Sunday, December 30, 2007

Iowa Caucus sets stage for 2008 Presidential Election

Ready, set, GO! This Thursday will mark the first Election Day of the 2008 Presidential Race. It’s actually pretty late considering that many of the candidates (from both political parties) declared their intentions to run for the White House earlier this year, i.e. Clinton and Obama had exploratory committees set up one year ago.

Yet with all the stump speeches, bus road trips, flights and kissing babies that these candidates have done over the past year, everything boils down to getting voters to show up and vote. Iowa, centered in America’s heartland, becomes the first litmus test to see if the thousands (some millions) of dollars the candidates spent will pay off.

Let’s see where the major frontrunners stand. First the Democrats:

Hillary Clinton. Political pundits and the media like to put her on the top of the polls because she has something that the other candidates in the field don’t have—and no, it’s not because she’s the only woman running for the presidency. She has name recognition and the backing of her popular husband, former President Bill Clinton. But, as we have seen in recent months, being a Clinton doesn’t guarantee an easy victory: David Geffen and other Hollywood moguls—once loyal Clintonites—now back Senator Barack Obama. Few in-house scandals within the Clinton campaign have cast some negativity that has reflected on her. All that being said, Robert Zimmerman, a Clinton campaign donor and member of the DNC said it best, “[t]he notion of front runner is obsolete in American politics.” In other words, there is no such thing as a lead when there haven’t been any votes to count.

Barack Obama. Let’s face it. What Obama has that other candidates in the field don’t have is outright superstar charisma. Sure, political pundits gripe about his lack of substance in policy issues; however his message of change and hope resonates with the electorate. Where does one find a candidate who can attract thousands of supporters during rallies? Barack Obama did it in Los Angeles, Austin and Oakland to name a few cities. He has won support from people inactive from politics and many have compared him to Robert Kennedy. Not bad for a junior senator from Illinois.

John Edwards. It’s easy to like John Edwards. His message of fighting for the little guy and progressive politics resonates with the American people. The tenacity of his wife, Elizabeth, suffering from cancer, and still campaigning for her husband, personifies sacrifice. The only problems for John Edwards are the two frontrunners ahead of him in Obama and Clinton.

X-Factor: While recent polls indicate that these three Democratic frontrunners are at a virtual tie, I predict that the x-factor in the Iowa Caucus will be the ones who actually turn out to caucus.

The bottom line is this: if more women show, the edge will have to go to Clinton. If the Obama campaign is successful in recruiting young people to caucus for him (especially those students who are from out-of state), I would have to give the edge to Obama. If the weather turns nasty, count on the Edwards’ loyal supporters to show up and cast their votes. If that turns out to be the case, Edwards can possibly pull off an upset victory.

Let’s look briefly at the Republicans.

There are essentially three Republican candidates vying for Iowa and one of them isn’t Rudy Giuliani. That’s because Giuliani decided to sit Iowa out and bet on the larger states like New York where he, no doubt, has the advantage. The strategy for Mitt Romney is to do the exact opposite: win the early states like Iowa and New Hampshire and hope to ride the momentum leading to the bigger states. The candidate who decided to cut Romney off is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. With Huckabee essentially attacking Romney’s religion and character, Huckabee has methodically fought himself back to a dead-heat with Romney in Iowa. Both the Romney and Huckabee campaigns are coming to this final week trading blows and airing negative campaign ads. It’s too early to know how voters will react to these negative ads, but if Iowans react negatively to the negativity, that may swing voters to John McCain’s camp. Just like the Democrats, you may have the dark horse in McCain pulling off the victory in Iowa.

Politics is just like predicting the BCS in college football; rankings don't assure victory, the big game does. So it is with politics, Election Day is what matters most. We’ll find out Thursday.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Obama's a Different Type of Dude

Published in The Sacramento Bee, 19 February 2007

Forget the fact that his first name rhymes with Iraq, or his middle name is Hussein and his last name is one letter off from the name of the most wanted man in the world, but Senator Barack Obama, in my opinion, not only possesses the ability to win the Democratic nomination, but also has a legitimate chance to win the Oval Office in 2008.

Not because he’s black. In fact, race doesn’t have anything to do with it. Rather he understands the times better than other presidential candidates because he empathizes with the American people.

Critics may claim he’s inexperienced, his speeches are absent with substantive policy direction and are rhetorically-driven, but one cannot dismiss his strengths: his charisma that unites rather than divides the American people transcends day-to-day Washington politics; his belief that all Americans can achieve the American dream if they are willing to sacrifice is a message not heard since the days of Robert Kennedy.

What separates Mr. Obama from other contenders is his willingness to listen to the American people thereby successfully rallying them. It is an important lesson that the current administration has failed to understand in over three years.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Is 21,000 US Troops enough to take out al-Sadr?

Former US Army general and supreme allied commander of NATO, Wesley Clark lambasted President Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq in the op-ed he wrote today titled in the Sacramento Bee as "Diplomacy as the Last Surge". But could the general have jumped the gun?

In the letter, General Clark argued that the president's plan is shortsighted and will only be a temporary fix, citing that "increased troop presence [will] initially frustrate...militias, [but] wouldn't be long before they found ways...to continue the conflict." Rather, General Clark suggested diplomacy as the key. General Clark identified the current situation in Iraq as a political and not a military problem.

