American Progress Report: Many Still Favor Bush

The prospects are not good, for democracy as we know it. I know how it is supposed to work, and I like that vision. But we are now looking at our third election in a row where people would elect someone like George W. Bush or John McCain. McCain is indubitably smarter and more experienced. But he does appear to agree with Bush on the large majority of issues. Bush has been disastrous and McCain would likely be damaging at best. This is, unfortunately, not the first time this has happened in recent years. People liked Ronald Reagan for his personality and his leadership. It's understandable. But he imperiled the national economy and, with his deregulation, gave us the savings & loan collapse. It cost us about $160 billion, I believe was the final figure. Nonetheless, people looked back fondly to his two terms and to that of the smarter, more experienced, and yet goofier George H. W. Bush, Sr., who followed him. For decades, many Soviets wistfully recalled the days of Joseph Stalin, who murdered tens of millions of their countrymen. For that matter, in Germany, people elected Adolf Hitler. We, ourselves, have elected people in Congress and elsewhere, term after term, despite our bitter complaints about them and the many ways in which they have proceeded to squander our resources and opportunities. It doesn't matter whether you agree with me. I'm not arguing that this or that should happen next. I'm predicting what *will* happen next. If you disagree, maybe your prediction will turn out to be correct, instead of mine. My prediction is that democracy, as we know it, will increasingly go out of fashion. I hope Barack Obama makes me very wrong. But when half the country (give or take) is prepared to elect people like John McCain and Sarah Palin -- or, before them, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, or Reagan and Bush -- there is a serious problem. Over time, this kind of pattern seems likely to lose supporters. Much depends on what happens in other countries -- China, Russia, and so forth -- where autocratic leadership may be perceived as producing superior results. That is how it looks in the short term. If we go through another Obama bump, like the Clinton years, there will apparently nevertheless remain a hard core of angry Americans who will want yet another clueless Republican president. So in 2012 or 2016, we will again face the prospect of another eight to twelve years of leadership in the wrong direction. We don't presently know what will happen to our economy. Extended hard times and resentment over national humiliation brought Hitler to power in Germany. If we should find ourselves in the basement for a number of years, that portion of society that would admire a strong leader like Reagan or Stalin may well clamor for stronger leadership from our president. It certainly is possible that we could continue the Bush legacy of an overreaching presidency. Even if our own form of democracy endures more or less unchanged -- and I would think it would take many years to achieve a constitutional amendment by popular vote -- it does appear likely that American government will not provide a compelling example of democracy for people in other countries. Even if Obama does a fantastic job, that will only serve to enhance the impression that the American government boils down to a president of greater or lesser quality, plus an enormous and frequently inefficient bureaucracy. Again, I hope I am wrong. But I do find it discouraging to imagine that so many people would so frequently elect this sort of president. The idea that people can make good decisions without adequate knowledge just does not make sense; and to the extent that our democracy is based upon that principle, it does not produce superior results. You can't have this kind of government with uninformed voters -- and, for that matter, with uninformed congresspeople, who cannot hope to understand more than a fraction of the bills they are voting on. Perhaps the best we can hope for, given the prevailing pattern, is that power will devolve from government centers to more local governmental and community units, with centralized quality control checkers. Voters stand a better chance of understanding and voting sensibly on smaller and more localized issues. Progress in this direction could reduce the trend toward placing so much power in a central leader. At this moment, it seems like a superior alternative.

The Bailout Sounds Bad

Last December, I observed that it seemed like Henry Paulson had a special ability to say things that were just the opposite of what was actually happening. So I haven't been too excited about the idea that Congress would approve a plan to give him three-quarters of a trillion dollars to spend as he sees fit, in hopes that he knows how to use it to save the U.S. financial system. I was, in fact, aghast at the idea that the Democratic majority in Congress would be remotely willing to do any such thing. I guess the idea is that they don't want to be called the do-nothing Congress. They're going to take action, by God, even if the selected action is to plant explosives under the nation's economy. They're wanting to be re-elected, and then they'll deal with the fallout to the economy after November 4. In saving themselves, it seems they are torpedoing Obama. The economic meltdown is a Republican creation. Now I guess they want to grab some of the blame for themselves. In the process, they will reduce the pressure on McCain, who admits being weak on economics and who has embarrassed himself repeatedly in that sphere. If voters believe that the problem has been solved, McCain's odds improve. There definitely should be a plan to resolve the financial crisis. And there definitely is some time pressure. But this does not logically require that Congress rush to approve a bad plan. Better a slow plan than the wrong plan, for the simple reason that we can't go around spending $700 billion every week or two. It's an unprecedented sum. I don't know of anything that has ever been proposed, in the history of the American economy, that was expected to cost that much. Maybe World War II. The core of American well-being is a healthy and growing middle class, with fewer people at the income extremes. Unfortunately, it seems we've been losing that middle class. That is, the plan should preserve and enhance the financial status of typical Americans. So, for example, in a choice between taxpayers and stockholders, my impression is that the former does include the vast bulk of middle-class Americans, while the latter does not. So I would favor the interests of taxpayers over those of stockholders. And certainly I would favor taxpayers over foreign stockholders, whose financial institutions will also supposedly be able to partake of the bailout in some sense. In short, I would not favor putting taxpayers on the hook. It is the stockholders who wanted more and more profits, the public be damned; it is the investors who brought us fictive finance. It's their problem. It was hard to imagine, but it was possible to swallow, the bailout of AIG. That was enormous. This is ten times that, and much more vague. Before a dollar is voted, the structure of the plan needs to be presented in detail, with justified and specific dollar requirements. I favor the Democratic party, but economic common sense is even more important to me. I liked Bill Clinton, despite his sometimes ridiculous mistakes, because he had his head on straight about the economy; and irresponsible spending is one of my principal problems with George W. Bush. This bailout plan is not common sense. It deserves to die. Democrats who vote for this thing are, in my opinion, not qualified to manage public funds.

