Scott Paul took on the Clinton campaign for pushing the high-fear button in a television ad. Now the Obama campaign has fired back with its own 3 am ad. They are both depressing.

Jonathan Chait humorously skewers the Clinton staging here -- but as far as Obama's comments are concerned, I'm glad he had the right judgment on Iraq and cites that Afghanistan and al Qaeda were the challenge at hand -- but there must have been more criteria for him deciding against the war and I don't hear much about those.

I guess I don't like the 3 am premise at all -- in either ad. Obama's issues about the Iraq War and trying to prevent loose nukes don't sound relevant to the sort of 3 am crisis calls being suggested -- but then again, I'm groggy.

It happens to be 3:00 am now in Israel -- and I'm about to leave for the airport to catch a plane back to the U.S.

I have to admit when I saw the ads -- and the mention of kids -- I was reminded of this neocon front organization I wrote about some time ago called Family Security Matters. It's webpage doesn't seem to be loading -- but I don't think the group is out of business.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

This has to stop.

Hillary has every right to tout her experience -- it's probably her biggest selling point in this election. But she's got to find a way to do it without heightening the fear, discussing our "dangerous world," or constantly reminding voters that we are at war. These may or may not be true, but including them in her stump speech only serves to shift public opinion towards solutions that emphasize guns and bombs over diplomacy and cooperation.

I'm headed to New York this weekend to see the ultra-popular (and ultra-vulgar) Russian ska-punk-folk band Leningrad, a fave of mine while I was in Russia. That reminds me: I wasn't pleased with either Clinton's or Obama's answer to the Russia question last week and I'm not crazy about McCain's stance either. More on that next week.

-- Scott Paul

Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner sent this note to me during my travels this week in Israel and Palestine:

There is no such thing as peace. Only equilibrium.

Something to think about. Clearly, he is making a play for a bone.

Perhaps my friend Daniel Levy should change the name of his blog from Prospects for Peace to Prospects for Equilibrium.

-- Steve Clemons

This trip to Israel and today to Palestine has been extremely eye-opening. Condoleezza Rice will be here on Monday -- and there is antipathy to her trip at the highest levels of government.

I've been told that she comes with no plan, no ideas, no pressure to move in any direction whatsoever. According to a source very close to Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert, she doesn't even ask questions about the basic positions on each side so as to understand the "gaps" and then to offer ideas -- or even pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians -- to close the gaps. Those engaged credibly in the peace process here want American engagement -- and want the U.S. to play a role in defining "best options" among many competing visions of how this is going to work out.

I'll have more to say later regarding some surprising perspectives I've encountered about Hamas. Yesterday, a Haaretz poll showed that 64% of Israelis favor direct talks with Hamas. This is tough to work out -- since Israel and the U.S. have told Abbas that even he can't bring Hamas into a unity government if he wants a peace deal with Israel (not that Abbas is eager to talk to Hamas, which he isn't).

More soon -- Off to Ramallah.

-- Steve Clemons

There is breaking news that Kevin DiGregory, the top prosecuting attorney in the espionage case against two former AIPAC employees -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- is leaving for a private sector position at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.

Republican Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Larry Craig (R-ID), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) join 19 Democrat Senators on a letter calling for the State Department and Condoleezza Rice to do a full policy review of America's relations toward Cuba. This follows a similar letter sent from the House of Representatives to the executive branch with the signatures of 100 House Members.

Here is a pdf of the Senate letter -- and some other excellent analysis at TWN by guest-blogger Anya Landau French.

Senator Joe Lieberman may be trying to pump up support for John McCain among American Jews and even those in Israel, but a national poll out yesterday showed Hillary Clinton drawing roughly 60% support among Israelis -- and Obama just about 20%. Preference for Democrats over Republicans was huge in the poll -- and John McCain was third in preference behind Clinton and Obama.

What is interesting is that in my meetings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem this week, the center right personalities with whom I am meeting all strongly prefer Hillary Clinton.

Every single one of the center left politicians and thought leaders I have speak to prefers Obama.

But the one fear that the center left has about Obama is that given the constant pounding on him about Muslim identity issues, he won't "be himself" when it comes to helping to broker different outcomes than today's status quo in the Middle East. They fear that he'll be constantly "having to declare himself more Jewish than the Jews, more of an Israeli than Israelis" and thus prove everyone wrong that he is the one to get beyond the "false choice politics" in the region.

Even today, Obama is out telling Jewish leaders that he has never been a Muslim.

Obama is stumbling here and not presenting himself as the transcendent candidate many feel him to be. He may not have been a Muslim -- but it should not matter. He hasn't been a Jew either -- and that shouldn't matter. He is playing into the game of identity politics -- and that is what the center left in Israeli politics fears he may continue to do in the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

Anya Landau French joined the Lexington Institute in February 2008 as a Senior Fellow, focusing on U.S.-Cuban affairs.

The waiting may soon be over. Today, twenty-four U.S. senators, led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), wrote to Secretary Rice (for letter click here) -- as did 104 members of the House last week--urging a rethink of U.S. policy toward the island of Cuba.

"There is no magic U.S. policy that will transform Cuba," the senators wrote. "But with Cuba facing a period of change, we have a new opportunity to seize. Our policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting should end. We need a new approach that defends human rights, is confident about the value of American engagement with Cubans, builds new economic bridges between America and Cuba, and seeks every possible avenue of increasing American influence."

While it is highly doubtful that Secretary Rice will have the opportunity to heed their advice in her remaining months in office, Congress may be set to press the issue next year, when there is a new administration to work with.

Majorities in both chambers have repeatedly voted to ease current U.S. restrictions on travel to the island, and have favored facilitating agricultural exports to Cuba. Previously, President Bush strongly opposed any relaxation of U.S. restrictions relating to Cuba, and former Majority Leader Tom Delay was known to make sure any such changes would die in conference.

What might happen next year, when there is a new president and a new Congress?

Most surely, a coalition of largely farm-state Democrats and Republicans will again get behind legislation to ease restrictions on cash transfers and bilateral travel by US exporters and Cuban buyers. But this time, the president might not stand in the way of a one-way export opportunity.

A majority in Congress is also likely to ease new restrictions on Cuban American family travel and remittances to the island, whether by clarifying the 2000 guidelines for categories of allowable travel, or by refusing to fund enforcement against such travel.

While easing family travel restrictions would be considered a humanitarian act, giving preference to one group of travelers would be an untenable position. Lifting the entire (de facto) ban on travel to Cuba remains the swiftest means to extend U.S. influence on the island and preserve all Americans' rights to travel, but it faces determined--minority--opposition in both chambers of Congress.

Yet, such opposition could be overcome, and the next president may not bother (when there are far more pressing matters in play) to veto less-expansive legislation that categorically allows and encourages people-to-people, humanitarian, academic, religious, family, and agricultural export-related travel to Cuba. All such categories of exchanges are already legal, but President Bush curtailed or ended them altogether four years ago by revising the regulations interpreting the law.

What else might the 111th Congress do? Numerous issues sitting on the back burner deserve prompt attention. Certainly there will be interest in oversight of such matters as human and labor rights advocacy, agricultural trade and other economic issues, US AID grantmaking, drug interdiction, military-to-military contacts, the US designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and anti-terrorism cooperation, Cuban intelligence operations in the United States, intellectual property and other rights under signed conventions, settlement of U.S. claims against Cuba, return of fugitives from justice in the U.S. and Cuba, Radio and TV Marti quality and viewership, and environment cooperation to prevent damage to the Florida coastline due to oil exploration in Cuban waters.

The foregoing legislative agenda would mark a clear shift in U.S. policy toward increasing U.S. influence--leverage arguably more potent than sanctions--and protecting U.S. interests relative to Cuba. There is no guarantee that conditions in Cuba will improve as a result of a U.S. policy shift. But no matter what policy the U.S. president stakes out, it is not likely that this Congress, or the next, will put much stock in waiting another fifty years to find out.

-- Anya Landau French

In December, I did some research into how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each used legislative machinery at their disposal in the Senate to get some sense of their "executive abilities". For some reason, I expected Hillary Clinton to be too busy for things like subcommittee hearings and Obama to be drilling in and learning as much as he could because his experience in federal level legislative affairs might be perceived as weak.

I found the opposite -- and discovered that Barack Obama, despite his role as Chairman of the European Subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had not held a single policy hearing during his tenure. In the Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, I found that Clinton had chaired and been actively engaged in a number of hearings during the same period.

When I discovered this, a number of Obama's own foreign policy advisers called me -- and one said, "I am as surprised as you are."

What is important to understand here is not that Obama is somehow weak on policy or performance because he didn't hold any hearings. It raises questions about how he deploys people in an array of different directions simultaneously. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has a huge staff -- and some compensated in part to support his committee responsibilities. He should have held any number of Hearings -- but these should have been organized for him by his staff.

This matter finally came up in the debates -- see below -- and I have to say that I was disappointed in Obama's response that he has been too busy to hold hearings because he was running for the presidency. I think that the best thing he can do now is to make sure that during the next months, his Senate staff organizes some hearings for the Subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, Kosovo, or any number of other subjects.

He needs to take this criticism and turn it around so that as he moves through the primary process, he modifies his management focus to make sure that his "substantive work" -- being paid for by taxpayers in his role in the Senate -- is getting the same attention as his ambition to move into the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm in Israel and Palestine through Saturday -- and am finding some interesting stuff on the internet as I fight jet lag.

First of all, Slate has a fascinating Delegate Counter that allows one to go through all of the states left in the Democratic primary process and plug in assumptions about performance. It distributes the delegates -- and then kicks out totals. I may be doing something wrong -- but I can't seem to get either Clinton or Obama to a win using any realistic figures on how they'll split primary voters.

On another front, I have already held the view that the so-called "success of the surge" may be a function of Enron-like accounting and spin -- and agreed with Andrew Bacevich's recent assessment. But for a more powerful treatment of this -- and a look into how we may be arming our adversaries tomorrow, read Nir Rosen's "The Myth of the Surge" in Rolling Stone.

-- Steve Clemons

Just saw this interesting news. Co-Architect of Bush detainee policies leaving government:

Architect of Bush's Detainee Policies to Step Down

A principal architect of the Bush administration's detainee policies is stepping down, just as military officials gear up for the Guantanamo Bay trial of alleged planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, conspiracy.

Since becoming Defense Department general counsel in 2001, William J. Haynes pushed the Pentagon toward a near-revolution in military law, away from traditional procedures for enemy prisoners and through a series of experiments in detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists outside the Geneva Conventions or domestic law.

Teaming up with like-minded lawyers in the White House and the Justice Department, Mr. Haynes, a Harvard Law School graduate and former Army officer, formed the so-called war council that crafted the administration's legal response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Many of those policies, including establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison, plans for military commission trials and detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants," were new or hadn't been seen for decades.

Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington deserves a vast amount of scrutiny for the role that he has played as Cheney's enabler and as one of the single most important architects of the inappropriate, post-9/11 usurpation of authority by the Bush White House and the "Darkness at Noon" style torture and detainee policies of this administration. One of Addington's partners in Bush's "War Paradigm Council" was William "Jim" Haynes.

I admire State Department Legal Advisor John Bellinger for the role he has played in trying to walk back this administration from the true abyss in its torture, detention, and rendition practices. And now I just hope that he will stay at least a few days longer than David Addington will as the Bush term dwindles down.

-- Steve Clemons

Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy address yesterday that has some great strengths. I disagree with her take on Cuba and find it unfortunate that she can't move to roughly the same position of managed cooperation and conflict with Cuba that she advocates with China.

But then I looked for references to Israel and Palestine -- particularly given my presence this week in In the region and my upcoming meetings with lots of Israeli and Palestinian political and thought leaders about the state of the Annapolis Summit process. Condoleezza Rice, in fact, will be here on Monday doing the same.

But Hillary doesn't say the words "Israel" or "Palestine" in the entire speech. I think that Hillary Clinton gets a lot right in her foreign policy commentary -- particularly the sense she conveys that this is a "discontinuous" or "different" time in American history that requires a changed approach.