As mentioned in my previous posts, the US must use diplomacy to help the Iraqis build a unitary government and they have done so since 2003 under Paul Bremmer III. If, however, the end to build that government involves choosing sides as I mentioned in my last post, then the military option cannot be ignored. The president's proposal of increasing troop levels—which he will address tonight—may mean that he is choosing Prime Minister al-Maliki's side. Let me explain in greater detail.
_________________________________________________

Supporting al-Maliki means eliminating al-Sadr. Translation: military action against al-Sadr is required.
_________________________________________________

The US, since 2003, has invested billions of dollars in helping the Iraqis form a unitary government, from setting up the Iraqi preliminary government to holding elections. Currently, the State Department is working with Iraqi officials in creating a fair system of dividing Iraq's oil reserves proportionally so as to include the minority Sunnis to the table. This would be an important step to build trust among the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis, and towards a unitary government. I believe the administration firmly believes that only through a unitary government will the current state of sectarian violence on the ground be curbed.

Forming a unitary government can only be done by bolstering al-Maliki’s political position in the Iraqi parliament. This is easier said than done since the Shia majority is also divided within as Muqtada al-Sadr and his faction wait along the sidelines to break away from the government. Supporting al-Maliki then means eliminating al-Sadr. Translation: military action against al-Sadr is required.

While the media has not reported it directly, CNN's military strategists have already circled in their fancy Google-Earth Iraqi map Sadr City as the next major area of confrontation where these 21,000 troops will be conducting military operations. This could only mean one thing. The US will attempt to root out Muqtada al-Sadr's heavily-armed Mahdi militia. If this military operation is successful, the US will not have only eliminated a group that it considered a threat to obstructing Iraq's plans in forming a unitary government but it will also eliminate al-Maliki's major political nemesis in the Iraqi parliament. As a result, eliminating al-Sadr would give al-Maliki major political leverage which I believe the administration is gambling on to happen. Success over al-Sadr would pave the way for al-Maliki to form an Iraqi unitary government. The question now stands: will 21,000 US troops be enough to take out al-Sadr? Will Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and the Dems put up the money for this deployment? Will the American people buy it? We will see.


Technorati Tags:




Thursday, January 04, 2007

Choosing Sides In Iraq

What is the difference between the Kurds, Shias, Sunnis and the Iraqi government? The difference is that the latter doesn't really exist (while the Bush Administration claims that it does) while the former sectarian groups are vying for political power through means of violence.

In other words, Iraq is truly in a state of civil war. Ivo H. Daalder, a senior correspondent from the Brookings Institution addressed the salient part of the issue when he posed this question on his blog: "[T]he questions for President Bush is this: Which side in Iraq's civil war are we going to back decisively?"

Answering this critical question will pave the way for a decisive new policy in Iraq. The current debates of whether we should increase troop levels and intensify military training for Iraqi soldiers will not address the current problem of sectarian violence, as the ISG had suggested, but will in fact exacerbate it. The fact is, as we train Iraqi police and soldiers (predominantly Shia) and transfer power to them, many exploit the training they received by attacking Sunni dominated areas of the country. The Sunni, to no surprise, retaliate using guerilla tactics, i.e. masquerading in Iraqi police uniforms and perform brutal mass executions of Shias. The stark reality is that our efforts to strengthen the Iraqi government have only exacerbated the sectarian violence in the region. In fact, the administration’s indecisiveness in answering the above question have placed our military in the middle of the violence, as Shias and Sunnis continue their tit-for-tat attacks making it more difficult for the already fragile Iraqi government to achieve unity.

Our response to the growing violence was to hold the Al-Maliki/Talabani government accountable to stop the violence. What most Americans do not know is that Prime Minister Al-Malaki does not wield tremendous political power. On the contrary, Al-Maliki was elected to the office as a political compromise between the members of the Iraqi parliament. Therefore, for us to tell Al-Maliki to stop the violence would be like for us to tell a person to stop a train traveling sixty-miles per hour to stop on a dime. It's simply not going to happen. Furthermore, how can a government that has resorted to a futile "forgive, forget, and stop the violence" campaign for reconciliation is going to stop the violence? It will not.

The question for the president is how he will stabilize Iraq. In order to do that he must inevitably choose which side we are going to back. Mr. Daadler writes:

"So who do we want to win — the minority Sunnis who ran Iraq through brutal repression or the majority Shiites, many of whom are allied with Iran and not a few of whom are more interested in establishing theocratic rule than open and transparent government?"

As the US moves forward in this next chapter in Iraq, it must be wary how it proceeds. The hope of forming a unitary government grows dim as violence increase. Choosing sides will have major political ramifications and change the geopolitics in the region. Backing the Shia will mean allowing Iran and Syria to exert their influence in the country. Backing the Sunni will have the opposite effect but will pacify the moderates in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. Helping back the Kurds will sour our relations with Turkey. Backing any sectarian group will not be to Israel's liking. Backing no one at all will surely leave a vacuum in the region that may well become a haven for terrorists. Mr. Daadler ends it best when he said, "What we cannot and must not do is to pretend that we don't have to make a choice."

To read Mr. Daadler's post, click here.

Technorati Tags: