The Victory Column in Berlin is an interesting site -- the Victory it celebrates is Prussia's victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War. 1870's, Bismark and all that.

I don't think there is much at risk. There are enough Americans in Germany who can vote absentee with the help of Democrats Abroad to get up a pretty good crowd, but years ago I watched Kennedy's 1963 Berlin Speech with Danes on Danish TV who were sometimes critics of US Policy (mostly Socialists), and they were totally turned on by the Berliner's welcome for Kennedy. Comments such as -- "First time in this century that I've felt positive about Berliners' cheering for anything." I suspect that politically pissed off Americans might just have a similar reaction. We are now so familiar with the US President making a fool of himself, and attracting massive anti-American demo's, a massive friendly welcome will be contrasted with Bush's "up your's" attitude, and the parallel response.

Remember, he is also going to London and Paris -- will he have a big event there too?

And oh yea, the division of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-committees changed in the 90's, after the Cold War. Afghanistan was always grouped in with Europe (particularly soviet blok e. European countries) during the Cold War -- but after the 90's, the divisions were changed, and Afghanistan became part of S. Asia along with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, and a few others. I think the change was made in 92, so those who argue Obama's sub-committee has to do with Afghanistan are at least 15 years behind on this change.

Posted at July 18, 2008 4:41 PM in response to Report: Obama Will Speak At Victory Column, Not Brandenburg Gate

I'd suggest we are watching a slow building trend to Obama, and I prefer that on a national basis to a sudden change in the polls. People who did not actively participate in the primary/caucus period are slowly taking a look, and moving in one or another direction, Hillary's voters are coming around, people talk it over in cafe's and around the office, and a solid trend slowly forms, and while things can change, it would take a major event to change the direction of this trend. If Obama leaves Denver with between a 10 and 15 point lead, and holds it during the Republican Bash -- he will be very well positioned to bring it home this fall. Yes, of course the state by state races count in the end, but watching a national trend line this far out is useful.

Posted at July 16, 2008 12:09 PM in response to Fourth Poll This Week Shows Obama With Solid National Lead

What I liked were the frequent references to George C. Marshall, and the collaboration with FDR that was central to Marshall's Grand Accomplishments. I appreciate that Obama referenced both Marshall's role as Chief of Staff of the Army, and then Chair of the Joint Chiefs during World War II -- but then also referenced as a different accomplishment, his service as Secretary of State, and later of DOD, and or course his authorship of the Marshall Plan. It is the best example of collaboration between the assets of diplomacy and those of the military in our history, and for far too long Marshall has been slid over, ignored, and sometimes forgotten. Marshall had an entire theory of leadership -- it is clear Obama gets it, and as someone who has worked the FDR-Marshall files at Hyde Park years back, it actually tears me up.

The other person in Democratic Circles who "gets it" is Wesley Clark, and I see some notes in this speech that perhaps came from Clark's counsel.

Posted at July 15, 2008 3:19 PM in response to Full Text Of Obama's Iraq Speech

The Progressive Movement has to adopt a "Both/And" approach following a hopefully successful 2008 election. As to Electorial Politics, we have much more to be concerned with other than the Presidency -- there will be elections in 2010, not only House and Senate, but the State Legislatures that will do the next redistricting. If we don't like the Bush variety of up-sized Presidency, Unitary Governing Principles and all that --- we have to act like it, and get down in the weeds of political offices and elect promising progressives for the future at all levels.

Should he win, yep, Obama should be able to control the DNC -- nominate the Chair, use the national party to support his programs. But Hopefully, Howard Dean's work in building the 50 State Parties can be carried forward in all the states -- because we need strong state parties for state political purposes, many of which are of little concern to DC. Part of taking some power away from the Beltway Consultants and Lobbyists is relocating that power in the State Parties. Post Election we should be fully focused on this -- let Obama worry about the DNC, Progressives should build strong state parties that can fully participate in selecting nominees for House and Senate (take that away from the DNCC and the DSCC and the funding lobbyists).

