Radical Activists Touring for Revolution in Venezuela

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Venezuela's become the magnet for social revolutionaries around the world, activists who're drawn to the regime of Hugo Chavez, where the air of anti-Americanism hangs over daily activities throughout the country:

Caracas in the early 2000s has become what Petrograd was under Lenin in the early 1900s. It's what Havana was in the early days of the Cuban revolution. It's what Chiapas, Mexico, became for a time in the 1990s when "Subcomandante Marcos" launched an armed struggle to help the indigenous people there – a magnet for socialists and students, radicals and revolutionaries, leftists and a few Hollywood luminaries.

Until recently, they didn't have anywhere to go. Socialism was in retreat, "revolutions" scarce. Then along came Mr. Chávez and his gambit to forge a "21st century socialism." Suddenly, Caracas is the new leftwing petri dish. "This is the most interesting social experiment in the world taking place today," says Fred Fuentes, an Australian who moved to Caracas last July, as he sips from a mug with the government motto "Rumbo al Socialismo" (On the way to Socialism). "Venezuela is the key place to be observing."

Since being sworn in as Venezuela's president in 1999, Chavez has championed the cause of the poor, making them the protagonists of his policies. He calls his crusade the Bolivarian Revolution, after Simón Bolívar who helped liberate Venezuela from Spain in the 1800s. His supporters say he is the only one who has ever cared about them. Critics call his peasant-class evangelism posturing – a man with too much oil money using politics as a personal sandbox.

Either way, he has given a sense of hope to and unleashed a fervor among millions of Venezuelans. "This is truly a revolution," notes Cira Mijares, a Caracas resident who says she found her voice when she joined a community council, a Chávez initiative to boost the poor.

It is this same sentiment that foreigners are arriving to steep in. At the International Miranda Center, which sits on the top floor of a hotel suite that houses large numbers of Cubans, who have been in Venezuela providing medical care and baseball training to the poor, visitors from around the world – with government aid – prepare conferences and papers on the merits of the country's social revolution. They talk politics, quote Lenin, and discuss the new cooperatives and councils....

The waves of wandering leftists usually co-incide with domestic upheaval in their own country. In the 1930s, when many trekked to the Soviet Union, it was widespread economic collapse around the world. In the 1960s and '70s, the Vietnam War and social unrest drove some dispirited Americans to socialist outposts. More recently the Iraq war has caused people to pack up their political tenets, such as Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist, who visited Chávez in 2006.

Other high-profile people have made brief appearances here, too, including actors Danny Glover and Sean Penn. But most are people like Jordan Winquist, who was working as a waiter in Philadelphia after college. One day searching Craigslist he found a job teaching English in Caracas. But politics was the real reason he journeyed here in 2006.

I wonder if people like Winquist genuinely understand the movement to which they're so romantically attracted.

As regular readers know, I do a lot of blogging on the radical left.

I found an interesting article recently on the antiwar movement, which has emerged during the Bush administration as the spearhead for the worldwide anti-capitalist revolution.

John Tierney, in his essay, "The Politics of Peace: What’s Behind the Anti-War Movement?", has some background on the membership and goals of today's "romantic" revolutionaries:

The irony of the modern “peace” movement is that it has very little to do with peace— either as a moral concept or as a political ideal. Peace is a tactical ideal for movement organizers: it serves as political leverage against U.S. policymakers, and it is an ideological response to the perceived failures of American society. The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists. As Lenin used Russian war-weariness in 1917 to overthrow the Czar, so American street evolutionaries use reactions to the war on Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a way to foment radical political change at home.

The current peace movement is “neo-Communist,” says David Horowitz, the onetime radical-turned-conservative. This is a revealing and accurate label. In fact, the movement is heir to the Commu nist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), even though the party’s global base—the Soviet Union—no longer exists.

A variety of CPUSA splinter groups claim the mantle of the Left even as they spin-off a dizzying series of front groups and issue-oriented action “committees.” ANSWER is only the largest of these groups, which also include United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Not In Our Name,the Green Party and the Institute for Policy Studies. The Bush Administration’s war on terror, which includes the Iraq war, has prompted all of them to form coalitions and seek allies. Their aim is a “struggle” against “oppression” and “imperialism,” code words in the lexicon of revolutionary socialism. Not In Our Name (NION), a satellite of the Revolutionary Communist Party, decries the War on Terror as a Bush Administration ploy: “We will not stop until all of us are free from your bloodthirsty domination.”

After the attacks of 9/11, when the enemy targeted Americans for terror and death, the need for a “peace movement” vanished. Remember the isolationist group America First? On December 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor, it honorably disbanded, declaring “The time for military action is here.” But the current movement just does the opposite. As this study demonstrates, many of today’s antiwar organizers used to support the Soviet Union and its proxies such as the Vietcong, the Sandinistas, North Korea, Castro’s Cuba and the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador. It is no exaggeration to say that the modern peace movement is composed of the ideological remnants of Communism. These groups are motivated by anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Semitism and anti-globalization. They are enamored of socialism, world revolution and class solidarity.

One of the great benefits of the Democratic Party's long nomination fight is that as the race grinds on, the public's offered penetrating revelations on just how deeply the modern Democratic Party base is rooted in the most radical forces on the contemporary political scene.

For example, ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers, whose relationship to Barack Obama is receiving intense scrutiny in the press, is an unbowed revolutionary who has said that ''I don't want to discount the possibility" of returning to direct violent action against the United States.

As Captain Ed point out, just last September Bernardine Dohrn, addressing an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the SDS, spoke of her movement's continuing radical activism to "overthrow" this government's "hateful structures" (at about 2:50 minutes):

Today, of course, top radical commentators around the left blogosphere have formed a tacit alliance with the most implacable antiwar and revolutionary activists on the scene.

Under the banner of "progressivism," radical bloggers like Jane Hamsher, and groups like MoveOn.org and the United for Peace and Justice coalition, have adopted electoral poltics as the most acceptable, mainstream method of overturning the traditional capitalist status quo.

Hillary Should Forget North Carolina

Hillary Clinton's looking to North Carolina's primary to further make the case on Barack Obama's unelectability.

The Washington Post has the story:

North Carolina, with its large African American population, has long been seen as a firewall for Obama after contests in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere that favored Clinton. A win here and in Indiana, which also votes May 6, could cement his status as the front-runner.

