There’s little that can be settled between someone with a four-year lease on power with a one-off extension option for the landlord and another guy who faces near-certain eviction in less than seven months. No to worry though; there are no purely bilateral issues of major concern, and the global financial/economic crisis is…well, global. At the regional level, Futenma, Guam, and the rest of the U.S. troop realignment issues are what they are (where Ozawa’s latest statements are far more interesting and somewhat alarming, given the political winds), and North Korea is…North Korea, the pending Taepodon 2 “satellite” launch notwithstanding. So Prime Minister Aso took the twelve-hour flight to Washington, had a one-hour get-together (half that, really, if you consider the interpretation) with President Obama—no lunch, no press conference—and took the flight back home; the clock started running again on the embattled Prime Minister as if nothing had happened.
The only effect seems to have been to give the President of the United States a four-year pass against charges of Japan passing NTTIAWWT. Think of it as a follow-up to Hillary Clinton’s visit and talk with family members of abductees. Speaking of whom, it may only have been a scheduling glitch, but I think it was a clever idea to insert Indonesia between Japan and China and South Korea in her itinerary. By breaking the sequence with a country of clearly less political consequence, the U.S. government minimized the political significance of the order of the visits.
Russian President Medvedev made an offer his Japanese counterpart couldn’t refuse when he invited Aso to Sakhalin Island for the Wednesday launch of the LNG plant that will send 65% of its 9.8 million-ton annual production to Japan*. It should be good publicity, foreign and domestic, for the Kremlin in the face of issues with Ukraine and serious knock-on effects on Western European customers, all of it unfolding within a broader, alarming context of plummeting energy prices. Aso’s visit also provides political closure to an obscure but not insignificant legal issue regarding the final status of Sakhalin Island. The USSR never signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, under which Japan gave up sovereignty over what was then a strategically significant but barely habitable piece of real estate, along with the Kurile Islands. So Sakhalin (and the Kurile Islands) must be part of the final bilateral treaty that will settle all issues including the four islands most commonly referred to as the Northern Territories. It was a bargaining chip, albeit very minor. Aso’s visit laid that issue to rest.
In return, Aso got a promise of a May visit by Prime Minister Putin and a pledge to settle the issue within “our generation”, which the Japanese side is spinning as “during the current administrations.” The last point should be alarming to Japanese nationalists; Russia has never shown any hint of any intention to give up anything more than the two near-most (from the Japanese perspective) and smallest islands except in President Yeltsin’s weakest moments—only a hint at that, mind you—and Putin’s Russia has gone some ways in reverting to its old empirical ways since then. Meanwhile, Aso as Foreign Minister all but gave away his own game plan when he talked about splitting the islands in half by area—giving Japan the three smaller islands and a significant portion of the fourth—before there was any inkling that negotiation were going to start any time soon. At bottom, actually, is Aso’s moderate pragmatism—something most Western observers miss because of his sometimes nationalistic pronouncements—but it certainly won’t help him with a significant portion of his support from the LDP right.
* The rest goes to South Korea and the U.S.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
North Korea Mum on Hillary Clinton’s Visit to Japan
Recently, North Korea has been making noises about U.S. plans for all-out war and throwing verbal stink bombs at South Korea’s Lee Myung-bak regime, all the while going through the motions of preparing for a Taepodon launch. However, it has been relatively quiet with regard to Japan and, unless I’ve missed something, has studiously ignored Hillary Clinton’s visit to Japan and her meeting with family members of the abductees—as well as her comments regarding its nuclear program. Instead, the Korean Central News Agency has chosen to focus on more groundbreaking news such as a third secretary from the Indonesian embassy and a first secretary from the Cuban embassy “visit[ing] the venue of the 13th Kimjongilia Festival on Feb. 18 on the occasion of the February holiday.” (February 18, folks. The site does not have direct links to individual articles.)
Nothing surprising here if you conceive all of North Korea’s actions and words as tactical moves in the service of a strategy that is intended to maximize economic returns without giving up and when possible enhancing its two bargaining chips. And what are they? One, we will pee on you (conventional and nuclear military power); and two, we will throw up on you (internal meltdown). Yes, North Korea is Bizarro baby. It does need a U.S. interlocutor, though, and likely figures that, with her Billary Albright associations, the Secretary of State is better than most.
Nothing surprising here if you conceive all of North Korea’s actions and words as tactical moves in the service of a strategy that is intended to maximize economic returns without giving up and when possible enhancing its two bargaining chips. And what are they? One, we will pee on you (conventional and nuclear military power); and two, we will throw up on you (internal meltdown). Yes, North Korea is Bizarro baby. It does need a U.S. interlocutor, though, and likely figures that, with her Billary Albright associations, the Secretary of State is better than most.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Ozawa-Clinton Meeting On
The Ozawa-Clinton meet-and-greet is on after all: the DPJ had second thoughts and asked the U.S. side, who obliged. If you like the over-under kind of bets, then you must be curious about the odds of Ichiro Ozawa serving if the DPJ wins. Well, they’ve just gone up as the result of the about-face. More substantially, it’ll be interesting to see how Ozawa handles issues related to the U.S. military presence in Japan (ex. Japanese sendoff gift for U.S. troops headed to Guam, U.S, relocation within Japan) and the overseas projection of Japanese Self-Defense Forces (ex. Afghanistan, refueling operations in the Indian Ocean, piracy off the Somalia coast).
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Some Thoughts on Hillary Clinton’s February 13 Speech
Hillary Clinton’s 13 February speech at the Asia Society in New York, two days before her trip to Japan, South China, South Korea and Indonesia, has already been widely reported and is available in its entirety, including the Q&A, here. As English-language speakers no doubt are already aware, a substantial part of her talk is about the financial crisis, North Korea’s nuclear program, and climate change and China. I hope my comments shed some light on her talk that has otherwise not been covered.
The substantive part of Hillary Clinton’s speech begins with a tribute to the progress that Asia has made in the fifty years since the founding of the Asia Society. In the process, she gives a list of the traditional sights and sounds of Asia that have caught her attention in her travels over the years.
These omission are not unreasonable, since she is weaving a story of progress as the backdrop for a “new era of diplomacy and development in which [the United States] will use smart power to work with historic allies and emerging nations to find regional and global solutions to common global problems.” The “common global problems” that she specifically cites here are: financial instability and economic dislocation, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (for all practical purposes nuclear proliferation), food security and health emergencies, climate change and energy vulnerability, stateless criminal cartels and human exploitation. The U.S. outreach, using smart power, will extend beyond governments and “engage civil society.”
There is a strong emphasis here on dialogue; “we are ready to listen”. This is very much Obamaesque. But it is in this context that a couple of other countries (as well as China) receive less favorable attention when she says, “As part of our dialogues, we will hold ourselves and others accountable as we work to expand human rights and create a world that respects those rights, one where Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi can live freely in her own country, where the people of North Korea can freely choose their own leaders, and where Tibetans and all Chinese people can enjoy religious freedom without fear of prosecution.”That’s Burma and North Korea, as well as China. (Note, though, the carefully crafted ambiguity of the phrase “Tibetans and all Chinese people”—not “Tibetans and Chinese” of course, but not “all Chinese people, including Tibetans,” either.
Of these global concerns, Clinton first takes up global financial crisis and its economic impact. Nothing really new here; I’ll just note that she invokes the importance of international partnerships and avoiding protectionism.
The second major item on the ticket is North Korea’s nuclear program. But before that, she touches briefly on “maintaining our historic security alliances in Asia and building on those relationships to counter the complex global threats we face” and goes on to state “I’m very pleased that Japan and South Korea this week agreed to joint assistance for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and that both countries continue to work with us on global security, especially in combating piracy off the Horn of Africa.” Ichiro Ozawa, the leader of the main opposition party, has reportedly been spouting some unrealistic thoughts about dispatching the Japan Coast Guard there. No wonder he has been doing his best to avoid Clinton’s outstretched hand. At least she didn’t mention the refueling operations.