I disagree with the characterization of the Civil Rights Movement (and the 60's) as something that was essentially in the streets -- just a movement that grew. I say this from experience, as someone who was in my 20's in those days, and who worked on the lobby side of passing all that legislation, and who got my education about doing it from people who had been engaged in the effort for a lifetime. Many were old timers who went back to the Labor Movement of the FDR years, and who brought to the Civil Rights Legislative table all the details of strategy, knowledge of legal precident and all that could be put to good use writing major legislation in the few years we had a window for passing it.

In the case of Civil Rights, we had an older organization called the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights -- which had about a hundred and fifty national organizations as members. To pass the legislation, the Conference adopted a fairly detailed set of principles -- goals if you will, that all member organizations agreed to support. For over a year the Conference met on a DAILY basis just off Capitol Hill -- anyone who had been to a hearing, or just in conversation with members reported -- it was agreed that there were to be no back-room deals, and all member organizations would accept assignments given their individual strengths and assets.

The Progressive Movement is going to need something like the Leadership Conference for all the issues that concern us -- a National Effort that has the resources to maintain a presence on the ground in DC that can organize very diverse groups around the country, allowing each to contribute from its own assets and strengths to a common end. The Alternative Energy folk need one Conference, the Health Care folk another. Be glad Al Gore invented the Internet -- back when we did Civil Rights, we used mimeograph machines and the US Mail.

Posted at July 10, 2008 8:50 PM in response to A New Era with New Problems, Solutions and Tools

"I asked my self today, why would a nearly 72 year old man with millions of dollars at his disposal via his wife, want to go through a grueling campaign to be President? There are only two reasons: 1) He wants to make the country a better place or 2) He craves the power and clout of the office."

McCain is a slightly older version of George W. He is fighting many of his own personal failures in life through politics.

He is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals who earned their berths. He messed up in High School, but was a legacy, and got into the Naval Academy only to graduate near the bottom of his class. He almost didn't get his wings -- he crashed planes. Then he got shot down and had to deal with 5 years as a POW in very difficult circumstances. When he returned, the Navy informed him he would not be promoted on up to Flag Rank -- which was his goal, so he accepted a disability retirement, got rid of wife one, found a youthful multi-millionaire mate, and decided to become Barry Goldwater II. Then he nearly landed on his ass out of the Senate when he got caught as a member of the Keating Five.

Just as George Bush is one who Failed Upward, so too is McCain something of the same sort. He has two reputations, neither of which sticks if you look at the data -- he is a Maverick they say -- well not if you look at his lifetime voting record; and they say he is a reformer. Reformer of what? (remember George's Reformer with Results? -- yea, some results.)

Just as I suggested way above in this thread that one distinguish between combat and command experiences and attributes, this is just one more case of where we need to do some onion peeling, and look at McCain's claims about himself, and those his supporters put forward.

I don't use the term "McSame" largely because it is just an assertion that Bush and McCain are the same or similar, and I think we can get beyond just cleverly asserting things. But the life histories of being born to certain privileges and legacies and then failing upward is certainly one of their common denominators.

Posted at July 1, 2008 12:07 PM in response to Clark Stands By Comments About McCain

I am thinking here that no one has actually read Wes Clark's book -- part autobiography, part commentary on modern military strategy, "Winning Modern Wars" which came out in 2000. Useful to know what kind of experience he plays from.

One of Obama's needs right now is to get the General Electorate to distinguish between combat tactical experience and strategic command experience. Clark brings both to the table in this argument, and it could be an effective way to introduce this important criteria to the electorate.

Wes Clark went to Vietnam to command a company after he graduated from West Point, and after he finished his 2 years in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He got into a serious fire fight, and took several rounds of AK 47 fire in his legs, which sent him home to a year in a military hospital, several operations, and months of therapy learning to walk again. He taught Economics at West Point while doing his therapy.

Back when Clark was serving as CNN's commentator during the invasion of Iraq, I think it was Aaron Brown asked him -- General, what did you learn from being wounded in Vietnam? Clark answered something like -- 'not a good tactical move to run out in front of a guy with an AK47.' It sounded like "Mama, not a good idea to let your kids play in the street." It is precisely this distinction that our electorate needs to understand so as to distinguish a combat record from a command position and responsibility.

It is precisely because Clark was very seriously wounded in Nam -- and then went on to acquire the skills for command, and brilliantly use them, that HE CAN BOTH TEACH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMBAT AND COMMAND, AND CALL OUT THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN FOR FUZZING THE DIFFERENCE. On both levels, he's been there and done that -- and what he has to say has weight for that reason.

