Hillary Clinton takes this victory as an “overwhelming vote of confidence.” From the Bible she says that she knows that ”Faith can move mountains.” I am reasonably certain this is not Mike Huckabee in a salmon pantsuit. UPDATE: “You never quit and neither will I,” she says. She’s not going anywhere for awhile.
Posts For: May 13, 2008
Blame The Voter
We will hear plenty about the racist, poor West Virginia voters from the punditocracy. Apparently these voters don’t think “they (or is it he?) are the change they have been waiting for.” Juan Williams says: “It is not just race. It is this man and his vulnerabilities.” But it’s so much more satisfying for pundits to blame the voters. They really don’t appreciate his greatness, do they? And West Virginians- who’s like those people, after all? Well, no one except a bunch of people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and a few others.
An Actual Bit Of Shocking News
From Fox: 62% of West Virginia Hillary-voters said Bill Clinton’s campaigning was important to their vote.
I Also Want It Noted…
…that I have a photograph I took almost seven years ago in which Bob Barr, now a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, is wearing a tutu.
I Want It Noted…
…that it was a woman on this blog who just wrote, “never overlook the ire of a woman scorned.”
We Must Stamp Out Oblomovism!
In Slate, Jessica Winter claims to offer a list of great literary works about procrastination. Oddly, she doesn’t mention the only two indisputable masterpieces on the subject. One, of course, is Hamlet, who spends four acts not killing Claudius, the uncle who killed his father and married his mother. The other is Oblomov, Ivan Goncharov’s peerless comic novel of 1859, which opens with its title character in bed — a bed from which he does not actually emerge for nearly 100 riveting and hilarious pages. “Oblomov…must be washed, cleaned, pulled about, and flogged for a long time before any kind of sense will emerge,” stated Lenin as he began the monstrous and failed work he undertook to revise the Russian character.
What Is Hillary Doing?
There are a few possibilities.
1) She’s staying in the race to be in as strong a position as possible so that Obama has to pick her for vice president. This is the only rational explanation I can think of for her behavior, given that she is not an issue-driven candidate, pushing an agenda different from Obama’s. When she finishes out the primary season with 18 or 19 million votes cast for her, it would be surpassingly arrogant and possibly a little demented for Obama not to choose her. Forget all the nonsense about how Obama represents a fresh start and Hillary would muddy that message. Between them they will have had 40 million votes cast, and if they could count on most of those votes in November, they are two-thirds of the way to a victory right there. (Though, God knows, Bill is a problem; how could Obama be sure he would keep his mouth shut and not damage his chances in November? That will have to be closely negotiated. Or maybe he will have to go into a medically induced coma for a few months.)
2) She’s hoping that something is going to bring him down between now and the convention. Can’t imagine what that would be, unless Obama’s crony Rezko is convicted and, in a desperate effort to save himself from jail, does something that destroys Obama’s career — though it’s hard to see what good that would do him.
3) She’s trying to show Bill she’s as tough as he is. My guess is this is inarguably true, but it doesn’t vitiate point #1.
Middle East Quote of the Day
From a Washington Times story (about the changing Middle East) quoting Sheik Yazeeb Khader, a “Hamas political activist and editor”:
What happened in Gaza in 2007 is an achievement; now it is happening in 2008 in Lebanon. It’s going to happen in 2009 in Jordan and it’s going to happen in 2010 in Egypt.
It would be surprising, to say the least, if Cairo, much less Amman, came into play. But at least you get a sense of the ambition of this group, and its belief that it is on the winning side of history.
Gates on Low-Intensity Warfare
As the Iraq War has gone on and on, serious doubts have been raised within the military about whether we are becoming overly focused on low-intensity warfare. Many officers fret that skills at conventional warfighting are deteriorating, and this is cited by some as cause to pull more forces out of Iraq faster. Defense Secretary Bob Gates offered a trenchant rebuttal to those critics in a speech today at a Heritage Foundation event in Colorado.
He rightly warned against “a tendency towards what might be called “Next-War-itis–the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict.” While the military has to be prepared for all kinds of scenarios, he noted that “it is hard to conceive of any country confronting the United States directly in conventional terms–ship to ship, fighter to fighter, tank to tank–for some time to come.”
On the other hand, the threat from unconventional forces of the kind we’re facing in Afghanistan and Iraq is real, and it’s not going away. “The implication, particularly for America’s ground forces,” he continued, “means we must institutionalize the lessons learned and capabilities honed from the ongoing conflicts….What we must guard against is the kind of backsliding that has occurred in the past, where if nature takes it course, these kinds of capabilities –that is counter-insurgency–tend to wither on the vine.”
