Congratulations, President-Elect Obama! Now Comes Governing‼

This has been an historic election. There can be no question about that. The election of our first African-American President is a profound event. Despite this country’s greatness, its highest office had remained until November 4, 2008, the exclusive province of white men. That has now changed forever and most Americans, even many who did not vote for Obama, feel a definite pride in our having selected Obama to hold the highest office in the land.

But, while not wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, let’s not think that this election changes everything. I’ve read the comments of many comparing this election to that of John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Kennedy, Reagan and now Obama have been described as transformational figures. It is true that Kennedy’s triumph, like Obama’s, represented the rise to political power of a new generation, a typically refreshing event even if scary to older voters. And Reagan’s triumph, like Obama’s, occurred during a period of great societal anxiety, reflected in 1980 by the Iran hostage nightmare and in 2008 by two ongoing wars and an economic meltdown, with a nation’s hope that the new president would heal America’s wounds.

Let us not, however, overstate the extent to which Kennedy or Reagan was a truly transformational figure. Kennedy was confronted by the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban missile crisis, and turmoil in the area of civil rights that he did not live to address. Indeed, he hardly lived long enough as president to transform very much although the imagery of Camelot long survived his untimely death. And Reagan, while he has remained the darling of the Republican Party through the present, and did lift American spirits for a time, and held office during the collapse of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical empire for which his admirers give him supreme credit, also left a legacy of massive budget deficits, scandal, political and social divisiveness in the country, and the emergence of an international arena devoid of the relative stability of a bipolar world and increasingly characterized by regional instability and world terrorism.

And then there are the sentiments about Obama’s victory of the polemicist Michael Moore, who seems prepared to treat it almost as if it is the second coming. Moore wrote: “An African American has been elected President of the United States! Anything is possible! We can wrestle our economy out of the hands of the reckless rich and return it to the people. Anything is possible! Every citizen can be guaranteed health care. Anything is possible! We can stop melting the polar ice caps. Anything is possible! Those who have committed war crimes will be brought to justice. Anything is possible.”

But let us step back into reality. On a day on which many foreign leaders and common folk throughout the world celebrated Obama’s victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy a short range missile system on Russian territory bordering Poland and Lithuania. Afghan President Karzai, who had been rebuked by Obama during his world tour over his weak governance of Afghanistan, was perhaps responding in kind by mixing congratulations with a call for an end to American airstrikes that threatened civilian casualties in his country. And Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, who aspires to become prime minister, warned that Obama’s stated readiness to talk with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness. Welcome to the world stage, President-elect Obama!

Meanwhile, the buzz in Washington, D.C. over possible presidential Cabinet appointments involves the names not of fresh faces but of many of the same old retreads. Apparently according to NBC News, among the names in the mix for secretary of state are those of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who is purportedly angling for the post, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic senator Sam Nunn. Purportedly, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker are among those being considered for the Treasury post.

Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be a cool, calm, astute politician, smartly sought to damp down expectations for his presidency during his acceptance speech on Tuesday night in Chicago. He said:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

"I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. …

"What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."

Issues of immigration reform, health care, energy independence, the growing costs of Medicare and Social Security, let alone the current world wide economic collapse and growing national recession, the related housing crisis, global warming, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and homeland security, remain front and center. Not only are solutions to these issues not readily at hand, but there is no national consensus and there are deep political divisions on the nature of possible solutions to many of them.

One of my criticisms of Obama during the primary season, when I supported Hillary Clinton, was that he spoke majestically of unity, transcending red and blue state divisions, breaking political gridlock in Washington, D.C., and of bringing conflicting interests in American society together, but he offered few insights on how to accomplish those objectives. He will now have to focus on offering concrete solutions to many of these heretofore intractable problems and building successful coalitions to achieve them, as well as using the bully pulpit to attempt to forge a new national unity to the extent possible, while recognizing and accepting that a vibrant, strong, resilient America in which its people are able to enjoy freedom and equality is by its nature a pluralistic society comprising many competing and conflicting social networks and institutions and interest groups.

I’m very excited by Obama’s victory and am elated to have had the opportunity to vote for him for President. Let us, however, balance our excitement and optimism with a strong dose of reality in recognizing that change is an ongoing process, not all change is beneficial, altering the status quo is usually far more difficult than preserving it, and that President-elect Barack Obama, while enormously gifted, is not a magician but a political leader who no doubt shares many of the same human limitations that affect us all.