After Clark could walk without a limp again, he was awarded a White House Fellowship, just as Nixon was leaving and Ford was becoming President. He worked for Alexander Hage -- and when Hage was eased out of the Chief of Staff job in the Ford Administration, and sent off as SACUR to NATO, Clark went with as Hage's Gopher. In that position, Clark developed relationships with NATO Alliance military that served him well, 20 years later, when he became SACUR during the 90's, and had to deal with the wars of disillusion of Yugoslavia.

Following his tour with Hage at NATO, Clark returned to DC, spending nearly the entire 4 years of the Carter Administration in the Pentagon, sharing an office with Colin Powell. He had two major assignments -- one was a full review of the Pentagon Papers, doing an analysis of all the command decisions on the part of the Army from the 40's up till 1969 that might help understand where the Army made mistakes that led to its failures in Vietnam. His second assignment was to lead the reform of the Army Training program as we shifted from a conscript army to a professional all volunteer force. He left the Pentagon to assume command of the worst Batallion in the Army, as a place to field test his desk-top assumptions about training and command reforms. (Got his Batallion up and ready in five months.) Then, he became commander of the National Training Center in California, where he served for four years. The Army we sent to the Persian Gulf in 1990-91 was a Wes Clark trained Army. Higher commands followed from this, Command of the 3rd Cav, the 4th Division, and then on to the Joint Chiefs staff at the Pentagon during the early days of the Clinton Administration. Clinton matched him up with Richard Holbrooke to create the NATO diplomatic-military approach to former Yugoslavia, dealing with Bosnia, and then the Dayton Peace negotiations. He served as CiC of Southern Command, negotiating how to remove that Command from Panama before we turned over the canal, and then the NATO SACUR command opened up, and he moved back to Europe, and then Kosovo happened.

So that is a thumbnail sketch of a career in command, and it is the experience from which Clark makes his observations on the difference between combat and command responsibilities and skills. No matter what people think of Clark personally, he has the credentials to teach the difference, whether it be with reference to McCain or anyone else. We need to focus on making sure the MSM and then the electorate understand this critical distinction.

I became aware of Wes Clark when my Senator, Paul Wellstone told me about him in about 1994. Because Minnesota has a fairly large Slovenian, Serb and Croatian population on the Iron Range who were frantic about what was happening in Yugoslavia, Paul had been presuring the State Department and both the Bush I White House, and then the Clinton people to get their act together and stop the genocide. I ran into Paul at an event, and asked him "How goes it with Bosnia?" and he told me that Clinton seemed to have finally found someone who really wanted to stop the genocide instead of just spin wheels -- and he told me about a briefing with Clark, and that he was going to Yugoslavia with him as part of a Senate delegation. That was when they went to meet with Milosevic, and Paul refused to shake hands as they left, commenting it was not his practice to shake hands with butchers. That sealed their relationship -- a Senator could make such a comment, but someone operating in a diplomatic/military role representing the President had to follow proper form. Apparently they had a good laugh as their car drove them back to Clark's plane to fly out of Serbia. Anyhow, I started following Clark about that time because Paul Wellstone thought he was a General interested in stopping genocide. I don't remember frankly where McCain was on Bosnia/Kosovo and all -- but most of the Republicans were more interested in undercutting Clinton than they were in stopping genocide, so Clark may be precisely the commentator we need to make many proper distinctions -- not just the one about the difference between combat experience and command.

Posted at July 1, 2008 6:27 AM in response to Clark Stands By Comments About McCain

Apparently, at least according to an interview this morning on Public Radio, she also wants a charter jet to take her to Denver, she wants her name placed in nomination, wants her delegates recognized as hers, wants arrangements made by Obama so she can have a big reception, major slot on prime time speaking -- and that is in addition to his turning over his major donors to her to retire about half of her debt.

I think that is all a bit much. Obama has to do what is realistic so as to gain support of those who strongly supported her in the primary season, but not all these things necessarily lead to that. When he announced his victory here in St. Paul, he met with about 25 of her strongest supporters for perhaps half an hour, and started a process that eventually includes them in his campaign. He has to focus on things like this state by state.

