McCain's spooky ads

One lesson that the GOP has learned and applied for many years now is that for an ad to work, it must tap into the subconscious and strike fear. Thus came the Willie Horton ad, Jesse Helms' "Hands" ad, the RNC's "Call me" spot attacking Harold Ford, etc. John McCain is dutifully fulfilling this tradition with a commerical of his own, the now infamous "Celeb" ad. Rick Perlstein notes the similarity of the chanting, German crowds for Obama in McCain's ad to an old Nazi propoganda film -- with still frames to back him up. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

A less talked-about and probably little-noticed McCain advertisement I found online while looking at an article on The New York Sun's website has some interesting features, too:

Appearance of a random opinion poll? Check.

Strongly loaded language in "question"? Check.

Visual association of Obama with despot? Check.

Clicking on ad takes you to www.johnmccain.com? Unfortunately, I can't verify it at this point, but it's probably a pretty safe guess.

Berlin helps Obama

Two weeks ago, Anne Applebaum argued for the wisdom behind Barack Obama's big speech near the Brandenburg Gate and more generally his tour of the world. Among other reasons, Americans might support Obama's appearances abroad because

It matters how America is perceived abroad, and not just because it's nice to be popular. When America and American values are admired in other countries, American politicians have more influence on foreign affairs.

Right. And since Obama is clearly the more popular choice in Europe, the large, adoring crowds that greeted him in Germany demonstrated his appeal -- and, perhaps, his potential ability to use that appeal to advance American interests.

It's also apparent that the visit helped him domestically. Nate Silver explains how:

Gallup shows [Obama] ahead by 7 points, tying his best-ever margin in that poll, while Rasmussen has him ahead by 6. What Obama's foreign policy trip may have done, and particularly his speech in Berlin, is to refresh enthusiasm among his core supporters. Fully 60 percent of Democrats now have a very favorable opinion of Obama, according to Rasmussen's latest numbers. That number is improved from 53 percent a week ago. During that time frame, Obama has gained 6 points of support among Democrats, capturing 82 percent of their votes rather than 76. Half of that gain comes from undecided voters, while the other half comes from McCain.

Justice served

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Naturally, this provokes the Chicken Little response from the White House. Dana Perino warns the ruling means that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be able to roam the streets of Baltimore, or Fort Lauderdale, or wherever he pleases! Well, the only way this happens is if the United States government has been unable to compile any evidence whatsoever that he is a threat to the public or that he has committed acts of war against the United States. And if no such evidence exists, why should he be held in a military prison?

The truth, as detailed in the above AP article, is much more nuanced. Yes, the ruling may expedite the release of prisoners who are actually not terrorists, but cases of mistaken identity or simply unlucky Muslims civilians. But KSM would almost certainly still be confined to Guantanamo. And those who have been released would not necessarily be placed on US soil. In fact, the Supreme Court has not indicated where these detainees would be released, nor has any other federal court.

This is one of many examples where the so-called "liberal" justices are actually giving deference to the executive branch and yet still upholding the rule of law. They are ensuring that Guantanamo detainees are afforded proper legal protection, yet still giving the executive branch almost complete control over their fates. This is not judicial activism in the slightest. It is the last line of defense against a secretive and stubborn administration who just likes to do things their own way.

An insight into Bush-McCain foreign policy

President Bush likes to stir the pot sometimes. So he decided to travel to Israel for its 60th birthday bash -- an event noticed and celebrated by Democrats and Republicans alike -- and managed to make it half a stump speech for John McCain. He said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Barack Obama felt perhaps rightly that this was a swipe at his position that the United States ought to talk without preconditions to countries like Syria and Iran -- an idea I have not supported but might if the practitioner of talks was more competent than this president. (The White House, as it has many times, by acting like the American public was born yesterday and claimed that the remarks had nothing to do with him.) Obama has not, however supported talks with Hamas until they meet the 3 criteria levied against them: cessation of violence, recognition of Israel, and adoption of past agreements. Still, it provided Bush with an opportunity to support his buddy McCain from overseas and hit Obama. And it shows us the GOP's simplistic view of foreign policy.

To Bush and McCain, meeting with Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il is "appeasement," -- yes, this is the word Bush used -- akin to giving away the Sudetenland for free to Adolf Hitler. As Obama said in a recent interview, "We don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy." Truer words have not been spoken this year.

