IT'S ALL HAPPENING WITH THE SURGE!

It must not be easy being David Brooks these days. A moderate, right of center, self-professed conservative who chafes under what conservatism has become post Reagan, Mr. Brooks bemoans the wanton, hedonistic "Greed is Good - Debt is Better" culture that has engulfed America since the Reagan Revolution began. Yet, he still refuses to see that it is the Christian capitalist, war economy based conservatism that is at fault. Yes, the Bushidos messed up big time: Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But, Mr. Brooks offers one last defense to an increasingly irrelevant Mr. Bush: he was right about the surge! Come again?

In his haste to equate cocksure surge opponents with cocksure war supporters - who, incidentally, still support both the surge and the war - Mr. Brooks glosses over what the surge was supposed to do and what it has accomplished. The curious use of "they" to cloak surge "opponents" with anonymity, lest his ruse be outed for what it is: a smear, Mr. Brooks ignores what has been reported in the op-ed pages of the New York Times (22 June 2008) in his own op-ed piece that appeared today, 24 June 2008, in the Times. On Sunday, in their trademark report card on Iraq, Michael O'Hanlan et al. gave the political aspects of the surge a 5.5 on a scale of 10. Whatever the basis for their evaluation, we still have a long way to go in Iraq just in terms of the politics.

As for the military side of the equation, many surge opponents were in reality surge skeptics. On the one hand, given the "success" of the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and the erection of barriers to prevent unauthorized entrance into cleansed communities, a decline in sectarian violence was probably forseeable. Periodic eruptions such as occasional suicide bombings were to be expected. On the other hand, what many surge skeptics were unaware about was the extent to which commanders on the ground had begun the process of reconciliation with Sunni tribal opponents of Al Quaeda in Anbar Province. The news media, essentially holed up in the Green Zone, barely reported on this crucial development. Now, we have a large number of Sunni tribesman, armed by and bankrolled by the American military, tamping down on insurgent violence in the countryside.

Whether these new Sunni allies can be integrated into the Shiite dominated Iraqi Army is a vexing question. If they cannot and the Baghdad government cannot find a way to reconcile Sunni and Shia (and thereby score higher on the O'Hanlan scale), then it is just possible that we've armed yet another side in a looming civil war.

And the surge? Neither is it an unqualified success or an abject failure. Nor does it point in any direction. forward. Candidate McCain believes that the surge's "success" might allow us to retain military bases in Iraq for years to come, despite the Iraqi public's refusal to accept continued occupation and the Maliki government's resistance to the proposed Status of Forces agreement. Obamistas believe that the surge, however success is defined, should lead to an eventual stand-down of the U.S. military and a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Without pressure on the Maliki government, Iraq will never stand up for itself. But the pressure required does not come from the imposition of a one-sided Status of Forces agreement. Rather, it comes about by holding the Maliki government accountable to the political goals that were part and parcel of the "surge". In short, until an 8 or 9 is achieved on the O'Hanlan scale, this war opponent remains a surge skeptic and so should you!

HAMAS SERÁ VENCIDO!

It is usually foolhardy to express a clear opinion about anything in the Middle East. Certainty is almost certainly mere fool's gold. Too many analysts or politicians have made critical assessments regarding the necessary conditions for peace in the Middle East, but have also been compelled to watch them be trampled by events on the ground. Fearing not where fools have tread before, Nicholas Kristoff, in an op-ed piece appearing in Thursday's edition of the New York Times (19 June 2008), plunged headlong into this snake pit.

Ostensibly, Kristoff's purpose was to chide both the Bush Administration and the Olmert Government in Israel for their colossally foolish approach to Hamas after the withdrawal of Israel from settlements in the Gaza Strip and the collapse of the PLO presence in Gaza. Rather than deal with Hamas, Israel chose - perhaps under pressure from the Bush Administration - to clamp down on the Gaza Strip. With the exception of providing needed fuel, electricity, medical aid and food, all contact with the Palestinian authority in Gaza was broken. Shunned by the international community, a broken Hamas would eventually come to its senses and abandon its rejection of Israel, accept the presence of Israel in newly negotiated borders and halt the periodic shelling of Southern Israel by Kassam rockets.