Posted at June 26, 2008 1:29 PM in response to Rick Horowitz On Obama-Clinton Unity Efforts

I am afraid I have to strongly disagree with you about Jim Johnson. Quite frankly, I don't think you know a thing about him.

I do not know him at all well, but have run in parts of the same Minnesota Circles. Back in the early 1960's he was Elected Student Body President at the U of Minnesota, and then worked for several years (I think while in Grad School) for the National Student Association. He was there in the mid 1960's when Ramparts broke the relationship between CIA and National Students Association (also NSA) though it soon became apparent that Johnson was not one of the NSA officers who was witting about the CIA relationship. One of the NSA projects CIA funded was a student exchange for former presidents of national student associations in third world countries -- and once the Ramparts stuff was out, many of the former grantees were in extreme danger, in fact, two of them were murdered. By that time, Johnson had gone to DC to work for Walter Mondale (Humphrey was VP) and Johnson was able to get to both and help those who were in very serious danger. Johnson did some staff work for Hubert when he was VP, and later when he returned to the Senate, but mostly he worked for Mondale -- worked for him when he was on the Church Committee -- something that was at least in part motivated by really knowing the consequences of that NSA/CIA relationship. Johnson went on to the WH when Mondale became VP, and worked for him for four years, and then of course worked on the 1984 campaign.

Mondale and Carter re-invented the Vice Presidency, and Jim Johnson was...well present at the creation, and over the years he has collaborated with Mondale in recording their commentaries on what they were creating. In the past four years Mondale has become one of the most outspoken critics of the mess that Cheney and Bush have made of their partnership -- though I think you have to live in Minnesota and listen to Minnesota Public Radio to pick up on all the conferences and speeches where Mondale and sometimes Johnson have pushed their criticism.

I think the swift-boating of Johnson's role in vetting potential VP's for Obama is quite a loss to the campaign, largely because I don't believe there is anyone who has given more serious thought to the nature of the Job. Johnson had the chance to see a most unhappy Vice Presidency, that of Hubert -- and also one of the most successful, Carter/Mondale. It is a matchmaker's job driven by the need for no surprises.

For several years, Carolyn Kennedy has also been deeply interested in studying these issues. Did you know that Carolyn is a Lawyer, specialized in Constitutional Law -- she has written two books, and she organized a symposium at the Kennedy School with Harvard Sponsorship that involved many historians and political scientists, and collaboration from a number of Presidential Libraries? Carolyn Kennedy wrote the introductory book for the three day symposium, (Which was on C-Span) and has collaborated with Johnson and Mondale in presenting some of the materials at the Humphrey Institute. Referring to her as "saintly" clearly overlooks and diminishes virtually all of her work and credentials. She is no longer the cute little girl with the pony on the WH lawn in the comic book.

Posted at June 26, 2008 3:24 AM in response to Impeach Obama!

When my Computer got CSC last week...(Sick Computer Syndrome) I read Shorrock's book straight through, and have put up some lengthy comments about it on EW's place at FDL and Open Left. If you can get away from the give and take of the campaign -- no book is probably as important in understanding what an Obama Presidency would need to be organizing, as "Spies for Hire"

First off -- Government essentially trains our spies and intelligence analyists for perhaps five to seven years, and then Booz Allen or CACI comes along and offers three times the salary to those who have their security clearances in order. The leadership of these firms are all former NSA, CIA or Military Intelligence, and they poach the talent, pay them three times the Civil Service rate, and quite specifically, send them back to the office and job they just left as a Civil Servant at three times plus profit and overhead costs to the agencies. What is key -- Security Clearances earned in the system are marketable.

Shorrock makes the point that no one in Government has ever drawn the bright line as to what functions are core, and must be done by those in the chain of command and responsibility within an agency, and what functions are essentially support, and can be outsourced. Fixing things really requires this be Step One. He points out that the DNI and the CIA director have been asked at confirmation hearings how they would draw the line -- none could. And while I doubt if Shorrock invented the term, remember this is the Intelligence/Industrial Complex, the step child of the Military/Industrial Complex -- and it works pretty much along the same lines.