Obama - Grace under Pressure

Which candidate, McCain or Obama, do I trust more to carefully handle an international “incident” and not overreact? Obama.

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/- posed that question this morning in the below post. He invited email responses and I sent him mine, which appears below his blog.
________________________________________

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:09 AM | Email | Print | Permalink

About That Crisis

Joe Biden's recent comment about a "generated crisis" to test Barack Obama's mettle brings to mind a counterintuitive thought I've been nursing for a while. If, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack on the United States during the next four years, could it be the case that the hot headed and erratic John McCain would be the more measured in his response and that the preternaturally calm and cool Mr. Obama might be pressured into reacting rashly and imprudently?

Fair or not, as he takes control of managing two wars in a post-9/11 world, Obama will carry with him to the White House the generic public perception of Democrats being soft on national security. Should a national security crisis arise, especially at or near the beginning of his administration, Obama would be under immense, almost unimaginable pressure to respond - and respond forcefully.

McCain would face pressure, too, but one could argue that because he has such strong bona fides on national security and more public trust to handle an international crisis, McCain would have greater latitude and flexibility in crafting a response.
Put another way, if there is an attack on America Obama might be pressured into proving his "toughness," which is something McCain wouldn't necessarily have to do.

Agree or disagree? Email me.
________________________________________

Tom,

I’m a 65 year old, white, Jewish professional originally from New York City but a Californian since 1969. I’m also a lifelong Democrat, liberal but not as much as when I was younger. I give you the demographics so you may put my comments in some perspective.

I used to have more respect for McCain and in 2000 I thought he might be an interesting candidate. But no more. He has proven himself to be erratic and unreliable. I think Joe Klein, in his TIME piece on Sept 4, 2008, “How McCain Makes Obama Conservative,” captured the essence of the candidates.

No, I don’t believe that Obama would prove the more intemperate. Quite the opposite. I understand the “logic” you offer but I don’t think it holds.

First, I think way too much has been made of McCain’s national security experience. Exactly what does it comprise? We know his immature, daredevil activities as a young pilot. We know he reached no serious leadership position in the Navy, unlike his father. He certainly endured years of torture as a POW and for that we all respect and admire him. But he has never been in the Executive Branch. His experience is as a Senator taking positions on this issue and that. I agreed with some of his positions (criticism of Reagan’s dispatch of Marines to Lebanon; support for the first Gulf War; support for Clinton’s activities in the former Yugoslavia). But I don’t see the fact that he took such positions as terribly impressive evidence that he has national security experience. I think of such experience as that accumulated by those making the decisions, be it secretaries of state or defense, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, obviously the President and, at least in the Bush Administration, the Vice President (whether in the public interest or not) and likely others. But not necessarily some U.S. Senator who has supported certain policies. And while McCain’s advocacy for the surge may have turned out to be helpful, his advocacy for the Iraq War was not.

I may be wrong, Tom, and the events are current enough for you to know the facts well, but, as I recall, when Russia invaded Georgia McCain seemed almost ready to pull the trigger, so to speak. Indeed, I believe he was critical of Obama for first suggesting caution. It is true that Obama came to also take a “strong” stand against the Russians and in support of Georgia, but I was more frightened or at least concerned at the outset by McCain’s bellicosity. I admit I’m one of those who thinks the U.S. has to tread carefully in seeking to include in NATO countries that Russia has historically considered buffers between itself and Europe (Germany most of all). Yes, I would like to keep Georgia and Ukraine from falling back under Russian domination but all the talk of including them in NATO is more provocative than I think the U.S. needs to be at this instance. I think McCain has a more aggressive bent toward Russia. I know you and others could argue that a more aggressive bent may cause Russia to back off but I’m not convinced. I think the aggressive bent toward international relations in general taken by the Bush Administration has been in part responsible for the deterioration of our relations with Russia and others.

So, I am not convinced that Obama would feel such intense pressure to show his mettle in the early days of his Administration, given his youthfulness and alleged Democratic softness on national security, that he would overreact while McCain, purportedly confident in his own skin about national security, would be calm and calculating and less likely to be unduly provocative. I think Obama has shown incredible “grace under pressure” throughout this campaign and at many moments when he could have overreacted (and I’m talking about in the campaign, not vis-à-vis foreign affairs) he has remained calm, cool and collected. I think he will be cautious, perhaps too much so for some including his liberal supporters, whether in domestic ventures or foreign affairs if he becomes President. Might I also note that I’m old enough to remember when Republicans accused Democrats of getting Americans into all the wars, not because Democrats were soft on national security but because they tended to be “internationalists” rather than isolationists, a position many Republicans used to embrace (and some, like Buchanan, still do). How the world changes as do the positions of American political parties if one lives long enough!

