Obama foreign policy adviser's roundtable

Last Thursday I was invited to attend this roundtable at Arcadia University in Glenside, PA. Senator Obama's campaign was represented by four of his foreign policy advisers, impressive people all: Denis McDonough, Susan Rice, Paul Bucha and Richard Danzig. It re-inspired my strong desire to see Senator Obama become next President of the United States.

There was a limited opportunity for the audience to participate. I had several things I wanted to say and had my hand up to get the microphone the whole time, but never got it. So I'm posting my thoughts here. My ideas are certainly not original or new. Mr Bucha came close to making the first of these points himself on Thursday. The second—perhaps others as well—reflects a position that Senator Obama has already taken. And the third was briefly alluded to in another question asked that day.

(1) War on Terror: I believe one of the biggest mistakes President Bush made after 9/11 was to declare this a "War". For one thing it raises the status of the vile people who committed this heinous act far beyond what they deserve. Al Qaeda is obviously not a nation against whom we can make war. We should be treating them as nothing more than the uncommon criminals that they are.

More importantly, there is no way to define how we will know when this "war" has concluded. If there was thing I thought we had learned from Vietnam, it was that we must have clear and measurable objectives before we go to war. Apparently not.

Mr Bucha made a similar comment about the Iraq War and added that U.S. citizens have not been called upon to make any sacrifices for that war. I disagree. The one thing we have been asked to sacrifice and, unfortunately, seem all too willing to give up, is our civil liberties. Invoking the War on Terror helps make this possible. We'd be far less willing to give up these liberties in the name of catching criminals hidden away in the remote mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(As a side note, this is the big problem with things like a War on Drugs as far as I'm concerned: they can't be won -- and for that matter we can't even lose and know that we're done with them.)

(2) Nuclear Weapons: It's been almost two decades since the Cold War ended. The U.S. still maintains a stockpile of almost 10,000 nuclear weapons. While this is about half what we had at the end of the Cold War, it's still a huge number. In the same period of time, the Russian stockpile has been cut by more than 90%, from well over 30,000 to a little over 3,000. I'm sure this is a very complicated topic and that an analysis such as mine is overly simplistic.

I also know that Senator Obama would pursue nuclear arms reductions. Nevertheless I would like to hear this receive much more emphasis.

(3) Military Draft: I vividly recall watching on TV as lottery numbers being drawn for the first time while I was attending Occidental College (where my education enabled me to obtain a student deferment). My birthday drew #197, and when I learned from my local draft board that they were only going up to a number slightly lower, I dropped my student deferment at home on Christmas break, becoming 1-A for a few days. A few days later, on January 1st, I was reclassified 1-H—not currently subject to processing for induction—and thus avoided any military service in the Vietnam Era.

One questioner at the roundtable on Thursday alluded to the role the draft played in bringing about the end of the Vietnam War. For decades after Vietnam I opposed any kind of military draft. But during the Bush years I have completely reversed my position. I now believe that a necessary pre-condition for this nation ever going to war should be the institution of a widespread draft with minimal possibilities for obtaining deferments. Doing so would ensure that we, the people, support any such war. And if things get out of hand, as they have in Iraq, an on-going draft would help bring about the kind of pressure to end the war that we saw in the late 60s and early 70s.

Ten things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.¹
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China.² Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."³
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.⁴
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."⁵
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children.⁶ He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.⁷
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes!⁸ Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.⁹
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief.¹⁰ One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."¹¹
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists.¹² The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.¹³
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion."¹⁴ McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."^15,16
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero--from the League of Conservation Voters last year.¹⁷

[Extracted rom a 5 Apr 2008 e-mail from MoveOn.org.]

---

¹"The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day", ABC News, April 3, 2008
²"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi'", ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
³"McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq", Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
⁴"McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill", ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
⁵"McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned", MSNBC, February 18, 2007
⁶"2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council(R) Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard", February 2008
⁷"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion", CNN, October 3, 2007
⁸"Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady", Associated Press, April 3, 2008
⁹"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk'", Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
¹⁰"Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?", Associated Press, February 16, 2008
¹¹"Famed McCain temper is tamed", Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
¹²"Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is'", ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
¹³"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man'", ABC News, January 29, 2008
¹⁴"McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam", Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
¹⁵"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?", ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
¹⁶"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran'", ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
¹⁷"John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record", Sierra Club, February 28, 2008

---

Obama's misstatement regarding the Iraq War

I watched Senator Obama with Chris Matthews on Hardball tonight (watch the video of it here). Senator Obama stated that the Iraq War has gone on longer than World War II, World War I and the Civil War (28:10–28:28 in the video). With regard to World War II, this is correct only with regard to the length of U.S. involvement (7 December 1941 - 15 August 1945, 1,347 days). We reached that length of involvement in Iraq on 25 November 2006.

World War II is generally considered to have run from 1 September 1939 to 15 August 1945 (2,175 days). The Iraq War will have lasted as long on 2 March 2009. Despite what I expect to be Senator Obama's upcoming election to the Presidency, U.S. troops will surely still be in Iraq on that date.

Conflict in the European theater of World War II—the shortest portion of that war—lasted 2,076 days. For the Iraq War to be longer it would have to be continuing as of 23 November 2008 (which in all likelihood it unfortunately will be).

On 7 July 1937 Japan invaded China. One could reasonably argue this as the beginning date of World War II, in which case the length of World War II would be 2,961 days. For the Iraq War to last that long, conflict would have to continue till 27 April 2011. I pray that U.S. troops are long gone by then.

