If you watch enough sporting events you'll eventually observe a particularly frustrating form of defeat - when the team that was being beaten finally figures out what they were doing wrong and mounts a comeback - only to be denied because time has run out.
As I have said before, the tragedy of George Bush's Iraq policy was that he took a dangerous, but necessary idea (combating militant Islam in the heart of the Mideast) and wrecked it with stubbornness, arrogance and incompetence. If only we had not mislead the American people about why toppling Saddam was necessary (it had nothing to do with WMD)...if only there had been a comprehensive economic and political plan after the initial invasion - lead by talented people instead of yes men...if only we had brought in enough force to quell any ideas of an insurgency (like we did in Bosnia where the mantra of "we're going to be the biggest dog on the street" worked wonders in a situation that was initially much more bleak than Iraq)...and if only the right commander had been in place once the insurgency started.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18252538/
The link above is to an article that is striking in its forthrightness. Frankly, coming from someone the Bush administration trusts, it's downright amazing. If any man can parlay a 5% chance of success into the real thing, it's General Petraeus, and the more I read, the more I believe this man could have turned things around as late as about a year ago. I'm assuming that the Iraqis would have started making progress toward settling their differences if the environment had been calmer, but at least there would have been some chance of that. Now all we have is a Hail Mary (another sports analogy).
As far as the candidates for President, even my candidate fails woefully at understanding the repercussions of the current Iraq situation. Pulling out our troops without a plan is as bad as going in without a plan - and I haven't seen any kind of thoughtful plan from Barack Obama or any other troop pullout candidate. The President's defenders seem as clueless now as they did back when this whole mess started. When Harry Reid says the war is lost and the Republicans immediately attack him for deserting the troops and being a "defeatocrat", you can see nothing's changed on the conservative side either.
Only one man with any influence seems to get it. General Petraeus has to battle Sunni insurgents, Shiite death squads, Al Quaeda, troop exhaustion and a woefully inexperienced and partly corrupt Iraqi government. Despite all this, I think some very small steps have been made over the past two months in Iraq.
The question is...is there any time left on the clock?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The most important issue is...
Sometimes I'm glad I'm 42 years old.
On days when I am stiff and sore, can't swing the golf club the way I want to and have memory lapses I'm not so glad. But when I think of what the world is like now and what the world is going to be like in 40 years, I realize that I have had the privilege to live a good part of my life before too much went wrong...before things got totally out of control.
Many people have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Many of those who saw it walked away saying they would try to do the little things in their life that might make a difference when it comes to global warming. I know I did. Some people, however, came out with a more pessimistic viewpoint - that it's already too late to do anything. If you read the article through the link below (the video is even more stark), you can understand why they feel that way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18039460/.
It may indeed be too late to stop nearly catastrophic change. But there's still a difference between nearly catastrophic change and catastrophic change.
Despite the immediacy of the war in Iraq, there is no greater issue facing this country (and the world) than global warming. Every day that goes by without starting the extremely painful measures that will curb greenhouse gas emissions is a day that brings us closer to our own self-caused destruction. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Every time a presidential candidate asks for questions from the press or the audience, the first question should be:
"What measures are you prepared to take to limit the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and how are you going to convince the American people and the world that these painful measures are absolutely essential?"
It's probably already too late for the polar bears and seals mentioned in the article above. But the answer to that question will determine whether it's also too late for us.
On days when I am stiff and sore, can't swing the golf club the way I want to and have memory lapses I'm not so glad. But when I think of what the world is like now and what the world is going to be like in 40 years, I realize that I have had the privilege to live a good part of my life before too much went wrong...before things got totally out of control.
Many people have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Many of those who saw it walked away saying they would try to do the little things in their life that might make a difference when it comes to global warming. I know I did. Some people, however, came out with a more pessimistic viewpoint - that it's already too late to do anything. If you read the article through the link below (the video is even more stark), you can understand why they feel that way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18039460/.
It may indeed be too late to stop nearly catastrophic change. But there's still a difference between nearly catastrophic change and catastrophic change.
Despite the immediacy of the war in Iraq, there is no greater issue facing this country (and the world) than global warming. Every day that goes by without starting the extremely painful measures that will curb greenhouse gas emissions is a day that brings us closer to our own self-caused destruction. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Every time a presidential candidate asks for questions from the press or the audience, the first question should be:
"What measures are you prepared to take to limit the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and how are you going to convince the American people and the world that these painful measures are absolutely essential?"