I very much liked most of her opening:

We are here at such an extraordinary moment in American history. The stakes have rarely been higher. I've had numerous historians tell me that America's point in our arch of destiny, today is perhaps most similar to the situation confronting President Truman when he became our president and commander in chief.

Dramatic events during this past week have reminded us how volatile our world has become and how essential it is that we have sound strategy and strong leadership. From Kosovo to Cuba, from Iraq to Pakistan, to our embassy being burned in Belgrade, these are some of the most challenging spots on our global map. The world is being transformed with enormous risks and possibilities that we must meet with confidence, optimism, resolution and success.

The next president will inherit all of these global challenges and more from a president who failed to handle them well. A war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq. America's reputation at an all-time low. Countries rushing to acquire nuclear weapons. Crushing poverty that stymies economic and political progress in too many regions of the world. Global warming and global health pandemics. Genocide in Darfur. A rise of borderless, stateless criminal cartels. And the continuing real threat of terrorism here at home and abroad.

But while these stark realities carry dangers, they also bring unprecedented opportunities if we act wisely, if we have the right kind of leadership. There isn't any doubt in my mind that we will not only navigate through these uncharted difficult waters but emerge stronger than ever, reasserting both our leadership and our moral authority.

I part company with Senator Clinton on the importance of "reasserting" leadership and moral authority. I think leadership in the years ahead will be earned and negotiated -- leadership will be more done through seduction than assertion. And our moral authority will rise when we get back to getting the innards of our democratic practices back into shape -- and stop engaging in very heavy-handed, neo-imperialist wars and occupations abroad.

I think that there are two places in the world in which America can "signal" a very quick sea change in the terms of its engagement in global affairs. One of these is ripping away the cocoon protecting the US-Cuba relationship from any change from the Cold War anachronism that it has become. And secondly, definitely laying out the comprehensive process for resolving Israel-Palestine peace. Cuba is easy. Israel/Palestine is tougher -- but it's still one of the most easy dilemmas to logistically solve -- even if a political equilibrium seems very often to exist only in fantasy.

Here are comments of my own that were reported in the Financial Times today:

Steven Clemons, a foreign policy expert at the Washington-based New America Foundation, says loosening trade and travel restrictions with Cuba would be the most effective and low-cost means for the next US president to signal a new way of engaging with the world. He expects little resistance to a policy change among the broader US population as fear of communism fades. "The contradiction between trading with China and Vietnam on the one hand and maintaining the embargo with Cuba on the other is becoming more difficult to sustain," he says.

But with all due respect to Senator Clinton -- who does call for the establishment of serious priorities in her impressive remarks yesterday -- I can't quite believe that she left Israel/Palestine off of the roster.

I have friends in both the Obama and Clinton camps. Those on the Obama side could learn quite a bit from some of the issues Hillary Clinton stresses in this speech. Those in the Clinton camp could learn from Obama's forthrightness in indicating a difference between being pro-Israel and pro-Likud.

I don't believe that the Hillary Clinton camp is purposely ducking Israel-Palestine, at least I hope not -- and I have reason to believe that she might even be a "Nixon Goes to China" type on finally resolving this epic dispute. I know I will hear protests about this, but I've talked about this issue with Bill Clinton at some length and more briefly Hillary Clinton and have been told that getting a real deal done quickly would be a high priority after election. I actually do believe this to be the case.

But still -- was it an oversight not to even mention Israel/Palestine? Or on purpose?

-- Steve Clemons

I more than anyone else I've read have spoken out strongly against the Obama campaign's promulgation of "identity and mystique politics" -- that he by his unique upbringing and exposure to different cultures and the like would bring a radically different decision-making calculus to modern American statecraft.

I'm a wonk -- and I appreciate solid policy analysis and ideas. I think rather than resorting to mysticism that there is much in Obama's profile that shows an ability to requisition smart thinking and organize the building blocks of policy differently than has been done in the past. He showed this on Cuba to some degree. I wish he'd be more expansive. And there is some that I would like to criticize him for -- as I have on his health care plan.

But the smear campaign currently underway designed to spread the fear that Barack Obama will somehow be a portal for all things alien, al Qaeda-connected, Muslim related, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish is wrong. I fear that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg of what those who want to push "high-fear buttons" will try and do to slime Barack Obama.

If the Clinton campaign is behind this, it should stop -- and apologize. This kind of innuendo defiles what is good and great about America. . .or what is left of the good part. (Clinton camp denies involvement.)

But I think that the McCain camp as well as many of those not part of any of the campaigns but motivated by a neo-strand of American nativist bigotry will try and swift boat Obama's unique lineage, about which he should be proud.

It's a gross part of American politics, and I have a feeling that this bigotry will backfire on those purveying it.

But here's a question for the Ohio debates that should be posed to both candidates:

DO YOU HILLARY CLINTON -- AND BARACK OBAMA -- HAVE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL WITH A MUSLIM SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

That's what it boils down to -- so let's put it out there. I want a Muslim to be President of the U.S. to demystify the issue. I'd like to see a Jew as President -- and a Buddhist. Perhaps one day we can get some agnostics and atheists in office too.

When Barack Obama was asked about his religion in the past in debates -- he quickly got defensive and talked about his Christian views, faith, and upbringing. I think Barack Obama should be able to celebrate his Christian faith -- but I would have loved to have seen him embrace the ability of any American citizen of any faith aspire to the presidency.

And I think Hillary Clinton and John McCain should embrace the same. And if not -- if they can't see Muslims on the Supreme Court, in the Senate and the House, as Governors, as scholars, as firemen and county clerks, as whatever they can be in our free society -- then they are promulgating a racism that is Un-American.

Zalmay Khalilzad is a Muslim and is Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations -- and he's doing a darn good job in my view -- given the circumstances.

It's time that our candidates stop trying to surreptitiously slime each other -- and frankly -- they should all be compelled in public to either embrace all religions -- including those of Muslim belief and background -- or to spit on it so that all can see.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm way behind in my movies this year. Been too busy blogging!

But I have special interest this year in two films -- one directed by Charles Ferguson called No End in Sight -- Alex Gibney is one of the executive producers. An incredible documentary on the horrific management of the Iraq occupation. Here are some of my thoughts on this film earlier in the year.

And another is Alex Gibney's film Taxi to the Dark Side -- which has Sidney Blumenthal as one of the executive producers. I wrote about this film recently.

Former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson appears in both -- and I think that the country needs to see and digest each of these films. Good luck to all.

-- Steve Clemons

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

Blogs are strange beasts on occasion. By noting that I thought that Barack Obama's "Harry and Louise II" ads were despicable and calling for him to apologize -- predictably, I got a number of emails accusing me of bias towards Hillary Clinton. These folks apparently haven't paid much attention to my commentary about Obama vs HRC on Cuba, or Hillary's vote on the IRGC Kyl/Lieberman amendment, or more recently -- my view that the race is essentially over and that Obama has most likely won the Democratic nomination and that a different kind of struggle is taking place at the moment.

But let's set all that aside. On a policy basis, I completely agree with Hillary Clinton's perspective on health care -- and I entirely disagree that Barack Obama's plan achieves universal coverage or can even aspire to because of the high cost of covering American citizens on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum without inclusion of the middle class Americans who can afford insurance but elect not to get it.

This is a disagreement. There are other matters I disagree with Obama and Clinton about -- and other things that get my applause and support.

But the Harry and Louise ads have also turned the stomachs of many of Obama's own policy staff. They are controversial -- and he should hear from those of in civil society that they harm his profile.

For those who argue that turnabout is fair play and that the Clintons should be apologizing for things they have done before Obama does, fine. Chase that windmill. I think that the Clintons have done a number of things wrong -- and that were unsavory -- but guess what? They are losing this race. . .

This isn't about the Clintons and what they have done or not done to Obama. It is the signal that Barack Obama, who I think will be the Democratic nominee, is sending about the politics of health care coverage.

I am a huge fan of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle -- who has campaigned harder for Barack Obama than just about everyone except Barack's wife Michelle.

I recently received Daschle's excellent new book out this weekend in bookstores titled CRITICAL: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis. I think that Daschle's thinking about health care and the gridlocked politics in the debate are essential reading.

But I found this clip in his final chapter worth emphasizing:

If the next president is dedicated to reform, he or she can use the formidable power of the White House to create a sense of urgency on this issue and forge a consensus on how to move forward. This means going on the offensive; we cannot wait for the next "Harry and Louise" ad to define the debate. We cannot assume that the public recognizes the distortions and fallacies peddled by reform opponents; we have to educate people on the emptiness of antireform rhetoric.

Tom Daschle supports Barack Obama -- and I know Obama takes Daschle and his views very seriously. Something tells me that this "Harry and Louise II" ad is not real Obama but is being driven by other string-pullers in his campaign. I hope I'm not wrong about this.

In any case, I think that people need to look beyond the tit-for-tat gaming between Obama and Clinton and get their heads around the policy parameters at stake. Some who support Obama's position think that the politics of wage garnishing is a loser. Those who support true universal coverage say that there can't be a loophole for those without coverage to just free-ride the system until they are sick. These are the terms of debate.

But in this case, I think Tom Daschle sets the right tone -- and it's the tone that both candidates should seek to achieve.

-- Steve Clemons

To the degree that Hillary Clinton is still really pursuing an upset in Texas and Ohio and not in fact negotiating for other positions in Obamaland, this polling data from the Des Moines Register is going to be hard to shake off.

The poll finds the following in possible pairing in the November presidential race:

Obama 53% - McCain 36%

Clinton 40% - McCain 49%

These are snapshots now. Numbers can change dramatically as a race nears -- as we have seen in the Obama-Clinton race. This snapshot is of just one state as well.

But the hill keeps getting steeper and steeper for the Clinton team.

All this said, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in Barack Obama's use of the "Harry and Louise II" ads criticizing Hillary Clinton's health care policy proposals. For me, it's one of the very low points in this race. Obama should pull the ads and apologize.

-- Steve Clemons

A friend, John McAuliff, has a letter in the New York Times today in response to a very good editorial the Tims ran last week titled "Twilight of the Dictators: And a Chance for Cuba -- and the U.S."

McAuliff reminds that before Bush tightened restrictions on Cuba by executive order in 2004, non-tourist people-to-people initiatives were on the upswing. These were choked off by Bush.

I think that this represents the minimum base-line that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should speak to when discussing taking US-Cuba relations a different direction. It's one thing to talk about opening family-related travel and increasing the amount allowed in remittances of Cuban-American families to their relatives in Cuba. It's another not to even talk about restoring what existed before George Bush began paying off the elders in Miami's exile community for their role in manipulating Florida's election results in 2000.

Hillary Clinton needs to do a serious "full policy review" of her Cuba position -- and Obama needs to go farther than he already has. The benchmark that existed in 2003 should be a minimum start in this process.

Monday evening, I'm taking off for Tel Aviv and will be spending the balance of the week in Ramallah, Jerusalem and perhaps Jericho. I'll be reporting back on what folks see as the real state of play on the Annapolis Summit Israel/Palestine peace effort.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, 11:45 am Mountain Time, 1:45 pm EST, I'll be on "Action Point with Cynthia Black" discussing Fidel Castro's announcement that he is stepping down as Cuba's president and the impact this news may have on US-Cuba relations and our presidential politics.

Word is that today at 2:30 pm EST, the Cuban government will air live the announcement of the decision of its National Assembly leadership as to who the next President of Cuba will be.

-- Steve Clemons

I wonder if some of the nation's Republican stalwarts will fund Nader this round?

I don't think Nader can impact this election -- but this is an example of a person who was great allowing extreme vanity to take over.

-- Steve Clemons

Sunday morning at 7 am, I'll be on Bob Salter's "K-Rock Magazine" (WXRK-92.3) in New York talking for 20 minutes about Fidel Castro's announcement that he's stepping down and the impact on presidential campaigns and US-Cuba relations.

Yep -- this is the station where Howard Stern used to nest -- but I have to say I like Bob Salter much more.

We taped the show today -- and I think it was terrific. Listen in.

-- Steve Clemons

You'd expect it from the editorial page, but not from the WSJ news section.