McCain, the so-called foreign policy heavyweight, was no more nuanced in his reaction. He remarked, "It shows naivete and inexperience . . . My question is, what does he want to talk about?" The kids? Baseball? Use your imagination, John. And to speak of naivete! McCain has a very poorly-earned reputation for foreign affairs expertise. And one of McCain's foreign policy advisers, former Secretary of State James Baker, would in a private setting would say it shows "naivete and inexperience" NOT to talk to Ahmadinejad and others.

This is not to say Barack Obama is James Baker. Nuance, people, nuance.

Jews and Obama

On this, the 60th birthday of the State of Israel, we are also coming to a finish with the Democratic nomination for the presidency. And so we also have some new information regarding the attitudes of Jewish voters this time 'round. The Gallup Organization reports that American Jews favor Barack Obama 2-to-1. Rumors of a Muslim past and ties to the anti-Israel Jeremiah Wright evidently are not weighing heavily on Jews' minds. We know this because New York-based Hillary Clinton does only about 5% better in the general election than Obama. Among Jewish preferences within the Democratic Party, Clinton wins only by 50-43. This is remarkably close given that this is in line with other white Democrats. In other words, Obama has no more trouble courting Jews than other white voters -- which is a whole other story. But I think we can say that on May 8, both Barack Obama and the State of Israel can live to celebrate a bit.

So this is what moderation looks like

Evidently, darkness. This is what Sderot residents are seeing now after a Qassam rocket hit power lines in the beleaguered city. Thank goodness Hamas has now embraced a more moderate position! Jimmy Carter's visit has worked wonders! Can he defuse the Iranian problem, too?

Another word about Hamas: can we get over the falsehood that Iran will not work with Sunnis? When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Khaled Meshaal exchange kisses and pleasantries in public, do we think they are just discussing the sports scores?

Colbert to the rescue

Stephen Colbert is quite a phenomenon. Apparently, his "Colbert Bump" for visiting politicians may have some truth to it. This even for a basic cable show! Bill O'Reilly likes to brag that his viewers know their stuff and The Daily Show/Colbert Report's viewers are "stoned slackers." Yet viewer research by Pew shows that in fact, TDS/Colbert viewers know slightly more about the news than O'Reilly viewers (and dramatically more than FOX watchers in general). They are also more educated (31% have a college degree vs. 24% for O'Reilly), even though they are younger (26% under 30 vs. 16%). If Colbert truly does have influence on this election, may Barack Obama's act of putting "distractions" from the real issues "on notice" actually have an effect.

Yellowest of yellow journalism

If there's one thing I can appreciate at 18 that I couldn't at 14, it's how Goddamn awful the news media is at covering a presidential election. (However, I did get a sense in 2004 of this trend when the Swift Boat thugs were given an equal voice on John Kerry's Vietnam record as the senator.) The news media is constantly evolving; during the 2000, nobody on Earth knew what a blog was. But the continuing patterns of media coverage do not bode well. Many bad trends in journalism, especially on campaign politics, have been exacerbated in recent years.

The New York Times just ran a story about the declining numbers of newspaper writers who follow the presidential campaigns. Print newspapers have been hit hard in recent years by the rise of the Internet as a popular news source. As a result, more and more newspapers have decided to restrict most of their news staff to just local events and fluff pieces.

It's really just as well that there aren't more newspaper reporters. The press makes it easy on themselves by following narratives throughout the campaign, making every news story fall into these categories whether they belong there or not. They also tend to report every story the same way in every outlet -- a phenomenon known as "pack journalism."

Pack journalism is compounded by the fact that television still plays the largest role in campaign news. TV news is where actual journalism goes to die. Because the news media is a business, networks and 24-hour news channels are discouraged from going out on the front lines and reporting -- it's much easier to just have people talk! And so they do, to no end. And the pack journalism means that the play the same video clips over and over again on every channel -- like with the recent Jeremiah Wright controversy -- in such a way as to lure in viewers, but not to educate and inform.

And this leads to yet another problem with coverage of the race and all elections: horse-race journalism and sensationalism over substantive debate. When the presidential candidates have debates, what lines are repeated endlessly in the news cycle? Not the distinctions in health care policy. No, that's much too boring. Instead we get all the zingers and one-liners that mean really nothing. Since when does anyone have the right to criticize Americans for being ill-informed when the media make it so difficult to be informed? The press is truly in a state of ruin. But progress has been made -- at least Crossfire was canceled.

Gays turn to Israel

Israel's embrace of Western culture is exemplified in its treatments of homosexuals. It is a country with a powerful rabbinate and deep religious tradition, yet still offers gays better opportunities in many ways than even most of the United States. Gays are allowed to serve openly in the IDF, for example. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country to allow this.