I initially supported Hillary Clinton and was sorry to see her lose. But I have come to respect and appreciate Obama and even to conclude that he probably has a better chance of winning the Presidency than she would have had had she won the nomination given her high negatives and his ability to stay focused, in control, and to demonstrate an even keeled temperament. I honestly trust his instincts and judgment in foreign policy and in the event of an “incident” while I’ve come to see McCain as, to quote you, hot headed and erratic.

If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading.

Donald A. Newman

Obama and Unity

When Obama emerged on top in Iowa he spoke of Unity. He would heal the divisions in this society, he would bring together disparate interests, he would transcend the blue and red state divide. He would unify the nation. Many of us were unimpressed but enough were taken by him and his rhetoric to carry him to victory over Hillary Clinton.

Now the Democratic National Convention is upon us and Obama and company are still preaching Unity. But this time it’s a plea, a prayer, not to the nation as a whole but merely to Democratic delegates to his own nominating convention to heal the rift between Obama and Hillary supporters and unite behind Obama.

How sad.

Obama may win the national elections in November. But currently, despite all factors pointing to an easy Democratic victory in November, the tracking polls have Obama and McCain running neck and neck. Obama struggled to close the deal in the primaries against Hillary. He’s having even more trouble closing the deal with the general electorate against McCain. Many, including vast numbers of Hillary supporters such as myself, continue to doubt that Obama is ready for prime time. His campaigning since Hillary withdrew has been lackluster. People continue to wonder exactly how he intends to solve the many problems facing America. While he has shown great talent in delivering soaring addresses to large masses of people, he has failed to show a talent for engaging people in small town meetings. In place of his soaring rhetoric is a delivery full of “you know”; in place of a definite cadence is a stammering delivery. The content continues to lack specificity and his flip-flopping has not helped him in developing a coherent message.

Did Democrats make the wrong choice? That’s difficult to say. Obama still is the likely winner in the November elections. And it isn’t as if Hillary Clinton had all the answers either. She failed to put together a coherent campaign strategy and embarrassed herself on a number of occasions, such as with claims to have landed under fire in Bosnia, during the campaign. Then, too, Bill Clinton proved an embarrassment on his own and caused many to fear the role he might play were she to become president, or vice president for that matter.

Nonetheless, many of us would have favored Hillary as the Democratic nominee. Her voice strengthened and her message crystallized over the course of the primaries and by the end she appeared to be the stronger candidate.

Democrats should close ranks behind Obama. But the constant complaints emanating from his campaign and from his supporters, including former Governor Wilder of Virginia, that Hillary and Bill are the main obstacles to unity are poppycock, to use a socially acceptable term. Most Hillary supporters are quite educated and informed. They are not waiting for some signal or sign from Hillary in order to support Obama. They are troubled by the campaign he is running as well as his lack of experience and are simply hesitant in their support. Ultimately most will vote for Obama. Despite McCain’s maverick label, they will see McCain as continuing too many of Bush’s policies and as a bedrock conservative when it comes to several crucial social issues.

But Obama had better get his act together, stop blaming Hillary and Bill, offer specifics to the voters on how to solve major issues now, and learn how to connect better with that so-called “average” voter, whatever the voter’s gender, age, ethnicity or race.

An Open E-mail to David Gergen

I wrote the below e-mail to David Gergen after reading Sam Stein’s article in the Huffington Post, “Gergen: McCain Using Code Words To Attack Obama As ‘Uppity’” and the accompanying video of David Gergen on This Week on August 3, 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/gergen-mccain-is-using-co_n_116605.html

David,

I've watched and listened to you on TV since you and Shields participated in civil discourse on the McNeil/Lehrer Report. I've tended to appreciate your calm, cautious commentary but in recent times I have found you far less interesting and informative, particularly in your service as one of the political analysts on CNN.

I caught a video of your recent comments on This Week on McCain's use of code words against Obama. Please, David, take more time to reflect on what you say. As George Will sought to remark, McCain was asked about affirmative action (and it appears gave a response not entirely different from Obama's in speaking out against quotas) and he honestly answered. His comments, to you, were code words? My gosh, how far you have drifted from the kind of careful observation I used to find helpful.