Back to North Korea: she states the obvious with regard to the Obama administration’s continued commitment to the Six-Party process and her intent to discuss this with Japan, China, and South Korea on this visit. The U.S. position is clear and unchanged from the central premise, however unrealistic, of the Six-Party process:
Next, Clinton expends 276 words on climate change and the need for clean sources of energy. She emphasizes the need for “partnerships that promote cleaner energy sources, greater energy efficiency, technology transfers that can benefit both countries, and other strategies that simultaneously protect the environment and promote economic growth”, and sees such collaboration as “a real opportunity to deepen the overall U.S.-Chinese relationship”. Nothing remarkable here about the substance, but note the careful distinction here between the plural “partnerships” and the singular “relationship”.
But I digress. Before leaving climate change and energy behind, note that Clinton also mentions working with Japan and South Korea, as well as Indonesia, on clean energy. Not that anything dramatic is going to happen any time soon—is it my imagination, or are pundits with the least energy background the most enthusiastic supporters of collaboration?—but it’s not all China here.
This is followed by a riff on “development” as one of the three D’s—the others are defense and diplomacy—that are vital to U.S. security, and cites Indonesia, and more broadly ASEAN, favorably in this context, saying, “we look forward to working with our other partners and friends in the regions, allies like Thailand and the Philippines, along with Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, to ensure that ASEAN can live up to its charter, to demonstrate the region’s capacity for leadership on economic, political, human rights, and social issues.” A shoutout to Australia, which is not on the itinerary, follows. After that, it’s a rundown of specific, bilateral issues that she will be discussing on her visit.
The key sentence with regard to Japan:
Earlier, I took note of the care with which Clinton used the words “relationship” and “partnerships”. The same care can be seen in her use of words regarding bilateral issues here. More broadly, I was reminded of the sentence that touched the nerves of the Japanese establishment in her Foreign Affairs essay where she said:
After China, the speech ends on a positive if unremarkable note, with the following call:
The substantive part of Hillary Clinton’s speech begins with a tribute to the progress that Asia has made in the fifty years since the founding of the Asia Society. In the process, she gives a list of the traditional sights and sounds of Asia that have caught her attention in her travels over the years.
I think of the elegant temples of Kyoto, or the rituals of nomadic life outside Ulaanbaatar, the intricate handwork of traditional craftspeople in Chiang Rai, the vibrant markets of Hanoi, Hong Kong, and Dhaka; the grand hotels of Singapore and Manila, the calligraphers practicing their art in Xi’an, the historic dress of Seoul and the traditional dances of Jakarta, or the strum of the sitar in New Delhi.In doing so, she implicitly refers to: Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, Vietnam, China (twice: one state, two systems), Bangladesh, Singapore, the Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia, and India. They can be sorted into: Northeast Asia (four; excluding North Korea and Russia), ASEAN (four; with Malaysia the one major member missing), and South Asia. Her visits to Central Asia—she visited Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as First Lady—Pakistan, West Asia (Afghanistan) and the Middle East (Iraq) go unmentioned.
These omission are not unreasonable, since she is weaving a story of progress as the backdrop for a “new era of diplomacy and development in which [the United States] will use smart power to work with historic allies and emerging nations to find regional and global solutions to common global problems.” The “common global problems” that she specifically cites here are: financial instability and economic dislocation, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (for all practical purposes nuclear proliferation), food security and health emergencies, climate change and energy vulnerability, stateless criminal cartels and human exploitation. The U.S. outreach, using smart power, will extend beyond governments and “engage civil society.”
There is a strong emphasis here on dialogue; “we are ready to listen”. This is very much Obamaesque. But it is in this context that a couple of other countries (as well as China) receive less favorable attention when she says, “As part of our dialogues, we will hold ourselves and others accountable as we work to expand human rights and create a world that respects those rights, one where Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi can live freely in her own country, where the people of North Korea can freely choose their own leaders, and where Tibetans and all Chinese people can enjoy religious freedom without fear of prosecution.”That’s Burma and North Korea, as well as China. (Note, though, the carefully crafted ambiguity of the phrase “Tibetans and all Chinese people”—not “Tibetans and Chinese” of course, but not “all Chinese people, including Tibetans,” either.
Of these global concerns, Clinton first takes up global financial crisis and its economic impact. Nothing really new here; I’ll just note that she invokes the importance of international partnerships and avoiding protectionism.
The second major item on the ticket is North Korea’s nuclear program. But before that, she touches briefly on “maintaining our historic security alliances in Asia and building on those relationships to counter the complex global threats we face” and goes on to state “I’m very pleased that Japan and South Korea this week agreed to joint assistance for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and that both countries continue to work with us on global security, especially in combating piracy off the Horn of Africa.” Ichiro Ozawa, the leader of the main opposition party, has reportedly been spouting some unrealistic thoughts about dispatching the Japan Coast Guard there. No wonder he has been doing his best to avoid Clinton’s outstretched hand. At least she didn’t mention the refueling operations.
Back to North Korea: she states the obvious with regard to the Obama administration’s continued commitment to the Six-Party process and her intent to discuss this with Japan, China, and South Korea on this visit. The U.S. position is clear and unchanged from the central premise, however unrealistic, of the Six-Party process:
“If North Korea is genuinely prepared to completely and verifiably eliminate their nuclear weapons program, the Obama Administration will be willing to normalize bilateral relations, replace the peninsula’s longstanding armistice agreements with a permanent peace treaty, and assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the North Korean people.”After 165 words on this subject (out of a total 3,382 words for the entire speech, frills and all) she follows with 32 words on—what else?
“On a related matter, I will assure our allies in Japan that we have not forgotten the families of Japanese citizens abducted to North Korea. And I will meet with some of those families in Tokyo next week.”It is now all about not forgetting, it seems. Such meetings have become a rite, sealed in a place where time goes by so slowly, until regime change—or something very similar—heralds the beginning of the end for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and hauls Japan’s financial assistance into the picture..
Next, Clinton expends 276 words on climate change and the need for clean sources of energy. She emphasizes the need for “partnerships that promote cleaner energy sources, greater energy efficiency, technology transfers that can benefit both countries, and other strategies that simultaneously protect the environment and promote economic growth”, and sees such collaboration as “a real opportunity to deepen the overall U.S.-Chinese relationship”. Nothing remarkable here about the substance, but note the careful distinction here between the plural “partnerships” and the singular “relationship”.
But I digress. Before leaving climate change and energy behind, note that Clinton also mentions working with Japan and South Korea, as well as Indonesia, on clean energy. Not that anything dramatic is going to happen any time soon—is it my imagination, or are pundits with the least energy background the most enthusiastic supporters of collaboration?—but it’s not all China here.
This is followed by a riff on “development” as one of the three D’s—the others are defense and diplomacy—that are vital to U.S. security, and cites Indonesia, and more broadly ASEAN, favorably in this context, saying, “we look forward to working with our other partners and friends in the regions, allies like Thailand and the Philippines, along with Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, to ensure that ASEAN can live up to its charter, to demonstrate the region’s capacity for leadership on economic, political, human rights, and social issues.” A shoutout to Australia, which is not on the itinerary, follows. After that, it’s a rundown of specific, bilateral issues that she will be discussing on her visit.
The key sentence with regard to Japan:
“Our security alliance with Japan, 50 years old next year, has been, and must remain, unshakable.”. It’s not easy to be more explicit than that. Her agenda: signing the Guam International Agreement to move U.S. troop out of “the peace and stability of Asia and increasingly focuses on global challenges”. Again, a problem for the Ozawa DPJ, given its challenge of the price tag, the Japanese,, trillion-yen and upwards, payout. At the bilateral level, China receives by far the most space (295 words to Japan’s 159). But it’s a desire for “a positive, cooperative relationship.” Speaking of which…
Earlier, I took note of the care with which Clinton used the words “relationship” and “partnerships”. The same care can be seen in her use of words regarding bilateral issues here. More broadly, I was reminded of the sentence that touched the nerves of the Japanese establishment in her Foreign Affairs essay where she said:
”Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century.”It had MOFA officials counting the number of times “Japan” and China” appeared in this essay as well as her campaigning speeches and reportedly asking visiting Japan hands to divine the meaning of it all. All too often, The Japanese authorities and the Japanese media fail to see that Clinton, as well as other responsible U.S. figures, routinely distinguish between “relationship(s)”, “partnership(s)”, and “alliance(s)”. Then of course there’s “engagement”. This is not a mere quibble. These distinctions are essential to understanding, constructing, and explaining the conceptual framework that is the foundation of the foreign and national security policies of Japan, indeed, of any sovereign state.