It's probably already too late for the polar bears and seals mentioned in the article above. But the answer to that question will determine whether it's also too late for us.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Hate vs. Hope
No matter how good a writer you are, words inevitably pale in comparison to one electrifying (if deeply disturbing) visual moment. Several times in my posts I have sought to describe the sickness in our country that is exemplified by those in the media who seek to inflame issues for political gain. I have said Bill O'Reilly is the worst offender alive at this game. For those who doubt me, here's a clip that I would like you to watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZB7dKJk5c
It makes no difference where you stand on the immigration debate. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative. It makes no difference if you are Republican or Democrat. The only thing worth taking from this video (and it's everything) is that Bill O'Reilly is filled with hate. Watch his face and you will see it's not a face of someone passionately arguing a point - it's a face of hatred. End of story.
But in the news, there is also hope. A few days ago figures were released on how the major candidates are doing raising money. Some are doing better than others, but the big story to me was not that Barack Obama raised a staggering $25million in the first quarter - essentially tied with Hillary Clinton for first in the fundraising game. The big story was that he had nearly twice as many donors - many of whom gave small amounts of money. In other words, he got those who rarely contribute to give money.
In the coming months, the electricity of the ever-growing crowds listening to Obama's speeches will become startling. Those who said relying on students for support is foolish - because they never vote - will be proven wrong. Those who think they can write off those who had given up on politics will rue the day they did so.
Get ready for hope to vanquish hate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZB7dKJk5c
It makes no difference where you stand on the immigration debate. It makes no difference if you are liberal or conservative. It makes no difference if you are Republican or Democrat. The only thing worth taking from this video (and it's everything) is that Bill O'Reilly is filled with hate. Watch his face and you will see it's not a face of someone passionately arguing a point - it's a face of hatred. End of story.
But in the news, there is also hope. A few days ago figures were released on how the major candidates are doing raising money. Some are doing better than others, but the big story to me was not that Barack Obama raised a staggering $25million in the first quarter - essentially tied with Hillary Clinton for first in the fundraising game. The big story was that he had nearly twice as many donors - many of whom gave small amounts of money. In other words, he got those who rarely contribute to give money.
In the coming months, the electricity of the ever-growing crowds listening to Obama's speeches will become startling. Those who said relying on students for support is foolish - because they never vote - will be proven wrong. Those who think they can write off those who had given up on politics will rue the day they did so.
Get ready for hope to vanquish hate.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Second thoughts
It's always dangerous to think you know someone that you have never met, let alone spent any time with. It's fine to blog your opinions out there on the Internet, but deep down, I know that I will most likely never meet any of the people I am writing about. And because of this I know that it's possible that I may not capture the absolute truest picture of who they are.
But sometimes the material available is so strong that you just sense it must be true. Such is the case with the interview Jonathan Alter of Newsweek did with Elizabeth Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/). There's nothing I can write that would do justice to this woman. All I can say is, read the interview, and then ask yourself how would you handle the same situation? Deep down ask yourself what your attitude would be like and how strong you would be.
Elizabeth Edwards is not running for President. But she decided to spend her life with John Edwards. She sees something in him that is good, true and worth loving or she wouldn't have married him and stuck by his side as she has done. And that's enough to make me reconsider what kind of man Edwards is.
But sometimes the material available is so strong that you just sense it must be true. Such is the case with the interview Jonathan Alter of Newsweek did with Elizabeth Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/). There's nothing I can write that would do justice to this woman. All I can say is, read the interview, and then ask yourself how would you handle the same situation? Deep down ask yourself what your attitude would be like and how strong you would be.
Elizabeth Edwards is not running for President. But she decided to spend her life with John Edwards. She sees something in him that is good, true and worth loving or she wouldn't have married him and stuck by his side as she has done. And that's enough to make me reconsider what kind of man Edwards is.
Monday, March 26, 2007
A very early prediction
If Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani wind up as the finalists in the 08 Presidential campaign, which one is the worthier candidate? Which one will win? And do these two questions have to have the same answer?
Given that Obama and Guiliani are both strong candidates, stronger than we have had in many years, it's really not possible to objectively decide who is "worthier." That's a value judgment.
Guiliani guided our nation's most important city through our worst nightmare. He became America's mayor due to his unwavering confidence, tempered by a clear and deeply felt empathy for the victims of 9/11 - the most important event in our lifetime. He didn't boast about retribution, he didn't seek political gain from the disaster and he didn't fearmonger.
Obama's candidacy has revealed that despite recent momentary lapses into racial ugliness, America will eventually overcome it's ethnic divisions. Obama is intensely intelligent, and he, better than anyone, understands that he is a bridging figure - from polarization and fear to unity and hope. He's lived, it breathed it and dreamt it.
So who will win - and why?
If I am right, this election has already been decided. The confluence of events leading up to this presidential cycle have in effect already determined the winner. Our next President won't be the one with the most experience. All else being equal, he or she won't necessarily be the one with the absolute "best" plan to solve the Iraq quagmire, defeat the terrorists, keep our economy running strongly, etc. If that were true, my guess is the winner would be Rudy Giuliani - although we're still rightly months away from finding out the details of Rudy's campaign platform. And if I'm wrong, I'll still be proud to call Rudy Giuliani our President.