The otherwise very interesting and solid piece on Alexandre Albuquerque, the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, ends on this note:

"The Bush administration sought Senate approval of the treaty this year but that now appears unlikely, a senior U.S. State Department official said."

In an e-mail, the official writes:

"I told the reporter that our official position was that we were very hopeful of getting the treaty through the Senate this year. Then he probed about obstacles in our way, like the election year, the strong lobbying efforts by opponents, the opposition by GOP candidates (there were more than one at the time), etc. His spin on my responses was a lot more negative than I expected."

-- Scott Paul

At 9:56 pm Thursday night, Clinton Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson sent out this statement about Hillary's concluding, cheer-generating comments at the UT Austin debate:

What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion. She's tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.

Sitting with other senior stakeholders in Hillaryland, I heard Hillary essentially concede to Obama -- and in a magnanimous, gracious way. Many with me that night agreed.

I happen to think that Barack Obama should offer Hillary the Vice President slot. His "win" that seems to be in the making is impressive -- but not definitive, and there are substantial parts of the Democratic party that are still clinging to the Clinton franchise.

If Obama can acquire the Clinton infrastructure and consolidate it with the Kennedy franchise and then fasten in the many newcomers to his "movement", he'd then be creating something quite new and different -- and sustainable.

Some of Obama's supporters can't imagine a ticket with both of them on it -- but the reality of American politics is that power is built through amassing building blocks of influence. The Kennedy franchise is second only to the Clinton's in its structural resilience. Obama was given the keys to the many thousands who owe the Kennedy machine for the jobs, favors, policy work, and the like that the Kennedys have disbursed over decades.

With all due respect to the currents that are fueling Obama's primary victory, his supporters are not part of a well-organized franchise and their engagement and involvement may only seem deep but are really just a function the moment. As Howard Fineman wrote recently, Hillary Clinton is running against Obama's "wind". Sounds good in one sense -- but in another, winds die down.

Obama would be a fool to not jump at the opportunity to build-in the Clinton's followers into his political superstructure.

But even if Hillary Clinton is not offered the Vice Presidential slot, she will be a major force in American politics -- and rumors are afoot that "her friends" are paving the way for her to ascend to Senate Majority Leader. Some tried to engineer this before her decision to run. Now they are at it again.

And to some degree, I am hearing from senior Democrats that this move would be welcomed by most in the party -- by just about everyone except the John Bolton-hugging Chuck Schumer, who wants the Majority Leader position himself. But in a contest, Clinton would beat Schumer.

Durbin also wants the job and is close to Barack Obama, but Obama needs Clinton's support and cooperation if he takes the nomination and eventually the White House -- and that can only happen if he puts her on his ticket as VP or helps engineer her move to Senate Majority Leader.

For those who think that there may yet be a surprise in Ohio and Texas and that Hillary's moving final comments in the debates will pull off another New Hampsire-like outcome, all I can say is that The Washington Note has learned that a senior Clinton campaign adviser -- not on the political side -- is already out looking for a job.

-- Steve Clemons

Arab News, a Saudi government media outlet published in English, has an article describing a couple religious scholars supporting the proposition that Islamic law does not in fact prohibit women from driving. The story is buoyed by a rough survey of respondents that show the majority of Saudi men and women support this to various degrees.

Arab News would not print this unless there was a conscious decision at the top to initiate and open up this debate -- as I've noted in the past, the Saudi King has to sign off on the editors of the major papers, which means that if this was printed, it was effectively sanctioned by the Saudi government. It might be testing the waters but it is nonetheless significant.

While a general consensus continues to lament the lack of political reform in the Middle East and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in particular, I get the impression most aren't paying close enough attention to the micro-trends in Saudi Arabia that are so celebrated in American society.

In January, Saudi authorities confronted religious codes and removed the ban that prohibited women from staying in hotels unaccompanied. Stephen McInerney of the Project on Middle East Democracy reviewed these trends in a well-balanced piece exploring the latest reform efforts in the end of January:

The past two weeks has quietly seen a flurry of small steps toward greater rights for women in the kingdom. Last Monday, January 21, it was reported that the Saudi government had ruled to permit women to stay in hotels without the presence of a male guardian, effective immediately. On the same day, government officials also confirmed that a decision had been reached to remove the ban on women drivers, with a decree to that effect to be issued before the end of 2008. Lifting the ban on driving would be a move of great symbolic value, as Saudi Arabia is the only country to prohibit women behind the steering wheel, and this fact is the most often cited example to demonstrate the oppression of Saudi women. Also, on Tuesday, January 29, it was revealed that the Saudi Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has approved the establishment of the first women's rights organization in the kingdom, to be known as Ansar al-Mar'ah (patrons/supporters of women).

(...)

In short, the Saudi regime deserves credit for these apparent openings in terms of women's rights. Given the timing, the moves appear to be at least partly the result of constructive pressure from the international community including the United States. Needless to say, the Saudi regime still has a very long path to tread in terms of women's rights and equality, but hopefully these measures signal the beginning of a long period of steady progress, rather than merely an isolated burst of activity. The recent moves can also be taken as encouraging evidence that international diplomatic pressure can yield results. But it is critical that such pressure on the Saudi regime not abate once the long-awaited arms deal is finalized in February and a few positive steps have been taken. It is also essential that recently announced measures such as the lifting of the driving ban be carried out as planned -- authoritarian Arab regimes have become increasingly adept at timing announcements of reform to relieve international pressure, then failing to carry out the steps as promised once the outside attention has diminished. If those conditions are met, and the recent moves turn out to be merely the beginning of women's rights reform in Saudi Arabia, then the steps taken in January 2008 will have been very important indeed.

This should no be confused with a sweeping revolutionary reform that we witnessed in the 1980s. Eastern Europe was altogether different with significantly different historical trajectories. But while looking for the revolution, we might come to realize we've missed the incremental micro-changes which historians look back on and acknowledge to have gradually reordered a society.

--Sameer Lalwani

The Wall Street Journal is running an interesting piece on Alexandre Albuquerque, the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Worth a read for anyone interested in just part of what's at stake in the Law of the Sea ratification debate.

-- Scott Paul

Did I hear Hillary Clinton concede tonight? I think that gesture at the end of the debates, the failure to really go after Barack Obama on a number of fronts, her sitting there with a blank-ish stare for much of the time he got into a high tempo oratory zone indicated to me that she has basically given up.

I don't like to anticipate what voters in Texas and Ohio might do -- but I spent the evening with some dedicated Hillary Clinton spear-carriers, and every one of them think that she played the "good girl" tonight -- not someone who was going to play rough with the person she thinks will be manhandled by McCain and the "dangerous times" we live in.

I've just returned from Tokyo last night -- and then took a 6 am train to New York, got back to DC just before the debates -- and thus, I may be seeing this all in a really distorted, bleary-eyed state.

But essentially, I think that while the party does remain substantially divided, I thought I saw Hillary concede and opt for graciousness rather than bitterness.

We need to see what she does -- but I think it's over, and Barack Obama will be the nominee for the 2008 Democratic presidential ticket. What an amazing run Obama has had thus far. I still don't like hype or mysticism or feel good stuff -- but he's outrun, outflanked, out-campaigned, and out-managed the Clinton camp in a massive national effort.

Obama actually won this the hard way, without a good sense of the retail, interest group politics that Hillary and Bill Clinton are masters at.

So, I may be premature -- but a hearty congratulations to Barack Obama. Now may be the time for magnanimity and embrace of Hillary Clinton, much of her message, her followers and some of her staff. This is not the time for strutting if in fact this first game is over.

It will be interesting to see what happens with McCain now -- but Obama better not underestimate him. And by the way, Hillary is right on health care, right on the strategy to help subprime loan victims, and right on much of her domestic agenda. Obama should borrow a lot more of her stuff.

And frankly, he should grab more of the "details" of the Edwards' policy team.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Hillary Clinton went out of her way to reference John Edwards a number of times, but it didn't seem forced. One of her tasks tonight was apparently to position herself as the candidate carrying Edwards's torch on economic issues. On that, she did a reasonably good job.

I was also glad to see Hillary discussing her readiness to be Commander-in-Chief without using the "dangerous world" frame.

Clinton's takeaway line, referencing Obama's use of a line first used by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, was: "That's not change you can believe in; that's change you can Xerox." It felt like a cheap shot and was received by the audience as such.

Meanwhile, as I write this, CNN reports that the Obama people are circulating a comparison between a line from Clinton during the debate and a very similar line used by John Edwards. That seems contrary to the whole point of Obama's rebuttal to the "plagiarism" charges, which is that people don't care about or like this tit for tat stuff. I agree -- and the Obama campaign should cut it out too. It doesn't hurt Clinton at all and it undercuts Obama's credibility on political change, which is central to his candidacy.

I do wish there were more substance in the foreign policy aspect of the discussion. Unfortunately, it seems the campaign only has room for Iraq, Iran, occasionally Israel/Palestine, and the hot region/country of the day (Cuba today, Pakistan last month). Sadly, there has been very little discussion of international institutions, approaches to failing states, peace operations and other critical topics. I'd like to see more attention paid to these issues -- but I won't hold my breath.

-- Scott Paul

(A shorter (very well edited) version of this article appeared on The Guardian's "Comment is Free" website.)

Damien Corsetti may be the Ron Kovic of our time. Corsetti is one of the featured commentators in Alex Gibney's powerful, Oscar-nominated film, Taxi to the Dark Side.

Unlike Kovic, Corsetti was not visibly, physically maimed and hasn't yet become a full-fledged anti-war radical, but he's someone whose soul seems to be struggling hard to cope with the ugliness of America's Darkness-at-Noon style treatment of combat detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he's letting you and me -- those of us who remain distant from and have subcontracted out the task of crushing bad Muslims -- see into his nightmares.

Corsetti was a military intelligence interrogator at military detention facilities the US managed at Bagram in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. He and some of his comrades in arms had a hand in torturing and eventually institutionally murdering a young, hopeful Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar who had just purchased his first cab as a way to help earn hard cash for his family. Corsetti was nicknamed "Monster" and the "King of Torture" by his fellow soldiers. He deployed a technique that many interrogators asked him to use titled "Fear up, harsh."

Just back from Japan -- thanks to Sameer Lalwani and Scott Paul for keeping the wheels rolling while I was in air. I'm in New York today doing some meetings that will touch on the Annapolis Summit efforts to achieve a new framework for Israel-Palestine negotiations and also discussing how to tilt US-Cuba engagement in a new direction.

Many are asking via email what I know about Michael Bloomberg and the chances of him running. Despite the extraordinary abilities of his spokesman Kevin Sheekey to excite the press and flirt with the notion that Bloomberg "might" run, all of my sources -- all of them -- who are close to Bloomberg tell me that he's shut down the Bloomberg/Hagel option and the Bloomberg/Anybody option.

Now for an open thread and a question.

I've already stated that on the Republican side, I think Dems can rejoice if John McCain really has offered Florida Governor Charlie Crist the VP slot. But I think to get turnout up and to generate sizzle on the Republican side, McCain has one option (scary as it is to some) and that is Mike Huckabee as VP. Others think he'll take McCain -- again that would be a huge gift to the Democratic ticket.

But on the Dem side, I have written that I believe the structural depth of the Obama campaign and Clinton campaign is so solid and deep on both sides in the party that they need each other. If Obama comes out of Texas and Ohio with a growing lead in delegates, he should head the ticket and Hillary Clinton should agree to be his running mate (if he has the magnanimity and smarts to ask) -- and likewise if Hillary stages some kind of breakaway reversal of trends and trounces Obama in Ohio and Texas -- and show that the big state wins are all on her side, and the superdelegates play to that form as well, Obama should be her running mate.

Clearly, I'm familiar with all of the commentary on why neither side will accept the other. I'm not sure that is true, but it would be silly to ignore the antipathy of both camps for the other.

But I'm interested in how all of you see the VP choices on both the Republican ticket with John McCain -- and then VP possibilities for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Stay civil -- smart -- share your thoughts.