After China, the speech ends on a positive if unremarkable note, with the following call:
Let us commit ourselves to providing the kind of outreach and responsiveness, understanding, and commitment that will lead not just to a better understanding, but positive actions to improve the lives of our own people here and those who live in Asia today.And who can disagree with that?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Some Implications of South Korea’s Help on Japan’s Abduction Issue
I’ll have to issue a corrective regarding my previous post on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit regarding a possible meeting with family members of abductees. I’d overlooked the change in South Korea’s policy regarding its own abductees under the Lee Myung-bak administration and more broadly the impact of an overall shift away from the ten-year-old Sunshine policy. This point was driven home for me when South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-Hwan announced that he was helping to arrange a meeting between Kim Hyun Hui, one of the North Korean agents responsible for the 1987 Korean Air Flight 858 bombing and now living in South Korea in relative seclusion, and family members of Japanese abductee Taeko Yaguchi, who had been tasked with teaching Kim the Japanese language and Japanese customs.
I can’t imagine the Lee administration following Japan’s lead in asking Clinton for a face-to-face with South Korea’s own abduction constituency—it makes South Korea look weak and reliant on the United States, always bad politics over there, and it’s not going to help right things anyway—but the South Korean gesture has raised the media’s attention. I believe that this slightly raises the stakes for both Clinton and North Korea with regard to her response to the Japanese request. Moreover, it’s one thing for the United States to indulge Japan as an act of diplomatic courtesy; it’s another for the three parties to act in consonance, if not in unison. The North Korean response will be that much harsher. The Kim Jong Il regime is playing its latest Taepodon caper for much larger stakes in its bid for face and more fungible goodies, but it may nevertheless see such a gesture as an indication of a harder line from the Obama administration than the late-Bush administration’s sliced-salami concession tactics.
I can’t imagine the Lee administration following Japan’s lead in asking Clinton for a face-to-face with South Korea’s own abduction constituency—it makes South Korea look weak and reliant on the United States, always bad politics over there, and it’s not going to help right things anyway—but the South Korean gesture has raised the media’s attention. I believe that this slightly raises the stakes for both Clinton and North Korea with regard to her response to the Japanese request. Moreover, it’s one thing for the United States to indulge Japan as an act of diplomatic courtesy; it’s another for the three parties to act in consonance, if not in unison. The North Korean response will be that much harsher. The Kim Jong Il regime is playing its latest Taepodon caper for much larger stakes in its bid for face and more fungible goodies, but it may nevertheless see such a gesture as an indication of a harder line from the Obama administration than the late-Bush administration’s sliced-salami concession tactics.
A Few Thoughts on Hillary Clinton’s Upcoming Visit
I thought that the AP wire that I linked to in this previous post implicitly said everything that absolutely needed to be said about Secretary of State Clinton’s East/Southeast Asia trip, and I still do. But there are a couple of bits of trivia in the Japanese media about which I have a few thoughts that might be of use to you. By that, I mean a) the U.S. attempt to set up a meeting with Ichiro Ozawa and b) the Japanese attempt to set up a meeting with the family members of the abductees.
The DPJ’s attempt to bask in the afterglow of its U.S. namesake’s across-the-board victory in the November elections notwithstanding, I will be pleasantly surprised if the Ozawa-Clinton meeting happens. The DPJ does not want to have its differences with Japan’s most important military ally (the only other one being Australia) and within its own party ranks regarding a) the U.S. military presence in Japan and b) the Japanese role regarding operations in and around Afghanistan and off the coasts of Somalia aired in public. It would be unsettling. Ozawa would be particularly problematic as the DPJ interlocutor, since he has been personally responsible for the policy positions that have led to the bilateral discord regarding the overseas projection of the Japanese military. Add to that, Ozawa… being Ozawa…
Incidentally, there’s nothing odd about a State Secretary meeting the head of the DPJ. After all, the DPJ is the leading opposition party. I wonder how it works the other way around though. What if Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone tries to do the same if and when he visits the United States? Nothing wrong with meeting the head of the Republican Party, but Michael Steele, the Chairman? Please. Not John McCain either, he only came close; now, he’s just a senator. George W. Bush? Maybe, but only as a courtesy call, which leaves the question open. There’s something to be said for the parliamentary system where official visits are concerned.
The other meeting, the one with family members of the abductees, is clearly not a top priority item for the Clinton side, if claims of her scheduling difficulties mean anything. The fact that the story of the logistical problem is emanating from Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary* indicates that the Aso administration is either not pushing too hard, which would mean that it is unlikely to happen; or lowering expectations to get the most out of a, say, ten-minute interlude in an Aso-Clinton meeting during which a few family members are shuffled in and out of the Prime Minister’s office. If I absolutely had to make a call, it would be the latter—it would be so easy to engineer—but either way, the consequences would be trivial. Some people in Japan will like Clinton (and the Obama administration) less if she doesn’t meet them. But Japan’s stance with regard to North Korea and more broadly the bilateral alliance including U.S. troop realignment will remain unchanged. Clinton-family facetime will earn some credits with the nationalist crowd, but that’s not where the real public and LDP opposition to Aso is coming from. Remember, this episode is playing out against a backdrop of increasing “abduction fatigue”. Wounds may never heal, but we at least learn to live with the pain; the media’s diminishing treatment of the issue reflects this fact of life. Moreover, a meeting may only exacerbate the sense of futility, which would be a negative for the Aso administration.
All this, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the regional problems of major concern for the bilateral alliance are chronic, not acute, in nature and require careful management, not dramatic initiatives. That includes North Korea, despite its most recent Taepodon threat. The short-term course for the overseas projection of the Japanese military is also set for the moment. The results of the upcoming Lower House election can change this, as well as the Japanese stance on U.S. troops realignment, but there’s little short of throttling Ozawa that Clinton can do to affect the outcome. Hey, maybe that’s why Ozawa…
The report is available from this short-lived Mainichi link. Oddly, the full reports of the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s press briefings for that day (available on the Sankei website) do not include this point. Perhaps the Mainichi chased him down after the press briefing. Takeo Kawamura, the current CCS, is regarded as a lightweight, but to his credit appears to be uncommonly accommodating with the press. He held two press briefings on Sunday.
The DPJ’s attempt to bask in the afterglow of its U.S. namesake’s across-the-board victory in the November elections notwithstanding, I will be pleasantly surprised if the Ozawa-Clinton meeting happens. The DPJ does not want to have its differences with Japan’s most important military ally (the only other one being Australia) and within its own party ranks regarding a) the U.S. military presence in Japan and b) the Japanese role regarding operations in and around Afghanistan and off the coasts of Somalia aired in public. It would be unsettling. Ozawa would be particularly problematic as the DPJ interlocutor, since he has been personally responsible for the policy positions that have led to the bilateral discord regarding the overseas projection of the Japanese military. Add to that, Ozawa… being Ozawa…
Incidentally, there’s nothing odd about a State Secretary meeting the head of the DPJ. After all, the DPJ is the leading opposition party. I wonder how it works the other way around though. What if Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone tries to do the same if and when he visits the United States? Nothing wrong with meeting the head of the Republican Party, but Michael Steele, the Chairman? Please. Not John McCain either, he only came close; now, he’s just a senator. George W. Bush? Maybe, but only as a courtesy call, which leaves the question open. There’s something to be said for the parliamentary system where official visits are concerned.