But in a Guliani - Obama election I don't think we'll see dirty campaigning or a distortion of your opponent's views. Yes - there will be significant differences and heated exchanges. I'm sure there will even be attack ads (although nothing like the nastiness of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth). But in the end, those won't matter. I think Barack Obama will use the inevitable series of Presidential debates to put to rest fears that he is too inexperienced to be President. And then his charisma will take over.
I don't think any pundit realizes the thirst this country has for a charismatic leader whose ideals also match up with the majority viewpoint. No matter how well Rudy campaigns, he won't be able to overcome this.
If only he would be Obama's Vice President...
Given that Obama and Guiliani are both strong candidates, stronger than we have had in many years, it's really not possible to objectively decide who is "worthier." That's a value judgment.
Guiliani guided our nation's most important city through our worst nightmare. He became America's mayor due to his unwavering confidence, tempered by a clear and deeply felt empathy for the victims of 9/11 - the most important event in our lifetime. He didn't boast about retribution, he didn't seek political gain from the disaster and he didn't fearmonger.
Obama's candidacy has revealed that despite recent momentary lapses into racial ugliness, America will eventually overcome it's ethnic divisions. Obama is intensely intelligent, and he, better than anyone, understands that he is a bridging figure - from polarization and fear to unity and hope. He's lived, it breathed it and dreamt it.
So who will win - and why?
If I am right, this election has already been decided. The confluence of events leading up to this presidential cycle have in effect already determined the winner. Our next President won't be the one with the most experience. All else being equal, he or she won't necessarily be the one with the absolute "best" plan to solve the Iraq quagmire, defeat the terrorists, keep our economy running strongly, etc. If that were true, my guess is the winner would be Rudy Giuliani - although we're still rightly months away from finding out the details of Rudy's campaign platform. And if I'm wrong, I'll still be proud to call Rudy Giuliani our President.
But in a Guliani - Obama election I don't think we'll see dirty campaigning or a distortion of your opponent's views. Yes - there will be significant differences and heated exchanges. I'm sure there will even be attack ads (although nothing like the nastiness of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth). But in the end, those won't matter. I think Barack Obama will use the inevitable series of Presidential debates to put to rest fears that he is too inexperienced to be President. And then his charisma will take over.
I don't think any pundit realizes the thirst this country has for a charismatic leader whose ideals also match up with the majority viewpoint. No matter how well Rudy campaigns, he won't be able to overcome this.
If only he would be Obama's Vice President...
Monday, March 19, 2007
Neck and Neck
I've spent most of my time writing about the Democratic candidates for President on this blog. And while it is true that my ideals overall slant a bit to the left of center, it doesn't mean that I loathe Republicans. In fact, there is one Republican that all voters should take a good hard look at. A Republican who has almost the ideal combination of smarts, toughness and leadership experience. And the Democrats fear him.
Rudy Giuliani.
After 9/11, does anyone think that Giuliani doesn't have the skills necessary to run the country? Does anyone think he would have waged as incompetent a campaign in Iraq as George Bush and the neocons did? Does anyone think he won't stand up and make tough decisions, even if it costs him votes from the base of his party?
Giuliani has that tough to define quality - he's someone you respect even when you disagree with him. He knows who he is, but he listens to others. He's proven to be tough on crime (NYC's crime rate has dropped dramatically while he's been mayor), but he stands up for civil liberties. He's made mistakes in his personal life, but you don't hold it against him because he doesn't lie about it, or make excuses.
Frankly, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and I think he will), he's going to be very tough to beat. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I think he will), it's going to be a campaign like nothing we have seen. A campaign between, two honest, thoughtful, centrist candidates.
So what's to choose between these two?
There's one small, but perhaps decisive difference between the two. And I'll cover that on my next post.
Rudy Giuliani.
After 9/11, does anyone think that Giuliani doesn't have the skills necessary to run the country? Does anyone think he would have waged as incompetent a campaign in Iraq as George Bush and the neocons did? Does anyone think he won't stand up and make tough decisions, even if it costs him votes from the base of his party?
Giuliani has that tough to define quality - he's someone you respect even when you disagree with him. He knows who he is, but he listens to others. He's proven to be tough on crime (NYC's crime rate has dropped dramatically while he's been mayor), but he stands up for civil liberties. He's made mistakes in his personal life, but you don't hold it against him because he doesn't lie about it, or make excuses.
Frankly, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and I think he will), he's going to be very tough to beat. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I think he will), it's going to be a campaign like nothing we have seen. A campaign between, two honest, thoughtful, centrist candidates.
So what's to choose between these two?
There's one small, but perhaps decisive difference between the two. And I'll cover that on my next post.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Is Barack Obama for real?