-- Steve Clemons

Reuters is reporting an important story on the reinstatement of over a thousand candidates for the March 14th Iranian parliamentary elections who were initially struck from the lists by government committees:

Over 2,000 registered candidates out of 7,200 were initially barred by government committees. Moderate politicians, including former president Mohammad Khatami and some of Ahmadinejad's backers, have complained over the mass disqualifications.

However, the conservative-run Guardian Council, which has stopped hundreds of reformists running in past votes, has now reinstated more than 1,000 hopefuls to run for parliament.

Potential candidates in Iran face a vetting process. Those who pass the filter of government committees, have to be approved by the council.

The council has the authority to reinstate those who were initially rejected or bar more hopefuls based on criteria such as loyalty to the Islamic system.

It was not clear how many moderate candidates were among those reinstated, but reformists accuse the council of not reinstating leading moderate hopefuls.

The expected challenge to Ahmadinejad and the hardliners by the Khatami-Rafsanjani alliance, and joined to some extent by Mehdi Karroubi, could hang in the balance depending on how many from this reformist camp are actually eligible to compete. Before these reinstatements, only 25% of their slate was eligible. Khatami and Rafsanjani planned to appeal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei before the final lists are released on March 5th. Should there be sizeable reinstatements of reformists by the Council, it might signal Khameini is moving to reign in Ahmadinejad. After all the Guardian Council is composed of twelve jurists selected by the Supreme Leader -- six directly and six indirectly.

But even if this were to happen, Ahmadinejad has proven politically resourceful in the past. After two successive blows in December of 2006 with the loss of the Assembly of Experts elections and the first round of UN sanctions, and the early whispers of a powerful Khatami-Rafsanjani alliance, Ahmadinejad was reeling. But he punched right back by almost provoking an international confrontation with the IRGC's seizure of British sailors in March of 2007.

Ahmadinejad thrives on controversies that draw the ire of the international community but give him domestic political capital by thumbing his nose at the U.S., also allowing him to evade responsibility for the economic blunders of his administration. So if the reformists received license to effectively challenge him and his cohorts in the parliamentary elections, he might have an incentive to manufacture yet another incident.

--Sameer Lalwani

The Bush administration has bent over backwards to cater to business interests. At least, that's been my perception from the outside.

Last week, I met with an influential operative in the business community about the Law of the Sea. We agree on the importance of U.S. accession to the Convention as critical to national security, business interests and global sustainability -- but probably little else.

This individual had a very different perspective on the White House's relationship to business. He told me -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that the White House rarely gives them advance notice when the administration does or says something that affects their interests.

In particular, he recalled with anger the maelstrom surrounding Vice President Cheney's energy task force. He promised me that there was nothing secret about the meetings and that some of them even took place in the offices of a trade association. And he continued -- furious at this point -- to complain that the task force's recommendations were more or less ignored as the White House presented its energy package to Congress.

None of this changes my view that Cheney's energy task force was highly irregular or that business interests carry too much weight in the Bush administration. But the fact that these folks don't feel heard in a very, very friendly White House speaks to the general incompetence of the administration and helps to explain why no one, not even Bush's natural base, wants more of the same.

-- Scott Paul

Hillary Clinton told her supporters last night: "One of us is ready to be commander-in-chief in a dangerous world."

Setting up the "dangerous world" frame is right out of the Frank Luntz playbook. I'd link to his writings on national security but I can't seem to find them online -- I only have hard copies. Basically, Luntz's message is if you make the world seem dangerous and scary, voters will choose conservative candidate more willing to confront problems and bad guys directly with guns and bombs.

That's not the direction of Hillary's policy or even most of her rhetoric -- she's trying to focus on the experience gap, as she has every right to do. But candidates' messaging can have lasting effects on the electorate.

Including this talking point once is no big deal, but it had better not feature regularly in Hillary's stump speeches. She and her staff know better.

-- Scott Paul

It's about 3 am EST and I'm getting on a plane in 9 minutes here at Narita Airport in Japan. . .finally.

But I'm very pleased that the Philadelphia Inquirer ran my Cuba reactions as an oped today. But scan the papers, there is a lot of informed commentary out there -- and really very, very little that thinks that maintaining the status quo makes any sense.

Are the campaigns taking stock of this?

-- Steve Clemons

Joshua Micah Marshall and his Talking Points Memo franchise have just won a prestigious Polk Award. This is a key development in recognition of blogging.

The judges sited specifically Josh and his team's work in connecting the dots in the patterned firing of US attorneys.

Josh is a co-parent of The Washington Note. He pushed me for two years to start this -- he got the site designed and launched -- and he has been one of my closest friends and partners on many big policy and political efforts.

So, to the other dad of TWN, congrats on setting such a high standard that we all aspire to in the blogosphere.

But don't worry Sam (son on Josh's shoulders), we aren't jealous. . .

-- Steve Clemons

In his speech tonight, John McCain referenced a "holiday from history" to deride his opponents -- well, really, mostly Barack Obama.

Guess what -- STOLEN WORDS! There's an epidemic.

Charles Krauthammer seems to be the proprietor of this cliche -- although lots of others have used the term.

We think Krauthammer should be given more nods for at least heading the google list (although I should add that a cursory survey I did from Narita Airport also doesn't produce anything I can find before his 2003 reference).

But to our knowledge, John McCain has not given him credit.

But can Barack exploit this vulnerability? Hillary?

-- Steve Clemons

Toles (c) 2008 The Washington Post. Used by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.

This so completely captures where we as a nation are. Forget about Cuba.

-- Steve Clemons

Joe Cirincione is one of the great, high energy intellectuals in Washington who knows that the stakes are big in Washington -- and that the policy battles we engage in really matter. They do.

I have enjoyed working with Cirincione -- who sort of reminds me of what it would be like if Andy Rooney was playing an expert in nuclear non-proliferation policy -- for quite a long time. I worked closely with him at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and at the Center for American Progress -- where most recently he was making waves as Senior Fellow and CAP's Director of Nuclear Policy.

Tomorrow, Joe Cirincione will be announced as the new president of the progressive and important Ploughshares Fund -- which has been ably stewarded for many years by executive director Naila Bolus. Bolus will continue in her current role working with Cirincione.

Our congrats to Joe. Our condolences to the Center for American Progress. Joe is one of the great "gets" in Washington.

I'm only sorry he's not working for us at the New America Foundation. . .but maybe I can encourage him to become a regular guest-blogger at The Washington Note.

Cirincione has been an adviser to the Obama campaign on nuclear policy and non-proliferation -- and given trends, one really must wonder how long Joe will remain in his next post. (Sorry Joe -- had to ask?!)

Now off to the airport! I'm returning to DC from Tokyo today/tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

There is no doubt that Obama is a juggernaut now. CNN just called the Wisconsin race for him -- his 9th win in a row.

I have to rush to the airport so don't have time to reflect, but it seems to me that Ohio and Texas weren't enough in themselves to hold Clinton's camp in place. She had to win Wisconsin, and that seems not to have happened.

My guess is that Obama will carry Hawaii also.

There has to be soul-searching at this point.

Congrats to Barack Obama -- but this race is STILL not over.

-- Steve Clemons

But John McCain acknowledges that he admires Governor Huckabee very much. . .

I don't buy the rumors that McCain promised Florida Governor Charlie Crist the Vice Presidential slot. If he did, Dems should rejoice. It's not as much of a utility-maximizing move as taking Huckabee on board.

But who knows. . .maybe McCain has crippled his national campaign with a promise to Crist to win Florida.

Time will tell.

Wait. . .there's more. I can't believe that John McCain just criticized Obama for saying he'd bomb an al Qaeda camp in Pakistan when McCain once sang a song about bombing Iran. Now, McCain is pushing all the high fear buttons. He used to be better than this kind of thing.

-- Steve Clemons

Paul Squassoni took this amazing shot during his recent trip to Sydney, Australia. I just had to get it up here. I like that folks are sending pics in that move "us" one way or another. I totally stole this "view from your window" concept from Andrew Sullivan (with his blessing). (larger pic version here)

I am about to depart for the airport and want to apologize to the many TWN readers in Tokyo who wanted to meet -- about a dozen folks -- but particularly TokyoTom and Cameron. I couldn't make the schedule work and came down with a throat ailment that has me silenced now. I've literally lost my voice. I did meet International Affairs Forum journalist Jason Miks -- and he can attest to what a problem I was having speaking.

I saw yesterday in the Okura Hotel locker room both Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara and former Prime Minister of Japan Toshiki Kaifu but I decided not to sideline them with questions about competing variants of Japanese nationalism, or China, Iraq, Iran, or how they feel about the US presidential contenders. But I have to say that it's quite a locker room hangout spot if you want to meet Tokyo's top brass.

I'm off to Narita. My latest on The Guardian's site on how often America misses important historic opportunities to pivot in constructive directions is here and focuses on Castro's announcement.

More later when I get back to the U.S.A.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm a big fan of Alexander Hamilton -- though there is an article on the top of my reading pile that takes on some of us Hamilton-huggers. I was amazed by how prolific, articulate, pragmatic and sensible Hamilton was. Indeed, there is an old adage: "Washington Reigned. Hamilton Ruled. And Jefferson complained."

But there was a phase in American history when lots of folks purloined Hamiltonisms and used them as their own in early 20th century American politics.

But that said, I wanted to share this odd little YouTube item that a friend just sent. I guess the moment that I left for Japan, this Deval Patrick/Barack Obama battle over "borrowed words" broke out -- and I haven't followed it closely. I will 'try' to see whether there is any there there when I get back to town -- but it's not the kind of thing that interest me.

Here is the video clip though:

I want to be fair and balanced in this not too deep critique of the current battles over whether Obama has stolen Deval's politicking material. Maybe Obama's campaign really is gathering and adopting style, tone, and veneer from other campaigns. Not sure why it matters -- other than showing he is less authentic than the marketers would like all to believe.

But Hillary Clinton also borrowed an idea from me once without attribution -- but that's supposed to be what we think tank types hope happens.

But the odd thing about this is that after my original article appeared and was written about and referenced in lead editorials of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and (I think) the Wall Street Journal, and literally mentioned in dozens of other editorials around the country and in many follow up opeds -- and House and Senate hearings with Colin Powell and mentioned as well by Coalition Provisional Authority chief L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer and UN Iraq Chief Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Oh wait, and yes -- Senators Mary Landrieu and Lisa Murkowski offered a non-binding resolution that passed in the Senate right after my New York Times article appeared -- referencing it in their speeches on the subject -- and on which Hillary Clinton voted affirmatively.

If one even googles "Alaska Permanent Fund" and Iraq, my stuff is the first referenced.

Despite all this, Clinton and Senator John Ensign co-authored a Wall Street Journal oped making a point similar to mine that we needed an "Alaska Permanent Fund" approach to helping to build a set of new winners and new stakeholders among the citizens of Iraq. There was no acknowledgment of the New America Foundation's efforts -- but more importantly within the Senate chambers, no acknowledgment that Mary Landrieu and Lisa Murkowski had already hatched that baby.

This was one of my more vain moments actually -- and I couldn't believe that someone I liked in the Senate was launching something that had a preceding history in the world of think tankism and in the Senate. I spoke to someone in her office who said "Sorry. . .but Hillary really thought it was her own idea. . ."

So basically, I'm glad she borrowed the concept in any case -- but I think both sides need to be careful about how deep the accusations of intellectual property "borrowing without acknowledgment" go.

And yes I know -- borrowing rhetoric for a national campaign -- "stealing words as some want to say" -- is a much higher priority than a revenue-sharing scheme that might have altered the way Iraqi citizens felt about their 'temporary' Occupiers and their own stakes in taking their country forward.

-- Steve Clemons

Later in the day, I plan to grade the various public statements from leading American politicians below. But one criteria I will use is whether they evince any humility at all about the fact that America's many decades old embargo failed to alter the political path of the Cuban government.

I will grade on the basis of whether these politicians are seeing and responding to reality or blinded by a perversion of ideology and the calculation that they think will help them with the vote in Miami but which undermines US national interests.

Lexington Institute Senior Fellow Anya Landau French -- a former senior staff member on the Senate Finance Committee -- has this great article out today on the Washington Post's site, "Castro's Departure Means the US Failed".