Of course, sometimes not even fuel, electricity, medicine and food was allowed to cross into Gaza. These brief events constituted retaliation for Hamas's refusal to halt rocket attacks, prevent attacks on Israeli checkpoints, or the persistent smuggling of weapons, weapons components and other goods into Gaza from Egypt.

None of this has apparently broken Hamas' will to resist. Yet, both Hamas and Israel have agreed indirectly through Egyptian brokered talks to stop the insanity, if only temporarily. It remains to be seen how long this informal hudna will last. Certainly, the ferocity of attacks just before its imposition cast doubt on the chances of success.

Nevertheless, Kristoff wished to know, why did it take nearly two years to reach this point? In his interviews with selected Gazans, Kristoff demonstrates that Israeli actions did not lessen Hamas in the eyes of Gazans, but merely heightened the blame already directed at Israel and the United States. Though one might question the logic behind the assigning of blame - after all, Hamas has made a mess of Gaza ever since the Israelis withdrew - it does seem to be pervasive among Gazans and perhaps West Bank Palestinians as well.

Still, Kristoff never ponders the contrary point of view. Suppose Israel had accepted Hamas and not followed the path of international isolation. Suppose Israel had ignored persistent rocket attacks in the hope that they would eventually fade away. Would we be closer to peace in the Middle East?

Miracles happen. But, for peace to break out in the Middle East, a miracle of all miracles might be required. As long as Palestinians cling to the hope that Israel might one day disappear just as the Crusaders disappeared from the Middle East after the Kurdish leader Saladin, who as military leader of the Ottoman Turks put paid to Christian attempts to reconquer the Holy Land, no true peace is possible. As long as Israelis tolerate the persistent attempts of settlers to create facts on the ground, no peace is possible. Yes, there are true sticking points. Israel cannot have a unified Jerusalem and extend the Jewish presence into East Jerusalem and share this with a Palestinian state whose capital might be East Jerusalem. Some circles just cannot be squared!

However, leadership can and might play a useful role in paving the way at least towards a return to normalcy. Under Sharon, the Israeli government came to its senses and realized that maintaining settlers in Gaza was neither feasible nor wise. Had the PLO - and not Hamas - been in charge of Gaza at the time of the Israeli withdrawal, maybe Gaza could have taken advantage of the situation. An airport might have been opened. The vegetable greenhouses left behind by Israel and supplied with European money might have point Gaza towards a future where it could feed itself and earn export income. Sadly, none of that came to pass. Worse: it is hard to imagine Israel allowing any Palestinians to take charge of the entire West Bank without the presence of Israeli security.

Israel can change and has changed. By and large, the Israeli public has come to understand the futility of complete Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It may have been God's calling, as Menachem Begin reassured the world, but the Palestinians weren't listening. Nor, in retrospect, should they have. Yet, change the Palestinians must as well. For too long, the average Palestinian has been misled, bamboozled, and hoodwinked by a Palestinian leadership that became obsessed with terror in the 70s, allied itself with Iraq in the first Gulf War. For all the money, Europeans, Arabs and Americans have poured into Palestine, there seems only one clear result: individual members of the PLO got very, very rich. How understandable it was to see the emergence of a new leadership - Hamas - that disavowed the corrupt practices of the PLO. They (Hamas) may be bad and naive with respect to the future of Palestine, but they surely are an improvement on the corrupt PLO gang that played the international community for every cent they could.

Surely, the Bush Administration and the Olmert Government share some of the blame for the ongoing quagmire in the Middle East, but they are not the only ones. Even if an Israeli government and an American administration bent over backwards to mollify Palestinians, it remains an entirely possible that peace in the Middle East might not advance one centimeter. I can still recall the euphoria that surrounded the emergence of a Palestinian "peace process" under the aegis of Rabin and Arafat. I can also recall how fervently commentators clung to this so-called peace process long after it was clear that Arafat was a conniving chameleon and Rabin had been murdered by a zealot. Even if Rabin had lived, it is not clear that an agreement would ever have been reached. Maybe, a Rabin led government would not have sought to impose the cookie-cutter cutout West Bank proposal that was presented to Arafat during negotiations in the final year of the Clinton presidency. And, maybe Arafat might have convinced the Palestinians to accept a quarter of a loaf - sliced and diced as it was - in the hope that after the building of trust, a more reasonable and geographically contiguous Palestine might have emerged. Alas, the Second Intifada put paid to that.