2008 Presidential Campaign Progress Report

1. The crucial event of the campaign, so far, was Obama's serious blunder in choosing Biden rather than Clinton as his VP. This gave McCain an opportunity he has capitalized on very well. Sarah Palin has given Republicans something to cheer about. 2. Obama's campaign lost its momentum as soon as McCain announced Palin as his running mate. But it had a serious problem even before that. The Democrats should have been polling very far ahead of the Republicans. They weren't. Somehow, they were failing to connect. McCain seems to be adept at sensing that and responding to it. 3. Without momentum, Obama suddenly ceased to look godlike. The Olympian stage set at the convention became a joke. I think Obama chose Biden because he assumed he was going to win, and he wanted the ideal candidate for governing. This is a plan for a superior administration. It is better than what I expect from McCain, which is that he will use Palin to win votes and appeal to people but will ignore her views on issues. But when Biden generated a yawn and the aura of invincibility faded, even some Obama supporters became concerned about his Jimmy Carter-like earnestness. His tremendous calmness suddenly began to look like weakness. Nothing succeeds like success, and suddenly Obama's campaign lost that prop. 4. Obama is losing because of the experience argument. Having Biden on the ticket just underscores the upside-down fact that the sage hand -- be it Biden, Clinton, or anyone else -- is playing second fiddle to someone who has little major-league leadership experience. I, myself, am not convinced that Obama would be a superior leader, though I do think he would be a visionary and intelligent chooser of wise policies. Palin is right: she does have more executive experience than Obama. It shows in their bearing. He is great at speeches, but he remains boyish, in a way that does not inspire confidence. 5. McCain appears to be turning talk about the economy, his weak point, into talk about oil drilling, where he has an advantage among voters who seek a simplistic solution. In this sense, Obama is playing with one hand tied behind his back, and he is almost strong enough to do it. Almost. But through the pollsters, the American people are telling him that, in politics, bullshit can grow legs and walk upon the earth. Nobody cares if McCain is grossly distorting things left and right. We already learned this from Reagan. What matters, it seems, is that McCain can keep it coming. You cannot debunk nonsense as quickly as the other side can churn it out. McCain could conceivably go too far, to the point of becoming a laughingstock. But the American people have a demonstrated tolerance for very high levels of nonsense. 6. Obama has tried, but has not been entirely able, to create a sense that he is running a class act, a campaign based upon the kinds of principles that America needs. He seems sincere in that effort, and it does resonate with many people. But as McCain's campaign keeps the punches coming, Obama seems to be getting dragged down to McCain's level. It is a common experience: someone wants to play fair, but then gets punished by an unfair blow, and suddenly it becomes important to just stay alive. Nobody can be perfect, and to the extent Obama espouses a principled approach that he, himself, cannot deliver to the satisfaction of all observers, he risks seeming pretentious and phony. National emergencies and international crises -- hurricanes, Russian invasions of Georgia, and the like -- seem to burnish McCain's standing. Just as in Russia, such events remind voters that they want a strong hand at the tiller, even if it happens to be a dangerous one. McCain is no more invincible than Obama. He seems especially vulnerable in the upcoming debates; he could come away from them looking very bad. But if McCain can survive the debates, he seems likely otherwise to deny Obama a chance to connect with voters on the level of thoughtful, long-term planning for the nation's best interests. At present, it seems that the debates offer Obama a last opportunity to avoid losing in November.

