My disappointments with Obama

Let me be clear: I think Obama is the best presidential candidate in my adult lifetime (which doesn't say much -- I'm not that old). Barring disaster, I'll vote for him in November. But he's still a politician, and there are a few things that I've been disappointed with in the course of his campaign, especially in the past month.

First, he has committed his fair share of populist pandering. From dissing NAFTA in the primaries, to promising support for auto manufacturers in Michigan, he has adopted a few economically dubious policies, presumably in order to win votes. This doesn't compare to the utterly misplaced economic priorities of Bush/McCain, but it's not pretty.

Second, he has occasionally allowed himself to get dragged into the mudslinging. Comparatively speaking, Obama has taken the high road in his campaign, but some of his ads and criticisms are deliberately misleading.

Third, he hasn't consistently stood behind some of his less popular positions. One example is his response to the Russia-Georgia conflict. I think he got the initial response right, by arguing that both sides had taken provocative action, by denouncing human rights violations including Russia's incursions into Georgia, and by calling for negotiations. Since that time, a conventional wisdom has developed that says Russia committed unprovoked aggression (anyone miss the Cold War?) that must be "confronted." Illustrated by the debate last night, it seems that Obama has given in to the conventional wisdom.

So I'm a bit disappointed with Obama in these regards. But perhaps I'm too idealistic; maybe I've watched too many West Wing episodes and want to vote for President Bartlet or Santos. Is it possible to win an election without doing some of these things? Probably not.

The first presidential debate

I tivo'd the debate last night and just watched it. My initial impression was that Obama won on substance, but McCain's style fit the debate format better. I kept wanting to tell Obama to criticize and respond to McCain more directly (although he did more as the debate continued). Obama has gotten better about this throughout the campaign, but he is fundamentally an Explainer, wanting to "clarify the record" in response to attacks. On the other hand, McCain seemed more schooled in the standard debate tactics: Share a tangential story when you can't answer a question directly (e.g. "the bracelet" in response to a question about Pakistan); Repeat your talking points ad nauseum (e.g., "Obama doesn't understand..."); and Stay on the attack.

So while I personally prefer Obama's style (especially as a president rather than a campaigner), I worry that it doesn't play well to a national audience. Instead of saying, "Let me clarify this point," I think he needs to say, "John, once again you're lying about my record." As Obama Explains, it can make him look Defensive.

But maybe my concern is unfounded. Initial post-debate polls seem to give the advantage to Obama. For example, in the CNN poll, people overwhelmingly thought McCain attacked more (60-23%), but favored Obama on every other measure.

Also, in wanting Obama to be more direct in his criticisms, I wasn't thinking about the very narrow tightrope that he has to walk. In that respect, I think he's doing pretty well.

Is Bush following Obama in Pakistan?

The American military and NATO forces have been engaged in a battle with Taliban and al Qaeda militants along the Afghan-Pakistan border for several years now. A few weeks ago, the Bush administration adopted a policy of pursuing al Qaeda and Taliban militants across the border into Pakistan, with aerial bombings from drones (which have been used all along) and ground forces (which is new).

Early in the presidential primaries, Obama claimed that he would attack al Qaeda on Pakistani territory, without the Pakistani government's permission, "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets." At the time, Obama was ridiculed as naive about foreign policy. Now, it seems that the Bush administration is following that policy. It also seems that the critics of the policy were party justified, since the recent American incursions have drawn a sharp rebuke from the new Pakistani leadership, and have possibly destabilized Pakistani politics.

I'd like to suggest that Bush isn't exactly following Obama's earlier recommendation. First, Obama was not talking about ground troops, and he was only talking about "high-value targets" (presumably folks like Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri). I might be parsing words too much here, but it's important, because there's a cost-benefit calculation that must be made: Is killing or capturing the militant worth upsetting relations with (and within) Pakistan? As I interpret Obama's statement, it's only worth it when it's a high-value target. Bush's recent policy has dramatically widened that net, and so he might be operating under a different cost-beneft calculation.

Indeed, Scott Horton has argued that Bush's calculation in this case is entirely different. He thinks Bush's attempt to capture or kill Bin Laden is related to the U.S. electoral cycle:

"The Bush Administration is hoping for an 'October surprise' that will lift the tides of the Republican candidates just in time for Election Day. That explains why the extraordinary effort is undertaken now, and why the sensitivities of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship are being ignored."

That's a pretty brutal claim. I'm not sure what to make of it. But after the past seven years of manipulating foreign policy for partisan political purposes, I'm not eager to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Just when you thought Obama WASN'T the Antichrist...

Apparently he might be:

"Barack Hussein Obama has taken the nation by storm.... It is stunning. On the surface, it appears attributable only to his eloquent oratory and his race. But an invisible factor may be a strong spiritual force behind him, causing some people to actually swoon in his presence."

