Observations on...

Let's liberate Burma

American-Jews and Israel

Robert Kagan's brain

Obama.

Real mean politicking in US is about to begin

Business Times - 13 May 2008

Primaries have highlighted many issues that Republicans will try to use against Obama

By LEON HADAR
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

A NOTE to all you political junkies out there: You thought that the presidential primaries were a lot of fun and you seemed to be enjoying the many televised debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and having great time watching all the nasty campaign commercials on television and YouTube ('It's 3:00am . . .'). And now that we are reaching the finish of the Hillary-Obama race, you feel a certain let-down, a post-primaries depression.

Well, not to worry, folks! The Main Event - Barack Obama vs John McCain is about to start, and it would make the primaries look like a campaign for the student government in first grade. Indeed, we still have to endure a few more Democratic primaries this month, but we can already get a sense of the shape of things to come.

After a Hamas spokesman suggested that his group 'loves' Mr Obama, Mr McCain declared that: 'We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas,' implying that the Democratic senator from Illinois was Hamas' presidential candidate.

Mr Obama responded to Mr McCain's comments by charging that the Republican senator from Arizona was trying to 'smear' him and that he was 'losing his bearings', insinuating that the 72-old Mr McCain was getting a bit, well, senile.

Both Mr Obama and Mr McCain have insisted that they want to have a 'serious' discussion on the 'issues' and have expressed interest in having a series of free-wheeling town-hall-style debates around the country. But most pundits aren't buying into these kinds of commitments to have a 'clean' campaign.

With the stakes in this historic presidential campaign so high - the first African-American presidential candidate facing the oldest candidate to run for that office, in the midst of a long and costly war and against the backdrop of a major economic crisis - the two candidates and their parties are expected to use all their resources (Mr McCain had raised about US$80 while Mr Obama has about US$240 million) to ensure a victory.

Both Mr Obama and Mr McCain are larger-than-life candidates that are trying to reach voters beyond the respective parties' traditional demographic blocs - the Republican electoral base in the 'red states' in the Midwest and the South and among rural white and religious Americans, and the Democratic constituencies of urban whites, African-Americans and Latinos in the 'blue states' on the East and West Coasts. Hence, the charismatic bi-racial Mr Obama, who describes himself as a bipartisan candidate, stresses his commitment to dramatic change in Washington and is mobilising the support of hundreds of thousands new and young voters. He hopes to win in November in traditionally Republican states like Virginia and North Carolina.

Mr McCain, a Vietnam war veteran who has acquired the reputation of a political maverick, has been able to win the backing of many moderate and independent voters by embracing a more centrist position on global warming, gay rights and abortion. He believes that he could do well in states that Democratic presidential candidates had carried in the last election, including California.

It, therefore, makes sense to the Republicans to counter Mr Obama's message by depicting him as a traditional liberal and an elitist that lacks personal and cultural ties to Middle America. At the same time, the Democrats are trying to demonstrate that Mr McCain is nothing more than a right-wing conservative who wants to continue pursuing President George W Bush's policies at home and abroad.

In a way, Ms Clinton's campaign against Mr Obama has helped to highlight many of the issues the Republicans will try to use against him - his lack of experience in foreign policy; his ties to the Rev Jeremiah Wright, a controversial black preacher; and his failure to connect with white blue-collar and rural voters. But the Democrats expect that on a certain level, through radio talk shows, television commercials and political blogging, the Republican campaign will try to play dirty by exploiting racial and religious bigotry.

With 15 per cent of Americans believing that Mr Obama is a Muslim, and with many other voters expressing uneasiness about the idea of an African-American president, no one will be surprised if the Republicans stress that Mr McCain is the American candidate, while Barack Hussein Osama . . .oops . . .sorry, Obama, is the favourite candidate of Hamas, Al-Qaeda and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Republicans are getting ready for an onslaught of a Democratic-sponsored stream of television and Internet images that show Mr McCain hugging Mr Bush and portraying him as a 'warmonger' who wants the war in Iraq to continue for 'more than 100 years'.

In fact, Mr McCain said that US troops could spend 'maybe 100' years in Iraq, referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.

So fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a very bumpy ride, and by the time the next US president will be elected, on the first Tuesday in November - after more than six months of mean political fighting, a hot summer dominated by mud-slinging, name-calling and innuendos that have to do (among many other things) with race, religion, and age - we'll all probably feel that we need to take a long and cold shower.


Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

films and politics

Read my review of The Visitor on Takimag.com and my post and post on @TAC.

Democratic presidential endgame is in sight

Business Times - 08 May 2008


Democratic presidential endgame is in sight

After a rock-solid victory in the North Carolina primary, Obama looks set to win

By LEON HADAR
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

SENATOR Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the Democratic race for party's presidential nomination, is back in business, and after a rock-solid victory in the North Carolina primary and a narrow loss in Indiana, he could be on his way to winning the Big Prize.

'Tonight we stand less than 200 delegates away from winning the Democratic nomination for President of the United States,' Mr Obama told his supporters in North Carolina, promising to lead the Democrats towards victory against presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the general election on November.

During several weeks of gruelling election campaigning, Mr Obama, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white American mother, had suffered major electoral set-backs and public relations fiascos, and seemed to be losing his Mojo, a type of magic charm that according to African-American folklore brings luck and success.

The Mojo clearly helped Mr Obama score several crucial electoral victories, starting with the first caucuses in Iowa that propelled him to the top of the Democratic race, stunning most of the pundits in Washington who had been certain that Mrs Clinton, the former First Lady with her huge base of political and financial support would win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Most critical to Mr Obama's success and the political momentum he enjoyed was his ability to draw support not only from African-American voters, but also from a large number of white voters. That explained why he ended up winning the Democratic races in states with relatively small African-American voters in the Northeast (Connecticut), the Midwest (Wisconsin) and the South (Virginia).

But Mrs Clinton, whose initial support came from older voters and white women, has been able to exploit a rising sense of uneasiness with the black Mr Obama among white rural voters and blue-collar workers, two critical voting blocs in the large states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Mrs Clinton succeeded in winning the primaries.

Some of the problems facing Mr Obama stemmed from his ties to his pastor in an African-American church in Chicago, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons accusing the US government of spreading the AIDS epidemic among America's blacks and blaming it for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been shown on YouTube and broadcast 24/7 on cable television. Also eroding Mr Obama's support among lower-middle class white voters were the condescending remarks he had made about them during a fund-raising event in San Francisco.

While Mrs Clinton has faced major obstacles in overcoming the lead of about 150 that Mr Obama continued to maintain among pledged delegates, she has remained hopeful that she could persuade the majority of the 800 'super-delegates' - party leaders, lawmakers, governors, mayors - to support her candidacy, after demonstrating that unlike Mr Obama, she could win the votes of whites in 'swing states', like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

With about 300 'super-delegates' still undeclared, and who in theory could decide to support her, it was Mrs Clinton who seemed to be the presidential candidate with the Mojo.

Just last week, Mrs Clinton was taunting her rival: If Mr Obama has a lead over her in terms of the pledged delegates and the popular vote - not to mention the millions of dollars he has raised for the campaign - why couldn't he 'close a deal', Mrs Clinton asked.

The former First Lady who was campaigning with her husband in Indiana and North Carolina was hoping that the controversy over Mr Obama's pastor and related issues, and the continuing erosion in his support among white voters, would help her win a double-digit victory in Indiana, with its large white population, and would make it difficult for Mr Obama to beat her in North Carolina, despite its concentration of African-American voters.

According to the best-case-scenario drawn-up by the Clintonites, the setbacks that Mr Obama would have suffered in these two states would have provided Mrs Clinton with the kind of political and media momentum that she needed and that would have left the party's 'super-delegates' no other choice but to consider her as the most-likely candidate to win in the general election in November.

But that didn't happen. Mr Obama won big in North Carolina, while Mrs Clinton's margin of victory in Indiana was quite narrow. Mr Obama, on the other hand, did better than expected. The outcome allows him to add more pledged delegates to his column and strengthens his hand - while it weakens Mrs Clinton's - as he tries to 'close a deal' with the 'super-delegates'.

Moreover, exit polls in North Carolina and Indiana suggest that the Wright controversy had only a marginal effect on the voters, and that, if anything, Mr Obama has been able to regain some of his earlier support among white voters.