In Admiration of John McCain

Last year, John McCain's campaign was dying. He looked like he was out of the race. He dumped much of his campaign staff and virtually started over. And you know what? Now he's the Republican candidate for president. He may not have much executive experience, but that's the kind of performance you'd expect to see from a CEO who comes in and turns around a failing corporation. I don't know if McCain will be able to stick around and manage the outcome very well afterwards, but he's a Comeback Kid, and there's a place for that kind of ability in the White House these days. This summer, Obama was soaring. He kept making those fantastic speeches. He kept talking about America's dreams and its best side. He appealed to the young. He beat Hillary in a way that left them both able to work together. He was uniting Democrats, he was uniting black and white, he was uniting young and old. While he was touring the world, John McCain was getting ridiculed for touring grocery stores. But McCain kept banging on the drum of experience, even though his experience is not ideally suited for the job. He caught Obama's attention, and eventually he spooked him. Obama chose an elder white male as vice president, thereby simultaneously alienating many of Hillary's followers and sending the signal that he needed support and guidance. Once Obama made that move, McCain was positioned to take the offensive in their chess game. He nominated Sarah Palin. Somehow, he appears to have survived the first potentially disastrous news about her pregnant daughter, her pork barrel spending, her ethics investigation. It seems he may not even have known about all those things. Apparently his gut told him not to care. He went with the big picture and, judging from the reaction to her speech at the Republican National Convention last night, it paid off. Call it luck, call it instinct. Maybe it makes no difference. The net result is, he is still very much in the game. In an election season when the Democrats should be utterly trouncing the Republicans, McCain manages to be very close to Obama in the polls -- especially when you consider the possibility, voiced by one recent commentator, that people do not always tell pollsters the truth in black-white election contests. There is a possibility that breaking even in the polls means that Obama is losing. John McCain has put up a very good fight. It is possibly the best fight that any Republican candidate could have put up. He should take pride in that. I do not think that McCain believes in all of the positions he has embraced this year. I think he has had to play a lot of games to keep alive his maverick image while simultaneously kissing up to the myriad Republicans he has offended. To take one example, I suspect that he was presenting his true views of evangelicals when he made those disparaging comments in previous years. To win, however, he has felt compelled to give them something to be excited about, and Sarah Palin has been just the person for the job. He will pay some attention to evangelicals if he is elected, but my guess is that he will be more interested in putting them back in the box after November 4. Obama is not the only one who wants to be a great president for all Americans. This past week, I came close to backing away from my previous bet that Obama would win. His vice presidential choice seriously diminished my confidence in him, both because I felt it was ill-advised and because I picked up on the lack of confidence that it represented. I leaned back the other way when I saw the initial difficulties Palin was having. Those may still haunt her. People are still sorting out all this stuff. It has been too much, too soon. I decided to stick with my original bet because I still think the economy will be the deciding factor, and I think Obama has the edge there. Seeing what a tremendous campaign McCain is running, however, I am not in a rush to label Obama the winner on the economic issues. McCain beat Obama at Rick Warren's church, by hook or by crook, and he really changed the game with Palin. He is a cunning old S.O.B., and he could do the same thing again, on economic matters. The fun part would be to try to figure out how -- to anticipate how he will make Obama look, once again, like he's standing still. John McCain is not waging an especially clean or admirable campaign. That early aspiration went out the window. Obama is by far the class act in this election. I hope he can stay that way. In the long term, it may be to Obama's advantage, or at least to America's, if he should prove to be the beautiful loser. Al Gore gave us some precedent for that. Of course, it would be even better if Obama became the beautiful winner, or if McCain would at least clean up his act. This post is not praising John McCain's views or behavior along those lines. But for purposes of fighting to win, he is doing a very impressive job, and I wanted to say so.

Sarah Palin: The Clarence Thomas of 2008

I am a middle-aged white guy. If I were a member of a race, gender, or ethnic group that was underrepresented in presidential politics, I am not too sure I would think well of it if the majority group -- black people, say, or women -- came to me and said, Ray, we are going to give you a consolation prize. We aren't going to nominate a white guy as president, but here's some whack-job white guy to represent you. Take your pick: Richard Nixon? Dan Quayle? Adolf Hitler? This is the sort of thing that could backfire. I could find it offensive that the majority's views were so clueless as to think that these guys would represent who I am and what I want from my government. So we come to Sarah Palin. Her views only begin to emerge from obscurity, and I wouldn't be surprised if half of the complaints I've heard about her already are wrong. Nonetheless, this is no Hillary Clinton. She didn't get where she is by being the best, by fighting her way to the top. She got where she is because she's female. She has the potential to be a great politician. Likewise, the members of Milli Vanilli had the potential to be great singers -- but that's not what their concertgoers were paying for. It is as if these white guys were saying, OK, you women can't actually come out on top, so we'll throw you a bone to make it seem like you're equal. The thing would have flown better if McCain had at least chosen a woman who had earned national-level respect and had shown national-level capability. If he's going to embrace the Bush legacy so wholeheartedly, why not Condoleeza Rice? Female, and black to boot, and with global experience. There are accomplished women who demonstrate superior credentials for the task of handling the presidency in a crisis. I predict some women will be supremely displeased at the choice of Sarah Palin -- as I would be, if I were one of them.

Wild and Crazy VP Prediction: It's Arnold!

I have only a day or so until John McCain announces his pick for vice president. I was thinking, whom could he choose who would really electrify the country, grab the headlines, and relieve people's worry that he might die in office and leave some nobody as president? The first thought that flashed through my mind: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, since Arnold can't be president (because he's not native-born), I would guess he can't be vice president either. But if you really wanted to have fun with it, you could choose him anyway and leave everyone else to fight about it. There would be some complaints that McCain doesn't know his ass from his elbow, else he would never make such a goofy mistake; but he could conceivably counter those with an up-front statement of the issue and an indication that he does have an alternative pick in mind, if the law does not permit it. Realistically, it won't be Arnold, and it also won't be Jesse Ventura, though I suspect there's a part of McCain that would find that one pretty intriguing too. But I do think it will be someone who is young, strong, confident, competent -- a real counterpoint to Obama, and equally well (and admittedly) too young to be president just yet.