Shorrock's strength as an investigative reporter comes from his business journalism background -- he is looking at what has emerged as a for-profit business proposition, largely dependent on Government. Thus the Intelligence Outsourcing pattern has to be looked at through the frame of an industry primarily concerned with bottom line profit, service to shareholders and all, but with a special twist -- most of the ownership of these firms is in the Private Equity World, which means of course we have no idea how profitable the business really is, nor do we know who really is involved in ownership. It is quite likely, for instance, that the 70% of CIA functions currently being outsourced, is for the profit of private investors such as China, the Saudi's, the Gulf States, and all -- and given the numerous mergers and acquisitions of recent years in the industry, some of the major players are not even American Companies.

One outcome of massive outsourcing is taking many of the intelligence functions out from under the oversight of Congress, as many of these firms have executed contracts that protect propriatry and exclusive rights. Shorrock illustrates with many examples -- one will suffice here, the contracts to develop language translation and high speed scanning and data mining of the kind of electronic traffic NSA provides. Turns out, the contractor owns the Software used in such operations, and in some cases owns the output. Congress through its oversight powers can't assess or evaluate it -- or even find out what it produces, even though the initial contract may have been an R&D program to develop the software in the first place. Shorrock argues that much of this was organized precisely to remove Congress's power of Oversight, and that one of the first things that needs doing is to reassert that power.

In what probably would be a controversial last chapter for many who read and post here, Shorrock claims that Nancy Pelosi knows full well the dimensions of this problem, and as someone vested with the long term interests of the House to maintain that power of oversight, she comprehends what she must do over several congresses to right the ship if you will. She and Chairman Reyes apparently have been now sparring with the agencies, the Senate, and the Bush Administration for a year and a half over language in various bills that move toward restoring House Perogatives, Shorrock claims she is very strategic in what she intends to accomplish, and is engaged in very tough battles.

It would be interesting if Tim Shorrock could be invited to discuss his book on this Blog, or any other that does book discussions...though it would also be useful if enough people could first read through his work before any discussion. Any real push-back against the pattern of privatizing Intelligence for the profit of the Private Equity Class, will require a knowledgable dialoge from outside the Security/Intelligence Industry, and the fairly serious policy blogs are a good place to start. The current Intelligence Budget is somewhere between 44 and 50 Billion Dollars, and as Shorrock points out, perhaps 70% of it outsourced to contractors. So it is a big time issue with much at stake.

Tim Shorrock writes for The Nation, Salon and Mother Jones, but also for Commercial and Business Journals. His research for this book -- which looks like it took about 5 years -- was in part supported by George Soros. He has been doing investigative work in the general area for 25 years.

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:48 AM in response to A Balanced Approach to Intelligence

You know MJ, something about this really bothers me -- I mean how can we get away from recommending candidates to others based on religion. Look -- I hate the two members of my very small religious group who ever emerged as anything -- Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon have always been on my shit list, even if they are (or were) Quakers. I would never consider recommending anyone vote for either of them, I certainly would not respect an endorsement from either, and I don't feel any pressure to be sorry for this feeling. In fact most Quakers I know wonder what it was about the discipline or tradition that made them into such dead fish. Hoover was probably the better of the two because he fed all those starving people during World War One -- but still, as moral leaders or even weighty Quakers, they leave much to be desired. (I find nothing in Nixon redemptive). (I even went to visit Hoover's Museum in West Branch Iowa to see if I could find more than was apparent, and it was a disappointment.)

So why should Bloomberg's going to Florida to rip into those doing internet fraud on Obama be all so important? What's the problem with the retired Jews in Florida taking it upon themselves to figure out the truth or false nature of a rumor? Asking questions about who started it, or what psychology it plays on, and particularly why someone thinks they are the sort to buy or be con'ed into the rumor?

I'd like some reflection on this observation. Most Catholics I know tell me that when a Priest starts talking candidates or politics from the pulpit in the midst of Mass these days, they plug in their I-Pod's and select serious music. Likewise, Unitarian Friends tell me they now want Authors, Poets, and Scientists for Forums -- no more Politics. So what is this Bloomberg thing all about? Please Reflect.

Posted at June 23, 2008 12:03 PM in response to Mayor Bloomberg Tells Jews To Reject Obama Smears