Yeah, he's not talking about the Luke force, but the Darth Vader force. Read the whole letter. It's circulating among evangelicals.

If you aren't familiar with pentecostalist evangelical thinking, you might be led to think the letter is some kind of parody. But trust me, I grew up in an Assemblies of God church (the same denomination as Palin), and they're deadly serious.

"Don't worry," you might say, "it's a fringe idea that would never affect a presidential election." No, it's more like a quarter to a third of our population -- that's 100 million people.

McCain's reign is falling in Spain

In an interview with a Spanish-language radio station in Florida yesterday, John McCain seemed unable to identify Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain. In response to the interviewer's attempts to clarify who he was talking about, McCain gave a boilerplate answer about how he will work with friends and confront enemies.

Now, I'm partly willing to give McCain a pass on this one. Perhaps it was a miscommunication because of language differences. Perhaps McCain mixed up Zapatero with the Zapatistas. In fact, I think it's unrealistic to expect the candidates to remember the names of every single foreign leader (although Spain is a pretty important ally). So I'm hesitant to say that this was a big "gotcha" moment. It strikes me as significantly less worrisome and less relevant than, say, Palin's ignorance of the Bush Doctrine.

But here's where McCain doesn't get a pass. He has made his foreign policy experience a central argument in his campaign. Earlier in the very same interview, he tried to draw a contrast with Obama by claiming, "I know the issues and I know the leaders." So McCain should simply be held to the standard that he sets himself. If Obama had made this mistake, McCain would certainly make it Exhibit A in the case against Obama's foreign policy cred.

Incidentally, the same should also hold true for Palin (possibly) getting pregnant before she was married, and McCain committing adultery on his first wife. I don't think these issues are relevant to someone's qualifications to be president. But if the appeal of your own candidacy is based on notions of fidelity, personal integrity, and sexual morality, shouldn't you be held to your own standard?

Expertise matters

Now that Gov. Palin has actually granted one journalist an interview, it seems that people are beginning to notice that her knowledge of foreign policy is... how shall I say it... a bit lacking. I guess being able to peer across the Bering Strait just didn't give her all the expertise she hoped for. Last week Robert Kagan, a McCain advisor, said the following in her defense:

“I don’t take this elite foreign policy view that only this anointed class knows everything about the world," he said. "I’m not generally impressed that they are better judges of American foreign policy experience than those who have Palin’s experience.”

Which made me think: I wonder how far Republicans would be willing to carry this "knowledge is elitist" claim? I mean, how egregious does your lack of knowledge have to be before you're deemed unqualified? Apparently, "not really focusing on" the war in Iraq, and not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, or what a vice president does, isn't enough. If a candidate didn't know where Washington DC was, would they praise him for being an "outside the Beltway maverick"? If he didn't know where Canada was, would they call him a patriot?

The classic Rovian strategy seems to be: turn your weakness into strength, and your opponent's strength into weakness. So if Obama finished at the top of his class at Harvard, is an expert in constitutional law, and can speak intelligently about foreign policy, he's "out of touch with mainstream America." And Palin is a hockey mom "just like one of us."

Hey, I enjoy a beer with the guys at happy hour just like anyone. But if any of them ran for national office, I'd punch them in the face. (OK, metaphorically.) And I hope they'd do the same to me. Neither I, nor the guys I used to drink with in DC, are smart enough to be President of the Freaking United States. The country -- especially at this moment -- needs someone exceptionally smart and capable to be in that position. It's just plain dangerous for us to belittle expertise in favor of the Average Guy Candidate.

Will your taxes increase under Obama?

Yes -- if you make over $603,000 or so per year! Chartjunk has a great chart comparing tax plans from Obama and McCain:

Notice the difference in priorities?

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, whose blog is a bit addicting.)

US faces big foreign policy challenges

In the lead article of the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke states that "the next president will inherit a more difficult opening-day set of international problems than any of his predecessors have since at least the end of World War II."

According to Holbrooke, which candidate is best qualified and prepared to meet these challenges? You guessed it.

Why I support Obama for president

I think the recent public discourse about our presidential candidates has been shallow and cynical. At its best, politics is about arguing to define common goals, values, and interests to move our society forward. At its worst, politics involves trading rumors, lies, distortions, and distractions in order to win an election, which trivializes the really vital issues. So I wanted to explain, as clearly and briefly as possible, why I think Barack Obama is the best candidate for president, without talking about lipstick, flag pins, old age, Islam, or pregnant daughters.

What does a President do? He (perhaps eventually she) decides when and how to use our military. He is our highest diplomat to communicate with allies and enemies. He will likely nominate at least one Supreme Court justice. He is ultimately responsible for directing the huge bureaucracy that is the executive branch. He helps set the legislative agenda by sending bills and budgets to Congress, and has the power to veto or sign all national legislation. He influences American and global public opinion. In short, it’s the most important and difficult political office in the world, period.