So, where does the Middle East go from here? I haven't a clue. It's a lot easier pointing out the barriers to an agreement or doubting the longevity of temporary truces. It's even tempting - in a Dr. Strangelove way - to imagine Israel driving the Gazans into the sea. But, dealing with the reality on the ground - and the emotions that have been shaped, squeezed, or betrayed by events on the ground - seems a mighty cross to bear. The blame game, however ill-focused, is child's play by comparison.

OIL MADNESS

Several months ago, George Bush expressed surprised that gasoline was approaching $4 dollars per gallon. Now that it's approaching $5 per gallon in California, Republicans are dusting off past non-starters and hope that Americans will once more be gullible to the promise of salvation at the hands of Big Oil. Democrats, on the other hand, distrust Big Oil and promise to tax windfall profits. Unsurprisingly, neither approach is convincing since none shows any understanding of the global market in oil.

Tap ANWR, array oil derricks along every coastline in the U.S., provide more incentives to Big Oil to find reserves ... yada, yada, yada. We could do all of that and not help reduce the price of gasoline one penny. What? How can that be?

First, the market in oil is global. Oil is shipped to places where it is most convenient to ship, provided that the consumers have the cash to purchase crude or refined oil. Since the late 1960s, the American west coast has been amply supplied by Alaskan crude. Refined in both Northern and Southern California, that crude has kept the west well supplied. It came as especially useful since the American west is not connected to the vast pipeline network emanating from Texas and Louisiana where Texas and Gulf Coast crude supply the Southwest, the Midwest and the East. What Alaska, Texas and the Gulf Coast could not provide was imported from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico and Arab countries. European crude from the North Seas was consumed in Europe principally.

What many Americans fail to realize is that a lot of Alaskan crude was shipped to Japan. Why? Because it was a lot cheaper to sell oil to Japan than to ship it around the cape or through the canal in order to get it to East Coast markets. Proposals to build a cross Canadian pipeline have remained on the drawing boards and are likely to remain so unless the exploitation of Canadian tar sands leads to a vast reconsideration of a trans-Canadian pipeline. Thus, even if ANWR is exploited, not all of this crude will flow to the US. Some will end up in Asia, especially China, if demand there keeps growing.

Yes, we could probably ramp up production along the shores and begin off-shore drilling, especially in the Gulf Coast off of Florida where Jeb Bush led the opposition for his two terms in office. Certainly, the refining infrastructure is there, although, as many have noted, there is a dearth of refining capacity in the U.S. as communities are reluctant to approve new refinery locations. As for Florida's opposition to off-shore drilling, Governor Crist, at least, promises a fresh look at oil drilling off the Florida coast. In any event, such oil at best would provide some relief a few years down the line, but will probably not buy us freedom from the growing oil trap.

That is, as China and India grow - and their middle classes expand - the demand for oil is going to increase worldwide, not remain static or decrease. Through conservation and the switch to hybrid technology, the West might be able to reduce its fuel consumption, as some western states such as Germany have managed to do. But overall, consumption worldwide is expected to grow. Alas, supply has not kept apace with demand. Older, successful fields are in decline. Alaska and the North Sea fields are on the down slope of the yield curve. Though perhaps there are vast reserves still to be tapped in Iraq and parts of the Middle East, political instability there promises uncertainty with respect to meeting world demand. Technological improvements may make the recovery of previously unrecoverable oil possible, and new technology can identify new, unexploited fields. Even global warming - to the extent that the Arctic icecap melts - might allow exploitation of Arctic oil fields.

What truly is needed is an alternative to fossil fuel, at least the fossil fuel that has lain dormant deep in the earth for eons. We can and should develop alternative fossil fuel sources that exploit plants requiring little or no fertilization and can grow in places where farming is not possible or not commercially feasible.

We also need to use resources wisely. Hamburg, Germany, for example, has agreed to take on some of Naples, Italy's trash for a few months in order to ease the garbage crisis there. In Hamburg, the trash is sorted and what cannot be recycled is incinerated for use by the city's energy network. Now that is using resources wisely.