The other meeting, the one with family members of the abductees, is clearly not a top priority item for the Clinton side, if claims of her scheduling difficulties mean anything. The fact that the story of the logistical problem is emanating from Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary* indicates that the Aso administration is either not pushing too hard, which would mean that it is unlikely to happen; or lowering expectations to get the most out of a, say, ten-minute interlude in an Aso-Clinton meeting during which a few family members are shuffled in and out of the Prime Minister’s office. If I absolutely had to make a call, it would be the latter—it would be so easy to engineer—but either way, the consequences would be trivial. Some people in Japan will like Clinton (and the Obama administration) less if she doesn’t meet them. But Japan’s stance with regard to North Korea and more broadly the bilateral alliance including U.S. troop realignment will remain unchanged. Clinton-family facetime will earn some credits with the nationalist crowd, but that’s not where the real public and LDP opposition to Aso is coming from. Remember, this episode is playing out against a backdrop of increasing “abduction fatigue”. Wounds may never heal, but we at least learn to live with the pain; the media’s diminishing treatment of the issue reflects this fact of life. Moreover, a meeting may only exacerbate the sense of futility, which would be a negative for the Aso administration.
All this, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the regional problems of major concern for the bilateral alliance are chronic, not acute, in nature and require careful management, not dramatic initiatives. That includes North Korea, despite its most recent Taepodon threat. The short-term course for the overseas projection of the Japanese military is also set for the moment. The results of the upcoming Lower House election can change this, as well as the Japanese stance on U.S. troops realignment, but there’s little short of throttling Ozawa that Clinton can do to affect the outcome. Hey, maybe that’s why Ozawa…
The report is available from this short-lived Mainichi link. Oddly, the full reports of the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s press briefings for that day (available on the Sankei website) do not include this point. Perhaps the Mainichi chased him down after the press briefing. Takeo Kawamura, the current CCS, is regarded as a lightweight, but to his credit appears to be uncommonly accommodating with the press. He held two press briefings on Sunday.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Another Clinton, Junior Senator from New York?
One nutty op-ed in the Washington Post, and CNN headlines a post with: Bill Clinton mentioned for wife's Senate seat. Not that it’s likely, and if it did, guess what happens the first time “Senator” Bill Clinton second-guesses the administration or—heaven forbid—decides to vote against it? We’re not talking about a Mary Matalin-James Carville rerun. In fact, it’ll make the Bill Clinton Foundation look like small change. The very existence of the CNN headline is proof of what a bad idea it is.
Actually, what I really wanted to blog about was a different headline on the CNN website that had caught my eye at the same time. But I read the Clinton article first, and when I went back, the headline was gone. I know I wasn’t imagining things because I can find the headline in the description for the link to the CNN main page when I google it. Unfortunately, whatever article there was has disappeared from the CNN website altogether. If you are wondering, I was going to write about bikini waxing. Honest. The headline? Why Santa's sack is skimpy this year.
So I’m settling for Bill Clinton, the best available headliner. It was his fault anyway.
ADD: Wait, it is available, on CNN TV. My bad. But I won't watch it, lest it ruin the spell.
Actually, what I really wanted to blog about was a different headline on the CNN website that had caught my eye at the same time. But I read the Clinton article first, and when I went back, the headline was gone. I know I wasn’t imagining things because I can find the headline in the description for the link to the CNN main page when I google it. Unfortunately, whatever article there was has disappeared from the CNN website altogether. If you are wondering, I was going to write about bikini waxing. Honest. The headline? Why Santa's sack is skimpy this year.
So I’m settling for Bill Clinton, the best available headliner. It was his fault anyway.
ADD: Wait, it is available, on CNN TV. My bad. But I won't watch it, lest it ruin the spell.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Talk about Lincolnesque “Team of Rivals” Is Just That—Talk
This “Team of Rivals” talk has its roots in a January interview, where Barack Obama told Katie Couric:
Excuse me, but didn’t Hillary—as well as, near the end of the campaign, Bill for that matter—Clinton jump wholeheartedly into the Obama campaign and go all out for his election? Before that, hadn’t Senator Clinton shown herself to be a consummate team player who could work effectively with her colleagues across the aisle to their surprise? These are grownups we are talking about. Compared to her and the other non-Obama team nominations so far, the Lincoln cabinet members were a virtual madhouse of huge egos, some contemptuous of President Lincoln and/or unable to stand each other. Obama is not going to bring in a Rudy Giuliani or a Mike Huckabee. (Although in the unlikely event that they were asked and agreed to serve, I’m sure they would at least be far more civil than Lincoln’s contentious appointees, who were only a few decades removed from the times when public figures routinely had settled their differences by duel and were destined to fight a most uncivil war to determine the fate of the nation.)
Not to deny that these are momentous times, but, like the comparisons with FDR, the media are overplaying the historical import of the Obama administration. Does the press think the public to be so dumb that it can only understand politics as some kind of a soap opera?
One more thing: If Bill Clinton speaks out of turn, I’m sure a President Obama will drop a load on him, to make sure there’s no repeat performance. Obama has spent his whole life getting here—the media ridiculed what they saw as the Clinton campaign’s attempt to ridicule Obama’s pre-school presidential ambitions by way of his kindergarten essay, but the Clinton website had shown with Obama’s own words that the flames of his ambition had continued to burn through grade school, high school and college—and he is not going to let anyone undermine his authority if he can help it. A man who is willing to leave his church of twenty-some years—after the offending pastor had retired—to further his political agenda is not going to wilt in the face of disobedience.
“Doris Kearns Goodwin's book ‘Team of Rivals. It was a biography of Lincoln. And she talks about Lincoln's capacity to bring opponents of his and people who have run against him in his cabinet. And he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices and confident enough to listen to the American people and push them outside of their comfort zone. And I think that part of what I want to do as president is push Americans a little bit outside of their comfort zone. It's a remarkable study in leadership.”It caught fire when it appeared that he had reached out to primary foe Hillary Clinton with an offer to consider her as a serious candidate for Secretary of State.
Excuse me, but didn’t Hillary—as well as, near the end of the campaign, Bill for that matter—Clinton jump wholeheartedly into the Obama campaign and go all out for his election? Before that, hadn’t Senator Clinton shown herself to be a consummate team player who could work effectively with her colleagues across the aisle to their surprise? These are grownups we are talking about. Compared to her and the other non-Obama team nominations so far, the Lincoln cabinet members were a virtual madhouse of huge egos, some contemptuous of President Lincoln and/or unable to stand each other. Obama is not going to bring in a Rudy Giuliani or a Mike Huckabee. (Although in the unlikely event that they were asked and agreed to serve, I’m sure they would at least be far more civil than Lincoln’s contentious appointees, who were only a few decades removed from the times when public figures routinely had settled their differences by duel and were destined to fight a most uncivil war to determine the fate of the nation.)
Not to deny that these are momentous times, but, like the comparisons with FDR, the media are overplaying the historical import of the Obama administration. Does the press think the public to be so dumb that it can only understand politics as some kind of a soap opera?
One more thing: If Bill Clinton speaks out of turn, I’m sure a President Obama will drop a load on him, to make sure there’s no repeat performance. Obama has spent his whole life getting here—the media ridiculed what they saw as the Clinton campaign’s attempt to ridicule Obama’s pre-school presidential ambitions by way of his kindergarten essay, but the Clinton website had shown with Obama’s own words that the flames of his ambition had continued to burn through grade school, high school and college—and he is not going to let anyone undermine his authority if he can help it. A man who is willing to leave his church of twenty-some years—after the offending pastor had retired—to further his political agenda is not going to wilt in the face of disobedience.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
What a Fine Couple, These Two Troupers
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers? Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron? Elvis Presley and Ann Margaret? We report, you decide.
Bill, get over it.
Bill, get over it.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
And I Thought David Brooks Was Writing about the Clintons
Seriously, given the title “The Great Forgetting” and the fact that I reached it through a link on the Real Clear Politics home page. Come to think of it, both Barack Obama and John McCain have also had embarassing memory lapses, though Mr. McCain’s continued confusion of the Islamic sects could be a function of age. Still, the Clintons must be setting a record of some kind.
Senator Clinton looked good in the Petreus-Crocker hearings, though. She looked... senatorial. Like, say, Sam Nunn. Most Democrats must be hoping that she'll resume working there full time now.
On a related note, Mr. Obama has been narrowing the superdelegates gap this week. The thirty-strong Obama endorsement never happened and Mrs. Clinton had been showing surprising staying strength (or the PLEOs, as they are known, kept finding reasons to stay on the fence) for several weeks, well after calls for her to shut down had surfaced. In hindsight, I think Bosnia was the last straw.