I have one big quibble with it -- but the piece is excellent overall. Here's the lead in:

Fidel Castro leaving office on his own terms is not the kind of change that successive American presidents envisioned for Cuba. In fact, it's a sign that U.S. efforts to isolate that country and bring down its socialist government have failed. It's a sign that those efforts should be revisited.

Despite a 46-year U.S. embargo, Cuba today is anything but a pariah state. Canada, China and Spain have made major investments in the country over the last decade, particularly in tourism, nickel and energy. Venezuela continues to trade cut-rate oil for Cuban doctors. And the island remains a popular destination for vacationers from around the world.

These relationships have helped the Cuban economy grow -- 7 percent last year, according to CIA estimates. Moreover, they helped prevent the frustration-fueled overthrow that U.S. leaders long hoped would end Castro's regime. In effect, treating Cuba as an all-or-nothing proposition netted the United States nothing. Our interests have gone unserved and our ideals unmet.

But while Castro's departure is playing out differently from expectations, it still provides an opportunity. And the U.S. can either continue a policy rooted in ineffective sanctions or tailor its policy to the new possibilities of post-Fidel Cuba.

Some countries friendly to the United States are already moving ahead. Spain has initiated a human rights dialogue with Cuba. Brazil's President Lula da Silva, who recently offered Cuba a $1-billion line of credit, provides the island an alternative to its dependence on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

There are many steps the next U.S. president could take, short of offering economic aid or normalizing trade relations, that could increase our influence in Cuba without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.

My quibble is with the last line above: without giving up leverage associated with the embargo.

I think that one of the realities that needs to be confronted is that when I was in Havana, I met some Israelis involved with managing Cuban citrus groves. I saw a Benetton store in the new Havana. I saw Chinese selling major port infrastructure loading equipment to Cuba. British Petroleum was having a cocktail party on the roof of my hotel. Tourism is high.

There is always a sense of leverage that the US thinks it has -- but that leverage is now mostly fictional -- as Cuba has found other thoroughfares for growth.

We need to stop thinking that we have "leverage." The whole point of Anya Landau French's article is that US policy failed and that the embargo has failed -- so let's drop the fiction about the US having leverage in the embargo.

The only leverage America has on lifting or maintaining the embargo is with an aging, Castro-obsessed, reactionary population in Miami that thankfully is being taken over by a more rational contingent of Cuban-Americans who have either rethought their views or who just don't carry the same views as their elders in their younger portfolios of experience.

-- Steve Clemons

I will grade the statements later made by the various national leaders below. But I think it's important to create a semi-central repository of some of the more important leadership responses.

Interestingly, Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA-03) on a conference call this morning said that he believes Obama and Clinton both are more flexible than their public statements indicate.

Here are some of the statements I have seen:

The New America Foundation/US-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative just hosted this high octane media conference call that included more than 50 journalists and featured the following commentators:

Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA-03), US House of Representatives

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Co-Chair, New America Foundation/US-Cuba Policy Initiative; former Chief of Staff, US State Department; blogger, The Havana Note

Julia Sweig, Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Peter Kornbluh, Director, Cuba Documentation Project, National Security Archive, George Washington University

Sarah Stephens, Executive Director, Center for Democracy in the Americas and blogger, The Havana Note

Jake Colvin, Director, USA*Engage, National Foreign Trade Council and blogger, The Havana Note

moderator

Patrick Doherty, Director, New America Foundation, US-Cuba Policy Initiative and blogger, The Havana Note

I would have loved to have been on the call too but couldn't swing it from Japan -- but I hear from many sources that the audio clip here is excellent.

-- Steve Clemons

A UT Austin/LBJ School student of Economics Professor James K. Galbraith has submitted the following question to CNN for the CNN/Univision debates on Thursday between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

It's perfect -- and may push these candidates beyond their risk-averse and tepid reactions to the news that Fidel Castro's last term as Cuba's President will come to an end on February 24th:

"The United States has maintained an embargo against Cuba since 1961, separating families, causing personal hardship, abrogating the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to travel freely -- and all with absolutely no political effect on Cuba.

Do you agree that, as a policy, the embargo has failed? And if so, what steps will you take to end it?"

The student has take the route of anonymity in this case -- but note to Wolf Blitzer, this is the right question to pose.

CNN should make sure this one is on the docket.

-- Steve Clemons

OK -- Which of the presidential candidates is prepared to finally break US-Cuba relations out of the anachronistic Cold War cocoon they have been frozen in and initiate a new course that benefits American interests?

Barack Obama has sketched out the initial steps of a changed direction already, while Hillary Clinton in response said that the Bush administration's management of Cuba was just fine with her until something triggered a reason to change.

When Fidel Castro hinted in December that he would be stepping down, I asked the Hillary Clinton campaign if this news was substantial enough for it to stop hugging the Bush line and consider a new groove. I was told by a Clinton adviser that if something significant occurred to justify a rethink, then a "full policy review" would be done by the Clinton team.

Well, the hint Castro gave is now real -- and this seems significant.

The ending punctuation point of Fidel Castro's tenure in office marks the conclusion of the longest serving head of state in power today (except monarchs).

The US embargo against Cuba -- which all nations but three vote against each year in the United Nations -- has utterly failed to generate any positive impact on the Cuban government or people.

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel -- and frankly all travel -- between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

This is a huge potential pivot point in US-Cuba relations. Will Hillary Clinton step up to the plate -- and will Obama move beyond the somewhat timid proposals he offered previously and go to the gold standard in US-Cuba relations articulated by Senator Chris Dodd?

And will John McCain just ignore history's offered up opportunity or will he continue to paw the dirt and blow steam at the island nation just off the Florida coast?

One interesting US presidential race tidbit involves Fidel Castro -- who is know quite dismissive of and sparring with John McCain over McCain's accusations that Cuban agents engaged in torture in Vietnam. However, before this spat, Castro said that the "unbeatable" US presidential ticket would have both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on it.

Something to consider. . .

-- Steve Clemons

I have to admit that I was a bit peeved at Ron Paul for a sleezy ad that his team did with the line in it -- "no more visas for students from terrorist nations." He was supposed to be the Liberal candidate -- that is liberal, in the European sense, or the libertarian kind in the CATO sense.

But on the whole -- Ron Paul's views to end America's Middle East crusade and his belief (for the most part) in personal liberty are ones that should keep him in Congress if not the White House.

But he's now under attack from the Right -- as anti-war Republican Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD-01) was.

A few hours ago, from my current perch in Tokyo, I was checking the Ron Paul for Congress website, and he had raised just about $325,000 this quarter -- which is in a banner across his home page. Now, as I write this post, he has surged $726,68.52 as of 9:36 PM Central Time. What is going on?

Digging through my email, I found a note from Ron Paul.

This is what Paul sent, and since he mentioned the now Congressionally defeated Wayne Gilchrest of whom I was fond, I will reprint it in full here:

February 18, 2008

The DC neocons think their old dream is about to come true. They think they can defeat me in the Republican congressional primary in Texas on March 4th. And you know what? They may be right.

My opponent, who describes himself as a traditional conservative, is a dedicated servitor of all the special interests who have given us the disaster of recent years, from unconstitutional wars to a looming recession, from huge deficits to massive new welfare programs.

A Republican operative allied with the worst forces in DC recently said: "Give what you can [to Ron Paul's opponent]. Ron Paul is running scared -- using his Presidential campaign's donors' money to subsidize a desperate last-minute attempt to save his Congressional seat."

That is a lie, of course. It is illegal to use presidential campaign donations in my congressional race. The congressional campaign has to stand on its own. But so far, we have raised only about a third of what a well-funded effort would need.

In my 10 terms in Congress, I have not only been able to serve my constituents, and help them, for example, negotiate federal red-tape. I have also been able to defend our principles of less spending, lower taxes, no inflation, and strict adherence to the Constitution. Some people in DC laugh at the idea that I should obey my oath of office, and ask first of any proposed legislation, is it constitutional? But I know that you share my support for the vision of the framers.

My friend Congressmen Wayne Gilchrest (R-Maryland) was just defeated in his primary election by a neocon fraud similar to the one I face. My friend Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) is under heavy pressure as well. People like our hand-picked opponents will do anything to gain and keep power. They represent everything that is wrong with DC.

If I am defeated in the upcoming congressional primary, our ideas will be held to have been defeated as well. It will be proclaimed from the rooftops in DC that such "ridiculous and outmoded notions" as the free market, sound money, personal liberty, limited government, and a pro-American foreign policy are through.

I am determined not to let this happen. All that you and I believe in is far too important to the future of our country, and to everyone and everything we love, to let the neocons dance on its grave.

Please, help me stop the lies, the distortions, the pressure groups, the special interests that benefit from DC rip-offs. There is still time to run radio and tv ads, to set up phone banks, to get out the vote. But unless you help, my reelection to Congress may be in jeopardy. Please help me return to Congress to fight for the people of my district, and for the ideas that can save our country from the path to trouble we are now on.

I hesitated to ask you, since you have already done so much. But my wife Carol said, "When you need help, you ask your best friends." So I do ask you, to hold out your hand in support.

Please give today http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com, as generously and as quickly as you can.

Sincerely,

Ron

I think Ron Paul's voice has become vital in our national debate and felt that more should be aware of how the Iraq War has become the sad rallying cry of the right.

I'm an Independent -- and I believe that the Republicans and Democrats are both complicit in our current mess. But it does really bother me that Republicans who opposed the war are under attack from a new resurgent mania of Iraq War fantasists, and that Dems in Congress failed to pull the plug on this conflict and could have.

-- Steve Clemons

1. Pakistan Elections Today

Preliminary results trickling in seem to indicate that, as expected, there will be no clear winner with each of the three major parties holding their own with their base -- the PPP in Sindh, the PML-N in Punjab, and the MQM in Karachi. However, it remains to be seen whether Musharraf will be the big loser.

There are already reports of voter fraud, intimidation, buying votes, and low turnout according to reports on the ground from Inter-Press Service. For more updates, check out the Dawn election blog for updates and GeoTV's election site for national and local assembly as well as a "precinct by precinct" breakdown.

2. The Pakistani Military-Industrial Complex

NPR has a good story mentioning the efforts by Army Chief of Staff General Kiyani, who recently replaced Musharraf at the post, to decouple the military from the Pakistani economy:

Many people feel the army now may be moving away from that kind of dominance, under Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the man who replaced Musharraf as the army's chief of staff.

Over the past month, Kiyani has made some key -- and bold -- steps.
First, he declared that no military officials could have any dealings with a politician unless it is cleared through him first -- a provision that includes President Musharraf.

Then Kiyani called back scores of military officers from plum civilian positions that were handed out as perks by Musharraf, powerful positions in ministries such as transportation, communication and the water and power authority.

Nasim Zehra, a security analyst, says Gen. Kiyani appears aware that he needs to roll back some of the military's power.

"I think [it's] the mother of necessity in this case," Zehra said, "because it's a question of the institution's reputation, institution's well-being, and the country's well-being at stake."

But Kiyani must move slowly in order to prevent any backlash. Many generals have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Professor Hoodbhoy thinks Kiyani may make some positive changes in the short term -- but he says the army has no intention of going back to the barracks permanently.

While this might be an important step from a public relations standpoint, it remains to be seen how far Kiyani will pursue this tack. Ayasha Siddiqa's groundbreaking book Military Inc. chronicles and theorizes the increasing and seemingly inextricable ties of the military with the Pakistani economy and business. Coining the term Mil-bus, she indicates that such anarrangement yields economic growth without development (or uneven growth), something the U.S. should consider when revamping its aid strategy.

However, it is also worth noting that the public doe not appear to have perceived or fully appreciated this growing trend. World Public Opinion polling shows a majority has strong to moderate confidence in the current government's handling of the economy despite a two-thirds majority believing the economy is not on the right track for them. Equally surprising, two-thirds of respondents specifically see the army as playing an important role in economic growth and development.

