MONDAY,  MARCH 10,  2008

BARACK, DO YOUR STUFF

Barack Obama has a chance this morning to show he can be a leader.  The same development gives him the chance to prove he can't, or won't lead.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, not Mr. Popularity on most circuits, is heading to Florida to stir the pot:

Laying the groundwork for a court battle that could divide the Democratic Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to sue the Democratic National Committee if it counts Florida's primary results in the official presidential delegates tally.

Rev. Sharpton is traveling to Florida today to compile lists of residents who skipped the January contest because they thought their votes would not count. He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation, in the event the Democratic Party allowed that to happen.

The party had promised to exclude Florida and Michigan from the nomination process after the states scheduled their primaries in January, earlier than party rules had allowed, but the close contest between senators Clinton and Obama has turned attention toward those primaries, prompting debate between the campaigns and party leaders over how to handle the lockout.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign has said it wants the Florida and Michigan primaries to count, while Mr. Obama's campaign has said it will support the Democratic National Committee's rules.

Mrs. Clinton won the Michigan and Florida primaries. Mr. Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan prior to the primary.

Rev. Sharpton has not endorsed a presidential candidate, but his efforts in Florida are widely viewed as benefiting Mr. Obama, who has won more delegates overall than Mrs. Clinton.

Okay, Mr. Obama, watcha gonna do?  What you should do is shut Sharpton down.  Oh, don't tell me he's a free man and you don't have any influence.  If you don't have any influence over the loud-mouthed reverend, you don't have any influence, period. 

Sharpton can only hurt Obama.  The Obama camp must understand that, after the recent gaffes of some Obama advisers, the public is looking for discipline.  To have Obama's name linked with Sharpton's is electoral poison.

We await the statement saying that Sharpton's mission is unauthorized, and that Obama opposes it.  The statement must come from Obama himself, not from the assistant to the assistant press secretary.  The Florida issue can be handled properly.  This is not the right way.

CURSE OF THE AMATEURS

On a similar theme, seasoned analyst Mark Halperin, of Time, reports on Obama's headaches with amateur advisers, noted above.  Austan Goolsbee, economic adviser, and Samantha Power, foreign-policy guru, made fools of themselves in recent excursions away from the sandbox. Power was forced to walk the plank and is now a has-been.  Goolsbee has apparently been given a second chance.

People say they want "newness" in politics.  They often decry "professional politicians."  Well, maybe some of these righteous folk should examine the results of amateurism.  Halperin has:

Every presidential campaign is occasionally bedeviled by two things — media firestorms over controversial remarks and egghead policy advisers who stumble naively into a political mess. Dealing with two such flaps in virtually the same week is bad enough. But when two separate media firestorms are caused by two policy advisers, as happened to Barack Obama last week, a campaign has to do some serious damage control — and rethinking.

The background...

For most of his presidential effort, Obama has received glowing, often hagiographic coverage — and his media halo had until recently extended to his family, friends, staff, and advisors. Part of any insurgent campaign is to revel in its practice and claims that it is not playing by "the old rules" of politics. That can often include neglecting to establish and enforce the kind of strict rules for conduct and communications that more practiced, buttoned-down campaigns provide.

A solution?

The Obama campaign will clearly have to revisit its past practice of letting policy advisors meet with whomever they wish or talk to the media without intensive preparation from the communications operation. Obama's political aides were clearly aware of the damage that had been done by these comments and suggested that they would take actions to try to make sure such problems didn't happen again.

Okay, just fine.  That probably will be done.  Dealing with the new Sharpton challenge, however, is more difficult since Sharpton doesn't work for Obama.  But the Goolsbee and Power episodes make the Sharpton bit loom even larger.  This will get interesting, especially if Sharpton rival Jesse Jackson also jumps into the ring, the better to keep his name before the public.

McCAIN'S BURDEN

The Democratic dust-up may create a kind of artificial confidence among Republicans.  But Bill Kristol, in today's New York Times, argues that McCain has an enormous task ahead:

Buried inside Sunday’s papers was a noteworthy election result. In a special election to replace former Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, first-time Democratic candidate Bill Foster emerged victorious. George Bush easily carried the district in 2004, as has every recent G.O.P. presidential candidate.

This Democratic pickup suggests that, for now, we’re in an electoral environment more like 2006 than 2004. Foster’s eight-percentage-point improvement on John Kerry’s 2004 performance in the district mirrors the general shift in the electorate from 2004, when Bush won and the Republicans held Congress, to 2006, when the Democrats took over Congress and ran on average about eight points ahead of the G.O.P. Most surveys have shown the Democrats retaining that sizable advantage over the last 16 months. Saturday’s special election would appear to confirm these polls.

Kristol catalogues other Republican deficits.  But he feels McCain has the potential to overcome them.  Aside from telling his remarkable personal story, according to Kristol, McCain can do these things:

He could embrace a “Sam’s Club” domestic-policy reform agenda, oriented toward the legitimate concerns of middle-class and working-class families, even if it gives country-club Republicans heartburn. (He could also criticize corporate boards that have rewarded C.E.O.’s lavishly as they’ve managed their companies into the ground.)