It is also a well-documented phenomenon that Palestinian gays immigrate illegally to Israel to escape persecution in the territories. But now the Israeli government has taken a step further; it has granted a temporary visa to a gay man from the West Bank who claimed he was under the threat of death at home because of his orientation. He was allowed to join his lover in Tel Aviv.

A residency permit to protect someone from facing repercussions of their sexual orientation? Could you imagine that in Jordan? Could you imagine that even in France?

Double standards

Good news for those who do not align themselves with al Qaeda. According to intelligence sources, the United States fired missiles at a Pakistani house where members of al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, killing 9 and injuring 9 more. Neither the Pakistani nor American governments would acknowledge the strike, so it was obviously an American action.

This is an example of the United States acting in its interests by killing terrorists in Pakistan after the Pakistani government apparently decided not to. I can't imagine anyone in American politics saying this was a foreign policy blunder. So why is it such when Barack Obama suggests it?

Iran votes, West holds its breath

Iran has held its legislative elections, and the results are starting to creep in. There is no trend yet, but expectations should be low for anything positive. After all, the Guardians Council eliminated 1,700 electoral candidates because they were too much on the reformist side. In some localities, reformists were not even allowed to field a candidate. The choice is between the jihadi conservatives and the moderate conservatives, who are themselves not so moderate as just less hostile in their words to the West.

This election is truly a momentous occasion. This is the last opportunity for Iran's people to deal a significant political setback to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the nuclear standoff will have changed dramatically in some fashion. By the time Ahmadinejad is up for re-election in mid-2009, it will be too late.

One must feel for the Iranian people, a people who wants change badly but whose government will not allow it. This is not democracy. Not when the candidates are permitted to campaign for a maximum of one week, and only those who meet the absurd standards of the Guardians Council. This is a contest to see who is least unpalatable. With the reformists so weakened by the religious authorities, they cannot do all that much. All that can be done is to hope, hope and pray.

Russia joins the best of the best

I have written about the travails of Iranian blogging and the difficulties they face with their government. Frequently, independent bloggers in Iran are shut down for speaking out against anything not called the United States, and often they are thrown in jail and charged with absurd crimes like "insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran."

The Russians are learning well from their uranium trading partners to the South. For the first time, a Russian blogger has been arrested for "insulting the police." This is part of a series of new laws banning "hate speech" on the Internet. The maximum punishment in this instance is two years in prison or a large fine.

Russia has now truly become an authoritarian state in every way. It already had the severely rigged elections, the suspension of independent media outlets, the suppression of opposition rallies, the cult of personality for its leaders. But now it has the means of crushing dissent on the Internet, an opportunity afforded to only the elite among dicatorships -- your Chinas, your Irans, your Pakistans. Welcome to the club, Putin and Medvedev.

Obama triumphs

To the surprise of no one, Barack Obama has won the Wyoming caucus, further pinning Hillary down in the delegate count. Yes, Obama does better in the caucus states, he having won 13 to Clinton's 3. The Clinton machine derides the success he has in the caucuses because they are not, perhaps, as "democratic" as a primary. And in the primaries she does considerably better. Some have posited that people are less likely to show their latent racist tendencies in the public atmosphere of the caucus. But this is baloney -- the misogynists would also have less opportunity in public to be themselves.

No, Obama wins in the caucuses because only the committed and the informed attend the caucuses. And Obama does better across the board -- among whites, the working class, everyone -- who pays close attention to the race. Clinton is the default candidate, which is why she wins more in primaries. Those who have not paid close attention to the race know her name and so they support her. But their numbers decrease every place Obama campaigns -- which bodes well for the general election. Besides, Obama will have to broaden his base of support: he can't rely on all the black voters, college students, and upscale independents who helped him win the Wyoming caucus.

Sign of the times

Who says Hamas isn't keeping up with today's latest trends? After today's savage attack on a yeshiva in Jerusalem, Hamas did not take responsibility for the attack. But they were in a celebratory mood afterwards, giving out sweets in the streets of Gaza, just like on 9/11. And they alerted their supporters to their glee at the shooting, by sending a text message to their supporters. It read: "We bless the operation. It will not be the last." So nice to see Israeli cell phone technology being put to good use.

Update: According to The Jerusalem Post, four of the dead had not even turned 18. Two were 15 years old.

