Iraq - the real story

So far, all of the Presidential candidates have come out and said that they either oppose the Iraq war, or that they oppose how the war has been waged. I'm sure that they do, but saying you're against what's happened in Iraq is not exactly making a tough decision - and whomever wins in November 08 is going to have to make an incredibly tough decision.

It's my guess that the next year or so will not bring "victory" in Iraq. The insurgents are too well entrenched, the sectarian hatreds are too hot and the Iranians are too powerful. So the question is, what does the next leader of our country do when President Bush says, "OK, now it's your turn to fix this mess"?

Most are saying withdraw. But withdraw to where? To what? With what numbers of forces? Of course no one answers those questions. But here's what withdrawal means:

• The Shiites and Sunnis will be free to kill each other on a true Civil War scale.
• The Iranians will back the Shias and most of the rest of the Arab world will back the Sunnis. It's not hard to see where that might lead.
• If somehow an awful Civil War is avoided, the result will be that the Iranians will have taken over the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world. They will also be the de facto power in the Middle East. And they have made no secret they desire the annihilation of Israel.

Then again, here's what staying means:

• Thousands more troops killed or wounded.
• Hundreds of billions of dollars drained away from the economy.
• Continued antagonism from many Iraqis and Arabs who resent our occupation.

Of course, none of the candidates will tell you this - but it's the truth. Thomas Friedman, the award winning columnist in the NY Times had the best summary of the situation: Either we commit to doing the operation over the right way, with our allies, with the right number of troops, with copious economic aid, with a well thought out plan and with smart diplomacy that brings in Iran and Syria - or we get out quickly and pray. He called it 10 years or 10 months.

Friedman's insight into this mess has been spot on since before the invasion. I'm watching to see if anyone running has half his understanding of what the stakes are - and is willing tell the nation that easy slogans of "get the troops out now" or "troop surge" are little more than fingers in a crumbling dike.

The Truth Behind "An Inconvenient Truth"

Tonight is Oscar night, and aside from a particularly interesting Best Picture and Director race (go Clint!) a lot of attention is being focused on the Best Documentary category. I think this is quite revealing.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is the heart and soul project of Al Gore, the candidate every comedian hoped would win the Presidency due to his stiff, even nerdy speaking style. But the same person lampooned for his "lockbox" and "creating the Internet" is now about to win an Oscar. What's more, the movie is going to win despite the fact that it is really a scientific paper transposed to video.

So why is this so revealing?

Because the topic of global warming has caught on not just with the Academy, but with the general media/public, despite the Natalie Holloway, love crazed-astronaut or Anna Nicole Smith media meltdowns. The electorate is in the mood for serious discussion about real topics. They've come to the realization that there is no longer an argument about whether global warming exists. It's here, it's getting worse and it's time to act. Even 86 evangelical Christian leaders, including presidents of evangelical colleges and megachurches are putting their weight behind initiatives to address the problem. In California, always the state to watch for trends that sweep the country, Arnold Schwarzenegger has spearheaded and signed a sweeping law to cut CO2 emissions.

So while Fox News, President Bush and a few other holdouts get left behind, Al Gore will be on stage tonight accepting what I expect to be thunderous applause.

Any candidate hoping to win the Presidency best pay attention.

Hilary vs. Barack - Round 1

What are we to make of Hilary Clinton's attack on Barack Obama over what a Mr Moneybags Democratic party donor said?

For those who missed it, David Geffen, media mogul and the "G" in the Dreamworks SKG movie studio, had some less than nice observances on Bill and Hilary:

• "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hilary Clinton? Obama is inspirational. He's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family."]
• Everyone in politics lies, but they (the Clintons) do it with such ease. It's troubling."
• "I don't think anyone believes in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person." (Meaning that the Republicans will have all the dirt they could ever want to use if Hilary is the Democratic nominee).

So it makes perfect sense if Hilary shoots back right? Even though Bill and Hilary were very close with Mr Geffen during their administration, she's got the right to defend herself now, doesn't she?

But what did Hilary's campaign do? Did they go to their former friend and say, "Hey - what gives? A bit grumpy because the studio is struggling?" Did they take the high road and say, "Mr Geffen is entitled to say whatever he wants, but we're about winning this election, not reliving the past"?

No...

They shot off a nasty memo to all the press demanding that Barack Obama apologize for what Mr Geffen said since he helped with a fundraiser for Barack. What???????????????

Obama's campaign quickly shot back that just the other day Hilary lavished praise on a State Senator in South Carolina who has decided to endorse her. Interestingly, this State Senator said Obama's nomination would drag down the Democratic party because he is black.

Here's my theory on Hilary's overreaction. She's afraid. She has dreamed of being president for decades and in so doing has gotten the reputation for being manipulative, ambitious and mean-spirited (behind closed doors). She knows it's this election or never, and just when it seems like the time is right, here comes this upstart rocketing up in the polls with practically no experience but a lot of charisma. The regular politicians (and I count Hilary as one) think the answer is to sling mud in order to bring your opponent down to your level. That's the way the game is played - it's not about what kind of campaign you wage, it's about winning.

But I think Barack knows that finally the correct (and winning) response is not to sling mud back. He quickly came out and said, "The nation will remain at a standstill if we continue to engage in small and divisive politics and tit for tat. Our country is at the crossroads and it's not as if we don't know what the solutions are. What's missing is the inability of our leaders to develop consensus."