Senator Clinton looked good in the Petreus-Crocker hearings, though. She looked... senatorial. Like, say, Sam Nunn. Most Democrats must be hoping that she'll resume working there full time now.
On a related note, Mr. Obama has been narrowing the superdelegates gap this week. The thirty-strong Obama endorsement never happened and Mrs. Clinton had been showing surprising staying strength (or the PLEOs, as they are known, kept finding reasons to stay on the fence) for several weeks, well after calls for her to shut down had surfaced. In hindsight, I think Bosnia was the last straw.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
An Obama Drift among the Democratic Superdelegates?
I posted this comment, which touched on the editorial/news divide in the Wall Street Journal and the lack thereof in Japanese newspapers. Here’s an example from the WSJfront page with regard to an Obama drift in the Democratic Party that appears to make my point.
However, if I remember correctly, thirty or so superdelegates were supposed to endorse Brack Obama after the March 4 primaries or thereabouts but never materialized. Are these people the “string of Democratic Party figures” “[s]lowly but steadily” “taking Barack Obama’s side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up”? But then, why haven’t they endorsed Mr. Obama yet? If the Real Clear Politics numbers are to be believed, Mr. Obama has made only a small dent since then in Hillary Clinton’s lead among the superdelegates in the meantime. I have no idea why the superdelegates are holding back, but as long as they do, I can understand Mrs. Clinton wanting to stay in.
However, if I remember correctly, thirty or so superdelegates were supposed to endorse Brack Obama after the March 4 primaries or thereabouts but never materialized. Are these people the “string of Democratic Party figures” “[s]lowly but steadily” “taking Barack Obama’s side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up”? But then, why haven’t they endorsed Mr. Obama yet? If the Real Clear Politics numbers are to be believed, Mr. Obama has made only a small dent since then in Hillary Clinton’s lead among the superdelegates in the meantime. I have no idea why the superdelegates are holding back, but as long as they do, I can understand Mrs. Clinton wanting to stay in.
Explaining Hillary: The Meaning of the Clintons-Scaife Alliance
Timothy Noah reports here. Of course Richard Scaife is talking through his hat when he says of Mrs. Clinton, “Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence.” But Pennsylvania holds closed primaries, and registration closed on March 24, a week before the interview. So what’s the big idea?
As perhaps the only person on this planet that I’m aware of who does not think that Hillary Clinton was consciously lying about her flight into Bosnia “under sniper fire” or literally insane and is not afraid to say so (though this article by Christopher Hitchens does make me have second thoughts), I offer this unbiased explanation:
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Scaife must be calling on Republicans outside of Pennsylvania － Pennsylvania holds － to vote for Mrs. Clinton.
As perhaps the only person on this planet that I’m aware of who does not think that Hillary Clinton was consciously lying about her flight into Bosnia “under sniper fire” or literally insane and is not afraid to say so (though this article by Christopher Hitchens does make me have second thoughts), I offer this unbiased explanation:
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Scaife must be calling on Republicans outside of Pennsylvania － Pennsylvania holds － to vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Pledged Delegates up for Grabs, Clinton Says
This must be about as crazy as it gets. Do you remember The Terminator? The second climax? When a skeletal Terminator crawls out and grabs Linda Hamilton in the leg? hey who wouldnt but thats not my point...
If the Clintons had any chance of being on the Democratic ticket as Vice President, this should put an end to it. The Democrats simply cannot risk having them on the ticket now.
If the Clintons had any chance of being on the Democratic ticket as Vice President, this should put an end to it. The Democrats simply cannot risk having them on the ticket now.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Hillary Clinton Talking Up the Danger on Her Bosnia Trip? I’m With Her on This One
Just imagine the fun that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are going to have with this one, though I won’t be surprised to see Fox News go easy on her.
Personally, I don’t hold this against Hillary Clinton, in the sense that I don’t think that she’s consciously fabulating. There are too many witnesses, too many records of a First Lady’s visit to make sense in lying about it. She has her stupid moments, lapses in judgment, but this is too much. What happened then?
Mrs. Clinton must be unaccustomed to the kind of imminent physical danger in war zones, and she must have had at least some apprehensions about flying in to recently war-torn Bosnia (though not so much that she wouldn’t bring her daughter along, for Christ’s sake). From the landing to her exit from the airport, subjectively, it could have been the greatest moment of anticipated physical danger in her life, whatever the actual situation turned out to be.
It is my personal experience that I misremember some of the most vivid moments of my life. Reality as I remember it is too often colored and distorted by the emotions, the joys and fears of the moment, the regrets and the triumphs. I imagine that this happens to the far more disciplined Mrs. Clinton as well. (Barack Obama has been caught off base in his first book; Roger Cohen, drawing on his own experience, made a similar case for him in a WaPo column.) It’s been twelve years since the event for her. Still., the damage is done; she has a reputation, and it’s working against her here. It’s too bad that nobody, including her daughter, bothered to stop her from embarrassing herself after the first slipup.
Personally, I don’t hold this against Hillary Clinton, in the sense that I don’t think that she’s consciously fabulating. There are too many witnesses, too many records of a First Lady’s visit to make sense in lying about it. She has her stupid moments, lapses in judgment, but this is too much. What happened then?
Mrs. Clinton must be unaccustomed to the kind of imminent physical danger in war zones, and she must have had at least some apprehensions about flying in to recently war-torn Bosnia (though not so much that she wouldn’t bring her daughter along, for Christ’s sake). From the landing to her exit from the airport, subjectively, it could have been the greatest moment of anticipated physical danger in her life, whatever the actual situation turned out to be.
It is my personal experience that I misremember some of the most vivid moments of my life. Reality as I remember it is too often colored and distorted by the emotions, the joys and fears of the moment, the regrets and the triumphs. I imagine that this happens to the far more disciplined Mrs. Clinton as well. (Barack Obama has been caught off base in his first book; Roger Cohen, drawing on his own experience, made a similar case for him in a WaPo column.) It’s been twelve years since the event for her. Still., the damage is done; she has a reputation, and it’s working against her here. It’s too bad that nobody, including her daughter, bothered to stop her from embarrassing herself after the first slipup.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Boy They’re Mean
"It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," she said. "We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we've produced for people. That's what this campaign should be about."
And that’s supposed to be a repudiation of Ferraro’s comments?
What’s fascinating is that, looking at the earliest breakdown of the voting in Mississippi, racism and religious prejudice still work their special magic over the US electorate. It’s that, or Republicans are working hard to get Hillary Clinton nominated. Either way, John McCain must be taking heart.
And that’s supposed to be a repudiation of Ferraro’s comments?
What’s fascinating is that, looking at the earliest breakdown of the voting in Mississippi, racism and religious prejudice still work their special magic over the US electorate. It’s that, or Republicans are working hard to get Hillary Clinton nominated. Either way, John McCain must be taking heart.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
How Hillary Clinton Can Win
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist at Newsweek, does the math here to “show how deep a hole [Hillary Clinton] is in”, and inadvertently shows how Mrs. Clinton can win.
Mr. Alter uses the Slate Delegates Calculator to demonstrate that even if Mrs. Clinton wins all the primaries in the remaining states including Texas and Ohio, many by wide margins, except Vermont, where she ties (the media has already called it for Barack Obama, but anyway), and goes on to manage to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, she would still have fewer pledged delegates than Mr. Obama. I'll buy that. But he makes a huge leap in logic when he goes from there to assert the following:
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.
But Mr. Alter does not stop to consider what would cause such an incredible turnaround in public sentiment over the course of the rest of the primaries. The prevailing pattern has been that the more the local voters get to know Mr. Obama, the more they like him. Time has always favored Mr. Obama. For the voters to turn away from him like that requires a sea change in public perception. The media appears to be stepping up its scrutiny of Mr. Obama, and it is almost certain that this will continue － the show must go on; that, and buyer’s remorse and a sense of guilt.Still, something must happen that forces the public to see Mr. Obama in a starkly different, unsympathetic light. Several avenues for such an undertaking have been emerging:
First, there is the “experience” trope. This has actually been a continuous talking point for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign, but has so far appeared to have little effect. I only mention this here because the “3 AM” TV ad, coming out on the eve of the Texas and Ohio primaries, has received much media attention (the Obama rebuttal has effective content but it getting far less attention) and caused speculation that it could have a meaningful effect on the primary voters. No doubt experts will point to it if Mrs. Clinton does unexpectedly well in Texas and Ohio. But Mrs. Clinton cannot point to anything substantive either when it comes to experience dealing with national security crises, and it’s hard to imagine that the Obama campaign will not be reminding voters of it and effectively sealing off this angle.