If Clinton wins in Indiana and is able to score an upset, or even lose by a small margin, in North Carolina, her comeback would probably gain fresh momentum. A lopsided Clinton loss would essentially negate any recent gains she has made in delegates, in the nationwide popular vote and in persuading superdelegates to support her.

"They're going to try to win in Indiana and close like crazy in North Carolina," said Joe Trippi, who was a top adviser to the campaign of former North Carolina senator John Edwards before he dropped out of the race. Edwards has not endorsed either candidate, despite repeated entreaties from both.

Obama and Clinton have campaigned heavily in Indiana, where the race is expected to be close because of its proximity to Obama's Chicago home and its large number of white working-class voters, who have backed Clinton in other states.

They have spent less time in North Carolina, and as the race has shifted here both campaigns have sought to lower expectations.

"This is an uphill climb. To win here would be the upset of the century," said Averell "Ace" Smith, director of Clinton's North Carolina campaign.

Actually, I don't know if it makes sense for Clinton to invest heavily in North Carolina.

Blacks make up roughly 25 percent of the state's population, and black voters will be a large factor in the Democratic primary.

Yet Indiana's where Hillary's gold is for the next stage of the nomination battle.

Obama holds a bare lead in the Hoosier State, 41 to 38 percent. The Clinton camp should prioritize the vote there, as a big win in the heartland will allow the campaign to continue hammering Obama on his inability to win over white working class voters.

Indeed, as Obama continues to struggle with the fallout from his radical ties, Hillary can paint an Obama win in North Carolina as possible only because of the far-left racial constituencies of Democratic Party.

Photo Credit: Washington Post

McCain Mounts Caring Conservative Social Agenda

Over the past few days, John McCain has taken his campaign to the hardscrabble corners of the deep south to showcase his agenda of caring conservatism.

In "On McCain Tour, a Promise to Find ‘Forgotten’ America," the New York Times notes:

Senator John McCain opened a weeklong tour of the nation’s “forgotten places” in the Alabama Black Belt on Monday by acknowledging the challenge he faced in appealing to African-Americans and admitting that “I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me....”

But in a speech delivered against the backdrop of one of the great symbols of the civil rights movement, the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, promised to hear voters’ concerns and be “the president of all the people,” including those who supported his competitors.

McCain's realistic in his assessment, as much of the black community continues to be mired in a politics social policy largesse rather than personal responsibility.

Yet considering the failures of the Johnson adminisration's war on poverty (there's been little improvement in the poverty rate since the 1970s), McCain's correct to adopt na educational and market-based approach to facilitate upward mobility among the nation's poor.

Time calls this a "caring conservative" agenda that will move away from Democratic big government themes:

Rather than promise much new federal money to address poverty, he spoke of "controlling spending" and scrubbing federal agencies for waste. Rather than announce any major anti-poverty initiatives, he proposed a three-month holiday from the gasoline tax, some subsidies for rural Internet providers and a doubling of the tax credit for families with dependent children. Rather than follow in the footsteps of Lyndon Johnson, he praised the nobility of Johnson's cause but then pointed out the failures of the "War on Poverty" effort.

"He proclaimed that large government bureaucracies and government was going to solve the problem," McCain said of Johnson. "Government didn't." When asked if he could promise that he would not cut the discretionary federal programs that help the impoverished communities he visited, McCain answered carefully. "I can't guarantee that every single program will be kept in place," he said. "But I can guarantee that every program that's viable, and that's achieving the purpose for which it is intended will be kept in place...."

McCain has said his major economic emphasis will focus on stimulating the economy by continuing President Bush's tax cuts, slashing the corporate tax rate and reducing wasteful federal spending, which he said would be accomplished by banning Congressional earmarks and reviewing efficiency of the cabinet-level agencies. He says he expects these policies, including a continuation of a lower capital gains tax rate, to help the economy grow, benefiting those at the bottom of the ladder as much as those higher up.

By contrast, both Democratic candidates have focused more of their policy prescriptions on measures to provide direct government support for the poor, including tax credits targeted for low-income workers, new spending on early childhood education, a higher minimum wage, and health insurance options available to all Americans. Obama and Clinton say they would pay for these plans by allowing President Bush's tax cuts to expire, and possibly raising the Capital Gains tax, moves that would have a greater impact on the wealthy than the poor.

In the coming days, McCain says he plans to deliver an address discussing some of the policy lessons of his trip through struggling parts of the country. He said he was impressed with the importance of Community Development Block Grants, which provide federal funds for infrastructure work. He also said he had seen the importance of allowing local communities to play a major role in deciding how to spend federal aid. He has also promised to return to many of the communities he visited.

McCain has a significant, complicated challenge before him in selling this message.

The left, for example, is hammering McCain's visit to New Orleans, where the candidate faulted the Bush administration's response to the Katrina disaster.

Yet, while McCain focused on the Bush administration exclusively, the presumptive GOP nominee should further develop the theme of state and local responsiblity in the welfare of the poor.

Recall Bob Williams' message on Democratic Party's failure in Louisiana in 2005:

Many in the media are turning their eyes toward the federal government, rather than considering the culpability of city and state officials. I am fully aware of the challenges of having a quick and responsive emergency response to a major disaster. And there is definitely a time for accountability; but what isn't fair is to dump on the federal officials and avoid those most responsible--local and state officials who failed to do their job as the first responders. The plain fact is, lives were needlessly lost in New Orleans due to the failure of Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the city's mayor, Ray Nagin.

Recall, too, that Louisiana's voters elected Republican Bobby Jindal to the statehouse in 2006, a vote that signifies the rejection of Louisiana's ineffective Democratic Party leadership in times of crisis.

McCain must continue to make the case that the GOP agenda offers a better vision of hope and uplift than the failed Democratic Party social welfare policies of the last forty years.

ROTC Cadet Robbed While Having Seizure

Sometimes the depths of depravity are simply incomprehensible, but the story of the ROTC cadet being robbed while having a seizure on a public sidewalk is about as low as depraved inhumanity can get:

See also, "Man Robbed By Having Seizure."

Hat tip: Hot Air, "The Bad Samaritan."

Dems Long Nomination Blows Opportunity, Reveals Weak Candidates

I often close my posts noting how this year presents the best electoral environment for the Democrats in decades.

President Bush has been battered in public opinion by a polarizing war, government by both parties has been ineffective (for example, in the Katrina response), an advantage that should accrue to the party out of power in Washington, the economy, a little uncertain last year, is now in a full-blown housing slump and likely recession, and legitimate public goods demands, like infrastructure improvements, are building up.