Frankly, as a 60-something professional, former political scientist, and former Hillary supporter, I am not impressed by Obama. His recent flip flopping, whether on public financing of campaigns, FISA, the 4th Amendment, handling Iran, or off-shore oil drilling, has left me cold. For many Americans, myself included, we're still searching to learn who he is; he remains relatively unknown, a sudden star on the horizon.

I believe that the constant analyses, such as yours, that suggest that race is the key to the election are not helping him. Race is absolutely an important factor but I truly believe that the more his defenders, including you, David, whether you admit you've come to defend him or not, and others suggest that McCain or others are using race to defeat Obama, the more voters will be turned off by Obama and his candidacy. I would suggest, albeit without firm empirical data at this point, that many Americans are tired of having race thrown in their faces every time someone strongly criticizes Obama. Again, as Will noted, the Republican theme that the Democratic candidate is an elitist did not start with Obama, but when critics attempt to make that charge against Obama many of his defenders immediately suggest there is a racial component. In your case, you claim it is a code word apparently for an “uppity black”. David, please. Enough of this shallow analysis. Recognize that while Obama bested Hillary, albeit because of her campaign's ridiculous failure to contest the caucus states, many voters who hardly participated in the Democratic primaries are now focusing on the Democratic nominee and having difficulty discerning who he is, what he stands for, and whether he is someone they can trust as President, and race, while not irrelevant, isn't necessarily the determinative factor.

The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win

I recommend that you read Alex Castellanos' article on the Huffington Post.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I made the following comment on the Post:

Alex, I realize you're a professional consultant to the McCain campaign. I also realize you will be flamed no end here on the Huffington Post. Nonetheless, I think your article captures some of the reasons many Democrats, particularly those who supported Hillary Clinton, are still having great difficulty in embracing Obama. His flip-flopping on issues has been incredible, whether on public financing of campaigns, FISA, the Supreme Court's 4th amendment decision on guns, opening the strategic oil reserve, off-shore drilling, or Iran. I do not share your views on Obama's personality but I do think that he is not helping a nation develop a sense of who he is and that he can be trusted.

Notes on al-Maliki and Barak Obama

On Maliki and Chutzpah

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s comments a few weeks ago that seemed to back Obama’s 16 month schedule for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq were not only no mistake or misinterpretation but also seemed to me to be a classic example of that ancient principle know to many as chutzpah! Think about it: had America followed Obama’s “policy” toward Iraq from the outset, there would have been no invasion; Hussein would have remained in power as a repressive dictator, particularly of the Shia population, and Maliki and the Shi’ites would have remained out of power if not in prison or brutally repressed.

But, alas, that was then and this is now. Maliki clearly feels enormous political pressure from Shia in Iraq to retake greater control of Iraq’s own affairs. The American surge appears to have been successful in bringing greater military stability to Iraq and in seeing an improvement in Iraq’s own ability to maintain its own tranquility. Then, too, we know that politics makes strange bedfellows. As several have remarked, Maliki is using Obama’s candidacy as a pawn in his chess game with Bush over the terms of a status of forces agreement to cover the presence of American troops in Iraq in the future. At this point, perhaps American interests are best served by a withdrawal of its forces over the next two years, but on a certain level I was nonetheless offended by Maliki’s conduct. Maliki, whose ascent to power would not have happened but for Bush’s war, turned around during a visit by the opposition party’s candidate to succeed Bush and a long-time critic of Bush’s policy, and essentially bit the hand that fed him.

On Obama and Nation-Building in Afghanistan

While continuing to strongly criticize the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq, Obama has underscored his commitment to fighting al Qaida and its allies in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan.

In watching and listening to him during his trip to Afghanistan, I wondered whether Obama has a strategy toward prosecuting the war against terrorism in that part of the world; whether he has any formula for “winning” in Afghanistan and an exit strategy in that theatre of war. He has been outspoken about prioritizing Afghanistan and moving American forces from Iraq to Afghanistan but what is his overall strategy there? Many have written that outsiders, whether British, Russian or American or others before them, have not fared well in bringing stability to Afghanistan for any significant periods of time. Does Obama believe that the United States, with NATO support, can nation-build in Afghanistan? Does he believe that the Taliban can be defeated in some finite period of time through a stronger American presence than it currently has there? I haven’t heard Obama lay out a clear policy on this issue.

There can be little debate that the threat from al Qaida was greater in Afghanistan than in Iraq (where there appears to have been none at all) in September 2001 and thereafter. In that sense, I believe Obama accurately reflects a consensus among many Americans that the Iraq War was a needless diversion of American resources and focus. But what now? Wither Afghanistan? Could it become the new Iraq, a country in which America will bury more treasure in a frustrating effort to repress Muslim terrorism?

