blasted Barack Obama again for his earlier suggestion (which Obama had altered recently) that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain portrayed Obama as a candidate inexperienced in foreign policy and out of touch with the situtation in the Middle East: "We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," the presumed Republican nominee said without mentioning his Democratic rival by name. McCain's problem is that most Americans apparently don't care whether the idea is old, bold or new. They simply think it's a good one. They say let's give it a shot and talk to the president of Iran and other hostile leaders. And by supporting that idea, they also clearly support Obama, who brought it up in the first place. The poll is great news for Obama in an area where he really needs it – foreign policy. It shows that large numbers of Americans are willing to consider a different foreign policy approach in dealing with rogue states. It also shows that at least on this important issue McCain's finger pointing at Obama is simply not good enough. If McCain wants to keep the status quo, he has to convince people of his reasons. He hasn't been able to do that yet. Just calling Obama and his ideas naive won't do the trick. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Recently, the three U.S. presidential candidates released a joint statement on Darfur calling the situation there a genocide and blaming the Sudanese government for it, a remarkable bit of cooperation during an election season. Naturally, the candidates won praise for setting aside partisanship on an important issue. But the statement is short on specifics, and what the candidates have proposed separately in the past neglects at least one of the thorniest problems. All three -- Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama -- have called for a no-fly zone over Darfur, as did President Bush last year. The idea is supported by some Darfur-related advocacy groups, including the Save Darfur Coalition, which spearheaded the tri-candidate letter. But the idea has not been greeted so warmly in parts of Europe. At the European Union, a top official has called it "technically impossible." Others dismiss it for other reasons. For example, the candidates have specifically called for a NATO-backed no-fly zone, which some experts believe could create more problems than it would solve, since the regime might respond by worsening its attacks or cutting off relief. (Interestingly enough, an Obama adviser, Susan Rice, told VOA last year that there should be a "'very short duration ultimatum in which to accept an effective and robust international force with a mandate to protect civilians - or face the threat of the use of military force,' she said. According to Rice, this force should take the form of 'air strikes, targeted at the aircraft, the airfields [of the Sudanese government]. That's exactly what we [the international community through the UN] did in Kosovo, in a far lesser humanitarian crisis. It's striking to me that we aren't even discussing or contemplating that in the context of Darfur.'") All three candidates, as well, have voted for or proposed increases in funding to help improve the situation in Darfur, and there are minor variations in some of their other, smaller, proposals. But one of the biggest barriers to solving the problem, if not the biggest, is another country entirely. That country is China, since China is buying up much of Sudan's oil, rendering divestment campaigns around the world less effective and making it hard to deal out any economic pressure. Furthermore, with its veto as a member of the U.N. Security Council, China has been an impediment to all manner of international attempts to intervene in Darfur. If the candidates have enunciated anything they would do specifically to convince China to A. get out of the way of international efforts to intervene or B. use its own economic leverage to halt the genocide, they have done so discreetly. All three did support a boycott of the Olympics' opening ceremony as a way of highlighting various controversial China policies. But as with all things Darfur, there is no agreement on whether the best policy on China as it pertains to Darfur is humiliation or incentives. There are some signs that China has gotten skittish about Darfur, but there's little evidence to suggest they've gotten skittish enough about it to force change. Anonymously, Chinese officials have noted that their country is not the only one to support repressive regimes that are rich in oil. The joint statement from the candidates, and the respective records of each on Darfur, suggests that all three, as president, would be inclined to do more than Bush. Giving attention to the issue at all is part of the solution. But eventually, the candidates -- or, at minimum, the one who wins the White House -- will have to fill in some difficult blanks. |
||||||||
|
||||||||