Critics of Barack Obama usually fall into two camps - right wing ideologues or those who believe he's pulling one over on the electorate. It would be true to say that Obama has had a relatively easy go of it from the national media so far. For every Fox News driven "discovery" of abhorrent behavior that quickly dissolves when exposed to the truth (i.e. unrepentant smoking or attending terrorist madrassas) there are a multitude of stories that cast Obama in glowing terms. But the naysayers remain persistent and lately with stories about 17 year old parking tickets and the arcane structure of blind trusts, they've become louder. Why?
The Right Wing angle is pretty easy to understand. If you're a Republican, whom do you most fear? Hillary Clinton? Please...as mentioned on the post about Hillary and Barack's spat over David Geffen, the Republicans have a treasure trove of information to use against her in nasty (but likely effective) attack ads. And while it used to be Hillary occasionally would blurt out an alienating statement like the infamous, "What I am I supposed to do, stay home and bake cookies?" she now seems so intent on avoiding controversy that people are wondering if her obsession with the Presidency has stifled her true beliefs.
Do Republicans fear John Edwards? I doubt it. It's not impossible to imagine Edwards' populist message catching fire - with a different candidate. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes...people have an innate distrust of them and Edwards hasn't done much to dispel the notion that he's just a bit too slick (see the last post).
The other Democratic candidates are going to fall off the radar sooner rather than later. It would be nice to see Bill Richardson do well though, as he would make an outstanding Vice Presidential pick.
But yes...the Republicans do fear Obama - as they would fear anyone who is charismatic enough to capture the imagination of the average (centrist) voter. And, as I hope but admittedly don't know, there doesn't appear to be much dirt on the guy.
Which brings me to the other doubters - those that believe Obama is too good to be true. That he's selling us what we want to hear without giving us any meat. I've got a simple answer - if his message of shared sacrifice, isolating the extremists and galvanizing the silent majority in a call to action is calculated - why isn't anyone else doing it? Why are almost all of the other candidates following the tired and ultimately disastrous (for the country) approach of appealing to the extreme wings of their party? It used to be that's how you won the primaries - but the 08 campaign is about a sea change. It's about leaving the extremists behind so they can fight their little battles against each other while the rest of us move on and solve tough, seemingly intractable issues. Obama didn't calculate that the time is right for that kind of campaign, he was for it all along - and smart enough to realize time has caught up with his ideals.
It's way too early in the campaign for extremely detailed plans on how Obama hopes to achieve his goals. But they will come. If they don't I won't hesitate to raise objection. But for now, just be glad it appears we finally have a candidate who understands the truth of our nation's fate.
The best candidate for President won't solve our problems - he'll inspire us to solve them for ourselves.
The Right Wing angle is pretty easy to understand. If you're a Republican, whom do you most fear? Hillary Clinton? Please...as mentioned on the post about Hillary and Barack's spat over David Geffen, the Republicans have a treasure trove of information to use against her in nasty (but likely effective) attack ads. And while it used to be Hillary occasionally would blurt out an alienating statement like the infamous, "What I am I supposed to do, stay home and bake cookies?" she now seems so intent on avoiding controversy that people are wondering if her obsession with the Presidency has stifled her true beliefs.
Do Republicans fear John Edwards? I doubt it. It's not impossible to imagine Edwards' populist message catching fire - with a different candidate. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes...people have an innate distrust of them and Edwards hasn't done much to dispel the notion that he's just a bit too slick (see the last post).
The other Democratic candidates are going to fall off the radar sooner rather than later. It would be nice to see Bill Richardson do well though, as he would make an outstanding Vice Presidential pick.
But yes...the Republicans do fear Obama - as they would fear anyone who is charismatic enough to capture the imagination of the average (centrist) voter. And, as I hope but admittedly don't know, there doesn't appear to be much dirt on the guy.
Which brings me to the other doubters - those that believe Obama is too good to be true. That he's selling us what we want to hear without giving us any meat. I've got a simple answer - if his message of shared sacrifice, isolating the extremists and galvanizing the silent majority in a call to action is calculated - why isn't anyone else doing it? Why are almost all of the other candidates following the tired and ultimately disastrous (for the country) approach of appealing to the extreme wings of their party? It used to be that's how you won the primaries - but the 08 campaign is about a sea change. It's about leaving the extremists behind so they can fight their little battles against each other while the rest of us move on and solve tough, seemingly intractable issues. Obama didn't calculate that the time is right for that kind of campaign, he was for it all along - and smart enough to realize time has caught up with his ideals.
It's way too early in the campaign for extremely detailed plans on how Obama hopes to achieve his goals. But they will come. If they don't I won't hesitate to raise objection. But for now, just be glad it appears we finally have a candidate who understands the truth of our nation's fate.
The best candidate for President won't solve our problems - he'll inspire us to solve them for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