Second, there is the “out-to-lunch legislator” angle, specifically, all the “present” (instead of “aye” or “nay”) votes as a state senator and the failure as chairman to hold subcommittee chairman as a Congressional senator. The problem with this angle is that there are many positive achievements as state senator well as positive comments from his colleagues and constituents there that he can point to, whereas a general argument based on the mode of voting is rather esoteric and lacks visceral appeal. Running for President is not the best of excuses for not summoning a subcommittee that could have a major impact on national security; but so far, the issue does not appear to be getting much traction. Unless the Clinton campaign can bring something more to the table here, this is at best a holding action.
This leaves the “venality” or, hopefully for the Clinton campaign, “corruption” angle. Specifically, Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was a wealthy political donor who allegedly helped the Obamas purchase an expensive house at well below its asking price. This did not become a major issue after Mr. Obama swiftly acknowledged his mistake when the matter surfaced at the very beginning of his presidential campaign. Mr. Rezko was indicted for extortion and wire fraud and is now coming to trial, which will surely attract renewed attention, an unwelcome development for Mr. Obama. Still, if there are no new revelations, the Obama campaign should be able to weather the fallout by dismissing it as old news, echoing Mrs. Clinton’s claim of having been “vetted”. That is not a shouting match that the Clintons want to get into.
But what if there’s more? The Obama-Rezko relationship was clearly more than that of just a donor and a politician. If other shady transactions involving the Obamas emerge over the course of the trial, they would be very embarrassing. Very damaging too, since that would take away his greatest sales point, i.e. that he is not like “those people”, and his ability to do no wrong will be severely compromised. He will be doubly damned, too, for hiding them until now. At that point, all his other actions for personal advancement, political compromise, such as the latest flap over purported secret assurances to Canadian authorities that Mr. Obama’s alarming rhetoric over NAFTA should not be taken seriously, will be seen in a very different light. He will no longer be able to walk on water, as his feet turn to clay. The harder they come, the harder they fall, as they say.
The Obama campaign must have done extensive counter-opposition research on the Obama-Rezko connection, so I think that it’s unlikely that anything sufficiently damaging will turn up to derail Mr. Obama’s campaign. But you never know. In any case, the only way the Clinton campaign can come within hearing distance of the Alter scenario is to wait for damaging revelations in the Rezko trial (or some other juicy scandal) and play them for what they’re worth. And if that happens, it is likely that superdelegates will begin moving to the Clinton camp, double-time.
That will be the hope that keeps Mrs. Clinton in the game, if she decides to do so, even after a possible defeat in Texas.
Mr. Alter uses the Slate Delegates Calculator to demonstrate that even if Mrs. Clinton wins all the primaries in the remaining states including Texas and Ohio, many by wide margins, except Vermont, where she ties (the media has already called it for Barack Obama, but anyway), and goes on to manage to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, she would still have fewer pledged delegates than Mr. Obama. I'll buy that. But he makes a huge leap in logic when he goes from there to assert the following:
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.
But Mr. Alter does not stop to consider what would cause such an incredible turnaround in public sentiment over the course of the rest of the primaries. The prevailing pattern has been that the more the local voters get to know Mr. Obama, the more they like him. Time has always favored Mr. Obama. For the voters to turn away from him like that requires a sea change in public perception. The media appears to be stepping up its scrutiny of Mr. Obama, and it is almost certain that this will continue － the show must go on; that, and buyer’s remorse and a sense of guilt.Still, something must happen that forces the public to see Mr. Obama in a starkly different, unsympathetic light. Several avenues for such an undertaking have been emerging:
First, there is the “experience” trope. This has actually been a continuous talking point for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign, but has so far appeared to have little effect. I only mention this here because the “3 AM” TV ad, coming out on the eve of the Texas and Ohio primaries, has received much media attention (the Obama rebuttal has effective content but it getting far less attention) and caused speculation that it could have a meaningful effect on the primary voters. No doubt experts will point to it if Mrs. Clinton does unexpectedly well in Texas and Ohio. But Mrs. Clinton cannot point to anything substantive either when it comes to experience dealing with national security crises, and it’s hard to imagine that the Obama campaign will not be reminding voters of it and effectively sealing off this angle.
Second, there is the “out-to-lunch legislator” angle, specifically, all the “present” (instead of “aye” or “nay”) votes as a state senator and the failure as chairman to hold subcommittee chairman as a Congressional senator. The problem with this angle is that there are many positive achievements as state senator well as positive comments from his colleagues and constituents there that he can point to, whereas a general argument based on the mode of voting is rather esoteric and lacks visceral appeal. Running for President is not the best of excuses for not summoning a subcommittee that could have a major impact on national security; but so far, the issue does not appear to be getting much traction. Unless the Clinton campaign can bring something more to the table here, this is at best a holding action.
This leaves the “venality” or, hopefully for the Clinton campaign, “corruption” angle. Specifically, Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was a wealthy political donor who allegedly helped the Obamas purchase an expensive house at well below its asking price. This did not become a major issue after Mr. Obama swiftly acknowledged his mistake when the matter surfaced at the very beginning of his presidential campaign. Mr. Rezko was indicted for extortion and wire fraud and is now coming to trial, which will surely attract renewed attention, an unwelcome development for Mr. Obama. Still, if there are no new revelations, the Obama campaign should be able to weather the fallout by dismissing it as old news, echoing Mrs. Clinton’s claim of having been “vetted”. That is not a shouting match that the Clintons want to get into.
But what if there’s more? The Obama-Rezko relationship was clearly more than that of just a donor and a politician. If other shady transactions involving the Obamas emerge over the course of the trial, they would be very embarrassing. Very damaging too, since that would take away his greatest sales point, i.e. that he is not like “those people”, and his ability to do no wrong will be severely compromised. He will be doubly damned, too, for hiding them until now. At that point, all his other actions for personal advancement, political compromise, such as the latest flap over purported secret assurances to Canadian authorities that Mr. Obama’s alarming rhetoric over NAFTA should not be taken seriously, will be seen in a very different light. He will no longer be able to walk on water, as his feet turn to clay. The harder they come, the harder they fall, as they say.
The Obama campaign must have done extensive counter-opposition research on the Obama-Rezko connection, so I think that it’s unlikely that anything sufficiently damaging will turn up to derail Mr. Obama’s campaign. But you never know. In any case, the only way the Clinton campaign can come within hearing distance of the Alter scenario is to wait for damaging revelations in the Rezko trial (or some other juicy scandal) and play them for what they’re worth. And if that happens, it is likely that superdelegates will begin moving to the Clinton camp, double-time.
That will be the hope that keeps Mrs. Clinton in the game, if she decides to do so, even after a possible defeat in Texas.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
US Primaries Redux
another day, another email...
Like you say, professor. As for Mr. Giuliani's campaign strategy, the fact that he tends to wear out his welcome may have had something to do with it. Remember, he'd frittered away much of his popularity as he neared the end of his tenure as New York mayor and people were sort of relieved to see him go, like the Brits with Margaret Thatcher. Then 9.11 happened. The new Giuliani seemed oddly subdued, too, as if he'd aged or his heart wasn't really in it. In any case, Mr. Giuliani had so many negatives as a Republican in the first place that it's hard to point to say what sank him. Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer from the beginning never thought that he had a chance.
Here is a near-post mortem that shows the messiness of the Clinton campaign. Little of this came out until very, very recently. I wonder why. So yes, an organized campaign is important, and it won’t run itself.