Even without the normal demands for change in the electorate after eight years of GOP rule, the Democrats should be seeing a slam-dunk electoral environment in '08.

But they're not. The party's been dragged deeper into the mud with its nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and even top party officials are calling for an end to the bloodletting.

Gerard Baker adds some perspective to what I've got here, over at the Times of London:

Hillary Clinton's solid victory in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday has condemned the party to many more weeks of strife and sinking public esteem. There's a popular view among Democrats and the media establishment that the reason for the party's current disarray is that it just happens to have two most extraordinary candidates: talented, attractive, and in their gender and race, excitingly new. But there's an alternative explanation, which I suspect the voters have grasped rather better than their necromancers in the media. Both are losers.

The longer the Democratic race goes on, the more obvious it appears that each is deeply, perhaps ineradicably flawed.

Until about a month ago Barack Obama had done a brilliant job of presenting himself as a transcendent figure, the mixed-race candidate with bipartisan appeal who promised to heal the historic and modern rifts in American life.

But the mask has slipped. Under pressure in a Democratic primary, Mr Obama has sounded just like any other tax-raising, government-loving Democratic politician. Worse, he has revealed himself to be a member of that special subset of the party's liberal elite - a well-educated man with a serious superiority complex.

His worst moment of the campaign was when he was caught telling liberal sophisticates about his anthropological observations on the campaign trail. In the misery of their daily lives, he said, the hicks out there in the sticks cling to religion and guns and the other irrational necessities of the unenlightened life. His wife had earlier told voters that they should be grateful that someone of his protean talents had deigned to come among them and be their president.

The events of the last month have also revealed another side of Mr Obama that threatens to undermine his whole message. He is a cynic. He tells the mavens of San Francisco one thing and the great unwashed of Pennsylvania another. In defending his long relationship with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, he shopped his own grandmother, comparing the reverend's views (God Damn America! The US deliberately spread Aids among the black population) to his grandmother's occasionally expressed fears about the potential of being the victim of crime at the hands of an African-American.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has been busy shedding the final vestiges of shame and honesty in her desperate attempt to save her candidacy. She has abandoned any pretence of a message, and simply seized on every opening presented to her by her opponent.

Mr Obama's missteps with the working class of Pennsylvania have thus transformed Mrs Clinton from the bluestocking Wellesley graduate into the good old girl, hanging out there with the straw-chewing rednecks, embracing their values, their worldview and even their lifestyle.

Obliterate Iran! Here comes Osama bin Laden! I love duck hunting! I can do shots and beer at the same time! It's hard to know what's worse - expressing condescending views about the working class or pretending to be one of them. The Democratic campaign is simply disappearing in the enveloping vapidity of the candidates' making.

Actually, one could attack Hillary for abandoning a campaign of ideas to shift over to a theme of Democratic working-class populism.

But that's Hillary. We know that she'll do whatever she can to win. In my view, she's abandoned her pandering to the left's interest-group oblivion, especially on the war, and has started to sound more like how a real president would govern.

No matter.

Let the Dems continue to thrash each other. The economy presents opportunities for John McCain to sell a socially responsible pro-market agenda, one based on competence not social policy largesse.

The war in Iraq, of course, continues to have support in public opinion (specifically, there are no demands for an immediate withdrawal), which works against the Demcratic Party's incessant demands for an unconditional surrender.

There's no slam dunk for the Democrats, and the Hill-Obama conflict's making it even more true than ever.

Blame All: Douglas Feith's Score-Settling New Book

Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, looks at the political motivations behind Douglas Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism:

Mistakes were made. But not by him.

Doug Feith, the No. 3 man at the Pentagon before, during and after the invasion of Iraq, has come in for his share of blame for the failures there -- in large part because he led the Pentagon policy shop that badly misstated the case for war and bungled the planning for the aftermath. Gen. Tommy Franks called him "the dumbest [bad word] guy on the planet." George Tenet of the CIA called his work on Iraq "total crap." And Jay Garner, once the American administrator in Iraq, deduced that Feith is "incredibly dangerous" and, "He's a smart guy whose electrons aren't connected."

Now Feith, whatever the state of his electrons, is showing just how dangerous he can be. He's written a book designed to settle the score with his many opponents in the administration, and in a book-launch event last night at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he pointed his finger every which way but inward.

He argued that former secretary of state Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were the ones who failed to challenge the logic of going to war -- not him. He suggested that Powell, Armitage, Franks, former Iraq viceroy Jerry Bremer and even Feith's old boss, Donald Rumsfeld, should be blamed for the postwar chaos in Iraq -- not him. He blamed then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for the way she operated ("fundamental differences were essentially papered over rather than resolved"). He accused the CIA of "improper" and unprofessional behavior. And he implicitly blamed President Bush for not cracking down on insubordinate behavior at the State Department.

Yet at the same time, Feith told the CSIS crowd that he disapproved of the "snide and shallow self-justification typical in memoirs of former officials," or what Feith cleverly called the " 'I-was-surrounded-by-idiots' school of memoir writing." Feith pointed out that he supported his account with 140 pages of notes and documents. And yet, in his hour-long panel discussion, Feith seemed to be of the impression that he had, in fact, been surrounded by idiots.

I'll stop the quote there, as I'm not so impressed with Doug Feith.

I'm currently reading too many books to pick up another right now, but I'm especially not in the mood for a "blame all" tome such as this, on the political origins of the rise and fall of the Iraq war, precisely when American forces and the Iraqi political regime have reached a crucial turning point in the consolidation of an independent Iraqi state.

Iran Still Arming Iraqi Militants, U.S. Claims

The Wall Street Journal reports that Washington's offered new evidence showing continuing Iranian support for Iraqi factions fighting the legitimate government in Baghdad:

The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.

Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.

The allegations, which couldn't be independently verified, mark a further hardening of U.S. rhetoric on Iran, which senior American officials now describe as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq.

This month, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for Shiite extremist groups had grown. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.

Iran has long denied that its government knowingly funneled weapons into Iraq or trained Shiite militants there. It has derided the U.S. claims as propaganda. Several senior U.S. military officials said the weapons caches would undercut the Iranian denials and provide new evidence of continuing Iranian support for Shiite militants across Iraq.

"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," one senior commander in Baghdad said. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in the last month or so."