Why is Barack Obama best qualified to fulfill these duties?

· He is a deliberative, critical thinker. The single most important qualification I look for in a President is how he makes decisions. Public policy is complex; it does not lend itself well to split-second, instinctual, black-and-white thinking. In contrast to his opponents, Barack Obama makes decisions through a deliberative process, listens to arguments from the other side, and is comfortable with nuance even as he holds to his basic values. That is an absolutely essential skill in a complex world.
· He is skilled and knowledgeable in domestic and foreign policy. Some people are concerned that Obama, as a first-term U.S. Senator, does not have the “executive experience” or history in Washington to be president. This is a valid concern that I share (although frankly, rendered a bit moot by McCain’s choice of Gov. Palin). Yet throughout his career, Obama has shown exactly the skills and expertise necessary to be president. His opponents have belittled his career; you can read about it for yourself here. Although he is not as experienced in the U.S. Senate as John McCain, his own considerable qualifications, judgment, and poise more than make up for this.
· He has a vision for change but is pragmatic in his approach. I happen to agree with most of Obama’s core values. Obama has laid out concrete proposals for ending the war in Iraq, making health care affordable for all, and cutting middle class taxes. But even when I disagree with some of his positions, I appreciate Obama’s focus on finding pragmatic solutions rather than settling into rigid ideological camps.
· He knows and respects the Constitution. The first duty of the President is to honor the U.S. Constitution. As a former constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney, Obama knows the Constitution better than any other candidate. Rather than repeating simplistic partisan mantras about “activist judges,” Obama actually understands theories of constitutional interpretation and has a sound approach to judicial nominations. While his opponents mock habeus corpus, Obama understands that defending the Constitution means defending basic American values.
· He will keep the American people safe and increase our influence in the world. Our national security is not best achieved by talking tough, alienating allies, labeling any potential threat as “evil,” spurning international law, and acting unilaterally. It might make us feel patriotic when our leaders do this, but most often it actually reduces America’s power. America gains more power when we follow international law, listen to our friends’ advice, work on problems multilaterally, negotiate with our adversaries, and support moderate populations against extremists. Obama will use force when necessary to protect Americans, but he will ensure that it is indeed necessary by taking soft power and diplomacy seriously. Given the actual and potential crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Burma, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, Congo -- and the list goes on -- tough talk and hard power are simply insufficient tools to protect our national interests.
· He has a strong commitment to solving the world’s biggest problems. Every semester I ask my students what they think the world’s biggest problems are, and every semester they say the same two things: global poverty and climate change. It’s hard to argue with them. More people die from extreme poverty than war, crime, or anything else – it’s probably the biggest moral failing of our age. While the other candidates give lip service to poverty, Obama has made concrete proposals to provide $50 billion in aid targeted to the world’s poorest people. On climate change, while his opponents’ approach to energy is centered around drilling for more oil, Obama makes a real commitment ($150 billion over ten years) to developing affordable clean energy – wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels – that holds a real promise of ending our dependence on foreign (or any) oil.
· He appeals to the better angels of our nature. Fear and anger are strong motivators; they are absolutely necessary sometimes. But when fear is used to serve partisan political ends, it divides and weakens the country. The central premise of Obama’s candidacy is that we can move beyond these divisions when it serves the public interest. Opponents have ridiculed Obama’s message of hope and change as empty rhetoric; as I’ve shown above, I think there is quite a bit of substance to the message and the candidate.

How you can help Obama win

Register new voters. Strangely simple.

Lipstick, flag pins and elections

One reason I started this blog is because I believe that US presidential elections are deadly serious events. People give their lives to have opportunities like this. So I've been pretty disheartened by the level of public discourse over the past couple of weeks. I know there are strong structural and psychological incentives in every election to pay attention to trivialities rather than issues. Every election has its share of lying, deception, exaggeration, and twisting of facts. But frankly, I expected more from Senator McCain, whose public image has been built around the notion of integrity.

I am an Obama supporter, and have been for some time, so I know I'm biased. But McCain's personal attacks on Obama's integrity and patriotism, the phony sexism charges, and the sex education attack ad were just outright lies. Not accidentally false claims, or exaggerations, but deliberate Rovian lies.

I find McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP to be along the same vein. I actually find a lot about Gov. Palin that I personally like. But McCain's decision-making process was cynical, rash, and ill-prepared. Whatever you think about Palin, McCain cannot have been thinking about effective governing when he made this decision. He was thinking about effective politicking-- and even then, only the most cynical form of identity politics that America should be trying to move beyond in 2008.