---

This repeats the essence of an e-mail I just sent the Obama campaign.

6 Apr 2008 15:45 Eastern time UPDATE:
Added a link to youtube video of Obama's appearance on Hardball.

The value of Democratic candidates winning "swing" states' primaries

The New York Times has an article today headlined "Democrats in a Fight to Define ‘Winner’". In it, among other statements is this one: "Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, has focused on her victories in states with the most Electoral College votes, like Ohio and California." What does this have to do with the likelihood of her winning the state in the general election? The races she's won are primary elections, i.e. she had the most votes among self-identified Democrats (plus, in certain states, with some number of non-Democratic crossover voters, who chose among the Democratic candidates for various reasons). The fact that she won the Democratic primary in George Bush's home state by a little over 3½% has only marginal relation to her ability to win Texas in the general election. This is especially true given Obama's demonstrated ability to attract Republicans and Independents.

Superdelegates

Lately there has been a lot of discussion about how Democratic superdelegates ought to determine which candidate they will support to become their nominee for President. To me it seems quite obvious and simple: they should use their best judgement based on whatever criteria they deem important. Personally I hope such criteria will be in for what is in the best interests of the party and the nation—candidates' positions, abilities and character; probability of success in the general election—rather than what is in their own personal interest—which candidate will offer them a position in their administration, should they be elected. The Democratic party purposely does not prescribe how superdelegates should make this decision. There are no rules; there are not even guidelines.

Partly because this is what I think superdelegates will do, but also because superdelegates have tended in the past to support establishment candidates, I have been predicting since early January (after the New Hampshire primary) that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee [full disclosure: using similar logic I predicted at the same time that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, although one could say there were no establishment candidates among the Republicans). I still think this outcome is somewhat likely. I hope I am wrong, because of the three remaining candidates for President, Obama is the only one I would vote for in the general election. My vote will not go to Clinton, if she's nominated.

I remain optimistic however, since the odds makers—who back their predictions up with their own real money—are currently favoring Obama. Here are the odds as of today from oddschecker.com:

• Democratic nominee: Obama–1.36 to 1, Clinton–3.5 to 1, Evan Bayh–101 to 1
• President, by party: Democrats–1.54 to 1, Republicans–2.75 to 1, Independents–101 to 1
• President, by candidate: Obama–2.2 to 1, McCain–2.75 to 1, Clinton–5.5 to 1

Finally, for anyone interested in learning more about superdelegates, I recommend A Brief History of Superdelegates, a post by poblano¹ (whoever he or she is) over at Daily Kos. Only partly a history, it's also an analysis and concludes with an argument for why Democratic superdelegates in 2008 should support the winner of "the popular will of Democratic voters and caucus goers," who will presumably be Barack Obama. Even if you don't agree with the argument, it's worth reading for the history. It summary, it gives the four rationales espoused at the time the concept of superdelegates was created (1982) [parenthetical comments are mine]:

1. to increase the sense of order and avert a crisis at the Convention (this was in the wake of the disastrous—for the Democrats—1972 and 1980 general elections);
2. to get party officials more involved with the eventual nominee (which, ironically, undid the reforms made for the 1972 election cycle, which took power away from party officials who were deemed responsible for the 1968 Convention fiasco, and thus beginning the era of the modern primary election);
3. to nominate a candidate who can win; and
4. to check against a plurality, factional candidate who does not reflect the prevailing sentiment of the electorate (having in mind a non-mainstream candidate who only wins a plurality of pledged delegates while multiple mainstream candidates divide up the majority of such delegates).

---

¹ poblano has a rather interesting website of his or her own: fivethirtyeight.com, a "new, semi-continually updated blog on polling and electoral math for the 2008 general election," 538 being the number of electors in the Electoral College.

Federal laws against prostitution

The news that a Federal wiretap picked up a phone conversation of Eliot Spitzer's in which he arranged a visit to a prostitute raises some questions that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Why is the Federal government investigating prostitution? How can Federal laws against prostitution be constitutional? Given charges of money laundering and the fact that the IRS is involved, there are clearly other Federal laws that are alleged to have been broken. But there is also apparently a Federal law against prostitution; this New York Times article names two people "charged with a conspiracy to violate federal prostitution laws."

The 10^th amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, in full, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Where in the Constitution is the power to regulate prostitution given to the Federal government? The commerce clause perhaps? I wouldn't be surprised if this were the justification. After all, this prostitution ring was international in scope, with multiple places of business in the United States. But as with so many applications of this controversial clause I see this as another unwarranted usurpation of power by the Feds. Is this what the writers of the Constitution had in mind? That the U.S. government would be prosecuting prostitutes and their johns? I doubt it.

In-depth reporting

Late this morning, as I was eating my fried eggs and toast, I turned on CNN. The story being covered at the moment was General Ricardo Sanchez criticism yesterday of the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Iraq.

After reporting on what he said, a segment came titled "Who is Sanchez?"

"Ah, good," I thought, "it will be nice to get to know a little bit more about this guy."

This segment made three points. While Gen. Sanchez commanded forces in Iraq, from June 2004 to June 2004,

1. Saddam Hussein was captured.
2. Saddam Husseins sons were killed.
3. The Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded.

Oh, great! I'm so glad I stay tuned. I now know so much more about General Sanchez.

Is this what in-depth reporting has come to?