Books reviews, current events, and other musings

Here's my impression of yesterday Democratic primary debate (abridged ABC version).

First of all, the moderators asked some really sucky questions.

[Peter Jennings] The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him. At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush — he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter." Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

As Jennings must know, there have plenty of mainstream news stories about Bush going AWOL, as Michael Moore lists on his site. Despite the thorough records that the military keeps, there hasn't been any evidence otherwise, and it's irresponsible for Jennings to claim that the charge is reckless. Besides, since when is there an obligation to correct anyone who makes a false statement in your presence? In the world I live in, it's often rude to publicly accuse someone of being wrong, especially if that person just did you a big favor.

At a high level, all of the candidates are emulating the successful tactics of Dean and Edwards. Dean's strong, aggressive attitude and denunciations of Bush are what made him the frontrunner until the Iowa vote. Edward's "nice guy" approach, not criticizing the other Democrats, helped him do well in Iowa. We ended up with a stage full of candidates who were friendly to each other while condemning the Bush administration, not that there's anything wrong with that.

John Edwards came off quite well; he definitely the best speaker of the bunch. Though he doesn't have enough experience to become President, Edwards would be a great running mate for any of the other candidates.

Dean was more subdued than normal, in a clear attempt to counteract the media hysteria about his Iowa post-election speech. While he had good responses to all of the questions, he didn't present a compelling reason for choosing him over one of the Dean-clones. The fact that Dean opposed the Iraqi War, which Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman all voted for, will help a little. Dean achieved his main goal of presenting himself as emotionally stable, though passionate.

Kerry, as usual, gave an uninspiring performance, though he did advertise his military and political experience, a combination that none of the other candidates possess. He continues to supply good intellectual reasons to support him with any emotional ummph. Kerry is a promising candidate in theory, but candidates lacking excitement, such as Dukakis and Gore, don't do that well in practice.

Clark gave decent answers, but as a newby politician he hasn't mastered the art of connecting to the audience while providing sound-bite responses. His past support of Republicans, such as voting for Reagan, will hurt him among Democratic primary voters, though it would help him in a general election if nominated.

Lieberman was annoying, as expected, but I've always disliked him. I'm glad that Kucinich is out there expressing his liberal beliefs, which I share, but he and Sharpton are just along for the ride.

posted by Julian at 9:35PM

Putting aside politics for the moment, here's a terrifying prospect for Iraq (from Counterspin Central).

CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address.
...
"Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now's their time," said one intelligence officer. "They think that if they don't get what they want now, they'll probably never get it. Both of them feel they've been betrayed by the United States before."

An Iraqi civil war has always been a real possibility, considering the different religious factions in the country. I have no clue whether US troops should stay to keep the peace, despite being attacked as occupiers. Or, should the US hand off control to the Iraqis, and hope that civil war, anarchy, or religious extremism doesn't take hold? In The Nation, Robert Scheer makes a solid case for letting the Iraqi choose their destiny in direct democratic elections.

posted by Julian at 11:20PM

From Atrios...



posted by Julian at 10:05PM

Well, the Iowa results were a shock: Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%, and Gephardt 11%. As a Dean supporter, it's a disappointment. I still think that he's the most likely nominee, because of his campaign war chest and his strong organization, but it's a lot less certain that it was a week ago.

Strangely, I'm not as disappointed in Dean's showing as you might expect. The other candidates have replicated Dean's message, aggressively criticizing the Bush administration and emphasizing their plans to turn things around. The frontrunners are finally displaying the kind of strong leadership that has been sorely lacking in the Democratic Party in recent years. If someone with Dean's attitude wins the nomination, instead of Dean himself, that would be fine with me.

The bottom line is that Kerry, Dean, or Clark could be first-rate Presidents. They each have strengths and weaknesses relative to the others, and none of them stands out in terms of policy views. Though Dean is still my favorite, the gap has closed over the last few weeks.

Dean has incredible grass-roots support, and his vision resonates more strongly than what the other candidates are saying. At a visceral level, he's the candidate (besides Kucinich) who I'd most trust with the power of the Oval Office. I admire his opposition to the Iraqi war, his focus on expanding health care coverage, and his support of civil unions. My main concern is his electability, as highlighted by the Iowa results. If active Democrats are so ambivalent about him, how will moderates react? Though Dean isn't that liberal, the Republican label of "ultraliberal" will stick to him during the general campaign. Many Republicans exhibit a visceral dislike of Dean, reminiscent of their Clinton hatred, which would lead to greater Republican turnout and donations.

Wesley Clark is a brilliant man, and the way he handled the challenges of Kosovo was amazing. (The morality of the Kosovo bombing campaign is unclear, but that's a separate issue about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's actions.) His military and foreign policy expertise go without saying. The progressive nature of his tax plan, under which families of four making less than $50,000 would pay no federal income tax, is fantastic, though it's unclear how he'd balance the budget and increase social spending at the same time. However, a person should ideally spend time as an elected official before becoming President. Being a democratic leader involves different skills than commanding an army does. Clark's difficulties in getting along with his military superiors may not be his fault, but they suggest shortcomings they could interfere with his interactions with Republican lawmakers.

John Kerry has respectable views and the best resume of any of the candidates. His time in the Senate gives him insight into how Washington works, which would help him avoid the initial stumbling that former governors often display when becoming President. His combat duty in Vietnam, subsequent opposition to that war, and time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee provide a strong military and foreign policy background. Like most members of Congress, his opposition to Bush's extreme right-wing legislation, such as the Iraq War, was weak or non-existent. His harsh attacks on Dean were rather aggravating, suggesting a greater focus on a personal victory than on the necessity of beating Bush.

John Edwards, as a first-term Senator, doesn't seem to have enough experience to become President. He'll probably do better among Southerners than Kerry or Dean. His trial lawyer background will be an easy target for Republican rhetoric. Edwards has avoided negative remarks about the other Democrats. Overall, I haven't been paying much attention to him, though there must be a reason why he did so well in Iowa.

Anyway, it looks like we'll have an extended primary. The downside is that the candidates will spend money fighting each other instead of Bush. Also, negative campaigning during the primary could hurt Democratic chances in November. On the other hand, an active primary campaign, in which the candidates promote their virtues while trashing Bush, could help the Democrats gain valuable exposure. Let's just hope the Democrats remain positive as they emphasize their concerns about the nation's future.

posted by Julian at 10:45PM

Here are my favorite items from the Bush State of the Union drinking game.

• multilateral or multilateralism: Group shot
• unilateral or unilateralism: Choose one person to drink
• aliens (as reference to immigrants): 1 drink
• aliens (as reference to extraterrestrials): Look wistfully towards the heavens; then finish your drink
• any mention of the deficit: 3 drinks
• "Don't mess with Texas!": Locate the nearest Texan; mess with him/her; then drink
• they show a former member of the Bush Administration (i.e. Paul O’Neill, etc.): 3 drinks
  

Michael Moore officially endorsed Wesley Clark for President, and much of his reasoning is convincing. I have a very high opinion of Clark, based largely on his flattering portrayal in David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals. Still, I'm just not comfortable with someone who hasn't held public office becoming President. That's why I'd prefer Dean, though I'd enthusiastically support Clark if he wins the nomination.

posted by Julian at 8:35PM