Sarah Palin: A Smart Move… Or Not?

In case you haven’t heard by now, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been chosen as John McCain’s running mate for the presidency. Palin has had more than one success during her short term (so far) as governor:

• Exposing ethical violations among Alaskan Republican leaders
• Canceling pork projects, including the ‘bridge to no where’
• Maintaining a 60% approval rating – she’s a “true conservative”
• Coining the term ‘VPILF’

A good choice then?
Maybe. As one anonymous Digg commentator put it:
"[T]his is a brilliant move by McCain:

1. She would be the only candidate with executive experience (McCain, Biden, Obama only have legislative experience)
2. Appeals to conservatives
3. Will channel the women vote, and Hillary supporters' in particular
4. Charismatic, smart, principled, dedicated, American all the way
5. Younger than Obama
6. Wow factor: will definitely embellish the ticket ;)"

Or maybe not?
However, Palin carries some serious baggage. As one anonymous Redditor put it:
"In one move McCain took experience off the table, fired a shoot at his racist/misogynist supporters, doubled down on Big Oil, and made corruption an even bigger issue. It may well be game over."

To explain: Palin has very little experience – a criticism McCain has applied to Obama. Palin is close to Big Oil just by being governor of Alaska, and as well by trying to block polar bears from receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act. And as to the comment that she makes ‘corruption an even bigger issue’ – Palin has painted herself as huge on hunting down corruption, while at the same time she herself is under investigation.

So...
What do you guys think?

Deal Would Have the US Out of Iraq by 2012 - A Good Plan

NYT: Draft Accord With Iraq Sets Goal of 2011 Pullout

Note
I cannot fully write about this yet because of the fact that the agreement has not been released, and I don’t know if the full treaty will every fully be released. However: details will continue to come in, and as they do, I will write new articles.

A good plan
United States and Iraqi negotiators have been haggling over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) for several months now. Up until now, the international military presence in Iraq has been legitimized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions. This new agreement will last three years and its main points are this:

1. U.S. troops must move outside of cities by June 30, 2009
2. Withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by the end of December 31, 2011
3. No immunity for private contractors
4. Some immunity for American soldiers (immunity if on base or on duty)
5. A failsafe in case Iraq collapses

This plan is much better than either plan submitted by the two presidential contenders: McCain would stay too long (forever), Obama too short (16 months). This plan does not have the drawbacks of either.

Michael Cohen over at Democracy Arsenal and in the WSJ today argues that no immunity for private contractors will impede on their ability to do their duty properly in Iraq. That is not true for at least two reasons:
1. Any private contractors put on trial that didn’t really do anything wrong will not be convicted; U.S. pressure will assure to that.
2. Because the Iraqi government was so strong about putting this resolution in the agreement, the government gains legitimacy among the Iraqi people. Maliki, in particular, looks extra-nationalist and therefore extra popular.

On Iran
I’ve noticed a lack of discussion about Iran on this. I’m waiting to see Iran’s reaction to this (and consequently the reaction of Muqtada al-Sadr). I'll keep y'all posted.

On the Sunni Awakening
The NYT is also reporting that the Shiite-led Iraqi government is refusing to incorporate the 100,000 strong Sunni Awakening – Sunnis paid by the U.S. to take up arms against Al-Qaeda and other insurgents. It is vital that the al-Maliki government incorporates the Sunnis into the government. It is impossible to state the importance of this enough. If they are not incorporated, I fear a resumption of the civil war and a strengthening of the insurgency.

Today's the Day....

....for Barack Obama's veep pick. I'm waiting for that text message from CNN Breaking News....

In other news, readers might have noticed a lack of posts on the Russo-Georgian crisis, which might seem strange because (in case you haven't noticed) I love Russian issues. I've got an article coming up on that right now.

My bad...

I'd officially like to withdraw my endorsement of Obama's oil windfall tax. After further consideration (and a look at history), I've decided a windfall tax would not be effective.

Oil Windfall Tax: A Good Idea

Reuters: Obama backs oil profits tax

Background
After gas prices skyrocketed pass $4 last week, and as they continue to head up this week, some may have been hoping for a quick fix in the style of the (completely useless) economic stimulus some weeks ago. In response to those concerns today, Obama pledged to raise taxes on windfall oil profits if elected. This position would be politically unsustainable for the simple reason that nobody wants new taxes in a time of an economic downturn, so Obama appended to his position that he would "use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Several weeks ago, a bill was blocked by Republican opposition that would have repealed tax cuts for oil companies and instead used the 10-billion-something-dollars to pay for tax rebates for renewable energy.