The remaining primaries - in West Virginia and Kentucky, where Mrs Clinton is expected to win, and in Oregon and Montana, where Mr Obama is likely to emerge as a victor - are not expected to change the math of the Democratic race. Mr Obama continues to maintain a lead among pledged delegates and is gradually winning the support of the remaining undeclared 'super-delegates'.

Most observers expect several leading Democratic figures, such as former presidential candidate Al Gore to announce their support for Obama in the coming weeks and to try to persuade Mrs Clinton to withdraw from the race as part of the political deal under which she would be selected as Mr Obama's running mate.



Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Global economics hogs US election campaign

Business Times - 06 May 2008


Global economics hogs US election campaign

Clinton, Obama now portray themselves as protectionists and China bashers

By LEON HADAR
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

THE recognition that American businesses had cut fewer jobs (20,000) than expected (about 90,000) in April and the perception that the US central bank seemed to be containing the threat of a financial meltdown may have helped boost the sense of mild optimism among investors in recent days.

Indeed, there seems to be a feeling in the financial community that things are starting to get better and that, perhaps, the financial crisis is coming to an end.

That sentiment has been reflected in the somewhat bullish mood in the stock markets and in growing expectations on Wall Street that the value of the various financial products will start climbing up soon.

At the same time, officials in the Bush Administration and Republican lawmakers are hoping, wishing and praying that the US$117 billion in federal tax rebates that the government has started mailing last week to Americans - they are part of the economic stimulus plan that had been embraced by Congress and the White House - will make it more likely that the current economic slowdown will be relatively short and mild.

It is not clear whether this rising enthusiasm among some investors and politicians is based on reality or on wishful thinking. What is obvious, however, is that this sense of optimism about the economy is not shared by consumers and workers on Main Street.

That is probably not surprising if one considers the effects that the mortgage market crisis, the credit crunch and the rising energy and commodity prices are having on homeowners and other consumers who reside in the 'broader economy' - where one experiences a rise in the number of foreclosures, falling home prices, and tighter lending standards - and are not part of the 'investment community'.

Hence, the Labor Department report issued last week also pointed out that Americans appear to be working fewer hours, and for less pay, and that the percentage of employees who involuntarily turned to part-time work is continuing to rise.

And in one area where the 'broader economy' meets the 'investment community' - consumer spending that brings about more earnings for businesses and profits for investors - there are no indications that Americans are going on another huge shopping spree any time soon.

If anything, it won't be an exaggeration to suggest that most Americans are now in a very sour mood about the American economy and the future of the country. Indeed, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, President George W Bush reached new lows in his eighth and final year, with only 21 per cent of American approving of his handling of the weakened economy. An unprecedented 73 per cent of them expressed the belief the country is on the 'wrong track'; only 15 per cent say it is going in the right direction.

Moreover, President Bush while talking about the economy on the White House lawn last week refrained from describing the current economic conditions as a 'recession' - that is exactly the way 81 per cent of Americans describe it, according to the same Journal/NBC News poll. And while Mr Bush blamed 'inaction' by the Democratic-controlled Congress for the economic problems, most Americans say that the White House is responsible for the high gas prices they are paying at the pump and for the rising costs of bread and rice at the grocery store.

Interestingly enough, a plurality of Americans are feeling that the problems the American economy is facing - and in particular, the energy prices and other global economic issues - constitute now the main threat to their interest and welfare as a nation, while the issue of Iraq seems to be less prominent among their concerns.

According to opinion polls by Daniel Yankelovich, and published by Foreign Affairs magazine, the number of Americans who named the economy as the top foreign policy challenge rose from 3 per cent to 11 per cent. Seven out of 10 respondents said they worried 'a lot' about the rising energy costs, a 16-point increase from last year.

There has also been an increase from 31 per cent to 40 per cent in the number of Americans who are worried about the US debt to foreign economies. And a large majority of Americans, 84 per cent, are worried about the way things are going for the US in world affairs.

This growing sense of economic insecurity among Americans that is responsible for the current nasty public mood is also responsible for the growing support for protectionism. The American voters expect their presidents and lawmakers to 'do something' to bring about economic relief.

But the politicians who recognise that many of the economic problems have to do with structural changes in the American and global economy - for example, rising energy demand in China and India - respond to the public pressure by searching for political scapegoats like the oil companies and foreign trade competitors.