Chavez and A'jad: Tweedledee and Tweedledum

It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Chavez is threatening military reprisal for a cross-border raid that US-backed Colombia executed into Ecuador over the weekend. The Colombians were looking to strike against the leftist revel FARC, apparently successfully. They recovered the laptop of a top FARC leader with some interesting files inside.

Mr. Chavez, who has established ties with Ahmadinejad, is linked in these files to the FARC rebels. Chavez sounds just like his Persian friend when he denied the authenticity of these files, just like the Iranian government did when evidence surfaced of recent nuclear weapons development (see below). (Chavez also attempted to insult Colombia by calling it the "Israel of South America.")

Apparently, FARC also has dreams of trading uranium. Whether there are nuclear ambitions are involved is not clear, as it may just be a profit-making venture. However, if they are serious in this matter, they have a natural ally in Ahmadinejad.

Skepticism proves right

Surprise! Looks like the NIE may have been less than dead-on. So much for being more accurate this time around. The IAEA has released documents--which, inevitably, the Iranians are calling "forgeries"--that show a commitment on the part of the Iranians to weaponize a nuke after 2003, which is the date the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons ambitions:

A senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component — which brings missiles back from the stratosphere — was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.

This is of course just part of the evidence at hand. Most bizarrely, however, is that most of the material in the presentation came from the United States. If the US had evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons past 2003, why on earth was this not reflected in the NIE? Were the writers of the report so afraid of an American strike that they went so far as to intentionally put false and attention-grabbing information prominently in the document? Or, if the evidence came after the report was published, why was this not publicly and loudly corrected? The Bush Administration better get its act together on what the official story in Washington is, or it risks stunting whatever momentum is left in bringing a peaceful halt to the Iranian nuke program.

Unfair accusations

During World War II, London was hit by about 1,400 V-2 rockets, wreaking utter havoc on the population. Hitler's blitz on London also included bombing raids, causing massive damage and thousands of deaths. How did the British respond? They turned Dresden into an inferno, inflicting 30,000 civilian fatalities in 3 days.

In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood revolted against Hafez Al-Assad's Alawite dynasty in Syria. In a few weeks, 25,000 lay dead in the city of Hama.

Since the Summer of 2005, over 4,000 Qassams have been fired from the Gaza Strip. There has been much public anger towards the perceived government inaction against those responsible. Limited airstrikes have been the extent of Israeli reprisal. Did I say "limited"? I am perhaps understating the case. Israel has made extraordinary efforts not to harm surrounding populations in these strikes--not the easiest thing when the mortar shells are launched from school playgrounds. Let nobody tell you that Israel is the among the worst human rights violators in the world or even aims to be. The British and the Syrians and many others should speak first.

Striking down the axis of evil

Israel (or officially, some unknown entity) has been in the mood for striking big the past few days. Yesterday, a mystery blast killed Ayman Atallah Fayed, a senior member of Islamic Jihad. The group warned of reprisals against its top suspect, the Israeli government.

This follows on the heels of the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah's number two man. He is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths--Americans, Israelis, and others. And of course, Hassan Nasrallah is warning of a great reprisal against Israel. And if we need any more proof of the close cooperation between Hizballah and Iran, the Iranian foreign minister attended Mughniyeh's funeral.

Why Hillary is oh, so unlikeable

Hillary Clinton attracts the female vote for obvious reasons. Gloria Steinem has defended her in the New York Times. But why is she considered such a pioneer for women? What separates her from, say, Carol Moseley Braun? Well, for one thing, she's been a professional wife. Yes, her most important qualifier for the presidency is her marriage -- which, as we know, has been infamous. Hillary is not a self-made woman. Where would she be without her husband? Where would she have gotten access to party insiders early on? On whose coattails would she have been able to ride into a carpetbagged New York Senate seat? Who else would have given her the name recognition necessary for her to be the frontrunner ever since John Kerry lost in 2004? Where else could she have dipped into a pool of rich (and corrupt) money circles to fund her campaign? None of the heavy lifting is her own. And yet she feels an entitlement to the presidency.

Barack Obama grew up as a mixed-race boy, moved from state to state (and country to country), and worked his way up to Columbia University. He worked on the ground in Chicago helping communities deal with the problems of the inner city. He became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He became an influential legislator in Illinois and won a landslide election to the US Senate, where he became the first black Senator since 1979 and the second since Reconstruction. He was behind in the polls since day one of his campaign and won over people with his message and rejection of the slash-and-burn political techniques. He is a true inspiration. And that is why he can win in November.