A good idea
If the plan Obama has proposed was enacted in coordination with the repeal of tax cuts, it would be a good move for the economy of the U.S., our long term safety, and our long term economic outlook. The windfall tax profit would have help boost the economy through its profits, but, as well, would raise gas prices, as would the repeal of tax cuts. Though that may damage the economy in the short run, in the long run, it would save much time in effort. First, if gas prices were higher, hybrids, all electric cars, and renewable energy would look much more attractive to the average consumer. Second, if some of the pain of fighting global warming is felt now, it won’t be felt later, when it could come in a large burst after the approval of a cap and trade program.

The Democratic Endgame

Reuters: Jimmy Carter set to endorse Obama
CNN: Clinton says she’s open to VP
AP: Clinton to concede delegate race
Reuters: Obama poised to claim victory

It appears that the final Democratic nomination endgame may be seen after tonight. The fate of one Obama is certain, while the future of the other Democratic candidate is much less clear.

The future of Hillary
It is unlikely Clinton will withdraw either today or tomorrow without having Obama and the Democratic National Committee answer some questions, some of which include:
- Her place in the Obama administration
- Her political future
- Her campaign debt

Let’s start with that last one. Clinton has about $20 million dollars in debt, some $11 million of which is her own money that she lent to her own campaign. What are her options for raising $20 million after her campaign has effectively ended? The easiest practice might be to pay back her creditors slowly in small payments. However, this would likely lose Clinton some credibility. One strategy that also has appeal would be to ask Obama’s 1.5 million donors to chip in, a gesture that would also promote Democratic Party unity. However, this isn’t how Obama wants to spending his money and using is donors. A third, possibly less legal option, would be to take the $22 million Clinton raised for the general election and to use to pay off her debts. Whatever the strategy, Clinton’s financial problems will be a difficult problem to solve.

Back to the first and second issues: will Clinton play a role in the Obama administration, and what will be her political future past that? Many of her supporters would like to see Hillary as veep, as, it appears, would Hillary. Nevertheless, there are a good number of Obama supporters that hate the idea. The conundrum for Senator Obama is that, as of now, it is likely many Clinton supporters won’t be voting for him in November. Clinton as veep would change that. Other ideas have included Hillary as Health Secretary, as to allow her to take the reigns of health care reform.

And then of course, there is the possibility that Clinton will stay in the race all the way to August and the convention, for primarily two very appealing reasons: Superdelegates could always change their minds in case of new skeletons out of Obama’s closet, and more time to pay off campaign debt.

Whatever Clinton decides to do, it is likely we will know in the next week. The hype from media will end, the political blogosphere can take a brake…Until the general election starts.

Stupid Ass Comment of the Day Award

McCain: U.S. can win Iraq war by 2013

Mhmmm... Mhmmm... Mhmmm... No.

Bad News for Obama Supporters: Polls and Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Fox: Obama won’t demand Joint Chiefs reject ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
CNN: Poll: McCain even with Obama, Clinton

Bad news for Obama supporters. The poll I personally find particularly ominous. The Democratic nomination must end soon: superdelegates must endorse by June 4.

Obama’s new “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy also disgusts me. Homophobia is modern day racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. And also, in an exclusive email conversation with the Obama campaign 9 months ago, I thought he made it pretty clear he would end the practice:

“Senator Obama supports economic, social, and legal rights for gays and lesbians. He supports full civil unions, expanding hate crimes statutes, fighting discrimination at work and in housing and other places of public accommodation, and wants to increase adoption rights. He opposes any Constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, which weakens us in a time of global challenges.”

The Four Options for the Democratic Nomination and the Best Plan Going Forward

There are essentially four options left for the Democratic nomination. They depend upon three factors: who wins Pennsylvania, who wins Indiana, and whether Florida or Michigan get revotes.

The possibilities

1.Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida and Michigan get revotes.
Outcome: Clinton wins
2. Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida and Michigan do NOT get revotes.
Outcome: Clinton will win after a fight
3. Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Obama wins Indiana.
Outcome: Obama will win after a fight
4. Obama wins Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Outcome: The race is over. Obama wins nomination

The best plan moving forward
There is one plan, which DNC chairman Dean has already proposed, which makes perfect sense no matter which way any vote goes: superdelegates must endorse by June 4. This will save time, money, and energy, and could save Democrats the election. The one thing I would add is this: new elections in Florida and Michigan are not necessary. They understood the rules when they voted to move their primaries forward. A revote there would only be costly and would hurt the party.