3. Counterinsurgency Strategies for the Tribal Areas

I would urge establishment of a Global Tribal Fund to raise money from around the world and direct funding into a three-pronged strategy consisting of:

1. Tribal Scouts: a coalition of locally recruited tribesmen and tribeswomen who would begin to contact and negotiate with the tribes in the border areas. The scouts would meet with chiefs to find out what they need for their people. The Pashtun and Balochi people have come together before in jirgas, or councils, to unite their tribes. Can areas of agreement be negotiated with some of their leaders? This would allow inroads to an area now inaccessible.

2. Tribal Life Support. This would include provision of water, roads, transportation, health care, education, employment opportunities and security to live and work. A major investment in infrastructure -- starting with building roads -- would need to be made. We should provide an infusion of trained Pashto- and Balochi-speaking administrators, builders, designers, health-care providers and educators to jump-start this program.

3. Tribal Security Training, for the Frontier Corps -- the paramilitary force consisting of close to 85,000 locally recruited tribesmen who know the language, the tribes and the culture and are the logical security forces. Right now they are poorly supported and funded. Training, equipment, financial resources and compensation should be provided so that they can resist domination by the insurgency.

Extending the U.S. alliance beyond the military to form broader civilian support has been proposed by others including Sen. Biden. It is especially pressing after having forfeited the opportunity numerous times, most notably after a major earthquake in northern Pakistan that revealed the Pakistani government's inadequacies and U.S. obtuseness. A proposed large-scale and proactive U.S. relief program might have changed the course of downward-spiraling support in the region. Even Cuba managed to send more relief than we did.

One thing to be wary of is trying to end-run the Pakistani military, which could prove difficult and problematic. After all, it behooves us to build up the Pakistani military's capacity to patrol the borders and take some ownership over a counterinsurgency strategy so we're not left footing the bill indefinitely.

--Sameer Lalwani

I'm working on some writing this morning at the Hotel Okura in Tokyo -- where I stayed the last time I came over when accompanying George Soros on a trip to kick the tires of the health of Japan's civil society.

On my last morning here on that last trip, in the Orchid Room at breakfast I ran into and winked at (but didn't speak to) Asst. Secretary of State for East Asia Affairs Christopher Hill -- who was then on yet another near breakthrough in the Six Party Talks with North Korea. Condoleezza Rice arrived the day I left -- though she was supposed to be here the day before -- and I always wondered if there was a chance the delay was because of the fear that she might bump into George Soros in the well-trafficked lobby of the Okura and not know how to manage an encounter with the world's real transformational diplomat.

But I am excited today because I'll be meeting again Yukio Satoh -- Director of the Japan Institute of International Affairs and former Japan Ambassador to the United Nations.

Satoh is one of the more interesting and sensible strategic minds in Japan today and long ago when a senior foreign ministry official, he was the background architect and animator of the ASEAN Regional Forum, a modest but important vehicle for the great and small powers around Asia to discuss and occasionally resolve their security disputes.

I've been thinking that an ASEAN Regional Forum like model is what the Middle East needs in the not too distant future to softly align together the security interests of Israel and the moderate Sunni governments -- and eventually all players in the Middle East.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the JIIA are sponsoring the conference. I'll report more later.

-- Steve Clemons

Kosovo has declared independence and America will recognize it as a state. Consequently, Russia will eventually make us pay a high price in other aspects of our national security portfolio for this international sleight-of-hand.

What saddens me is that I have learned from a source close to the Kremlin that the Russians secretly suggested a road map and time table for Kosovo independence to the Bush administration. The Russians would never have been pleased with Kosovo going it alone -- but there were things to manage Russian issues with Georgia, Serbia, Kosovo and the region that could have been simultaneously managed to keep both sides from undermining the other.

The Russians believe that their suggestions were ignored because the U.S. wanted to be able to declare a victory -- which is harder to do when negotiating outcomes that are face-saving to both sides.

America and NATO will now be in less of a position to help Georgia and other former Eastern European states and the US may pay a price in its ability to forge a common position with Russia on Iran.

For some excellent commentary on these issues, read Dimitri Simes' piece in Foreign Affairs titled "Losing Russia" as well as this exchange between Simes and Frank Wisner on Kosovo, and these comments from my colleague Anatol Lieven.

-- Steve Clemons

I've had a busy but excellent couple of days in the San Francisco Bay area. Thanks to Ben Rosengart for organizing a meeting with a dozen people in Berkeley. The discussion we had was great.

Some have asked why I hadn't noted that former Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) had endorsed Barack Obama. I hadn't written anything because I've been on the run out here and pretty much offline -- but I note it now. Chafee is one of my favorite "formers". He has a strategic mind, and if Obama does eventually prevail, having someone like Chafee in a key policy-shaping role would be important as unlike some in the Obama foreign policy top tier circle, Lincoln Chafee understands the importance of establishing priorities among competing national objectives and gets that fully considering and building in the downside of potential actions is vital.

I will eventually get my Kenya commentary up -- but probably tomorrow from Tokyo. To those in Tokyo who have been asking for a time and place for a coffee meeting -- not quite sure yet. Need to get over there first to figure out the schedule.

In the mean time, have a great open thread.

Oh wait, I did this interview about blogging with a visiting journalist from Pakistan for the Pakistani Spectator. Some might enjoy it.

-- Steve Clemons

Shooting down a spy satellite whose orbit is decaying is either an exercise in super power vanity or an action designed to escalate the further militarization of space.

The Chinese shot down a satellite of their own last year and essentially took the first shot of this kind to break out of informal norms that powers would not formally flex muscles that showed their ability to potentially blind the space-based intel machinery of their rivals.

Even if those who agitated for this "shot" were not thinking in such GeoStratSpace terms and wanted to try and destroy the satellite just because they think they can, the "bad politics" as my colleague Jeffrey Lewis (aka ArmsControlWonk) of this are quite substantial.

-- Steve Clemons

MoveOn just announced that they'll run a petition ad in USA Today with the following text:

"The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice."

I was disappointed and surprised that no one was doing anything like this. I'm glad MoveOn is stepping up to the plate.

-- Scott Paul

Update: Important detail originally omitted from this post: MoveOn has endorsed Obama. Two readers suggest that MoveOn's political goals influenced their decision to run this campaign. They are probably right, but this is still the right message directed at the right people.

George W. Bush certainly seems like he likes to strangle things. He's been trying to strangle Cuba and Cuban-American families with tightened restrictions on family-related travel to emphasize how much every President of the United States since Eisenhower has tried (and failed) to undermine Fidel Castro's government.

Now, Bush yesterday started to strangle Syria more tightly. Arguing that Syria is not doing enough to stop the movement of terrorists between Iraq and Syria, Bush issued an Executive Order increasing the number of Syrian officials whose financial assets can be held.

So -- someone on the press beat with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, ask these two presidential hopefuls if they agree with the President's action against Syria or not? If so, why? If not, what reasons would they as President use to undo our counter this action.

I'll give you my answer. Bush's move is reckless -- and threatens to add further stress to a region that is wondering whether Bush's initiative to achieve some kind of Israel/Palestine deal is real or contrived.

Syria must be a party to any arrangement with the broader Arab world -- and thus far, Syria has been on the whole reasonably behaved with regard to Israel. When Israel attacked some warehouses that Seymour Hersh argues were not nuclear weapons related, Syria restrained itself from attacking back and did not unleash agents into Israel to create domestic strife.

But beyond that, I have no idea if terrorists are really moving between Iraq and Syria or not -- but I do know that the Syrian government itself sees zero benefit to hosting insurgents or Islamic radicals in its country. The Syrian government is as worried about the impact of anti-government Islamist militancy within its borders as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.

What I do know is that Syria is hosting more than 1.2 million refugees from Iraq and that the United Nations and Europe have been applauding and publicly commending Syria and Jordan, which has another million. This refugee problem is a function of the American invasion, and it's simply outrageous that the United States would move to further punish Syria when it is carrying much of the load for our Middle East actions.

I really want to hear what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would do in this case.

-- Steve Clemons

Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, got this fantastic clip of Barack Obama speaking about US policy towards Latin America at the TC Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia -- and made some apt comments about Cuba and Venezuela.

This is a great clip and an example of Barack Obama-style foreign policy that I strongly support. I just haven't heard much from him reflecting this kind of strategic sense of key factors and their synergies applied to other regions of the world.

But in this talk, he reiterates his intention to engage the world's tough leaders -- and mentions Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro as examples.

Obama emphasizes that we've been "neglecting" Latin America because of our distraction in Iraq -- and he's absolutely right. He weaves in China by suggesting that it is "sending the diplomats" and "building roads all throughout Latin America." Again, he's right on this.

In a perfect world I would have liked to hear him say that opening up travel with Cuba, and commerce, and exchange with Americans writ large -- engagement in its fullest sense -- would be the way to send a signal not only through Latin America but globally that America is ready to take a very different course in its relations with the entire world. The Cold War rages at its worst still in only one place and that is in US-Cuba relations. Even North Korea is rapidly thawing.

Furthermore, my own realist edge wants us to engage Cuba and Cubans -- for our interests -- as a warming on that front will put some speed bumps in the way of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who has been trying to position himself as the inheritor of Fidel Castro's mantle in South and Central America.

Obama has been great on US-Cuba policy generally, so my hopes to hear more on this -- more regularly -- may be misplaced.

But it is useful to hear this kind of detail from Obama about foreign policy -- particularly his awareness of China's global charm offensive and of the costs of American distraction in the Middle East.

-- Steve Clemons

So, tomorrow I'll be meeting a few readers at Cafe Roma in Berkeley at 4 pm at 2960 College Avenue.

Frequent commenter Ben Rosengart is coordinating.

-- Steve Clemons

Every week -- usually on Tuesdays (but not this week) -- I chat about American politics with radio show host Deborah Cameron on 702 ABC Sydney radio. I really enjoy it and find her a very well informed, thoughtful host who digs into a lot in a short ten minutes.

I'm up on her show today -- in about 15 minutes -- at 6:15 pm EST or 10:15 am Sydney time. Sorry for the late notice, but it's becoming a "just in time world".

-- Steve Clemons

I am a Grinch when it comes to rallies. I don't like the noise, the spinwheels, the signs, and the illusion of joy. The high flying speeches and smiles, the ritual of orchestrated applause -- the happy screaming. I don't like hype. I want detail.

I want to know more about why Hillary did this or Obama did that. There are differences between them -- but even their campaign sites are thin on details and proposals.

I agree completely with this editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal that despite Hillary Clinton hoping a debate might help give her a push, more exposure to serious policy discussion is better, not worse, for the country -- and Obama should jump at the chance:

When a political candidate starts demanding more debates, it's usually because his or her campaign needs a lift.

In recent days, Hillary Clinton and some of her key Wisconsin supporters have tried to pressure Barack Obama into debating at Marquette University in Milwaukee before Wisconsin's big presidential primary Feb. 19.

Clinton and her political friends obviously favor a debate for more than civic reasons. Yet Obama should wholeheartedly accept the invitation anyway.

The Illinois senator is going to need Wisconsin -- both now and in November -- if he wants to become president. Our swing state deserves its own debate with questions focusing on Wisconsin, the Midwest and the economy.

Hillary Clinton's juggernaut got dealt a mighty blow by her team's failure to take the various caucuses seriously. Obama's team was out in those caucus states in force.

If Obama's team begins to think along similar lines as Patti Solis Doyle did -- that there are things we don't need to take seriously now (like debates!) -- then the Obama team could find itself vulnerable in new ways.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't been doing many coffee house meetings during my travels lately because my schedule has been out of control -- but for those interested and in the respective corners of the world I'm going to -- I can meet tomorrow (Thursday) in either San Francisco or Berkeley mid-day or early evening.

The way these things work is someone figures out a good coffee house where a small group can meet -- sometimes its 2 people and sometimes 30 but usually just a handful -- and we chat for an hour. I'm flexible tomorrow on time and place in San Francisco.

Then I arrive Sunday afternoon in Tokyo and will be there through Wednesday morning. I'll be at the Okura Hotel, so any venue chosen would have to be nearby. Hope to meet some folks over there. Had a great meeting with TWN readers when last in Japan.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama has just announced support for a national infrastructure bank -- similar to the one that Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel have been pushing for in Congress.