I think you’re right that negative campaigning was not as effective as it used to be. I think that it’s a combination of several things. I agree with you that Barack Obama and his campaign team responded well on the few occasions that he faced it and even managed to turn it to his advantage on some occasions. Of course it’s easier when everybody likes you in the first place. A match works best when a lot of people are willing to fan the flames. Also, I think that Democrats tend to be more sensitive to negative campaigning.
As for the students getting involved with the Obama campaign, I’ve been reading about it, but it’s good to hear it firsthand.
And you’re right, Mr. Obama won’t lack for experienced people wanting to work for him, including the people around Hillary Clinton. Even the Clintons will campaign all out for Mr. Obama; it could still be their turn in 2012. Don’t count John McCain out.
Like you say, professor. As for Mr. Giuliani's campaign strategy, the fact that he tends to wear out his welcome may have had something to do with it. Remember, he'd frittered away much of his popularity as he neared the end of his tenure as New York mayor and people were sort of relieved to see him go, like the Brits with Margaret Thatcher. Then 9.11 happened. The new Giuliani seemed oddly subdued, too, as if he'd aged or his heart wasn't really in it. In any case, Mr. Giuliani had so many negatives as a Republican in the first place that it's hard to point to say what sank him. Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer from the beginning never thought that he had a chance.
Here is a near-post mortem that shows the messiness of the Clinton campaign. Little of this came out until very, very recently. I wonder why. So yes, an organized campaign is important, and it won’t run itself.
I think you’re right that negative campaigning was not as effective as it used to be. I think that it’s a combination of several things. I agree with you that Barack Obama and his campaign team responded well on the few occasions that he faced it and even managed to turn it to his advantage on some occasions. Of course it’s easier when everybody likes you in the first place. A match works best when a lot of people are willing to fan the flames. Also, I think that Democrats tend to be more sensitive to negative campaigning.
As for the students getting involved with the Obama campaign, I’ve been reading about it, but it’s good to hear it firsthand.
And you’re right, Mr. Obama won’t lack for experienced people wanting to work for him, including the people around Hillary Clinton. Even the Clintons will campaign all out for Mr. Obama; it could still be their turn in 2012. Don’t count John McCain out.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Clinton Isn’t Losing It, Obama Is Winning It
The following is a very lightly edited version of a response that I just sent to an inquiry from a political science professor in Texas, of all places. No time today (so far) for the LDP strategy post, so I’m satisfying my addiction with this.
I think that most of my "smart friends and insiders", to use your words, who don't have a stake in one campaign or other have concluded that Barack Obama is going to win the nomination. If Mrs. Clinton loses Texas, they expect/hope that she will graciously bow out, sparing the Democrats a long, divisive and bitter fight to the convention floor and allowing them to rally behind Mr. Obama. Stranger things have happened (New Hampshire, Mr. Obama's entire campaign, come to think of it), so never say never, but there appears to be a growing consensus that Mrs. Clinton has no chance of winning the nomination unless she wins Texas and Ohio big, so that she is at least very close to Mr. Obama in the number of pledged delegates and committed superdelegates committed to her. I personally think that she cannot win unless she's at least very close to Mr. Obama in the number of pledged delegates or beats Mr. Obama in the popular vote, both of which look like near-impossibilities.
What's really interesting is the reason most experts got it wrong. People thought that Mrs. Clinton's money and political machine, of which Bill Clinton's legacy admittedly was a great part, would trump Mr. Obama's charisma. Most experts believed that Mrs. Clinton would prevail over the long haul, and by last summer, Mr. Obama's candidacy indeed appeared to be treading water, and people began taking about a New York battle between Mrs. Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (blast from the past!), plus perhaps another New York candidate in Michael Bloomberg.
Some people blame the raw deal Mrs. Clinton got from the media, and now that she's being sent packing, non-partisan figures are coming out and talking openly about it. However, this was a known factor. What was not known at the time was that Mr. Obama would be running an incredibly well planned, superbly executed campaign. Recently, after the February 5 Super (Duper) Tuesday, an article came out explaining how the reporter had obtained a long interview with Mr. Obama soon after he had announced his run in February 2007. In it, the reporter related how Mr. Obama had gone through his campaign strategy state by state, and that events had unfolded mostly as had been related at the time. That was the backstory that everyone had missed or, in the case of this reporter, failed to report.
The shortcomings of Mrs. Clinton's campaign are also being written about, and the arguments may indeed have merit. But everything is relative. It is Mr. Obama's organizational skills that became mostly the ace in the hole that the media, pundits, analysts, the smart people, the insiders, overlooked, to Mrs. Clinton’s regret.
I think that most of my "smart friends and insiders", to use your words, who don't have a stake in one campaign or other have concluded that Barack Obama is going to win the nomination. If Mrs. Clinton loses Texas, they expect/hope that she will graciously bow out, sparing the Democrats a long, divisive and bitter fight to the convention floor and allowing them to rally behind Mr. Obama. Stranger things have happened (New Hampshire, Mr. Obama's entire campaign, come to think of it), so never say never, but there appears to be a growing consensus that Mrs. Clinton has no chance of winning the nomination unless she wins Texas and Ohio big, so that she is at least very close to Mr. Obama in the number of pledged delegates and committed superdelegates committed to her. I personally think that she cannot win unless she's at least very close to Mr. Obama in the number of pledged delegates or beats Mr. Obama in the popular vote, both of which look like near-impossibilities.
What's really interesting is the reason most experts got it wrong. People thought that Mrs. Clinton's money and political machine, of which Bill Clinton's legacy admittedly was a great part, would trump Mr. Obama's charisma. Most experts believed that Mrs. Clinton would prevail over the long haul, and by last summer, Mr. Obama's candidacy indeed appeared to be treading water, and people began taking about a New York battle between Mrs. Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (blast from the past!), plus perhaps another New York candidate in Michael Bloomberg.
Some people blame the raw deal Mrs. Clinton got from the media, and now that she's being sent packing, non-partisan figures are coming out and talking openly about it. However, this was a known factor. What was not known at the time was that Mr. Obama would be running an incredibly well planned, superbly executed campaign. Recently, after the February 5 Super (Duper) Tuesday, an article came out explaining how the reporter had obtained a long interview with Mr. Obama soon after he had announced his run in February 2007. In it, the reporter related how Mr. Obama had gone through his campaign strategy state by state, and that events had unfolded mostly as had been related at the time. That was the backstory that everyone had missed or, in the case of this reporter, failed to report.
The shortcomings of Mrs. Clinton's campaign are also being written about, and the arguments may indeed have merit. But everything is relative. It is Mr. Obama's organizational skills that became mostly the ace in the hole that the media, pundits, analysts, the smart people, the insiders, overlooked, to Mrs. Clinton’s regret.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama Rejects, and Denounces Farrakhan...
I noticed that the Clinton-Obama debate was available online on the MSNBC website, so I caught the last twenty minutes or so live. To the extent that I managed to see it, I thought that it was a draw, in the sense that nothing happened that changed the trajectory of the race. The impression I got was that Hillary Clinton would outscore Mr. Obama, albeit narrowly, on a paper test on any subject that presidential candidates could conceivably be asked about. On the other hand, if I had to go into a situation about which I knew nothing and had the choice of a partner, I would choose Mr. Obama hands down.
The signature moment for me was when Mr. Obama was asked about the support that Louis Farrakhan had given him, given Mr. Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. This question was doubly loaded, because it also ever so slightly brought race into play. Mr. Obama strongly “denounce[d]” Mr. Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism but seemed to equivocate, to not explicitly reject his support, in a lengthy explanation of his position and relationship with Jews and Israel, and went back and forth with Tim Russert on it. Now, Mrs. Clinton, obviously sensing an opening, chimed in with a somewhat longish explanation of what a “principled” position on Israel that she took during her first US Senate campaign rejecting the support of the Independence Party, which had taken, according to Mrs. Clinton’s explanation, strongly anti-Semitic positionsand suggested that denouncement was not enough － imagine, a pro-Israel position in a New York election. Mr. Obama seemed to quibble further, contending that he didn’t see a real difference between “rejection” and “denouncing”; then, suddenly, turned it around and said that he would both “reject and denounce”.