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, the top American military spokesman in Baghdad, said U.S. officials were "working on a briefing that we hope to be able to deliver in the next week or so." He said he would not be "disclosing the substance of the brief."

Last fall, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Mr. Ahmadinejad had told the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Tehran would take steps to curb shipments of Iranian weaponry into Iraq.

The weapons of deepest concern to U.S. officials were explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which U.S. officials accuse Iran of manufacturing and shipping to Shiite militants. EFPs, which are capable of punching through even the strongest U.S. armor, have been responsible for hundreds of American deaths.

The number of EFP attacks began to sharply decline after the Iranian assurances, resulting in a significant reduction in U.S. military casualties. That led several senior State Department officials to conclude that Tehran was honoring its commitments.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Gates and other top military officials have been skeptical, arguing it was too soon to draw that conclusion.

The number of EFP attacks against U.S. forces has rebounded this year. American commanders accuse Iran of providing the rockets that rained down on the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad recently, killing several Americans. U.S. officials said Iran provided the weaponry that Shiite militants used in block-by-block fighting with Iraqi government security forces in the southern port city of Basra this month.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, focused his recent congressional testimony almost exclusively on Iran, which he said was playing a "destructive role" by funneling advanced weaponry to Shiite militants in Iraq.

Within the State Department, views about Iran have also been hardening. Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told reporters last year that there were signs Tehran was "using some influence to bring down violence from extremist Shia militias." Earlier this month, by contrast, he said Iran was playing a "highly dangerous" role in Iraq, and directly accused Tehran of providing the deadly rockets that slammed into the U.S. Embassy compound where he lives and works.

See also, the New York Times, "Groups With Iran’s Backing Blamed for Baghdad Attacks."

Barack Obama's Neo-Marxist Liability in Jeremiah Wright

Dr. Sanity's got a post up analyzing the neo-Marxist ideology of Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Stanley Kurtz has gone through the sermons of Barack Obama's minister and father-figure:

Wright is not merely saying that there are tragic disparities between wealth in the West and in the rest of the world. Wright appears to believe that the capitalist system itself creates and depends upon the poverty and hunger of the "black and brown one-half or two-thirds of the globe." In effect, Wright believes that just as slavery supported the capitalist economy of early America, capitalism today depends upon the de facto slavery of Third World oppression.

Here's Dr. Sanity's response to Kurtz's thesis:

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the thing most feared by today's neo-Marxists is capitalism.

They are right to fear it, because capitalism works in the real world; while communism, socialism and all the utopian variants thereof do not....

In every empirical test in the real world, capitalism has worked better than socialism or communism or any Marxist ideology. The last century once and for all completely debunked all the original Marxist claims about socialism's supposed superiority.

Dr. Sanity goes on to elaborate some crucial differences between "the forces of freedom and individualism on the one hand," and "the forces of tyranny and collectivism" on the other.

But see how all of this relates to Reverend Wright's public resurfacing today, in Lynn Sweet's essay, "Wright Offering Fresh Fodder to Obama Critics":

The controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Sen. Barack Obama's pastor -- is speaking Monday at the National Press Club as part of a divinity conference of black church leaders. Wright's decision to headline an event at the Press Club -- open to all media -- risks giving Obama's critics more fodder, as if they don't have enough already.

Meanwhile, PBS is touting an interview with Wright to be broadcast Friday on "Bill Moyers' Journal." Fresh material from Wright -- no matter how well-intended -- is not what Obama needs....

Wright looms as a serious problem for Obama in his fight to be the Democratic presidential nominee over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and, if he wins, as a general election candidate against Sen. John McCain. Look no further than an ad the North Carolina Republican Party released Wednesday featuring a clip from Wright's "God Damn America" sermon and calling Obama an "extremist."

Fox News has been all over Wright -- helicopter shots of his Tinley Park mansion under construction -- and host Bill O'Reilly has been pounding Obama over Wright regularly on his show.

The backfire potential of Wright having any sort of a public profile at this point seems obvious.

See further analysis of Wright's reemergence at Memeorandum.

Iraq On Verge of Major Milestone as Sunnis Eye Joining Government

Iraq's Sunni faction may end its boycott of the al Maliki government in Baghdad, in what's being reported as a possible major victory toward political reconciliation in Iraq.

The New York Times reports:

Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc has agreed to return to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s cabinet after a boycott that lasted nearly a year, several Sunni leaders said on Thursday, citing a recently passed amnesty law and the Maliki government’s crackdown on Shiite militias as reasons for the move.

The Sunni leaders said they were still working out the details of their return, an indication that the deal could still fall through. But such a return would represent a major political victory for Mr. Maliki in the midst of a military operation that has at times been criticized as poorly planned and fraught with risk. The principal group his security forces have been confronting is the Mahdi Army, a powerful militia led by Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric. Even though Mr. Maliki’s American-backed offensive against elements of the Mahdi Army has frequently stalled and has led to bitter complaints of civilian casualties, the Sunni leaders said that the government had done enough to address their concerns that they had decided to end their boycott.

“Our conditions were very clear, and the government achieved some of them,” said Adnan al-Duleimi, the head of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in the government. Mr. Duleimi said the achievements included “the general amnesty, chasing down the militias and disbanding them and curbing the outlaws.”

The recently passed amnesty law has already led to the release of many Sunni prisoners, encouraging Sunni parties that the government is serious about enforcing it. And the attacks on Shiite militias have apparently begun to assuage longstanding complaints that only Sunni groups blamed for the insurgency have been the targets of American and Iraqi security forces.

Exactly which ministries will be given to which Sunni politicians is still under negotiation, said Ayad Samarrai, the deputy general secretary of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest party within Tawafiq. Among those under consideration are the Ministries of Culture, Planning, Higher Education and Women’s Affairs and the State Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Samarrai said.

We're seeing real political alignments, the stuff of old-fashioned coalition politics.

Regional actors should be encouraging closer ties between Iraqi factions, which would serve to isolate renegade Shiite groups, and lend more legitimacy to the deployment in American public opinion.

The Problem of Obama's Tenured Radical Friend

There are some interesting developments concerning Barack Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, the former '60s-era radical who's now a professor at the University of Illinois.