This is really important for the nation -- and helps to get back to sensible thinking about rebuilding the foundation on which this country's commerce, jobs base, social networks, just about everything that requires connectivity is based. Dems -- particularly budget hawks -- are in a bind because the stress on the discretionary part of the national budget is going to preempt any 'politics of optimism' if we can't distinguish between capital investments in national infrastructure that will help drive forward growth and gains for the economy -- and other kinds of disbursements that have less of an impact on economic growth.

This is great. To be fair, Hillary Clinton has talked a lot about infrastructure in the debates and in her speeches. . .but to my knowledge she had not proposed anything as tangible as this national infrastructure bank concept.

It's about time -- and it makes sense. Good for Senator Obama. I hope that Hillary Clinton joins up to the idea.

Here are Obama's words on the subject delivered today in Janesville, Wisconsin at a GM assembly plant:

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years.

This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs -- many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong.

And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.

Truth in advertising. The New America Foundation where I work is working hard to move national infrastructure investment forward as evident in this article by Samuel Sherraden and this piece, "Public Investment Works" by Sherle R. Schwenninger and Bernard L. Schwartz.

-- Steve Clemons

I don't think that the Dem race is near over -- but it's wise to seriously consider the lines of attack that John McCain's team will take against Hillary and/or Obama -- both if they are partnered on the final ticket.

Joe Conason outlines some of the material floating around in the darker corners of the Republican dominated blogosphere about Obama and Kenya. Conason doesn't parse through all of the material -- but from my own reading of this stuff -- he captures the most important nuggets.

I've been doing my own digging into Obama's approach to Kenya and its political situation and find things to applaud and worry about. It's a weird story in a way -- and there are some duplicitous folks in Kenya attempting to take advantage of their perceived closeness to Obama -- but that doesn't mean that there haven't been some missteps by the Senator there.

More on that later.

-- Steve Clemons

In 1988, voter turnout in the primary season hit a then-record of 35 million -- 23 million of these were Democratic and 12 million Republican.

And we're not saying "President Dukakis".

-- Steve Clemons

Thanks to RT for sending in this blip -- which may in some convoluted way have actually come from National Review but can't find the source.

Two of the Maryland Congressional races I was watching last night produced a mixed result.

In MD-04, challenger Donna Edwards was trying to unseat Democratic incumbent Al Wynn -- and she won. Two of my close blogging and activist collaborators -- Matt Stoller and Dave Meyer -- were out canvassing the district last night in miserably cold and icy weather. Edwards' win is in part a sign of the growing strength of "netroots activism." Frankly, a lot of Obama's support -- though not nearly all -- comes from this same progressive insurgency.

But in the Republican primary, Wayne Gilchrest whom I admired for voting against the Iraq War and for maintaining moderate sensibilities in a pretty conservative district lost to Maryland State Senator Andy Harris -- who is far more conservative.

Hopefully, Harris will be challenged by a strong Dem in the November race.

-- Steve Clemons

Obama is genuinely in the lead for the first time in this election. Before the Maryland prediction was announced, analysts have Obama leading Hillary Clinton by 8 delegates when counting both pledged and committed superdelegates.

His lead is razor thin, but it is a lead. He has momentum. She has changed parts of her campaign team -- both Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle and her Deputy Mike Henry. People inside Hillaryland tell me that Doyle and Henry were the ones who designed the plans that failed to take Iowa and all other caucuses seriously. This has been a costly, huge mistake for the Clinton campaign.

For more about the inside shuffling in the Clinton campaign, read Joshua Green's juicy piece in the Atlantic. I had to wrestle somewhat with the Clinton campaign a couple of days ago on whether Doyle was "fired" or "stepped down." This is how Joshua Green calls it (now I wish I hadn't changed my headline!):

For the many people in and around Washington who obsess over the latest machinations in Hillaryland, the firing of Solis Doyle -- and she was fired, several insiders confirm -- is a big deal, but for reasons somewhat different from what the media coverage has suggested. Her title of "campaign manager" implies a loftier role than the one she actually played. She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary), so her leaving doesn't signify an impending change of strategy, as some reports seem to assume.

Despite the evident momentum Obama has, I worry about the media beginning to slam him for an "absence of detail" that could be painful -- we'll see. Obama is the frontrunner now and leading. Hillary Clinton's team can come back -- but it's going to be a tough, hard fought trip if they do.

-- Steve Clemons

(Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner is going to miss his traveling dad)

Some folks heart Huckabees -- and I heart Weimaraners, particularly Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner and his kid sis Annie.

I just had an alert from a tuned in TWN reader who shot me the news that a Weimaraner has won "Best in Sporting Group" at the prestigious, top tier Westminster Kennel Club 132nd Annual Dog Show. (OK - have to fess up to a mistake here. . .I had misinterpreted the note that I got that a Weimaraner won "best in show" -- but actually, the Weimy won best in sporting group -- and the final on "best in show" is not yet known.)

Congrats to one of Oakley's and Annie's cousins, the now quite famous Weimy "Marge."

The results are not yet posted on the Westminster site -- but here is a clip where you can watch the competition among just the Weimaraners.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Want to check out something cool? Type in the words "amazing photo" in Google Image Search. Neat, huh? Thanks to T.M. for the alert

I have some real concerns about the hype about Barack Obama. On the other side of the equation, I have concerns about some of the decisions that Hillary Clinton made in matters of war and peace -- and her emphasis on "coercive diplomacy" rather than the broad range of diplomacy and statecraft that needs incentives and a sense of tipping point dynamics more than military muscle.

But Tucker Carlson in the following comment was honest about media complicity in selling Obama's sizzle but not engaging him on ideas, policy proposals, and the strengths and weaknesses of his proposals.

TUCKER CARLSON: I think this all increases the pressure on Barack Obama to be an actually good candidate in the general and an actually good president if he's elected. Who is Barack Obama, though (laughs), we're gonna have to stop and ask ourselves that question when the buzz wears off, don't ya think?

This is more an indictment of the media than of Obama. Carlson and his colleagues should be kicking the tires of these candidates based on contrasts in issues and policy proposals.

But Carlson's comments -- as true as they may (or may not) be -- show that this election process is still very flawed.

-- Steve Clemons

While there are still no knock-out punches on the Dem side, McCain's slim but take-all-the-delegates win in Virginia gives the McCain tally 60 more pledged delegates for a new total of 789.

McCain needs just 1191 to clinch the nomination -- and it's tough to see how Huckabee can gain any decisive ground against the war hero Senator.

-- Steve Clemons

I have no idea whether either Obama or Clinton promised to secure real voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia -- but if it hasn't come up, someone better get it on the to do list if a Dem wins the White House.

And as far as DC is concerned, my neighbors just gave Obama the nod.

-- Steve Clemons

Mike Boyer over at Foreign Policy Magazine's Passport blog just offered a number of sensible reasons why John Bolton probably would not be appointed by a President McCain to serve as Secretary of State.

Boyer is right on the whole -- though he need not worry about classifying Bolton as a neocon. He is not. He's a pugnacious nationalist cut in the shape of Jesse Helms who is allied with the neoconservatives.

But the bummer in Boyer's piece is that not only would a Bolton appointment be a huge boon for The Washington Note and its collaborators who would love to derail Bolton's nomination for another diplomatic post. Such a loss for McCain would be crippling -- just as Bill Clinton learned in some early missteps in his early tenure.

Bottom line -- Boyer is right. Bolton probably won't get the appointment.

But there are many reasons why if the GOP wins in November an early White House effort to get Bolton back on the government payroll (in a Senate confirmed slot) could be good for the country -- particularly as the White House's opposition remembers how to stall the Executive Branch.

-- Steve Clemons

Weather in Maryland is very bad right now. Bridges are shut down all around Baltimore, Annapolis, Chestertown, and the broader Eastern Shore.

So the State of Maryland where I occasionally reside has decided to get CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other network pundits some overtime pay by keeping the polls open an extended 90 minutes.

Two races I care about at the primary level are incumbent Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD-01) in the Republican House race -- and Donna Edwards in the MD-04 Democratic Primary.

I saw Gilchrest yesterday morning campaigning in 15 degree weather at an Eastern Shore DC commuter bus stop -- and TWN's good friend, the progressive activist and blogging guru Matt Stoller, is out in the miserable weather tonight canvassing for Donna Edwards.

Good luck to both Edwards and Gilchrest -- both of whom are enlightened about the need to move in a different foreign policy course than we are currently on.

-- Steve Clemons

Like some of these folks mentioned on Washington Metroblogging, I am a registered Independent -- so I didn't get to take part in the voting activity that took place today in DC's closed primary. If I had had to make a choice today, it would have been very tough -- and I probably would have written in Chuck Hagel.

Both candidates still perplex me and haven't met my bar for support. So much of the commentary about them is devoid of detail and any serious discussion of policy differences that I feel compelled to get back at strengths and weaknesses in their issue portfolios later.

But now -- Virginia is about to close its polls.

CNN projects that Obama will win Virginia. Congrats to him, but that was also expected.

The interesting news at the moment though is that Huckabee and McCain are too close to call -- at least in the opening salvo of exit poll scrimmaging.

DC and Maryland polls close in one hour.

-- Steve Clemons

So after years and years of doing nothing with the detainees at Guantanamo, the Bush administration decides to launch the "al Qaeda trials" -- which the administration is comparing to Nuremberg -- during this stretch of the political campaign season.

These trials will benefit the hawkish McCain on is own side of the aisle where many Republicans are still skeptical of the seriousness of his conservatism -- but the trials will also diminish some of the gap between the pro-war right and the ambivalent national security nationalists on the left.

In other words, the launch of the al Qaeda trials is a huge political gift to John McCain.

-- Steve Clemons

I tend to disagree with Scott Paul below about the role of superdelegates in this year's contest. Reform and redirection of the process may make sense for the future -- but once the gun went off this year, my view is that you leave the structure as it was when the race began.

Any manipulation or holier than thou attitude on what delegates should do or shouldn't do by the competing campaign machines and their followers will only be seen as meddling by the rival camp.

The rules were clear about the role of super delegates -- and they'll vote the way they believe is fit and fair. And yes, they may even change their minds in the upcoming six months.

Here is Politico's just published roster on where the superdelegates stand now.

-- Steve Clemons

NOAA has just gathered new mapping data in the Arctic. As expected, there's a wealth of minerals and resources up there that should be under U.S. control but won't be until we ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. In fact, the new data suggests that the U.S. extended continental shelf claim will be even larger than most previously thought was possible.

Of course, only countries that have joined the Law of the Sea can make such claims. That's important, because without international recognition U.S. oil, gas and mineral firms can't make the huge investments necessary to start drilling -- and the U.S. government can't help protect the fragile Arctic environment from further degradation.

Not a huge fan of dependence on oil and gas? Me neither. But environmentalists and oil industry reps. agree that our Arctic interests -- both environmental and economic -- are best served by putting our continental shelf under the protection of U.S. law, not left to Russians, Canadians, Norwegians and Danes to fight over.

Contrary to the arguments of Law of the Sea opponents, this is what real sovereignty looks like. Joining the treaty would give the U.S. exclusive economic control over resources 200 nautical miles from the shore line -- that's 4.1 million square miles, in addition to the extended continental shelf beyond that. We're talking about an area bigger than the 48 continental United States combined. Ironically, the folks most obsessed with sovereignty are the least willing to expand it in what could be the biggest land grab in ages.

Meanwhile, we wait to see if President Bush has the stomach to fight the good fight. He's already come out in support of the treaty. Now he just needs to get out in front to cash in on his investment.

-- Scott Paul

Update: Andy Revkin, the world's most knowledgeable reporter about the Arctic and climate change, covers this at Dot Earth, which has become a regular must-read for me.

The Democratic Party has a problem. Superdelegates are depriving voters of the influence they deserve by injecting themselves into the election so early.

So what's a superdelegate to do? Should they renounce their votes altogether? Should they agree to support the candidate with the most total pledged delegates in a pact analogous to the state-by-state effort to abandon the Electoral College? Should they vote for the winner of their respective states/primaries? Should they wield their influence only after all the conclusion of the primary season, as Tad Devine suggests in the New York Times last weekend? Or is the status quo just A-OK?