Yes, the high cost of gasoline is hurting many consumers. Truck drivers are protesting the high cost of diesel fuel in London and Spain. American truckers are also feeling the squeeze. Eventually, higher transport costs will filter down to the consumer and lead to the rise in prices of both final goods consumed and the component prices of goods used to make other products. For the time being - with the exception of food - these costs have yet to be fully passed on to the consumer. But, they will be and difficult choices will be foist upon consumers, especially those with fixed or limited resources.

Subsidies to the consumer really aren't the answer either. They merely perpetuate undesirable behavior. And, they are often difficult to end once enacted. Look at how difficult Mexico is finding it to raise the cost of gasoline in the Mexican market, a fact noted by many drivers in the San Diego area who can fill their tanks for half of what it would cost in the U.S. Other subsidized markets are not much better: Venezuela or Iran. Brazil certainly benefits from cheap Venezuelan gasoline, as long as Brazilians are allowed to tank up in Venezuela. Iran, on the other hand, has had to ration gasoline in part because it does not refine its own oil and the price it must pay for imported gasoline outweights revenue generated at the pump inside Iran.

Subsidies to alternative fuel producers might help, especially if the marginal difference between energy produced alternatively and what it costs in the oil market is small. As the price of oil increases, many alternative sources of energy have become more competitive. That, at the very least, should provide justification for energy prices to remain high.

Governments could impose carbon taxes to lessen the cost differential between an oil-based economy and one fired by alternative sources of fuel. However, if the revenue from such taxes is used merely to prop up governmental spending in other areas, many consumers will be reluctant to support such taxes. However, if these revenues were used to fund research and technology for alternative sources of fuel and to establish and expand mass transit systems, then perhaps the public might be willing to accept such carbon taxes. It's not impossible, as Norway has demonstrated with respect to its expenditures on oil revenue received from its North Seas reserves. Other countries have demonstrated that dedicated carbon taxes can work.

What will not work are further subsidies to Big Oil. The least the Congress could do would be to end subsidies to Big Oil. Let them invest shareholder profits in the exploration of new oil sources. That's what they do best and what they should be doing with their "excess" profits. Failure to do so may well jeopardize the longevity of the companies themselves. Should they choose to invest in alternative sources of energy, by all means let them. However, we should not expect or demand that Big Oil develop alternative sources of energy. It's not what they do best and it may not be in their best interest to develop alternative sources, especially if these lead to a dimunition of profits derived from oil. Newer companies should be encouraged, especially those with great ideas and paucity of revenue to finance these ventures. Fortunately, the venture capital market is there to respond to such needs as long as energy prices remain high enough to encourage the development of alternative sources of fuel.

Now, compare this analysis with the nonsense spewed nightly by Democrats and Republicans. Same old, same old. As much as he was scorned, Jimmy Carter was in a sense correct. The oil shock of the 70s ought to have encouraged us to think alternatively. Instead, we relied upon the exploitation of vast new sources of oil - Alaska and the North Sea - and allowed oil to drop in price relative to inflation. Thus, oil was a bargain until it began rising with the explosive growth in demand from China and India and the silliness of American policy in Iraq. Now, it doesn't seem such a bargain, especially when consumers are forced to choose between filling the car's tank and putting food on the table. Let's not count, this time, on vast new reserves to buy us more time to the next crisis. Now is the time to go beyond fossil fuels from faraway times. Otherwise, it's just more madness. STOP the insanity!

CITIZEN McCAIN

The November election looks more and more as if it is going to be a reprise of 1996. The more John McCain tries to campaign, the more his campaign resembles the ill-fated attempt of Senator Bob Dole to oust Bill Clinton from the White House. Yesterday was no exception. When Matt Lauer, one of the hosts of NBC's Today show, asked Mr. McCain for his take on the surge and whether the results so far had made it easier to predict when troops might begin returning home. Mr. McCain responded, "No, but that's not too important." What is important, then, Mr. McCain?