The Math of the Democratic Delegates

Cross posted with PoliticalGrind.com

So it’s come down to this: an all out fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Let’s take a quick look at the current numbers:

Obama: 1402 pledged (non-super) delegates

Clinton: 1240 pledged (non-super) delegates

Keep in mind, 2025 delegates are needed to win. And how many non-super delegates are left to win? 566. That means it is mathematically impossible for either candidate to win without the support of the super delegates, unless Florida and Michigan get revotes. And even then, it’s pretty unlikely that either candidate would receive enough votes; races between Clinton and Obama have been close.

Ouch. That’s painful. So how many superdelegates are there? 795. That’s really not a lot. Every vote, quite literally, will count.

Obama Doesn't Need the Veep Spot

So, in case you’ve been living in cave for a couple of days, the Clintons have been strongly pushing a Hillary-Obama ticket. Barack has denied he is running for the veep slot, and rightfully so.

This is a clever move by Clinton: she demeans Obama and looks good for the superdelegates at the same time. And of course, if the deal is successful, she gets the presidency. It’s actually pretty ingenious

Obama shouldn’t do it
There are no good incentives for Obama taking the deal. He has more superdelegates, more momentum, and is the favorite (for now). And even if he accepted the deal, he would be slighted by Bill Clinton; Obama would be the junior vice president.

A better deal
A better deal might be this: Obama for president, Bill Richardson (or anyone experienced) for veep, and Clinton for Secretary of State. One of the biggest positives in this deal is that it eliminates Bill Clinton. Everyone wins!

Endorsing Clinton, But Hoping Obama Wins the Nomination

Although I endorsed Senator Clinton for the presidency several weeks ago, my position has since changed. Although I still believe Hillary Clinton would make a better president, I really have no choice. It would be better for the Democratic Party if Obama gets the nomination. It all comes down to the general election.

1. If Clinton is nominated, she will have won through a fight, splitting the Democratic Party.
2. John McCain could win against Clinton (he will have more of a challenge fighting Obama).
3. The media hates her and loves McCain.

BREAKING: Nader to Run for President

And once again, he announced on Meet the Press. What will this mean for the current candidates? How much will the media overblow the whole thing?

It's widely believed Nader doesn't have as wide of a following as he used to. He could gain some momentum if Hillary Clinton is nominated, but otherwise, it is likely he will have a minimal effect on the election.

More detailed analysis later.

Clinton Attacks Obama... For No Reason

I'm sure most everybody reading this has heard that Clinton has accused Obama of plagiarizing MA governor Deval Patrick's speeches.

Even as a Clinton supporter, I am disgusted, and there are a few things I must point out:

• Obama and Patrick are good friends. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this regularly.
  
• What does Clinton gain by attacking him in this way? Nothing.
• Who cares? Criticize him for his policy details, would you? Not his speeches.
  

How to Blow Up Barack Obama

Obama with a Twist by Balloon Artist Ori Livney
Watch more DIY videos on 5min.com

Why Romney Endorsed McCain

Reuters: Romney endorses McCain

Couldn’t be anymore expected. Just to state the obvious a little bit here, Romney’s looking for the VP nod.

A Critique of Barack Obama

Joe Klein, a writer for Time Magazine that I like very much, published this critique of Barack Obama last week. The whole article is worth a read: Inspiration vs. Substance

Obama's strength is inspiration, and it's also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party's detriment — and that is not Obama's game. After his Iowa victory, his stump speech had become a soufflé untroubled by much substance of any sort. He has rectified that, to some extent. He now spends some time talking about the laments of average Americans he has met along the way; then he dives into a litany of solutions he has proposed to address the laments. But those are not nearly so convincing as Clinton's versions of the same; of course, Clinton has a tragic deficit when it comes to inspiration.

There is an odd, anachronistic formality to Obama's stump speech: it is always the same. It sets his audiences afire, but it does not reach very far beyond them. It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key — but not so strong in primaries, where more diverse masses of people are involved. He should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Clinton Endorsement Part 2: The Issues

After my endorsement last week of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I was criticized (rightfully) for not going into the issues enough about why I support Clinton.