He could explain forthrightly that we’ll have to stay in Iraq for quite a while, even if this means challenging the American people to spurn the feel-good promises of irresponsible Democrats. And he could mock the narcissism of the Obama supporters, who think they’re the ones we’ve been waiting for — by pointing out that their contemporaries serving in the armed forces are the ones making real sacrifices on our behalf.

Perhaps the most obvious way McCain could upend the normal dynamics of this year’s election would be a bold vice presidential choice. He could pick a hawkish and principled Democrat like Joe Lieberman. He could reach beyond the usual bevy of elected officials by tapping either David Petraeus or Raymond Odierno — the two generals who together, in an amazing demonstration of leadership and competence, turned the war in Iraq around last year. He could persuade the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas, to join the ticket. There are other unorthodox possibilities.

One of the factors that has made modern conservatism work is that it values ideas.  Conservatism, not liberalism, became the seat of intellectual vigor in the last generation.  Ideas like Kristol's may or may not work, but at least he's pumping them out.  McCain needs as many fresh ideas as possible placed before him.  Despite all of Obama's talk about new ways, his ideas are essentially old retreads.  Hillary's are older than retreads.  In fact, they're second-hand retreads.  McCain must follow the conservative victory path of the Reagan era and present genuinely refreshing proposals that can appeal to a broad majority.  With his cross-party appeal, he may be just the man to do it.

WHO IS SAYING THIS?

I guess it's the oil that makes them independent, but some Kuwaitis have been known to come up with real infidel-style notions.  Here one top Kuwaiti analyst tips his hat to the Israelis, and feels they might be a good choice to carry out a first-class Little Satan operation.  At last report, this analyst is still alive:

The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be less embarrassing if it was done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday.

Officially Kuwait, like the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, wants a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff between Tehran and the West and will not allow the U.S. to use its territories for any attack on Iran.

But when asked in an interview with the daily Al-Siyassah about the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear reactors, analyst and former government adviser Sami al-Faraj said it would not be such a bad thing.

"Honestly speaking, they would be achieving something of great strategic value for the GCC by stopping Iran's tendency for hegemony over the area," he said, adding that "nipping it in the bud by Israeli hands would be less embarrassing for us than if the Americans did it."

Al-Faraj said Tehran was interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and inciting strife between Sunnis and Shiites.

"The question is what would it do if it were a nuclear nation? We have to call a spade a spade and say that burying the military nuclear Iranian project is in the interest of GCC states, and other countries in the area," added al-Faraj, who heads the independent Kuwait Center for Strategy Studies.

Hmm.  Here's the question:  Is this guy speaking on his own, or is this a trial balloon floated by the Kuwaiti government, or even several governments? 

And what about the timing?

Remember, the Bush administration has a bit more than 10 months remaining.  Will the president leave the Iran nuclear issue for his successor, or will he - possibly with the Israelis - take care of it before leaving office?  We'll watch for any new statements coming from the Gulf countries, who feel threatened by Iran.  They could be indicators.

IT'S OIL, STUPID!

How dumb I feel.  How dumb we should all feel.  All these years we thought fundamentalist Islam was responsible for the suppression of women's rights in Muslim countries.   Now we realize how silly that is.  Why, it isn't Islam at all.  It's oil!  No, no, no, this is serious stuff.  I mean, it's in The Washington Post, which reports it with all its authority:

Our gas-guzzling ways have long been associated with a variety of problems, but disturbing evidence now points to a new dimension of our love affair with petroleum: Oil consumption and high oil prices hurt the political, social and economic development of millions of women in oil-producing nations.

You read that right. The more gas you pump and the higher oil prices get, the more likely you are to harm women's empowerment.

The surprising finding, based on more than four decades of data from 169 countries, provides a novel explanation of why women in Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates still do not have the right to vote. Oil wealth, not Islam, is the primary reason that these nations have regressive gender policies, said political scientist Michael Ross at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Geez!  This guy Ross is a genius.  In one shot he establishes himself as hero to the leftist, Islam-is-misunderstood crowd, and to the Gore-is-God set.  One shot.  This is one of the most creative and trendy college professors I've seen.  Can you imagine the party invitations in Beverly Hills?  Can you imagine the lecture tours?  He's already in L.A.  He should try his hand at becoming a talent agent.  Why, with his imagination...

Look, read the whole thing.  It's my nomination for worst idea of the year.

VALOR

Finally, it's a pleasure to salute Specialist Monica Lin Brown, who has become only the second woman since World War II to be given the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest award for valor:

Army Spec. Monica Lin Brown used her body to shield five wounded comrades and pull them to safety after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees last April, the military said.

"I did not really think about anything except for getting the guys to a safer location and getting them taken care of and getting them out of there," Brown said Saturday at a U.S. base in the eastern Khost Province.

She said ammunition going off inside the burning Humvee was sending shrapnel in all directions, so she helped drag the soldiers away from the vehicle.

Let's remember Specialist Brown and her comrades whenever we see pictures of little mobs attacking recruiting stations or holding fraudulent "anti-war" rallies on the Washington mall.  The survival of the country depends on the Monica Browns, not Code Pink.

And I'll be back later.

Posted on March 10, 2008.