Barack, Hillary, Bill, and Biden: I Was Wrong Once

My prediction was wrong. I figured that the only way Hillary Clinton would be playing along so well and willingly with Barack Obama's victory in the primary election contest -- pledging her support and all that -- was if it was somehow in her interest to do so. That part was surely correct. What was wrong was that I thought her interest must have been some sort of deal for her and, later, perhaps, for Bill Clinton. Barack has now chosen Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate. So there was apparently no promise for Hillary. I can only guess that she saw it as being in her interest to be a good sport and keep her powder dry for the next presidential election, in 2012. Conceivably she also thinks she can still put on a challenge of some sort at the Democratic convention, but I don't think she would seriously bank on that. We'll see what happens at the convention, with her speech and all, but it seems she is increasingly out of the picture. On to the choice of Biden. Will I be right on this one? I find the pick problematic. Biden is definitely a Washington insider. He is also an old white guy. This cannot be highly reassuring to those who see the Obama candidacy as a call for change. Not female. Nothing exciting about him. He's knowledgeable in foreign affairs, which might make him a good secretary of state. He's something of a loose cannon, verbally speaking, which could make him a liability in the election contest. He may help in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but he's not at all a household word, and I'm not sure how much people care about the vice president's resume. Unlike JFK's choice of Lyndon Johnson, he won't deliver a key state like LBJ delivered Texas. I'm glad that he takes stands opposing Obama sometimes -- glad that Obama wants something of an opposite number to challenge him -- but that's not really a meaningful criterion for a vice president as distinct from, say, a political advisor. Obama seems to have wanted someone who would provide a weight of experience, but that cuts both ways: it could seem, to some people, like the elder statesman is the one who should be running for president, while the relatively inexperienced kid should be his understudy. Certainly the choice of Biden seems unlikely to deliver a bounce in the polls, a wave of excitement, or anything that will get anyone very much fired up. My take on the matter is that Obama is becoming cautious, worried about his weak spots rather than concentrating on his strengths, and that he is therefore making himself weaker in the process. I don't know if Obama should have chosen Hillary, necessarily, but I do think he has suffered from a failure of imagination and courage here, and has diluted his message and appeal as a result. I'm not reading every last word about the election contest, so I may be missing something, but it seems like he's responding gently to McCain's jabs. If, as some say, the role of a vice president is to be the attack dog during the contest, I don't know why Biden (who is McCain's self-styled friend) would be a better choice than Clinton. I would think he needed a seasoned, demonstrably successful fighter. I guess he just didn't want to be dragged down by the Clinton baggage, which is understandable, but he could have gotten beyond that with time; he would have reasonably expected to make his own mark on the presidency and the world. Anyway, some dust is now settling. Bill Richardson didn't get the nod, despite betraying Hillary. John Edwards was evidently not the type that Obama was looking for, so his affair apparently didn't knock him out of the running. I would actually think that the ideal running mate for Obama would have been someone who would make him look conservative and/or thoughtful by comparison -- someone whom he could portray as a foil, a proponent of views he found too extreme -- but maybe I'd be wrong in that. What we're going to get, instead, is a campaign of politics as usual, and that's too bad. This wasn't the year for that.