Sol Stern's got interesting piece up over at City Journal, "Obama’s Real Bill Ayers Problem: The Ex-Weatherman Is Now a Radical Educator With Influence":

Barack Obama complains that he’s been unfairly attacked for a casual political and social relationship with his neighbor, former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Obama has a point. In the ultraliberal Hyde Park community where the presidential candidate first earned his political spurs, Ayers is widely regarded as a member in good standing of the city’s civic establishment, not an unrepentant domestic terrorist. But Obama and his critics are arguing about the wrong moral question. The more pressing issue is not the damage done by the Weather Underground 40 years ago, but the far greater harm inflicted on the nation’s schoolchildren by the political and educational movement in which Ayers plays a leading role today.

Read the whole thing.

Stern's arguing that Ayers radical pedagogy is debilitating generations of American schoolchildren through the indoctrintation of anti-American radicalism:

Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

I see plenty of evidence of this on my campus, but Stern, in discussing Ayers' radical classroom agenda, gives Obama a pass on his ties to the former Weatherman.

Not buying it, Andrew McCarthy's posted a response, "Re: Obama's Real Bill Ayers Problem":

Of course it's an enormous problem that Ayers has so much influence. But Stern writes:

"If [Mayor Richard] Daley fils can forgive Ayers for his past violence, why should Obama’s less consequential contacts with Ayers be a political disqualification? It’s hard to disagree." It's not at all hard to disagree. Daley is a hack, while Obama — who claims to be a transcendent unifying figure — wants to be president. Ayers hasn't merely engaged in "past violence"; he is saying in the here and now that he's sorry only that he didn't carry out more terrorist attacks — and it's in the here and now that Obama (who aspires to be commander-in-chief during a global war against terrorists) has cultivated him.

Stern further writes:

Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools. In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated.

Baloney! Obama is pretending to be clueless and Stern is falling for it.

As I recounted in this piece, Obama not only served for years on the Woods board with Ayers; he also appeared with him on a panel arranged by Associate Dean Michelle Obama at U-Chicago in connection with which (a) Ayers' "social justice" work to fight against the incarceration of juvenile criminals — which had utterly nothing to do with teaching English — was elaborately described, and (b) Obama was joined with Ayers precisely because his (Obama's) work as a state legislator to fight jail sentences for juvenile criminals dovetailed perfectly with Ayers' conception of "social justice."

Obama did not call Ayers an English teacher because he was confused or misinformed. He called Ayers an English teacher because he was lying. That is, he was intentionally minimizing his relationship with an anti-American revolutionary with whom Obama has been friendly, collaborative and entirely comfortable.

See also, the Chicago Tribune's profile of the tenured radical, Ayers, Though Quieter, 'Still Outspoken'":

Photo Credit, "The door to Bill Ayers' office at the University of Illinois is covered with pictures, cartoons, graphics and various political paraphernalia Thursday morning. Ayers himself was nowhere to be seen after his name came up Wednesday night in nationally televised debates between presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton," Chicago Tribune.

Petraeus Promotion Consolidates Bush War Policy

As the Los Angeles Times reports in "Petraeus Promotion Ensures Future for Bush War Policy," the Bush administration's promotion of General David Petraeus to CentCom commander will solidify Iraq war policy into the next administration:

In promoting Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, President Bush is doing more than rewarding a job well done in Iraq. The president also is taking a step toward perpetuating his policy of high troop levels in Iraq and is putting his most trusted general in charge of renewing the military's focus on Iran.

Petraeus has been the prime advocate of Bush's policy of a large troop presence in Iraq. By naming Petraeus to a job that lasts into the next administration, Bush ensures that the new president will confront the military's strongest voice for maintaining a big force in Iraq.

And Petraeus has emerged as a leading critic of Iran's interference in Iraq, making his appointment a signal of heightened U.S. attention to Tehran. His expertise with Iran's military and political leadership will allow him to take a more hands-on approach to dealing with the government.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that Bush would nominate Petraeus to take over as chief of U.S. Central Command, which also oversees Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The job was left vacant in March when Navy Adm. William J. Fallon stepped down abruptly after appearing to criticize U.S. policy in the region, especially in Iran.

At the same time, Gates said, Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno to take over Petraeus' current job as top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Odierno had served directly under Petraeus as day-to-day Iraq commander before stepping down in February.

Like Petraeus, Odierno has urged that Pentagon leaders and policymakers approach U.S. troop reductions cautiously to avoid creating gaps in Iraq's fragile security.

Both men must await Senate confirmation. Although confirmation hearings will be confrontational, with Democrats criticizing Bush's war policy, both men are likely to be approved.

Despite the policy disagreements, Petraeus and Odierno command wide respect because of their success in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.

During his time as Iraq commander, Petraeus has grown steadily more critical of Iran's interference in Iraq's politics and of its role in contributing to violence.

When he took command of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2007, Petraeus was surprised at the extent of Iranian meddling, said some who have worked with him.

During recent appearances in Washington, Petraeus highlighted "nefarious activities" by Iran's Quds Force and charged that the unit has armed Iraqi "special groups" that have killed U.S. troops.

"We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor," Petraeus told Congress.

But Petraeus also has displayed a keen understanding of the current Iranian government, and many said he would approach Tehran with reserve.

"You will find a very pragmatic general," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised the Bush administration on its war strategy. "The Iranians won't be happy because they are not going to be able to feed him nonsense. But he won't be handing anyone in Washington memos saying, 'It's time to go to war.' "

In his new post, Petraeus will have a chance to solve a problem that, before now, he and others could only complain about.

"The question is not if Iran is unhelpful in Iraq," said P.J. Crowley, a retired Air Force colonel and a fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The question is what to do about it."

Once Bush leaves office, his successor is free to change his policies. On Iraq, the president's most important influence will be through the military officers he installs in command.

But see also Robert Kaplan, at the Atlantic, who elaborates more on the changes in top military personnel:

Petraeus's appointment as combatant commander of Central Command was set in motion several weeks ago, with the firing of then-combatant commander Adm. William Fallon. The administration let him go not for opposing a possible strike against Iran, as was widely speculated, but for arguing too often with Petraeus over troop levels in Iraq. Petraeus, who may be the most well-read analytical mind in the military, wanted to maintain troop levels, rather than reduce them for use in Afghanistan and for other contingencies -- to say nothing of relieving strains on the army. But Fallon and Pentagon generals wanted troop levels in Iraq to come down. Petraeus won the debate.

He will be the new CentCom combatant commander, running developments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a naval officer, Fallon had trouble gaining control of Central Command, since both Iraq and Afghanistan are Army-run wars. Petraeus will now have overall control of both conflicts. Replacing Petraeus as the top ground commander in Iraq will be Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Petraeuss deputy until a few weeks ago. Odierno carried out the nuts-and-bolts work of Petraeuss surge. Together they made an effective team; the next-best thing to having Petraeus in Iraq is having Odierno there.