And what of neighboring Pakistan? Wasn’t it Obama who, during the primary campaign in an effort to avoid being described as simplistic and naïve, raised the real possibility that he might dispatch American forces into Pakistan or at least launch cross-border attacks without Pakistani government consent? Obama has stated recently that the Bush Administration is not pressuring Pakistan to deal with Taliban and other al Qaida terrorists within its borders and that he would do better. It isn’t clear to me that the Bush Administration has been remiss in this regard or how Obama will pressure the post-Musharaf government to do more. While I’m not opposed to the somewhat nebulous policy statements Obama is currently making about American interests in Afghanistan, not only do they not appear terribly different than McCain’s position, but, as stated, I wonder what Obama’s overall vision is in that part of the world.

Clinton was accused by neo-conservatives who eventually dominated the Bush Administration of trying to nation-build in Bosnia and surrounding areas and condemned by them as hubris. Bush’s neo-conservatives then turned around and committed enormous American treasure toward nation-building in Iraq, a policy that thrust American soldiers into the middle of a sectarian civil war and that most Americans came to condemn. Now Obama is making statements that sound like a commitment to nation-building in Afghanistan, an incredibly remote area that has long resisted foreign intrusion. Obama had better think carefully about the implications of such an undertaking. He should have an exit strategy for the United States from Afghanistan and be sharing it with us now. I haven’t heard anything to date; just strong talk on the campaign trail.

Hillary For Vice Presidential Nominee? No. And That's Because Of Bill

No sooner had the Democratic nominating process for President seemingly ended this evening with a victory for Barack Obama than the selection process for his running mate began, ironically still pitting Obama against Clinton, this time with Hillary apparently trying to pressure Obama to select her. How strange and how sad.

I supported Hillary for the presidential nomination. Tonight when she asked her supporters to go to her website to pledge their support, I did and wrote her the following:

Dear Hillary,

A year ago I felt that I could not vote for you for President. I'm in my 60's, a white, professional male who voted for Bill twice but who had been turned off by your public persona.

You won me over in this campaign with your commitment, energy, fighting spirit and by showing me and others, for the first time, your more human and emotional side. I liked what I saw and I donated to your campaign several times and endorsed you in my blog (not that it brought you many votes).

At this point, I remain with you and am not sure I can support Obama. But at the same time, I know that it is time for you to join the effort to elect the Democratic nominee as president and, while I don't like it, that nominee will be Obama.

Thanks for your zeal, persistence and love of country. And, I do hope that your time will come.

Affectionately,

Donald

Not only do I think it’s time for her to end her presidential campaign, but I also do not feel she should be Obama’s running mate, whether or not I ultimately decide to vote for him.

I’m old enough to recall John Kennedy selecting presidential rival Lyndon Baines Johnson as his running mate. Kennedy bested Johnson and others for the nomination. Johnson was, in many respects, a more seasoned and more powerful political figure than Kennedy in 1960, serving as majority leader in the Senate. They weren’t friends at all. But tapping Johnson as his running mate was a political calculation intended to improve the likelihood that Kennedy would win in Texas and other states.

For similar reasons, Obama may find tapping Hillary as his running mate attractive. I do not see their apparent antipathy for one another as the obstacle. I see Bill Clinton as the obstacle. Were I an adviser to Obama I would recommend against selecting Hillary as his running mate not because of Hillary but because of Bill. I have no doubt that he brought voters to Hillary in the primaries. But I also have no doubt that he repelled other voters. Selecting Hillary means getting Bill. His unpredictability and penchant for becoming the story lead me to conclude that selecting Hillary would be an overall detriment to Obama, perhaps less so in the presidential campaign, where Bill could be helpful to Obama, than in the White House.

One might ask why I supported Hillary for President if I harbor these negative feelings about Bill. I think like many I initially overcame my antipathy to Hillary because of my lingering affection for Bill. But as his behavior became more of a distraction, I wanted him to step back from her campaign. And as she emerged as the candidate, finding her own voice and showing more of herself, I found myself increasingly drawn to her. I even concluded that she would be able to keep him from negatively intruding on her presidency, were she the candidate and the victor. But I don’t think Obama should take that chance. He has a choice Hillary didn’t have and I think he should steer clear of Bill, which means he should not select Hillary.⌂