Monday Morning Musings

• Hillary Clinton's experience argument is, at best, short-term.  Even if she were to win the Democratic primary, how does her experience argument hold up to John McCain's?  She'll have to change her narrative - she has a narrative? - in the general election, if she makes it that far.
• In Ohio, the democrat candidates are trying to out do each other with opposition to NAFTA, even though a direct connection between Ohio's manufacturing decline (which began decades ago) and NAFTA (which was pushed and signed by President Clinton in the early 1990s) is impossible to make.  Nonetheless, we have Obama and Clinton each saying they'd review or return to the negotiating table on NAFTA with rhetoric that makes them sound like anti-trade protectionists.  Uh, has anybody told them that we live in a global economy?
• [The Democrat's pandering to Ohio workers makes McCain's honest assessment of Michigan's manufacturing decline quite refreshing.  McCain told workers in Michigan that their jobs are not coming back.  He lost that primary to Mitt Romney, who promised all kinds of unrealistic industrial and economic magic.  But where is Romney now?  Pandering doesn't win.]
• That's the problem with a long Democrat primary.  Although they both start out as fairly centrist Democrats, a long primary battle turns this into an ugly pandering to the left-wing Democratic base.  In their effort to out-left their opponent, I'm waiting to see which candidate first embraces the legacy of Marx and suggests that Soviet-style economics was just misunderstood.  Campaign appearance with Hugo Chavez, anyone?
• Change?  Think there's going to be change in January 2009?  At least in foreign policy, not much will change.  Take a look at this op-ed piece appearing in yesterday's Washington Post, showing Obama and Clinton advisors praising many aspects of Bush's foreign policy.
• Speaking of foreign policy, during the Cold War we never cut off diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union.  Since the era of Nixon we've had diplomatic relations with China.  Both of these states were/are bad guys.  We thought engagement was better than embargo.  So, uh, why not engage with Cuba or Iran?  Or do embargo-supporters suggest we cut off ties with China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.?
• Though I do not doubt that a President Obama or Clinton will draw down troops from Iraq, I just don't see how it is possible in the short term.  The military generals largely don't want it, the US-trained Iraqi army is not ready to stand up and do its job, and does a President Obama or Clinton have the gravitas to defy the advice of the career generals on the ground?  I think this talk of withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking the oath of office is just pandering to the anti-war crowd.  It just ain't realistic.
• The Washington Post had a fascinating article on Saturday about the detrimental impact of granting immigration visas to religious minorities in Iran.  Even though there is little persecution of Christians and Jews in Iran (according to Iranian religious minorities - Washington-based Bush administration ideologues have another perspective), we grant them visas and, in the process, we destroy their fragile communities and contribute to a growing religious polarization throughout the Middle East.  US policy has contributed to the rapid destruction in recent years of Christian communities in Iran, Iraq, and the Palestine territories, communities that have been in these regions for 1500 - 2000 years.

Comments

[Rachel]

You make a lot of good points - especially on the pandering. However, these candidates have to toe the line between telling the voters the truth (i.e. John McCain in Michigan) and being seen as not believing what's coming out of their own mouths (Rudy Giuliani for most of his campaign, John McCain on other issues) - and, like you said, John McCain lost Michigan.
I think you're right - withdrawing troops from Iraq within the first 60 days of anyone's presidency is premature and not well thought-out. However I'll certainly vote for that guy over the one who's ready to stay there for 100 years, to follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not to Afghanistan.

Although I hadn't thought about Clinton's narrative, and how it'd have to change for the general election. That's really interesting.