That they will again constitute a team overseeing the Iraq war, now at an even higher level of command, means the Bush administration is going for victory in Iraq over all other priorities. Indeed, the personnel changes indicate that the administration is desperate to show enough improvement in Iraq by the end of the year that an incoming Democratic president wouldn't dare reduce troop levels precipitously and risk being blamed for a dramatic security meltdown. To wit, these appointments demonstrate that, irrespective of who will be the next president, the presidential transition has already begun -- on this administration's terms.

And this just pisses off the left to no end.

See, "Ass-Kissing Little Chickenshit Promoted to Head U.S. Central Command."

Satellite Images of the North Korea-Syria Nuclear Facility

The Los Angeles Times reports on the satellite evdidence of Syria's North Korean-backed nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israeli bombers last September:

U.S. intelligence officials showed satellite images, classified photos and other evidence to members of Congress today in an unusual presentation intended to advance the American case that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor before the facility was destroyed by Israeli warplanes last year.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and senior spy officials spent hours briefing key committees on Capitol Hill, publicly releasing much of the evidence later in the afternoon.

In detailing the alleged North Korean-Syrian cooperation and the destruction of the plant, the Bush administration broke a long silence on the issue, finally confirming the Israeli attack but denying U.S. involvement in its planning or execution.

As the briefings began, the White House in a statement strongly condemned both North Korea and Syria for their alleged roles in the project. Syria responded by denouncing "false allegations that the current United States administration continually launches against Syria."

The evidence includes photos of Asian workers at a facility in a remote area of Syria, where intelligence agencies had for years tracked construction of a plant they said bore remarkable similarities to a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, North Korea.

"There are images from within the facility," said a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the material. "But the key here is not that image, but the design features and components similarities between this facility and Yongbyon. And the fact that there has been for about a decade now a relationship in the nuclear sphere between Syria and North Korea."

The closed-door presentations on Capitol Hill created the exceedingly unusual spectacle of American spy agencies going public with elements of their otherwise classified case against North Korea, which the U.S. accuses of spreading nuclear weapons technology around the globe.

Administration officials said they were releasing the information to buttress the U.S. bargaining position in talks with North Korea that are aimed at removing nuclear weapons under the communist nation's control.

See, also the photo slide-show, "Suspected Syrian Nuclear Facility."

Hillary's Threat to Obliterate Iran Causing Ripples

Hillary Clinton's threat to "obliterate" Iran if Tehran launched an attack on Israel is sending ripples throughout the international community, the Los Angeles Times reports:

Better be careful what you say in the heat of a political campaign. It could have global repercussions.

Better be careful what you say in the heat of a political campaign. It could have global repercussions.

Jaded American insiders shrugged off the remark as typical campaign season bluster, filed away with myriad other exaggerations and gaffes.

But it prompted shock overseas as well as headlines from Bulgaria to New Zealand.

The statement triggered alarm bells in the Persian Gulf, which would likely suffer the consequences of any war between Iran and the U.S. In a harshly worded editorial, the Saudi-based daily Arab News trashed Clinton's comment today as insane:

This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.

The paper generally stays true to the line of the Saudi government, which is a key U.S. ally. But criticism of the remark also came from even friendlier quarters.

In the United Kingdom, which has been a steadfast U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on the issue of Iran, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a ranking British diplomat, criticized Clinton's remark as gratuitous:

While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequence of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is not probably prudent ... in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.

[UPDATE: To see a video and full transcript of the comment, click here.]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was perhaps more diplomatic in his comments on Iran's nuclear activities, but essentially agreed with Senator Clinton's remarks:

The defense secretary said he favors keeping the military option against Iran on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat, either directly or through proliferation.

Gates also said that if the war in Iraq is not finished on favorable terms, the consequences could be dire.

Note how the Saudis call the Bush administration's vigorous forward policy "doltish," and this is coming from a country where "women have fewer rights than Western children."

Hillary wouldn't be able to make any statements on national security in Saudi Arabia. Now that's doltish.

Americans Oppose Precipitous Withdrawal From Iraq

Today's Gallup poll on the Iraq war's likely to be cited endlessly by the antiwar hordes clammoring for a U.S. surrender in the conflict.

Gallup found that the percentage saying the war was a "mistake" - at 63 percent - is the highest measured for any U.S. war in the history of the organization's polling.

But importantly, there is no demand here for an immediate withrawal from the country, which is the key finding of this survey: Americans support the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq:

Even though majority opposition to the Iraq war is basically cemented, other Gallup polling has found that the public does not necessarily advocate a quick end to the war. While a majority now favors a timetable for withdrawing troops, only about one in five Americans think the withdrawal should begin immediately and be completed as soon as possible.

The public will implicitly choose one path on Iraq this fall, given its choice between Republican presidential candidate John McCain (who favors the war and argues the consequences of withdrawal would be severe) and either Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (both of whom oppose the war and want to end it as quickly as they deem prudent).

Gallup's findings reflect a public pragmatism on the course of the war, an appreciation for recent political and security improvements.

American strategy has adapted in General David Petraeus counterinsurgency doctrince over the last 14 months, and with Petraeus' pending replacement by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, the country can be assured a smooth leadership transition, and the continuation of successful policy as Petraeus moves on to CentCom commander.

No doubt this element of today's Gallup report will be ignored by surrender hawks such as Glenn Greenwald.

Don't believe that noise for a second.

Better Roses Than Cocaine, Right?

I don't always agree with Nicholas Kristof, but he poses an excellent question to the Democrats on trade: "Better Roses Than Cocaine, right"?

For seven years, Democrats have rightfully complained that President Bush has gratuitously antagonized the world, exasperating our allies and eroding America’s standing and influence.

But now the Democrats are doing the same thing on trade. In Latin America, it is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who are seen as the go-it-alone cowboys, by opposing the United States’ free-trade agreement with Colombia.

Some Democrats claim that they are against the pact because Colombia has abused human rights. Those concerns are legitimate — but they shouldn’t be used to punish people like Norma Reynosa, a 35-year-old woman who just may snip the flowers that go into the Mother’s Day bouquet that you buy.