Clinton and Obama’s policies have very little differences. It some of the finer details on foreign policy I have concerns with.

Anyway, here are my doubts about Obama in full:
• His position on Iraq (would he pull out too many troops too soon?)
• His foreign policy (would he really sit down with foreign leaders his first year in office face to face?)
• Will he be able to stand up to Republican attacks?
• Will he be able to stand up to rising world powers: Russia, China, and Iran who will take advantage of him if he shows the slightest sign of weakness?
• Will he bring in too many new people? (New people are not necessarily what we need; we need to keep some of the same people who learned first hand our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Of course, I have plenty of doubts about Clinton as well:
• Her electability
• Her decisiveness
• Fine details of her policy positions
Clinton's negatives have to do less with the issues, and more with her electability (which, on a separate note, is giving me doubts about her).

NOTE: I would be happy with Obama as a nominee. I just would prefer Clinton, overall. And of course, as I said in my last post, I would much rather have Bloomberg than Clinton or Obama.

Why I am Voting Clinton – And Not Voting Obama

Considering tomorrow I vote, it’s time to make an endorsement. It’s going to Hillary Clinton.

Reason 1 – The (foreign policy) issues
I prefer Hillary Clinton’s positions to those of Barack Obama’s. I disagree with Mike Gravel’s positions so much that I won’t even mention his name in the rest of this article.

Clinton has superior reasoning on nearly every major issue. Her positions on social issues may be slightly different than mine, but the president does not control domestic issues: Congress does.

Instead, the president controls foreign policy and the military. Therefore, those are the most important issues in the presidential contest. Barack Obama doesn’t understand international issues as well as Clinton does. He would rather see the U.S. as a weaker state abroad; Clinton knows that the U.S. must sometimes project its power.

Reason 2 – Hope is not as important as the issues
As Massachusetts legislator Salvatore F. DiMasi put it, "To be perfectly honest, I really don't want my president to be in there in a learning process for the first six months to a year. It's too important."

DiMasi understands what he is saying too well. Both he and I live in Massachusetts, and in 2006 elected black Democrat Deval Patrick to be governor. He ran mostly on the issue of hope, much like Barack Obama. Once in office Patrick quickly came under fire for several personal scandals, and is now facing opposition to his political plans.

Hope and promise of change is not enough of a reason to be elected. You need smart positions on the issues.

Reason 3 – Clinton will get things done
Hillary Clinton has experienced professionals who will get things done and will be able to whether Republican attacks. Obama, on the other hand, will bring in new people. New people are not what we need. We need to build off of the experiences that we’ve had in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East. Obama will also not be able to stand up to Republican attacks.

The candidate I’d prefer – Michael Bloomberg
I’d so much prefer Bloomberg over Clinton any day. Why? Two primary reasons. First of all, Bloomberg doesn’t come with as much partisan baggage as Clinton would come with. Second, Bloomberg might as well be me; nearly all of his positions are the exact same as mine. He wants a carbon tax, is relatively liberal but recognizes we can’t abandon Iraq, and more. Draft Bloomberg!


UPDATE
Thanks for the comments everybody. I was more than a little lazy than explaining the issues - tiring week.

Iraq specifically is the issue I think of. There are of course other issues (Obama's weakness on dealing with Iran, for example), but Iraq represents the rest of their foreign policy positions.

Clinton recognizes somewhat that we cannot abandon Iraq to chaos, while Obama would be more likely to cave to the far left and pull out ASAP.

Rudy G Drops Out - Why?

Why would Rudy Giuliani bother dropping out now?

Sure, he invested a lot in Florida, and his crushing loss surely didn't help his campaign. But he still had a lot of support in different Super Tuesday contests. He might as well have stayed on for another week.

Some will point to his campaign’s money troubles. But lets dig a little deeper.

Thinking VP
During his concession speech, Giuliani endorsed current Republican frontrunner John McCain. One could take this at face value; Giuliani supports McCain’s positions and values.

Politicians don’t think like that. You’ve got to put yourself in Rudy’s shoes. What’s the closest thing to the presidency? That whole vice-presidency thing.

And it’s looking even better for Giuliani. McCain will take office at age 73, the oldest president ever, I believe. If the former Prisoner of War gets conked out, so to speak, Giuliani would get exactly what he had wanted from the beginning: the most powerful job on Earth.