Blogito, Ergo Sum - 13 March 2008

Spitzer's gone, Admiral Fallon is gone, now what? More politics, this funny item in Media Notes:

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

"Implicit in Ferraro's statement is the idea that if Obama were a charismatic young white guy, there's no way he'd be getting any attention. And that's just plain crackers. Charismatic young John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960. His brother, charismatic young Robert F. Kennedy, attracted huge support in 1968 and might have become president as well if he hadn't been assassinated. Charismatic young Gary Hart nearly stole the 1984 Democratic nomination from Walter Mondale. And charismatic young Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

"Being young and charismatic has been a pretty good combination in the Democratic Party for the past 50 years."

David Broder sees things at least partly like I do with respect to a joint ticket:

Knowledgeable Democrats see at least two more-attractive options for her. One is to return to the Senate, where she is popular, well established and potentially in line to be majority leader, a position with real power. The other is to go back to New York, where Eliot Spitzer's resignation from the governorship yesterday leaves a potential opening for a new candidate in 2010.

But there's not much point of running for governor when you are already in one of the land's elite jobs, and it's arguable that the governorship is a step down for her. Plus it's a LOT more work, much of which is unappreciated by the constituents.

As for Obama, many of the same arguments apply -- with even greater force. He is less enamored of the Senate than is Clinton, but it could provide a comfortable resting place for four or eight years. Or he could go back to Illinois and run for governor in 2010, when incumbent Democrat Rod Blagojevich would be up for a possible third term.

Obama would be a heavy favorite over Blagojevich or anyone else in a primary and over the nominee of the beleaguered Illinois GOP. And winning the governorship would provide the executive experience that may be the biggest gap in his résumé.

But there is an even better reason for Obama to shun an offer from Clinton. With Bill Clinton poised to move back to the White House if his wife becomes president, the West Wing will be a miserably crowded place. There are almost always jealousies and tensions between the president's staff and the vice president's. But add in Bill Clinton's ego and entourage, and serving there would truly be cruel and unusual punishment for Obama.

There is a MUCH bigger one which Broder is unwilling to broach, given recent events. It is the fact that he would be looked on, especially by his black constituents, as having been willing to ignore the sacrifices of Rosa Parks and take his seat in the back of the bus like a good...boy.

Remember, the original question about Obama from the black community was about whether he was black enough. This would make him too black, in their eyes, and for sure shut down his next attempt at the presidency. But being screwed out of his year's election, then laboring in the vineyards as governor of Illinois while waiting for the next shot...what could be more perfect? He'd not only be more experienced, he'd be OWED!

And he could certainly run again in 2012 if Hillary has the four years I fully expect her to have.

Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq.

They said "there was no misperception" regarding Adm. Fallon's "non-warrior" approach to handling foreign involvement in the region.

"The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. "We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq."

Others said Adm. Fallon was pushed to resign.

"No matter what [Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates] said [Tuesday], we know for a fact Admiral Fallon was fired," said a former senior Defense official who works closely with military officials in the region. "We have kids — soldiers — getting killed because Iran, Syria and other foreign fighters are coming across the border into Iraq, and yet Fallon was unwilling to do anything to hold [those nations] accountable."

Since the founding of the republic more than two centuries ago, the United States has been well served by the principle of civilian control of the military — meaning that the president makes the decisions, and public disagreement by soldiers under his command is regarded as insubordination. All of this should be known to any reasonably intelligent 11th grader. But judging from their reactions to the Fallon resignation, Sens. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy missed out on some basic civics lessons. Mr. Reid complained that Adm. Fallon's departure showed that "independence and the frank, open airing of the experts' views are not welcomed in this administration." Mr. Bush's "oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree with the president," Mr. Kennedy asserted.

Nearly 30 years ago, Gen. John Singlaub, commander of U.S. military forces in South Korea, was publicly critical of President Carter's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea. Although Gen. Singlaub had a very strong case on the military merits, Mr. Carter really had no choice but to fire him based on the principle that it is intolerable for active-duty military personnel to publicly disagree with the commander in chief. Shame on Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reid — senior senators both — for choosing to ignore the Singlaub precedent and use the Fallon case to take cheap shots at Mr. Bush.

As always, I find myself wondering if Kennedy and Reid simply do not remember, or if they are cynically counting on the fact that a majority of their supporters will not.

Democrats structured their rules so that party elders could play a larger role navigating away from the rocks of damaging political choices. They were supposed to help the party avoid electoral injury and unify its constituencies.

But now those anointed to avert disaster may very well cause one. Superdelegates were never intended to play Hamlet. They were created to serve as a safety valve, not a political Solomon's sword.

Democrats would welcome their arbitration and expertise, for example, in choosing a new nominee in the event of a late-breaking scandal or another emergency. But forcing the superdelegates to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama is a different and unprecedented role few contemplated. It could leave millions of Democrats bitterly disappointed and demoralized.

Could? No, will. We already know that neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates by convention time. The intervention by the superdelegates is inevitable, not something which only might happen. There will be, definitely, millions of Democrats bitterly disappointed and demoralized. And more of them if Clinton wins, which may well be Obama's trump card. The biggest problem will occur if Hillary does manage to win the popular vote total.