And the same politicians also look for short-term measures that will create the perception that they are indeed 'doing something' to help the struggling consumer/voter.

These politicians were in action last week: both presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain and one of the two leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, called for called for a summer-long suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

But most economists, as well as the other Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, argue that this 'gas-tax holiday' would have very limited effect on gas prices, which are in short supply in the summer, which in turn puts pressure on prices; that most of the benefits of a temporary tax moratorium would probably go to oil companies rather than consumers; and that if anything, the government should increase the tax on gas, which will put pressure on the consumers to buy more fuel-saving cars, and help reduce energy consumption.

Mr Obama's supporters have accused Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain of irresponsibly 'pandering' to the American voters by proposing the 'gas-tax holiday', but Mr Obama has joined Mrs Clinton in doing the same kind of pandering, when the two joined forces in supporting a Senate Bill that is supposed to offset China's alleged 'currency manipulation'.

The legislation proposed by Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Jim Bunning - a Republican would define currency manipulation as a subsidy under US trade laws - and Commerce Department wants to impose countervailing duties on many Chinese products.

This move is just another example of the way Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, who in the past had backed a centrist free-trade agenda and economic engagement with China, have attempted to re-invent themselves as economic protectionists and China bashers who seem to blame global trade competition, especially from China, for America's current economic woes.

The two Democrats have also promised to revisit the North America Free Trade Agreement and have backed the efforts to torpedo a bilateral trade agreement with Colombia. They apparently hope that their anti-free trade rhetoric will help them win support among blue-collar workers in states where the manufacturing sectors are in decline.

Since many of the problems facing the American economy - including the weakening manufacturing sector, the growing energy prices, and the falling value of the US dollar - reflect long-term structural changes, expect that even if the current recession proves to be short and mild, the next US president is going to face more protectionist pressures from Congress and the general public.

It is very likely that there will new restrictions on foreign imports and investments, whoever wins the election.



Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

And on @TAC.

Politics and Wars

Two of my recent post on @TAC

Mouse Defeat McCain and Media Unaccmplished.

Need a Nuclear Umbrella?

May 1, 2008
Need a (Nuclear) Umbrella? Call Hillary

by Leon Hadar
One of the central tenets of the US containment strategy during the Cold War was the belief in Moscow as well as in the capitals of America's allies across the Atlantic and the Pacific that in a crisis with the Communist powers, Americans would risk New York, Chicago and Los Angeles for London and Bonn, Tokyo and Seoul.

Indeed, US strategy of "extended deterrence" – encapsulated in the metaphor of a "nuclear umbrella" – worked since the Soviet Union was presented with a credible threat of two-front war if they decided to launch nuclear attacks against America's allies whose security was considered to be a core US national interest.

The extension of America's nuclear umbrella into Western Europe and East Asia became an integral part of formal agreements with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Japan and South Korea that had been approved by Congress following an extensive debate in Washington.

This commitment to risk New York for other world capitals reflected the recognition that US interests and those of its allies were compatible as part of a global conflict with a Soviet-led Communist bloc armed with conventional and nuclear arms, posing a direct threat to the US-led Western alliance.

Now, a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, a leading presidential candidate is proposing that the United States provide a similar nuclear umbrella to Israel and other pro-American governments in the Middle East as part of a strategy of containing Iran.

To apply the terminology of the Cold War, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton is suggesting that in a crisis with Iran, Americans would indeed risk New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, for Tel-Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi and perhaps even Cairo and Baghdad. (read the rest)

George Bush Mission Not Accomplished

A reminder

Balance of Power

I attended an interesting discussion on U.S. relationship with Russia and China that was held by the National Interest magazine on Thursday, during which Harry Harding raised an important point (and this is not a direct quote): American officials, lawmakers and pundits tend to portary U.S. policy moves towards China (and other powers) as responses to Chinese (and other powers’) policies. Hence, the focus of foreign policy debates in Washington is on why China is doing this or that, say, why are the Chinese saving too much and not spending enough, as opposed to why America is doing this or that, say, why are Americans spending too much and not saving enough. We supposedly react to their actions. Harding insisted that at the end of the day, U.S. foreign policy is determined by the way that we define it. That definition explains why we feel the need to respond (or not to respond) to what the Chinese (and other powers) are doing. (read the rest here and more here.)