If Barack can live up to these words, the long neglected center (but majority) of the country has it's candidate. And there's nothing that the Republicans - or Hilary - can say to stop it.

Let's cut Hilary some slack

Hilary Clinton is not my favorite politician - and as my moniker suggests, I do not plan on voting for her in the primary. I'll cover on a later post several significant troubling issues that Hilary has not put to rest, but let me say right now:

Hilary is taking a bum wrap from many in the Democratic party that oppose the Iraq war. Hmmm...Democratic party and oppose the war might be a redundant statement.

For the last couple of days, campaign coverage of Hilary has consistently led off with an evidently earnest questioner at one of her rallies asking, "Will you now, once and for all, specifically and without equivocation, apologize for your vote to approve giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq?"

Hilary's answer has been basically, "Why focus on what already happened? The problem is how the President abused that authority, and in any case, I will pledge to you to start bringing the troops back home as soon as I am President." I think that's a great answer. Full of truth and reason. Somewhat exasperated, she even changed her answer recently to say, "If finding someone who didn't vote for the war is your sole reason for voting for a candidate, then you need to find someone else to vote for." Hooray and well said!

Over and over we see how wrongheaded it is to demand/expect purity in thought with regard to a complex issue. Extremism in other words. Democrats are not immune from this phenomena. In fact, it's interesting to note how some Democrats who preach diversity...diversity in thought...in race...in culture...in opinion...are somehow unable to tolerate a person who thinks differently than they do. Maybe they are a bit more like the Republicans they hate than they would ever admit.

Hilary cast a vote that she thought was the best decision at the time. Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone agrees he was an evil tyrant. Most, (perhaps naively) thought "W" wouldn't be as obsessed with "winning" the war as he has proven to be.

If Hilary can continue to stand up to these critics with the forcefulness she has displayed so far...I might just give her a second look.

McCain Then and Now

I don't know if it's possible to understand the inner strength John McCain needed in order to survive the brutal treatment inflicted upon him by his Vietnamese captors. Week after week/month after month/year after year he withstood physical and psychological torture that would break many people on the first day. I try to imagine myself in his situation...and my mind pretty quickly spirals down to an overwhelming sense of desperation - there's no hope for rescue, just tell them what they want and let it be over.

The man was made of different stuff than the rest of us.

That's why it is so painful to see what McCain did yesterday. In South Carolina, the very same state where "W" stopped McCain's momentum nearly 8 years ago with dirty trick campaigning and a fervent appeal to Christian conservatives, McCain went hat in hand asking for support. The man who withstood the Viet Cong torturers went out and basically said, "I'm one of you. We need to overturn Roe v. Wade. We need to oppose same sex marriage." This despite the fact that 8 years ago he chastised the Religous Right and their leaders (aka Pat Robertson) for their intolerance. Polls show that many of the Religous Right look at McCain with skepticism. They don't think he's a true believer and they don't think that he identifies with "their" issues (ie. abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, creationism, etc). I guess on that one thing, I have to agree. Whatever strength of character and conviction he had back in Vietnam...he seems to have conveniently misplaced.

The beginning of the end of polarization

So what the heck is "The Ascendant Center"?

No...it's not a mystic academy in India where shamans guide you through the finer points of levitation! : )

"The Ascendant Center" is my political blog focused on the 2008 presidential campaign. Hmmm...I wonder if there will be anything of interest to write about between now and November 08? : )

I believe fervently that it takes more to win the presidency than just being the most skilled campaigner - or even the campaigner with the "best" message. It takes timing - the convergence of the political yearning of the country with the candidate best able to express that yearning. Ronald Reagan, whatever you may think of his politics, was an ideal candidate for his time. The same with John F Kennedy. All throughout our history, America has been blessed with gifted leaders at critical moments. The birth of our country is synonomous with George Washington. The Civil War with Abraham Lincoln. The Great Depression and World War II with Franklin Roosevelt. It's as if Americans recognize when things are at the tipping point, and our collective wisdom (and providence it would almost seem) bring us the person best able to see us through the darkness.

But the general public has become disengaged. The hysterics of the far left and right fill the airwaves. "Debate" in this country has become nothing more than a venal display of arrogance as hypesters on both sides find the smallest of incidents and try to use them to paint the other side as dangerous or out of control. I'm talking to you and your ilk Bill O'Reilly. Egged on by these PT Barnums of the media, the extremists have polarized our country. We have become a country of red states vs blue states, urban life vs. country life, rich vs. poor, religion vs. atheism, and most of all, for the war vs. against the war.

We have reached a tipping point.

The challenges ahead of us are as fearsome and complex as any we have ever faced. We're bleeding troops and wealth in the Iraq quagmire. Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon and wants to wipe Israel off the map. Global warming threatens to profoundly change the lives of this generation. Oh, and there are few issues worth noting at home too - like a broken health care system and rising wage inequality. If we continue down the polarized path we are on, it will become impossible to solve these issues.

But there is hope. While the vast majority of Americans have become disengaged with politics - they have also become deeply unsettled. They sense something is very wrong. Even those who have forsworn the news because "it's always negative" or it "doesn't affect me personally" sense by osmosis that things can't go on comfortably much longer. I'm also deeply interested in a phenomena that I see more and more of - a sense that it's this generation's time to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure the comfort of the next. The time for demonizing the other side is past. The time for saying "here's how I want to help" is here.

The table is set...

The people are ready...

All that's needed is the charismatic leader...