Human rights aren’t abstract to Ms. Reynosa. Two of her relatives were killed in the brutal warfare and insecurity that plague her home region in Colombia’s South. A third was killed by a land mine, and a fourth was kidnapped at age 12 to work for guerrillas in the National Liberation Army, or the ELN. Ms. Reynosa ran a small restaurant but had to flee when the guerrillas demanded that she pay more extortion money than she could afford.

“They said they would kill us,” she recalled. “They didn’t say how. Mostly they just shot people and threw their bodies in the river.”

So in June 2005, Ms. Reynosa and her husband abandoned their home and fled to the outskirts of the capital to see if they could get jobs in the booming flower industry. Colombian cities like Medellín were the most dangerous cities in the world in the 1980s and ’90s, but now they are thriving and homicide rates are well below those of some American cities.

One reason is those bouquets you buy, entering duty-free from Colombia. These days Colombia is the world’s second-largest exporter of flowers after the Netherlands, and almost 200,000 people work in the flower industry. Up to 28 cargo planes a day carry flowers from Colombia to the U.S.

Better carnations than cocaine, no?

Critics of the free-trade pact worry that it would hurt American workers. But Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free; what would change is that American exporters would get access to the Colombian market.

(Colombia is pushing hard for the pact not because of any immediate trade benefit but because its duty-free access to the U.S. must be regularly renewed. Businesses are reluctant to invest in flower farms or garment factories unless they know that they will be able to export to the U.S. for many years to come.)

I have a lot of concerns on Democratic foreign policy, although I've mostly blogged on Iraq.

But a turn toward trade protection, for example, in some "new deal" for American globalization, would be a disaster for the United States, and would further remove today's Democratic Party from the party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.

Photo Credit: New York Times

Is it Really Race That's Messy Up the Democrats?

The New York Times misspecifies the problem for the Democrats in the long primary battle this spring.

Is it racial conflict that's damaging the prospects of a Barack Obama nomination, since the Illinois Senator's demonstrated incomplete electablity in key working class states? Or is the problem really the larger concatenation of all the consequences of Democratic Party identity politics itself, with that project's inherent interventionist, prefential, postmodernist mode of state power likely to harm traditional constituencies in areas from education to tax policy.

Check out the Times' take on this:

It is the question that has hung over Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and it loomed large on Tuesday night after his loss to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania: Why has he been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?

Lurking behind that question is another: Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?

Mr. Obama remains ahead of Mrs. Clinton in delegates, in the popular vote and in national polls, and Mrs. Clinton certainly has her own problems trying to herd Democrats into her corner.

But just when it seemed that the Democratic Party was close to anointing Mr. Obama as its nominee, he lost yet again in a big general election state, dragged down by his weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters. The composition of Mrs. Clinton’s support — or, looked at another way, the makeup of voters who have proved reluctant to embrace Mr. Obama — has Democrats wondering, if not worrying, about what role race may be playing.

“I’m sure there is some of that,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior political adviser, as he considered how race was playing among voters in late primary states. Mr. Axelrod said Mrs. Clinton’s biggest advantage had been among older voters, “and I think there is a general inclination on the part of the older voters to vote for what is more familiar.” He added: “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”

That change is found, I would argue, not just in the color of Obama's skin, but in his entire transcendental persona.

The change people aren't so thrilled about is the opening of the the highest ranks of the national government to the influences of hate-filled black liberationist preachers, unrepentant '60s-era domestic terrorists, and Islamist fundraisers whose organizations have been red-flagged and banned by the U.S. Department of Justice.

That's the problem. Had a Colin Powell-type of candidate challenged Hillary for the Democratic nomination, and somehow managed to make it this far, we'd be seeing a more traditional campaign, focusing on the issues of main street rather than Telegraph Road and Harvard Yard.

Thus, when Clinton starts talking - as she has been this last couple of weeks - about the concerns of everyday working class voters, relegating her own long-tradition of identity politics to a footnote, she's finally able to make the connection with people who are the salt of the earth of middle America.

It's not race per se that's tripping-up Obama, but the larger issues of radical change that a Barack Obama presidency would represent.

In that sense, there's some reassurance in the latest rounds of the Democrat race. Each time Hillary has come back the last few months - in New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, Ohio and Texas - everyone's said, "oh, it's racial politics, the "Bradley effect..."

But it's not. The reaction is more ideology, if anything. More traditionalist, and matrialist voters, are cringing against the potential of a radical postmaterialist, postmodern administration under Obama. That the Illinois Senator happens to be black is coincidental.

Obama's "Brand" Takes Hit in Pennsylvania

The Chicago Sun Times reports that Barack Obama's poor showing in Pennsylvania last night has damaged the Obama "brand":

The Obama team has always been very conscious and protective of the Sen. Barack Obama "brand." After a tough Pennsylvania contest, Obama's brand is bruised. Obama is not as pristine as he once was. He's had to deal with a series of controversies and he's gone negative against Sen. Hillary Clinton -- as she has attacked him.

In this historic election, Obama's high pedestal was cut down a few feet in Pennsylvania, his hardest fight so far.

Some of the most dramatic chapters of the Obama campaign, launched February 2007, have occurred just these past weeks in Pennsylvania.

Last month, over at The Constitution Center, near Independence Hall, Obama delivered a speech on race and inflammatory comments from his controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright still lingers as a general election issue should Obama be the Democratic nominee. His speech could be a plus long term.

The question of whether Obama is an "elitist" was raised after he said at a San Francisco fund-raiser that some in small-town Pennsylvania were "bitter" and so they "cling" to God and guns. In Altoona, Obama went bowling to get in touch with his inner blue collar -- even though it's not his sport. He rolled a gutter ball. But that's not all bad; the footage did not end up as a metaphor for his campaign and the humiliation factor was minor.

During the debate last week, questions about Obama's relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member/Chicago educator, pushed the story into the mainstream press. But the Obama team shut the guilt-by-association problem down -- for now, at least -- by bringing up pardons President Bill Clinton handed to Weather Underground members.

With all this, Obama returned to the park area near the Constitution Center on Friday night to rally a crowd of 35,000. Democratic registration in Philadelphia and its suburbs is soaring.

One of Obama's closing ads hits Clinton on her health care plan and goes too far in claiming she will garnish wages to help pay for health insurance. But the Obama ad is a conventional political response, not quite the "brand" image.

"They made a very serious choice that will have long-standing consequences to put their brand at stake in order to try to deliver this knockout blow, that they've been campaigning about this -- you know, with this notion of politics of hope. I don't think that that's how they've behaved," said Clinton strategist Geoff Garin.