He closed with a powerful point that military critics of the war effort need to come to terms with: “The risk of overextending the Army is real. But I believe the risk is far greater–to that institution, as well as to our country–if we were to fail in Iraq. That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win.”
One might think that what the defense secretary is saying is simply common sense–except that it runs counter to the view of his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who was very much in thrall to “Next War-itis.” On this matter, as on so many others, Gates has been a welcome and refreshing change.
Shame Diplomacy
At Slate, Anne Applebaum argues for intervention in Burma. But on her way to making a serious case for action, she takes a frivolous and disingenuous detour through Iraq.
Unfortunately, the phrase “coalition of the willing” is tainted forever–once again proving that the damage done by the Iraq war goes far beyond the Iraqi borders–but a coalition of the willing is exactly what we need. The French–whose foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, was himself a co-founder of Médecins Sans Frontières–are already talking about finding alternative ways of delivering aid. Others in Europe and Asia might join in, along with some aid organizations. The Chinese should be embarrassed into contributing, asked again and again to help. This is their satrapy, after all, not ours.
Who’s tainted the phrase coalition of the willing? The members of said coalition, who banded together to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and Iraq of Saddam Hussein? Or those who snickered at that effort and now demand that we leave the people of those two countries to the mercies of terrorists? It’s the fetishists of multilateralism who have made intervention in places like Burma so unlikely. After years of demanding that America shrink her geopolitical influence, retract from the world, and leave “sovereign” states to their own devices, their best plan for international crisis management is to embarrass China into being a kindly neighbor? China! The nation underwriting the massacre in Darfur!
“Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse,” Applebaum writes. A much truer test would call upon one to overcome petty and satisfying postures in order to save lives.
Does the Arab League Matter?
The Sunnis, we have been told time and time again, are in the midst of a huge freak-out when it comes to Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah — the three horsemen of the Middle Eastern apocalypse, as it were, or the three states (can we call Hezbollah a state yet?) whose alliance and ambition have put the Sunni regimes on the defensive and inspired the Arab street.
So the Arab League gathered in Cairo to show these uppity Shiites and their perfidious Alawite lackey just who is in charge in the Middle East. The Saudi foreign minister compared Hezbollah to Ariel Sharon, which is a pretty rude thing to say when you’re talking about your brother Arabs. “The legitimate government in Lebanon is being subjected to an all-out war,” he thundered. “We, the Arab world cannot stand idly by as this happens. We must do whatever it takes in order to stop this war and save Lebanon, even if this requires the establishment of an Arab force that will quickly be deployed there, thus protecting the existing legitimate government.”
An Arab force to battle Hezbollah — that would be something, wouldn’t it? So what did the Arab League decide to do? In its final statement, it couldn’t muster the unity or fortitude to even condemn Hezbollah.
The P.R. Difficulties of Jihad
It’s hard not to notice one interesting way in which Islamic supremacists have been tying themselves in rhetorical knots as they try to explain their recent behavior in Gaza and Lebanon.
Hezbollah and Hamas both celebrate themselves as “resistance” movements — resistance to Israel, resistance to the arrogance and imperialism of the West, resistance to the apostate Arab regimes who have allied with Israel and America. And resistance, it should be added, to anyone who resists getting out of the way of the war machine quickly and voluntarily.
Hezbollah has created a conundrum for itself, as the group has turned its military might against the same people it has always said its resistance existed to protect, and so the resistance feels a lot like the occupier these days. And Hamas is facing a similar PR problem. Israel no longer occupies Gaza and has always said that its fight with Hamas will end when Hamas’s attacks on Israel end. So what is Hamas now “resisting,” exactly? Well, one of the group’s leaders said today that it seeks “to continue the defense against the Israeli settlements and cities around Gaza.” (Someone please alert Gershom Gorenberg.) Ah, yes — occupied Sderot. Just a little south of occupied West Beirut.




What Pundits Will Talk About?
In West Virginia 51% of the voters think Barack Obama actually agrees with Reverend Wright, not just that Obama’s judgment in maintaining the relationship is a concern. But didn’t the punditocracy tell us this was all behind him?
And, John, never overlook the ire of a woman scorned. One commentator asks: “How would you feel if you had your eyes on a promotion at the office, had worked real hard, had the experience, had paid the dues, and then someone younger and less experienced, someone you’d given advice to, mentored a bit, came along and ruined your dream?” More importantly, from an electoral standpoint, how would her fans feel? Would they rather die than let the dream-stealer win?