Ever since he pushed President Bush to increase temporarily the number of American forces in Iraq, Senator McCain has consistently obfuscated the purpose for the escalation in the number of boots on the ground and support personnel in the rear. When sold to the American public, Mr. Bush claimed that it (the surge) was designed to reduce the then raging civil war in Iraq so that the Iraqi regime might have time to organize itself and pass key legislation in order to begin the process of reconciliation among Shia, Sunni and Kurd, the principal groups in Iraq.

Clear benchmarks were laid out then. And, hardly any of these have been met. Yet, Mr. McCain claims the surge is working. Is it?

True, there has been a decline in the number of American casualties and one can imagine an equally steep decline in the total number of injured or deceased Iraqi civilians. But, a decline was bound to occur at some point since the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad had pretty much run its course. And, protective walls had been and continue to be erected in order to isolate ethnically cleansed neighborhoods.

In addition, the "success" in Anbar Province has little to do with the surge. Rather, it is the direct result of Sunni fatigue with Al Queda insurgents and the willingness of American commanders on the ground to arm Sunni factions in order to fight Al Queda in Iraq. To date, however, the American government has not yet successfully persuaded the Shia led government in Baghdad to accept these citizen-soldiers as a constituent element of an emergent Iraqi army. Could it be that the Americans have merely provided weapons to the Sunni citizen-soldiers, guns that will be turned on the Iraqi government if no agreement is forthcoming?

All the elements of a civil war remain in place. The Mahdi Army remains outside effective government control. The Iraqi Army itself is riven with sectarianism. Despite the many years of training, the Iraqi Army seems incapable of standing up in order to allow American troops to stand down. And, now the Americans have armed the Sunni in Anbar. Let the conflagration begin! Success, then, is in the eye of the beholder. And as escalations go, this surge seems only a qualified success if you ignore the benchmarks once advocated by the Bushidos.

Yet, none of these important caveats accompanying a "successful" surge seems to matter to Mr. McCain. For him, the surge's most important goal was to reduce American casualties in Iraq. Stand down or complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has never been the goal since McCain would like to make Iraq just as safe a place for Americans to occupy as Germany and Korea have been. To be sure, maybe some troops could come home. But, for the forseeable future, perhaps even extending outward 100 years, Mr. McCain envisions some contingent of American forces remaining in Iraq. And, if Germany and Korea are any guides, a substantial number of troops will be needed as long as the war on terror blows hot.

Yet, poll after poll taken in Iraq has consistently shown that the Iraqi people do not wish the American troops to remain. And, even if one doubts the validity of an opinion poll conducted during a war, there are those voices in Iraq who have consistently called for the U.S. to leave, whether it be the head of the Mahdi Army, Sadr, or any number of Sunni leaders. Nor, for that matter, does it seem as if Iraqis - apart perhaps from the Kurdish population in the North - are willing to contemplate the provision of permanent military bases in Iraq, an objective that some in the Pentagon have long harbored. Even the status of forces agreement that the Bush administration is trying to sew up before year's end has met with resistance from the Iraqi government. In short, McCain's vision is but a desert mirage, one the American voter ought to reject vehemently.

What's worse is that McCain shows almost complete disregard for regular American troops and National Guard soldiers who have returned to Iraq or Afghanistan for their fifth, sixth, or even seventh tours of duty. How long can Mr. McCain expect such pressure to be maintained on the American military? For McCain, as long as the troops aren't being killed, maimed or wounded, there apparently is no problem. Really? The suicide rate among military personnel would seem to suggest otherwise. Then, maybe they are just bad seeds who couldn't cut it in the military. What we really need to do is to retain those courageous troops who don't succumb to post traumatic stress disorder and aren't tempted by suicide. Hold on to them by all means, Mr. McCain. Perhaps that's why you don't want to support the new GI Bill since American troops will have to stay indefinitely in Iraq. And what soldier would want to keep going back to Iraq if he or she had a chance at improving their lives through a new and improved program of GI benefits and avoiding IEDs and suicide attacks?

Illusion, mirage, delusion, it's all the same. You assumed that American troops would be greeted as liberators. You touted your Sunday stroll through a marketplace in Baghdad as evidence that the situation on the ground had improved. Yet, you casually forgot the protective vest you wore and the troopers, snipers and helicopters that made your armed escort possible. And, then you have the audacity to hope that Mr. Obama would come to his senses about Iraq if only he would visit there too! Good grief, Citizen McCain. You really don't get it, do you?