Obama's brand likely won't be helped by the news that the Illinois Senator's got the support of Hatem El-Hady, a fundraiser whose Islamic charity, Kindhearts, was closed in 2006 after the Justice Department determined the organization to be the leading terrorist fundraiser in the United States.

El-Hady's got a dedicated sign-up page at Obama's official campaign web site, and Michelle Obama's listed as a "friend," a designation that's only given after accepting a personal invitation.

See more at Memeorandum.

Hillary Clinton's a GOP Attack Campaign Stalking Horse?

Hillary Clinton's being bashed big time for running a GOP-style attack campaign against Barack Obama (see Daily Kos, for example).

Now that Clinton's come back with a big win in the Keystone State, we can expect more of this outrage, which is getting even more unhinged, if Tom Hayden's essay at the Nation is any indication:

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth....

Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge....

outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.

This extreme right stalking horse meme's popular (recall Andrew Sullivan's recent deployment of the "Rovian-Atwater" smear), but I particularly like how the "youth" movement's going to save the Democratic Party.

The fact is that turnout levels are down among less-than-30-year-old voters without a college education, so perhaps Hayden sees a resugence of '60s campus radicalism that will lift Obama's fortunes (Sullivan thinks so too, speaking in an Obama-esque, transcendental style).

Note, though, that if folks are going to get upset with the far right, they should take it up with the real thing: By the looks of recent GOP developments, it's certainly getting nasty on the campaign hustings.

An outside conservative group is running a Willie Horton-style Chicago crime ad against Obama (via YouTube):

Also, the McCain campaign has recounced this Obama atttack ad sponsored by the North Carolina GOP (via YouTube):

See more at Memeorandum.

Clinton Hauls In $2.5 Million After Pennsylvania

Bloomberg has the story on a staffer's report that the Clinton campaign raked in $2.5 million following the organization's Pennsylvania win last night:

Hillary Clinton parlayed her victory in the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary into a pitch for funds, and her campaign said she raised $2.5 million in the hours after the polls closed.

``We can only keep winning if we can keep competing with an opponent who keeps on spending so massively,'' the New York senator said at her victory rally in Philadelphia. ``The future of this campaign is in your hands.''

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the money came in less than three hours after voting ended. He called it ``our best fundraising night ever.''

Illinois Senator Barack Obama has outpaced Clinton in fundraising as he has taken the lead in the Democratic nomination race. He started the month with $42.5 million to spend compared with about $8 million for Clinton, who also reported $10.3 million in unpaid bills.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and U.S. Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, both Clinton supporters, said in interviews that they expected her Pennsylvania primary victory to make it easier to bring in cash.

``There are a lot of people who are deeply enthusiastic. The money will be there,'' Corzine said, adding that he planned to make calls to contributors tomorrow.

Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Clinton would raise more in April than the $20 million she took in last month, an amount that was less than half that raised by Obama.

``He outspent us. Who cares? We're getting our message out and we're winning elections,'' McAuliffe said.

That's the campaign's key message: Clinton is winning. I watched Hillary deflect criticism of her high negatives with that argument this morning on Good Morning America, and now we've got Terry McAuliffe repeating the line.

It's certainly effective, and while the Obama camp will likely continue to do well in fundraising, the momentum of victory's always powerful, and Hillary can continue to build on her comeback credentials as the most electable Democrat heading into the remaining contests.

See more at Memeorandum, especially Mark Steyn, "Reductio ad Obamum."

Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt in the Superdelegates Commitment Game

I'm having to think back a while here, to my early grad school training, on the appropriate use of game theory to describe the superdelegate commitment problem in the Democratic Party nomination fight.

The prompt?

Well, Jaime Sneider has argued that the propensity of some superdelegates to withhold commitment to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is a "classic prisoner's dilemma" problem (via Memeorandum).

Sneider's responding to John Podhoretz, who in turn was responding to Matthew Yglesias:

John Podhoretz on the chances of wrapping this thing up early:

Yes. Sure. Because politicians with the most valuable votes in America are just going to choose up sides and not spend three months being courted and feted and promised. They are going to forswear having their feet kissed, their backs massaged, their views requested, their wants fulfilled, their needs anticipated. They are going to throw their vote away rather than milk it for all it’s worth....

A thousand or so people are going to decide this primary. It behooves those people to have this go on as long as possible, because that is how they are going to get the most goodies. Maybe this is what Hillary truly understands.

Howard Dean has admonished superdelegates for the bazillionth time to declare which candidate they intend to support, but don’t hold your breath. The fact is the Democratic superdelegates are in a classic prisoner’s dilemma. It is in their collective interest to wrap up the nomination, but each of them gains influence as they hold out their vote. Dean recently set down a June 3rd deadline for the superdelegates. I’m looking forward to that day: the Democratic nomination won’t be settled, and Dean will inevitably look like the incompetent, impotent party leader he is.

Actually, the superdelegates' problem seems less a classic a prisoner's dilemma than a "stag hunt," from Jean Jacques Rousseau.

If memory serves me, I learned this theory in Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, but to make this quick, the Wikipedia version's going to have to do:

In game theory, the stag hunt is a game which describes a conflict between safety and social cooperation. Other names for it or its variants include "assurance game", "coordination game", and "trust dilemma". Jean-Jacques Rousseau described a situation in which two individuals go out on a hunt. Each can individually choose to hunt a stag or hunt a hare. Each player must choose an action without knowing the choice of the other. If an individual hunts a stag, he must have the cooperation of his partner in order to succeed. An individual can get a hare by himself, but a hare is worth less than a stag. This is taken to be an important analogy for social cooperation.

The stag hunt differs from the Prisoner's Dilemma in that there are two Nash equilibria: when both players cooperate and both players defect. In the Prisoners Dilemma, however, despite the fact that both players cooperating is Pareto efficient, the only Nash equilibrium is when both players choose to defect....

Although most authors focus on the prisoner's dilemma as the game that best represents the problem of social cooperation, some authors believe that the stag hunt represents an equally (or more) interesting context in which to study cooperation and its problems...

The superdelegate problem seems more apppriate here, as it includes a large number of actors (a situation of cooperation that might more resemble the real world, for example, as in the "carousel feeding" of a group orcas) and the situation of double Nash equilibria.

It's been a while since I studied The Evolution of Cooperation, so if any expert game theorists come along here with a more beautiful mind, I'll be happy to defer.