Personally, I'd prefer it if there were no superdelegates at all.

Everyone should agree, though, that by virtue of their influence, superdelegates should be accountable to the public and the Democratic Party members whose interests they are supposedly protecting. Right now, it seems as if most folks see them only as accountable for their roles as elected officials but not as representatives of the members of the Democratic Party.

So far, the Clinton and Obama camps have courted them heavily, but to my knowledge, they haven't received a ton of pressure from ordinary Democratic voters. Why hasn't a grassroots campaign (or why haven't multiple grassroots campaigns) taken shape to get some citizen pressure on these folks?

This is in some ways a totally unfair challenge for me to issue, since my work on issues at a non-partisan organization makes it impossible for me to jump-start this effort myself. But judging by the amazing voter turnout, netroots activity and show of volunteerism this primary season, it's safe to say that folks want to be heard. I'm just surprised no one has taken this ball and run with it.

In particular, I'm amazed that the people-power-oriented netroots haven't jumped all over this. Granted, they have a full plate in the middle of election season and with important legislation up in the air -- and they probably wouldn't appreciate an occasional, accidental blogger like me giving them pointers. Still, I would think bringing accountability to so-called "Party elders" and taking some power back for voters would rank pretty highly on their priority list.

In any case, there's info on superdelegates here and here for any enterprising people who are as frustrated with this hiccup in the Democratic process as I am. May the force be with you.

-- Scott Paul

Update: Steve's post above makes me wonder if this post was originally unclear (though my sense is he'd disagree with the gist of what I'm trying to say here anyway). Here is an adapted version of my comment on his thread. Hope this clears it up.

I don't think the rival camps should be encouraging their supporters to lobby the superdelegates in an organized way either. I DO think that individual Party members -- regardless of who they support -- should be contacting superdelegates to remind them that they, too, are accountable to voters. Personally, the message I think they should be hearing is that superdelegates should stay out of the primary fray and, most importantly, should not tip the scales against a candidate who wins the most delegates through the primaries and caucuses. But folks can disagree on that. What's most important is that they hear something and not get the false impression that they can and should simply cast their votes as if the public isn't paying attention.

Yes, the rules were clear -- but they only make sense if the superdelegates are accountable to the Party whose interests they were chosen to protect. This is not a call to wage a Clinton vs. Obama grassroots war. It's a call to bring a little transparency and responsibility to a process that sorely needs it.

I've just written this remembrance of Tom Lantos for TPMCafe.

His shift on Israel-Palestine negotiations and American engagement with Iran and the Middle East writ large can't be called a full-on conversion, but his shift in a progressive direction was significant and should be remembered.

I once talked to Lantos about Senator Chuck Hagel's "no false choice" approach to the Middle East and the powerful House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman told me that Hagel was on exactly the right course.

-- Steve Clemons

Via John Aravosis, comedian Andy Cobb and friends go after John McCain in an Obama "Yes We Can" parody.

-- Steve Clemons

This afternoon, I am scheduled to speak to about 20 Lantos Humanity in Action Fellows about US foreign policy, the campaigns and blogging -- and I've just learned the sad news that House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) has just passed away today.

Lantos was a tireless advocate for human rights and was the only Holocaust survivor serving in the US Congress.

I had recently met with him a few times and saw him moving increasingly in support of a serious US role in Israel-Palestine negotiations. In the past, his support of Israel seemed to preclude a balanced approach to both sides in any negotiation -- but recently, in a number of forums and in discussions with me and others -- he said that the human crises building in Palestine and among Palestinians inside Israel called out for a different approach.

Lantos was also an advocate of much more vigorous diplomacy in the Middle East writ large than he is given credit for -- particularly with Iran.

-- Steve Clemons

Last week, I participated in a televised show with New York public radio host and all round smart guy Brian Lehrer in a discussion about new media, blogs, Facebook, microjournalism and how it was changing the structural ecosystem of political organizing and participation.

I thought it was a fascinating and thoughtful segment -- about a half hour long.

Also on the show were TechPresident.com co-founder Andrew Rasiej and Columbia Journalism School New Media professor Sree Sreenivasen.

-- Steve Clemons

Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) has been under attack by the right wing of his party lately and has had a tougher than normal primary race -- which will take place tomorrow.

Gilchrest was one of only two Republican congressman who voted in favor of a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

This morning, in 15 degree weather, I met Congressman Gilchrest and a bunch of his supporters waving campaign signs and the American flag at the Kent Island, Maryland park-and-ride stop. I had been dropped off there after spending the weekend in Chestertown, MD on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay and am catching the 6:50 am bus back into DC.

I don't know Gilchrest well -- but I like him. Earlier this year at a speech at the colonial era-founded liberal arts school, Washington College, of which George Washington was a founding member of its Board of Visitors, Gilchrest said with regard to the possibility (then) of President Bush bombing Iran, he would "personally go down to the floor of the House of Representatives and file articles of impeachment himself."

Gilchrest also encouraged students to read what he considered to be the best new book out on the US-Iran-Israel relationship, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States by Trita Parsi. Parsi's book, which I also recommend, takes the relationship between these three powers out of the contemporary tit-for-tat posturing and looks at the longer term behavior and strategic calculations of this trio. It's a sensible, realistic take on Iran and Israel -- and it's great that a moderate Republican like Gilchrest is pushing the kind of book that makes John Bolton blow steam.

In any case, as far as the Republican primary tomorrow, I'm encouraging my friends in Maryland that tilt that direction to vote for Gilchrest -- not because he was enthusiastically braving freezing temperatures outside with no shelter at 6 am at a bus stop -- but because he is quite sensible on American foreign policy.

I have to say that seeing the happy Republican enjoy the chance to talk to users of mass transit and him encouraging everyone to vote won me over. Unfortunately, our curmudgeonly bus driver wouldn't let him on the bus to say a good morning to all and encourage them to vote -- where it was warm.

The bus did have a sign that said "no solicitation" but still. . .Marylanders, go vote.

-- Steve Clemons

Both the Clinton and Obama camps expected Hillary Clinton to take Maine -- but thus far with 44% of precincts in, Obama is leading by 15 points. (AP has now called Maine a win for Obama)

I think the Clinton camp has huge strengths out there in big states -- but these small state losses are at minimum psychologically seductive.

I think that the shake-up in Hillary Clinton's camp in which Patti Solis Doyle has "stepped down" (I've heard two different terms today from senior Hillaryland citizens to describe her departure and have decided to go with the one that implies "free will") is about a month overdue.

-- Steve Clemons

Hillary Clinton Campaign Director Patti Solis Doyle has stepped down.

Maggie Williams will now take her place. Mark Penn stays where he is, for the time being.

Big news.

-- Steve Clemons

[Update: Solis Doyle will remain a "Senior Adviser" to the campaign -- and some are spinning this as Doyle's decision to step aside rather than being deposed by Clinton. My Hillaryland source reiterated that Doyle was moved out of her spot by Hillary Clinton.

However, I am "reframing" Doyle's move from serving as Campaign Manager to Senior Advisor as "stepping down" rather than "fired" based on a conversation with another senior Clinton campaign staff member.]

(The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression; Graphic by Peter and Maria Hoey)

In today's Washington Post, neoconservative movement chronicler Jacob Heilbrunn outlines "5 Myths About Those Nefarious Neocons". It's a great short piece and makes the point that many really don't understand -- that the neocon support of Israel is actually often destructive of Israel's own interests. Daniel Levy wrote of this general divergence once in an excellent article, "So Pro-Israel it Hurts" -- and I brought up Israel's diaspora challenge here when the Deputy Director General for Public Affairs of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs once told me that he wished "our American friends and family" would settle down a bit.

Heilbrunn is author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons," for which I will be hosting a live book salon today between 5 and 7 pm EST with the author at the well-known progressive political blog, FireDogLake.

The last myth that Heilbrunn commented on today in his Post is the most worrisome:

5 The Iraq debacle has discredited the neocons.

This could be the biggest whopper of them all. Now that the "surge" in Iraq has brought levels of violence down somewhat, the neocons are already claiming vindication. As Iraq fades from the front pages, the neocons' hero, Arizona Sen. John McCain, is poised to become the Republican standard-bearer in 2008. (The neocons also would have happily flocked around Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recruited Norman "World War IV" Podhoretz as a senior adviser.)

The truth is that the neocons have been repeatedly declared dead before -- and, to the chagrin of their enemies on the left and the right, bounced back.

At the end of the Cold War, the arch-realist George H.W. Bush relegated them to the sidelines; then the triangulating Bill Clinton seemed to deprive them of their biggest foreign and domestic policy issues. If they came back from that, they can come back from anything.

Now that Robert Kagan, William Kristol (who seems not to be discredited in the eyes of the New York Times, which just made him a columnist) and a host of other neocons have hitched their fortunes to McCain, the neocons are poised for a fresh comeback. If they make a hash of foreign policy by 2011, perhaps the familiar cycle of public scorn and rebirth might even start all over again.

In Heilbrunn's postscript in his book, he outlines the seeming exodus of many neoconservatives from government positions -- like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, and others -- but then notes that they "remained unrepentant" and "seemed relatively unaffected by the obloquy they had endured during the Bush years." He quotes me saying "They're gone, but they're not gone."

And many are now joining John McCain's machine.

To some degree, Heilbrunn's profile of the deep roots of neoconservatism and the school's journey is as much a story of the decline of the realist and liberal internationalist schools of foreign policy as an earnest story of neocon influence.

And the damage that has been done both by realist decline and the robustness of neoconservative zealousness in reshaping the internal guts of other nations through armed drones, bunker busters, and tanks has also resulted in the rise of a leftish-form of neoconservatism in democratic ranks. This movement on the left like the neocons embraces empbire, is values driven, hawkish, and considers the calculation of basic interests served or gambled as largely immoral.

Brown University John Carter Brown Library Director Ted Widmer (who is also a colleague and Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program with me) wrote a penetrating review of Heilbrunn's book in the Washington Post recently, titled "What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been."

In the review, Widmer challenges Heilbrunn for taking on some of the Clinton clan, particularly Madeleine Albright:

. . .At other times, Heilbrunn seems defensive, as if a trace of the [neocon] virus remains in his bloodstream. He suggests that the United States should have overthrown Egyptian president Gamal Nasser in 1956 to let democracy bloom, an act that would have been illegal and insane.

He is very severe on Democratic foreign policy, targeting George McGovern (who inflicted more harm on Nazis than any neocons did), ridiculing Jimmy Carter and launching the usual tired attacks on Bill Clinton, whom he finds both too slow (to combat terrorism) and too eager (to conduct humanitarian interventions). He excoriates Madeleine Albright for daring to express the "hubristic belief" that the United States is indispensable to the world. More hubristic than the neocons?

Read Widmer's entire piece -- as it's a very good retelling of the longer Heilbrunn book about the origins and rise of neoconservatism.

But what my colleague Ted Widmer doesn't seem to get is that there is a thin line dividing liberal interventionism and neocoservatism -- both versions of a militant idealism that has done serious damage to American prestige abroad.

While President Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke and others can count the take-down of Slobodan Milosevic and the containment of Serbia as a victory today -- it nonetheless is increasingly being referred to by some Dems as "regime change done right".

This ethic is gaining real traction in Democratic circles -- and has a bunch of chairs at the foreign policy advisory tables of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

To me, the neoconservative movement that got its chance to operate the machinery of the foreign policy/national security establishment during the George W. Bush administration seemed a lot like the Borg in the latter day Star Trek films. The Borg wanted to assimilate other cultures to "wire them" to converge with their own characteristics and operating systems. And those they couldn't re-wire or assimilate, they'd wipe out -- without concern for interests, costs, and consequences.

The neoconservative story is one that is very important to understand -- because America will relive it, and we need to know next time what strategies work to curtail the ideologically seductive bravado of militant utopians on either side of the aisle.

Hope you can join us today for a discussion with Jacob Heilbrunn between 5 and 7 pm EST at this site.

-- Steve Clemons