Pastor Rick Warren, John McCain, and Barack Obama

Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church interviewed presumptive presidential candidates Obama and McCain this past week. He stated, at the start of the interview, that he would be asking both candidates identical questions, that Obama would go first as a result of a coin toss, and that McCain was in a "cone of silence." It seems that Warren conducted the coin toss by himself, with neither candidate present. Also, Warren told Larry King that he thought McCain would be isolated in the church's Green Room when Obama started answering questions. That way, McCain would not be able to get advance notice of the actual questions; he would have to answer them on the spur of the moment, just as Obama was having to do. Warren says that he knew McCain was not yet actually at the church, shortly before he, Warren, was about to begin questioning Obama. It developed that McCain was actually being driven to the church during Obama's questioning. Thus, it would have been possible for McCain to watch Obama's questioning on TV, hear it on radio, or receive a relay of the questions via telephone, BlackBerry, or other electronic device. When confronted with that reality, Warren told CNN that he trusted John McCain not to do that. It appears that John McCain did know in advance that there would be a question about Supreme Court justices -- that he asked about that question before Warren actually got to it. When he asked that question, Warren seems to have replied by saying, OK, "you got all my questions." I am writing this post because I am surprised that CNN and the New York Times do not seem to have been covering this matter in much detail. They have evidently concluded that it is hard to pin the matter down. In my judgment, Warren made two critical mistakes at the start: he held the coin toss without any representatives for the candidates being present, and he went ahead with the program without confirming John McCain's whereabouts. These two mistakes, assuming they were innocent, were sufficient to make it appear that Warren was stacking the deck in McCain's favor. Favoring a Republican would be typical, of course, for an evangelical Christian in recent presidential elections. I noticed, myself, that Warren said he did not manage to get to a question about the environment -- that they ran out of time -- and I wondered why that topic, on which Obama would have an advantage, was the one that happened to be left out. In such regards, Warren has given ammunition to those who consider fundamentalist Christians politically untrustworthy and corruptive of the American system of government. It is not clear to me what Warren could have done, given that major news media were on a schedule. He does not seem to have wrestled with the question. It is incongruous for a minister, presumably committed to truth in some sense of the word, not to acknowledge that, with the entire nation watching, these irregularities would provoke legitimate controversy. In dismissing the issue as "bogus," he seems to be playing a political rather than honest-broker role. I do think that, if Warren were committed to a fair process, he would have done something. He might have deferred the start until McCain was determined to be securely located in the Green Room. He might have called McCain and made an announcement to indicate that the senator was still on his way and the process would be postponed until he arrived. Surely he should not have assured the nation that McCain was in a "cone of silence" when, by his own latest information, he was not. The reporters do not seem to be asking where McCain was during that time. It is not presently clear exactly when he got to the church. How is it possible that the major news networks and other sources, with dozens of personnel swarming the church, would not manage to send so much as a single junior reporter to watch the Green Room and keep an eye on McCain? The information I have been able to find, so far, seems to indicate that McCain may have been absent during the bulk of Obama's interview. If that is correct, how would it be possible? Where was McCain starting from, that would make him unable to be even remotely on time for a major media event? There is a question as to whether McCain cheated, with or without Warren's assistance. The focus of that question is on whether he actually listened to the questions being posed to Obama. But if cheating means not playing by the rules, then there is no doubt about it: McCain did cheat, by not being present at the church, as Warren seems to think he was supposed to be. Concerns about cheating would be reduced if McCain's campaign had already addressed these questions -- if, say, they had released a statement explaining why McCain was late and where he was. The best I can find on McCain's website, however, is a piece that says McCain was "off-stage, unable to hear the questions that would be posed to him later." But that is not literally true. He was able to hear them if he turned on the radio or was otherwise able to receive communications -- which he apparently was. The more accurate statement would be that he "did not" hear the questions; but there seems to be nobody who can verify that, and to my knowledge nobody has gotten around to grilling McCain on why he told Warren that he was trying to listen "through the wall," as if to create the impression that he had been in the building the whole time. The available information tends to indicate that there was something shady going on, and that McCain and Warren were comfortable with it. It does not seem there will be much further investigation, though. So evidently this will go down as one more minor piece of political gamesmanship that will fade quietly from the presidential contest -- at least until we come to the debates, at which time there will be another direct comparison of McCain against Obama. William Kristol to the contrary notwithstanding, however, Rick Warren is certainly not someone who should be leading future presidential interviews or debates.

Early Prediction: It's Obama

Bill Clinton's motto in 1992 was, "It's the economy, stupid." And it still is. Especially in these times of increasingly dire talk from Wall Street et al. America is in the throes of adjustment to a developing-nation standard of living -- because the developing nations are the places against which we will be competing in the coming decade. Americans are not necessarily happy about this adjustment. They will be experiencing a lot of pain, discomfort, and unfamiliar territory. John McCain, as the candidate of the incumbent party, is woefully disadvantaged in this regard. As winter approaches and the economy continues to decline, his current parity with Obama will evaporate. That's my early bet.

If I Were Vladimir Putin

This post has been moved to my ideas blog.

Message to Barack Obama re: Georgia

I sent his campaign this message tonight: McCain's response to events in Georgia can be portrayed as hotheaded -- as a reflection of the Cold War mentality in which he cut his teeth. Does the nation want to return to a hasty escalation of tensions against Russia for the sake of one brief event? It is reminiscent of the Archduke Ferdinand and WWI.