Slow and steady wins the money race

Sometime around 9:30 last evening I checked my e-mail to see Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe ask for $5 million by midnight (45 minutes ago) to close the gap that Hillary had created by pouring that amount of her own money into the race. And at 9:30, about $4.96 million had been raised already. As of this writing, Obama has raised $6.23 million since the polls closed on Super Tuesday, and the numbers keep climbing. I guess it really does pay to have lots of small-time donors feed you a little bit along the way.

Mission accomplished

If the writers of the NIE last year sought to give Iran a free diplomatic pass on its nuclear program, well it's "mission accomplished," then. According to today's New York Times, the newest draft resolution on Iran's nuclear program is

[. . .] far weaker than what the United States, Britain and France were seeking, and officials say their efforts to win support from Russia and China have been undercut by the release in Washington in December of a National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran had abandoned its nuclear arms program.

Experts theorized that the timing and content of the NIE was meant to insure that the diplomatic process -- and not airstrikes -- would be used to stop Iranian nuclear enrichment. Alas, they have taken the wind out of the diplomatic sails of Western powers looking to enforce and expand sanctions -- which the NIE itself implied would be useful in persuading Tehran. The Russians and Chinese now have boundless excuses to delay and water down any diplomatic effort against Iran. So thank you, American intelligence community, for helping stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Shalom, Shalom

That's, "Hello, Goodbye" in Hebrew. The Jerusalem Post reports that the State of Israel has officially apologized to The Beatles 43 years after withdrawing an invitation for the world's biggest band to perform on their 1965 world tour. But that's not all!:

Israel's ambassador to Great Britain is scheduled to . . . present the [Beatles Museum in Liverpool's] manager with an official apology letter, including an invitation to remaining band members Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr to come perform during the celebrations of 60 years of Independence of the State of Israel, Army Radio reported.

This story illustrates Israel's progression from a moralistic, socialist state in the 1960s (The Beatles were turned away because of the government's paternal attitude) to a capitalist, liberal democracy today. It's a progression that started with state-owned media and has resulted now in a diverse popular culture. It's a progression that Great Britain went through too, oddly enough. Having the remaining Beatles perform in Israel for its 60th birthday celebrations is a bit idealistic, but would be a fitting tribute to the way the Western world has changed in the last 43 years.

The magical disappearing e-mails

Apparent gaps in White House e-mail archives coincide with dates in late 2003 and early 2004 when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation and the possibility of a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence failures.

Doesn't this incident sound a lot like the 5 million missing e-mails related to the Justice Department hiring/firing controversy? And doesn't it also sound a lot like the 18-and-a-half minute tape from the Nixon days? Shameless.

Crazy talk

Ever wondered why most economists vote for Democrats in presidential elections? It's because they know that cutting taxes does not replace the revenue it loses. But Rudy Giuliani does not. He says that cutting taxes should only be supplemented by cutting other taxes if it wants to maximize revenue. His argument would seem to imply that a tax rate of 1% would generate even more revenue to the government. This is of course nonsense. Giuliani is playing to the crazy Republican base for the primaries -- and losing his head as he does so.

Norman Finkelstein: mere critic?

Former Professor Norman Finkelstein always said he was simply a scholar whose legitimate criticism of Israel was met by unmerited rejection. "What's wrong with being a critic of Israel?", he and others insist. Criticism of Israel is one thing. Meeting with Hizballah leaders is another. Does this sound like mere critiquing of Israeli policy?:

I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland.

Defend their homeland? So when their operatives send Katyushas into Kiryat Shmona completely unprovoked, who are they defending against? Where will you find a singular Israeli soldier in Lebanon? Finkelstein is no critic, he is a terrorist sympathizer.

Poll smoking

Stephen Colbert, in his first show back from a writer-strike-induced hiatus, told his guest the following (paraphrased):

You can get 50% of Americans to say anything! [turns to audience] Who wants to be a pirate? [audience roars] You see? 100% approval.

With the 2008 primary campaigns in full swing, polls are on everyone's mind. We heard about the legendary Des Moines Register poll, which supposedly had great influence and accuracy picking the winners of the Iowa caucuses. I was skeptical of this legend, yet Obama (huzzah!) and Huckabee won their respective contests.

Months and months of meaningless polls having been conducted, two candidates bucked consistent polling trends and came out on top. Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have fallen by the wayside. When will the media stop obsessing over surveys that will not have any actual bearing over the election? My guess: never -- they would eliminate so much campaign coverage that they will be around forever. This is such a shame, given that voters obviously pay them no heed. (Amazingly, the voters are making an informed decision in doing so!)