building to a future

Thomas Friedman’s op-ed in the Sunday NYTimes nailed it concerning the situation in Iraq and the report due next month from Gen. David Petraeus. I’d link to the article but the Times is pay-per-view for columnists online. Anyway, the gist is that if we need someone to explain to us what is happening with the Iraqi government then it’s not working. What we need, and expect, is a very clear signal or action from the parties involved in the Iraqi government: public statements like we will work together as a coalition, we will crack down on militias, insurgents, etc., and we will do it by such and such date. No translation required, merely a forthright statement from the government. He also applies the theory to any number of Middle East peace plans over the last forty years; whenever he had to sit through a briefing and explanation, without any clear action, he wrote off the plan as failed at genesis. Sadat to Israel in 1977? That didn’t need explanation.

The Eleven had a long discussion on Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, senators and vice-presidents, and long-view politics. Very lively! The opening idea was that if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination I think she’d be foolish not to bring Obama on as the veep. I’m not sure how she’ll fare in the general election but I think she needs a strong running mate; someone who isn’t an unknown and wholly subservient politico to the world (i.e. former Virginia governor Mark Warner). Obama gives the ticket a ton of pull across the populist spectrum and would probably offset some of her negative numbers. The issue becomes what I think of the vice-presidency, it doesn’t often lead to the presidency through election: only Thomas Jefferson (1797), Martin Van Buren (1833), and George H.W. Bush (1989) made the jump. Nixon eventually became President but that was eight years after he was veep. I think eight became President through the death (and one through resignation) of predecessors. Of course, being a senator doesn’t provide a much better record – only JFK in the 50+ years. So where does Obama go? Back to the Senate or to the Executive Office Building? I don’t know that he’ll ever be more popular than he is right now and I certainly don’t think that after eight more years in the Senate the iron will be hot. Even four more years, and running against an incumbent in 2012, isn’t a grand idea. If we assume that we wouldn’t see him until 2016, and the great hit on his record is his lack of international experience and leadership, than I would prefer to see him serving as a dynamic, aggressive, and very visible V.P.- it would greatly enhance his political clout – but only if he’s dynamic, aggressive, and very visible. I certainly believe that time spent hanging around the First Husband and learning the workings of government and diplomacy would do absolutely no harm. Since I’m sitting here on the left and hoping to build for the future I can’t help but think a Clinton/Obama administration would provide a chance for 16 years of leadership; come 2016 he’d only be 55. Whaddya know?

That’s too much political thinking and whatnot.

T.