If I Were Al-Qaeda

If I were Al-Qaeda, I would want John McCain to defeat Barack Obama in November. Between the two, McCain seems much more likely to perpetuate Bush Administration policies and attitudes that have been so disastrous for American influence. McCain does not presently look likely to win. It was remarked not long ago, however, that a terrorist strike would help his candidacy. The concept appeared to be that McCain is seen as more of a commander-in-chief than Obama, and a threat to the nation would tend to remind voters of the need for an experienced and steady hand at the tiller in times of crisis. One challenge, for Al-Qaeda, would be to time such an attack just right. If it came too soon, voters might recover and see it in perspective. That seems especially true in the wake of 9/11. That was, in some ways, the first time; that was the true shocker. People would less likely be stunned and at a loss this time; the effect would likely be more short-lived. There is a possible exception if the attack was truly huge. A terrorist attack could be counterproductive for Al-Qaeda, if it conveyed the message that the Bush Administration approach has failed after all. A truly huge attack would be especially likely to send that sort of signal. Obama could easily point out that, all these years after 9/11, the terrorists retain the ability to attack so powerfully because the Republican approach has not really worked. Probably the more successful approach, for Al-Qaeda, would be to mount a more modest attack that would nonetheless be large enough to make voters worry. It may be possible to do so without simultaneously raising the concern that Bush Administration methods are failing. One approach would be to make it a counterattack, in retaliation for some action taken by the Americans. That is, if the U.S. appears to have achieved some telling strike against Al-Qaeda, then an Al-Qaeda counterattack could threaten voters and yet could seem to confirm that the U.S. is winning the war on terror. Suppose, for example, that the U.S. has been free at any time to undertake airstrikes on Al-Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil. It is intriguing that the U.S. has only now done so, killing several leading Al-Qaeda figures in a recent attack there. Why now -- why not years ago, when we enjoyed a cozier relationship with Musharraf? It would be most interesting if the U.S. launched several more successful attacks of that nature, or captured Osama bin Laden, or otherwise facilitated the widespread belief that we are winning both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. McCain could then argue, with ever more confidence and persuasiveness, that the Bush Administration's approach is working, and that Obama displayed cowardice and inexperience in opposing it. The capture of bin Laden, to use that example, could easily be played up as a dire offense against Al-Qaeda -- as an act that calls for retaliation. Their retaliatory terror strike against the U.S. -- taken, say, in the week before Voting Day in November -- could prompt voters to rally around the flag. Moreover, if it was not a massive strike, it could also permit McCain to say, "See? We captured their biggest guy, and this is the best they can do. This is not the World Trade Center over again. We have weakened them." This little scenario is in the nature of a conspiracy theory. I do not have any information to suggest that the White House and Al Qaeda are in any way cooperating with each other. I do read news reports, and I am puzzled at the belated timing of this recent Pakistan strike. I also believe bin Laden has long had enemies who would long ago have turned him in, in exchange for that U.S. reward money. But there may be good explanations for such things. Be that as it may, it does seem that a McCain victory in November would be better for Al Qaeda, not in terms of military tactics on the ground, but in terms of long-term global strategy. I have no idea if Osama bin Laden thinks along such lines. But there may be shrewd and powerful people -- not only in the Mideast, but also in Russia, China, and elsewhere -- who share, with Al Qaeda, an interest in weakening the United States. I would expect persons of that sort to be seeking out ways to continue to reduce U.S. influence around the world. It is conceivable that they would render direct or indirect support to John McCain's campaign. A series of positive developments for the U.S. in Afghanistan could serve such a purpose. So could a well-timed terror strike in the United States itself. Most likely, the autumn presidential campaign will unfold without any such drama. But if events of these types do begin to unfold, it may be appropriate to ask, not what is Al Qaeda doing now, but what will Al Qaeda be doing on the day after the election? John McCain may make a very good general in a war. But as they say, politics is often the continuation of war by other means. Or as Vietnam should have taught us, war is too important to leave to the generals.

It Might Be Hillary After All

I heard an interesting comment the other day. The comment was that, if we were starting the primary season all over again, Barack probably would not survive it. The reason, probably due to the Rev. Wright matter as much as anything, was that Barack was not going to be able to deliver states like Ohio and Pennsylvania for the Democrats.

I’m not too eager to see the Clintons back in the White House. Hillary will doubtless be a very competent president. It’s just that, every now and then, something comes back to remind me of that era. Today, it was Rwanda. Yesterday, in a conversation, it was the furniture-moving fiasco when they were exiting the White House. There was just too much of that sort of thing.

But whatever. It seems there is a good chance that, somehow, Michigan and Florida are going to weigh in on this thing; and given Hillary’s seemingly growing momentum, I expect they will favor her.

What I think the Democratic party may be angling for is a graceful exit from Obama, at least for now. Give him eight years to become a seasoned veep, and everything will look different. But at the present, I think the party leadership may feel that an Obama vs. McCain race will be too close for comfort. Not so much because of the polls, but because of the perceived potential for liabilities and unknowns.

It also seems that Hillary is seen as more of a centrist than Obama, in the sense that some who are denied a chance to vote for her may defect to McCain, while a similar defection seems unlikely for most would-be Obama voters. Given what sounds like a growing sentiment at the moment, my odds on Hillary becoming the nominee somehow are up from 10% to more like 40%.

We'll know in a few days. If that meeting of delegates in late May doesn't produce an irrefutable conclusion for Obama, then my bet goes over the 50% mark. At that point, in other words, I'm thinking the tide will have turned.

Al Gore as Vice President

I don't know if Al will want the job. If he doesn't take it, he'll go the way of Colin Powell: someone who was in line for the White House, but who failed to stay in the limelight and therefore no longer has the chance. Al's environmental crusade is important and global, but it's everyone's concern now. Even as its frontman, I don't believe he will have enough visibility four years from now, or eight, to be in a position to run for president. Being vice-president again would be a been-there, done-that role for Al. But it would also put him back, a heartbeat away from the presidency, where he would have some advantages for environmental purposes that he will not have in the political wilderness, especially if he bargained with Obama for an express environmental portfolio. And in the keep-it-clean campaigns that Obama and McCain talk about, running as Veep might not sully Al overmuch. He could be bigger than the job without necessarily letting it diminish him. Al as vice president would bring some advantages for the Democrats. There would be, for some, the inevitability and historical factors: Al won it already, for chrissake, let him have it -- and hey, we can still have a whiff of the Clinton era without the Clintons. The white male voters who have not been too keen on Obama might find Al's portly presence reassuring. Finally, Al could play the role of the unifier, between the Clinton and Obama camps.