You know, Mr. Obama could have been winging it all along, hoping for Tim Russert to get him off the hook, and had managed to save himself just in the nick of time by way of Mrs. Clinton’s timely (for him) intervention. As for Mrs. Clinton, she could have just sat there and let Mr. Russert put the shoe on the other foot for a change.
However, I doubt it. I think that Mr. Obama, as the poker player that he is, had been waiting for Mrs. Clinton to come in, with something, then took all the time in the world to find then script his ju-jitsupunch line while Mrs. Clinton was telling her obscure story about the Independence Party of the State of New York. He is that good.
Mr. Obama got game. History tells us that such people can do a lot of good, or a lot of bad, or both.
ADD: I saw the rest of the debate. (It’s on the MSNBC website now). Mr. Obama looked awkward while he dithered on accepting/opting out of public campaign financing. But overall, I didn’t see anything near enough to make me change my mind.
Oh, and I think that Mrs. Clinton’s commitment to children is heartfelt, true. And is there any other major public figure so conflicted between her two halves, the heart and the mind?
The signature moment for me was when Mr. Obama was asked about the support that Louis Farrakhan had given him, given Mr. Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. This question was doubly loaded, because it also ever so slightly brought race into play. Mr. Obama strongly “denounce[d]” Mr. Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism but seemed to equivocate, to not explicitly reject his support, in a lengthy explanation of his position and relationship with Jews and Israel, and went back and forth with Tim Russert on it. Now, Mrs. Clinton, obviously sensing an opening, chimed in with a somewhat longish explanation of what a “principled” position on Israel that she took during her first US Senate campaign rejecting the support of the Independence Party, which had taken, according to Mrs. Clinton’s explanation, strongly anti-Semitic positionsand suggested that denouncement was not enough － imagine, a pro-Israel position in a New York election. Mr. Obama seemed to quibble further, contending that he didn’t see a real difference between “rejection” and “denouncing”; then, suddenly, turned it around and said that he would both “reject and denounce”.
You know, Mr. Obama could have been winging it all along, hoping for Tim Russert to get him off the hook, and had managed to save himself just in the nick of time by way of Mrs. Clinton’s timely (for him) intervention. As for Mrs. Clinton, she could have just sat there and let Mr. Russert put the shoe on the other foot for a change.
However, I doubt it. I think that Mr. Obama, as the poker player that he is, had been waiting for Mrs. Clinton to come in, with something, then took all the time in the world to find then script his ju-jitsupunch line while Mrs. Clinton was telling her obscure story about the Independence Party of the State of New York. He is that good.
Mr. Obama got game. History tells us that such people can do a lot of good, or a lot of bad, or both.
ADD: I saw the rest of the debate. (It’s on the MSNBC website now). Mr. Obama looked awkward while he dithered on accepting/opting out of public campaign financing. But overall, I didn’t see anything near enough to make me change my mind.
Oh, and I think that Mrs. Clinton’s commitment to children is heartfelt, true. And is there any other major public figure so conflicted between her two halves, the heart and the mind?
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Americas: Hillary Clinton’s Valedictory; John McCain’s Uncharacteristic Silence
Valedictory: Word of the Weekend
It looked like every other media report and commentary had the same take on Hillary Clinton’s final words at the Thursday primary debate face-off. Namely, that it was:
1) her finest moment in the campaign; and
2) “valedictory”.
It also turned out to be a typical Clinton moment, since Mrs. Clinton:
1) had more or less borrowed her best lines from Bill Clinton and John Edwards; and
2) almost immediately switched to attack mode, here.
Now “desperate and whiny” is going a little too far, and there may have been more context to the clip, but it does have a rambling, unscripted grimness that Mrs. Clinton’s formidable intellect and self-control rarely, if ever, allows to emerge in public. Maybe she was just tired and cranky. Or it’s one of those inevitable hitches in breaking in a new campaign style, the John-Edwards-2.0, Angry-Populist model. Which reminds me once again, Mrs. Clinton is an excellent study. But she’s a grind. She’s reactive, and unimaginative. Other things being equal, genius trumps grind. And she’s losing to a genius.
Honesty in Public Life: John McCain’s Case
Read this. I was struck by Mr. McCain’s behavior too.
Circumstances often force us to be less than truthful. (Which brings me to my favorite fantasy about truth in advertising, namely: What if all advertisements had to be literally true? I mean, does Tiger Woods really drive that dinky van? Does Donovan McNabb’s mom really feed him Chunky Chicken to him and his Eagles teammates? What if they had to? And could you sue for damages because those pills didn’t actually let you whack that golf ball 274.33 meters? But I digress.) And lying, if only by the more acceptable means of exaggeration or changing your mind without a change of heart, is endemic in politics. But one of the many reasons that people are attracted to McCain is that he has difficulty in doing this (while Mitt Romney repels so many people because of the ease with which he changes his position on so many issues which are for many people matters of deep personal, ethical and (in the US) religious conviction). Mr. McCain is not quite the straight talker that he claims to be, but he is palpably uncomfortable when he knowingly compromises himself. To put it bluntly, he’s a lousy liar. Now the sexual insinuations that the NYT article wrapped around Mr.. McCain’s well-chronicled relationships with lobbyists have a tabloidy feel, for which the NYT has been appropriately criticized. But continuing in that sleazy vein, it’s hard not to notice that the lobbyist in question looks remarkably like a younger version of Mr. McCain’s current wife.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have good reasons not to go there. But journalists will have no such compunctions in questioning the candidate, and Mr. McCain’s vicious temper is well known. So I expect to see more of this as the campaign progresses, if only as a cattle prod. After all, the underlying story about the relationship between Mr. McCain and lobbyists is very real.
It looked like every other media report and commentary had the same take on Hillary Clinton’s final words at the Thursday primary debate face-off. Namely, that it was:
1) her finest moment in the campaign; and
2) “valedictory”.
It also turned out to be a typical Clinton moment, since Mrs. Clinton:
1) had more or less borrowed her best lines from Bill Clinton and John Edwards; and
2) almost immediately switched to attack mode, here.
Now “desperate and whiny” is going a little too far, and there may have been more context to the clip, but it does have a rambling, unscripted grimness that Mrs. Clinton’s formidable intellect and self-control rarely, if ever, allows to emerge in public. Maybe she was just tired and cranky. Or it’s one of those inevitable hitches in breaking in a new campaign style, the John-Edwards-2.0, Angry-Populist model. Which reminds me once again, Mrs. Clinton is an excellent study. But she’s a grind. She’s reactive, and unimaginative. Other things being equal, genius trumps grind. And she’s losing to a genius.
Honesty in Public Life: John McCain’s Case
Read this. I was struck by Mr. McCain’s behavior too.
Circumstances often force us to be less than truthful. (Which brings me to my favorite fantasy about truth in advertising, namely: What if all advertisements had to be literally true? I mean, does Tiger Woods really drive that dinky van? Does Donovan McNabb’s mom really feed him Chunky Chicken to him and his Eagles teammates? What if they had to? And could you sue for damages because those pills didn’t actually let you whack that golf ball 274.33 meters? But I digress.) And lying, if only by the more acceptable means of exaggeration or changing your mind without a change of heart, is endemic in politics. But one of the many reasons that people are attracted to McCain is that he has difficulty in doing this (while Mitt Romney repels so many people because of the ease with which he changes his position on so many issues which are for many people matters of deep personal, ethical and (in the US) religious conviction). Mr. McCain is not quite the straight talker that he claims to be, but he is palpably uncomfortable when he knowingly compromises himself. To put it bluntly, he’s a lousy liar. Now the sexual insinuations that the NYT article wrapped around Mr.. McCain’s well-chronicled relationships with lobbyists have a tabloidy feel, for which the NYT has been appropriately criticized. But continuing in that sleazy vein, it’s hard not to notice that the lobbyist in question looks remarkably like a younger version of Mr. McCain’s current wife.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have good reasons not to go there. But journalists will have no such compunctions in questioning the candidate, and Mr. McCain’s vicious temper is well known. So I expect to see more of this as the campaign progresses, if only as a cattle prod. After all, the underlying story about the relationship between Mr. McCain and lobbyists is very real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)