A Bet: It's McCain in the End

So John McCain will be the Republican candidate for president. He will face either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. My early bet is that he will beat Hillary, if she is the candidate, but that he will be beaten by Barack, if he is the candidate. I say that because people are increasingly sick of the Clintons. Not everybody, not by a long shot. But the Clinton campaigns in South Carolina and Florida provided vivid reminders of dirty old politics. Both McCain and Obama show at least the potential to be better than that. In that sense (given my previous speculation that Obama will be the candidate), I am betting that the better person will win, in both the primary and general elections. If the Democratic candidate is chosen by superdelegates, as appears increasingly likely, then I am betting that some who have committed to Clinton will find a way out. There is not a "best" candidate. Obama seems to be best at re-enfranchising the younger generation. McCain seems likely to be the best candidate for restoring confidence in the economy -- the sense, that is, that a strong hand is at the tiller. Clinton will embody issues that resonate with women. These are examples, of course; each candidate has other strengths as well. Among those various strengths, I suspect the crucial one will be the economy -- the sense of uncertainty, that is, and dread of hard times ahead. Winter will be coming in November. My early bet is that his strength will be most appreciated on Voting Day.

Early Bet: It's Obama

South Carolina's Democrats vote today. Both Hillary and Barack are playing politics as usual. But I think Hillary has more to lose. It is not in her interest to have Bill so prominent, nor to be so divisive and negative. On both counts, she reminds voters of the 1990s. That is probably intentional. Many Democrats, myself included, think Bill Clinton was a very competent president. But the prospect of taking the nation back in the direction of old-school politics is not appealing. I wish Barack had Hillary's experience and poise. But even as he is, he stands more clearly for change, and that's going to resonate, in South Carolina and beyond. My early bet is that the Clintons' behavior, in New Hampshire and South Carolina, will ultimately be a weight upon them, and that Barack will come out the Democratic party nominee. I think the nation might be better off with a choice between two heavyweights -- Hillary and John McCain -- in November. But I fear it may well be an entirely different and, in some ways, less promising choice between Obama and Romney.

Hillary and Mitt: Studies in Political Sincerity

I met Mitt Romney in 1983 or 1984. I was working at a law firm on Wall Street, and he was looking to set up a venture capital limited partnership. I was a junior attorney, specializing in writing the agreements that the members of such partnerships would sign. Our firm helped him set up Bain & Co., which has helped him to become a richer man; I contributed to writing the agreement that created that firm. He didn't make much of an impression, one way or the other. He was your usual Wall Street Gentile -- tall, handsome, rich. I guess he made an impression, in that I do have a vague recollection of him, which is more than I can say for most of the people I met in 1984. I guess at this point he falls into the same category, in my mind, as Gary Hart, the ultimately scandal-plagued Democrat who was running for president around the same time, whose hand I shook at the Hoboken train station one day. Is Mitt Romney an honest man? A rationally (not necessarily politically) conservative judgment would be that we cannot know for sure, for lack of solid evidence; a rationally liberal judgment would be that he is not. On the rationally liberal side, we have some evidence. During the current presidential primary contest, Mitt has made a series of statements that make him sound like a liar, and a poor one at that. There is also the evidence from wealth -- the sentiment that, behind every great fortune there is a great crime. Also, whatever the media say about Mormons, in my own experience Mormons (including particularly those who live on the East Coast) are not more honest (in the simplistic sense of the term) than other people of conservative lifestyle, though they may be somewhat more inclined to pat themselves on the back for it. If anything, the implausibility of the Mormon scriptures would incline me to think that Mormons may be somewhat *less* preoccupied with truth than the average person. But I recognize that there are different kinds of Mormons, and that not all of them have a fundamentalist's orientation toward, or familiarity with, those Scriptures. What I would conclude, about Mitt, is that a rationally liberal argument for his insincerity might draw support, but not convincing support, from the fact of his Mormon roots. The rationally conservative argument would be that it may be possible to prove that he is dishonest, but doing so would require more than the occasional screwup in the heat of a political campaign. I noticed an article, in the New York Times the other day, by a guy who used to drive Mitt around. This guy was convinced of Mitt's honesty. His article called to mind that cynical saying, "Sincerity is the main thing: if you can fake that, you've got it made." A great many people are honest when they think God or someone else is watching them. The question is whether they would behave the same way, over a period of time sufficiently long to forget about God et al., if they came to believe that nobody at all was watching them, and that their handling of a certain opportunity was not even a moral test. That may never happen, if they are religious or if they spend their lives under a political spotlight. Indeed, they, themselves may not even know whether they are honest, though surely they will have an opinion on the question. So what should we conclude? In this primary election contest, this week, in Michigan, John McCain stood up and, in a painful exercise by his so-called "Straight Talk Express," told the voters of Michigan that their jobs were gone and would not be returning. This was not consistent with the dream, and McCain surely knew it. Regardless of whether he "is" an honest or straightforward person, he seems to have decided -- in this campaign, and evidently long before it -- that what works for him, personally and/or professionally, is to work toward providing people with a relatively close approximation to his actual understanding of things, in that small minority of human experiences when it behooves him to express his thoughts. John McCain probably will not, and possibly should not, be sharing his innermost "truths" with us. But on the relative and limited scale just described -- up here on the tip of the iceberg, as it were -- he seems to have understood that his Straight Talk Express would be derailed if he fibbed to the people of Michigan, and so he did not. Therefore, he lost Michigan. We have yet to see whether his gamble pays off in a backlash, in other states, against the politics-as-usual that prompted Romney to declare, in Michigan, that he would not accept the defeat of any American industry. Romney, not being a stupid man, surely realized that it's not his call -- that the defeat of American industries will be determined by factors beyond his control. But that is not what he said. And it is this instance that raises, in my mind, a question of sincerity sufficient to prompt the writing of this posting about him and Hillary. The Hillary connection has to do with the Show of Emotion. In New Hampshire, just before the primary election, Hillary -- for the first time of which I am aware -- showed, in public, a sign of what is stereotypically treated as a trait of women: she got emotional. Not very emotional. There did not appear to be any actual tears. But her face and voice were those of a woman who is getting a bit choked up. It seems that female voters loved this, and in my opinion they should; I've seen Bill get misty-eyed often enough, by now, to have a legitimate curiosity as to what Hillary would look like in that condition. It doesn't seem fair that political contests and power are such that she dare not -- not, anyway, until she or someone manages to make it seem normal for female politicians to express emotions that their male counterparts can safely express. I'm not sure how far we want to go down that road -- do we want male politicians, breaking current taboos, to feel comparably free to express violent rage? But we aren't there yet; and for present purposes, Hillary did tread onto some new ground there, and good for her. The question remains, however, whether that was a cynical move. Did Hillary, becoming desperate about pundits' predictions that she would lose New Hampshire by double digits, decide to undertake a bold experiment? She has shown such steely self-discipline, for so long, under such pressures and national spotlights, as to suggest that she probably did not show that bit of emotional upset by accident. A possible difference between her case and Romney's is that, if he is speaking cynically, he is doing so to convey a belief about something that ain't so, whereas Hillary's emotional moment, if somehow artificially contrived, seems likely to have taken us a bit closer to something that *is* so. Hillary Clinton has had grounds to cry, and to receive the nation's sympathy in the process. And not just in the receding past, when Bill was being himself. Crying about losing in New Hampshire, had she done so, would have been reasonable, and would have brought out sympathy in some who might not previously have considered themselves capable of being sympathetic to Hillary Clinton. Of course, it would have prompted disgust in others, and rightly so. Hillary Clinton is a woman who could lead the nation in a nuclear war. Let's keep it that way, at least until she ceases to be responsible for the fates of constituents. I don't know that a question about her hairdresser was the best moment to let her hair down, if you will. But it may have been sufficient for the purpose. My guess is that Hillary, alone or in consultation with Bill or other political advisors, have surely recognized that this Iron Lady routine is not always playing well. Certainly there has been a great deal of discussion, among the leading strategists within her campaign, on the question of whether and how she might reveal that she is actually a human being, to the extent that she is. (Disclosure: I will probably vote Democrat, but am presently undecided as to the specific candidate.) My speculation is that the discussion, in Hillary's head and/or among her advisors, came to the conclusion that all she really needed to do was, at some point, to take a deep breath and confront the unknown. She just had to let herself think of a certain thing -- possibly, but not necessarily, the question that was put to her -- and doing so would choke her up. It would be a gamble, and she would have to take it, and see what happened. It seems fair for Hillary to have decided to let us know that she is (probably) a human being, and that she gets upset too. It seems fair even if she decided to do it when the cameras were rolling, under conditions that she considered favorable for purposes of helping her to win the New Hampshire primary. I do not know of any candidate in this election who has forsworn the use of emotion, if emotion will help him/her win. It is also OK with me if she uses her gender -- the power of a lady's tears, as someone put it -- to counteract the gender disadvantage of being a woman in what has been a man's world (speaking, specifically, of the presidency). It does not seem likely, at present, that she will overdo it. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are politicians. As such, they will lie, they will fake sincerity, and they will otherwise mislead people. It is a requirement of their job. They must be able to please everyone, which is the ridiculous expectation we place upon our political leaders. They must also be able to play poker with the bad guys. We may not think it would be appropriate for your minister to tell you that you're a pig-headed idiot, even if that is what s/he is thinking, and in this sense we permit your minister to mislead you. When your wife asks if a certain dress makes her look fat, we know the proper answer. It's a question of honesty, of course, but it's also a question of priorities, and of being able to lie well when circumstances require. Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes hurting someone is just not within the realm of reasonable reactions. That said, John McCain's approach is more palatable to me, partly because I want to believe that some members of the political class are actually reliable, and partly because his approach seems more workable as a practical matter. If Mitt Romney cannot lovably deceive the people of America, I honestly don't know if he will have what it takes to bargain with the Chinese. Michigan bought his line; but despite his expenditures, Iowa and New Hampshire didn't, and I think a lot of others won't. By similar values, at present, Hillary is the Democratic candidate I would consider most likely to perform well in an extremely difficult role. Her claim of experience resonates with me. I won't vote against her just because she probably manipulated people with a show of emotion. It didn't look fake -- which is to say, she was doing a good job of being a politician and, at the same time, was bringing us closer to the truth (i.e., that she has feelings), rather than further away from it. McCain, in his own very different way, seems to be making the same calculation: that he has to be the straight-shooter, even if it hurts him in some states, because that's what will help him win; and in making that judgment, he, too, may help voters to become more acquainted with the realities.