It's almost laughable that Citizen McCain keeps confusing the Shia with the Sunni, blaming Iran for arming the Al Queda in Iraq, and believing that Al Queda made us do it (invade Iraq). Indeed, it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that Mr. McCain has learned nothing from his Vietnam War experience. Yes, he heroically held out in capitivity in northern Vietnam and refused early release out of solidarity towards his fellow POWs. But, he steadfastly has clung to the illusion that the Vietnam War was winnable.

Even if the Vietnam War might once have been winnable - however defined - it clearly was not winnable after the Tet Offensive. The American media saw through the lies fed to us by the Johnson Administration and its Pentagon spokesmen. And, the American public grew more and more disillusioned. Though the Viet Cong were pushed back from major cities such as Da Nang and Hue, their "incursion" revealed the fragile hold that the South Vietnamese and the U.S. Army held on major portions of South Vietnam. Those brave soldiers who resisted onslaught after onslaught at Khe Sanh could not hold that bit of real estate forever. Nor could a "country" ostensibly governed by the nominal, but thoroughly corrupt South Vietnamese government be expected to remain under non-communist control, and certainly not by the revolving door of military henchmen who never managed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. Not even incidents such as the massacre of civilians at My Lai or the eventual deaths of over 50,000 American soldiers alter the reality on the ground either. Thus, it came as no surprise that, when asked to stand up, the South Vietnamese Army and government collapsed instead.

Citizen McCain, do you really see yourself in the role of Nixon, the president who escalated the Vietnam War for six pointless years and expanded it to embrace Kampuchea, only to see the fall of Saigon and the rise of the Khmer Rouge? Is that what you wish to play: Nixon to Bush's Johnson? How silly of you!

Of course, like the Johnson Administration and the sycophants who clung to it, George W. Bush, too, failed to learn any lessons from the Vietnam War. But, then, he and his fellow chicken hawks could be "excused" for having no direct experience with the war. Through deferments or cushy National Guard positions, they were kept out of harm's way and allowed to maintain their delusions. But, Senator Chuck Hagel wasn't, and he has consistently drawn the correct lessons from the Vietnam War debacle. It's no wonder he has been adamantly opposed to Bush's folly in Iraq. Maybe you should talk to Senator Hagel about Vietnam or about Iraq. You might just learn something.

Citizen McCain, it is encouraging to know that you have distinctive views about America's role in Iraq. Like you, I never believed there were enough troops in the theatre to secure a victory, and I was equally appalled at the atrocious strategy employed by the Bushidos after the capture of Baghdad. Unlike you, however, I never believed this war would be a cakewalk. Nor did I buy in to all of the lies, manipulations, exaggerations, and misinterpretations that the Bushidos constantly foisted on the American people. It is simply not acceptable that you promise to more efficiently prosecute a war that ought never to have been waged in the first place and whose continued prosecution merely weakens the United States and gives courage to terrorists everywhere.

Citizen McCain, it is rewarding to know that family members are willing to serve in that theatre. At least, you are not a bloody hypocrite. However, that still cannot excuse your complete lack of understanding of Iraq's history, its problematic relationships among Kurd, Sunni and Shia, or its unwillingness to host for an extended period of time American troops without subjecting them to IEDs or suicide attacks. And the fact that you have family members serving in Iraq doesn't give you any special claim to speak as the voice of wisdom. Senator Jim Webb has kin there too. And, unlike you, he is opposed to this war. You, on the other hand, you just don't get it.

It is a sad reflection of the abysmal state to which the Republican party has sunk to see how quickly the Republican party has rallied around your candidacy. Oh yes, there are a few nutjobs on the right and Christian capitalists who doubt your street cred. But rally they have. Do they suffer under the self-same delusion that plagues you with respect to Iraq? Why is it that so many Republicans fail to understand the nature of this war and the absolute disaster that the Bushidos have foist upon us. Is it because they are so bound to war contractors that they can't see beyond permanent war? Is it because they have so little understanding of other countries that they can't imagine any foreigner ever having a legitimate gripe against U.S. foreign policy? Is it because their ideology has so miserably failed them that they confuse Fox News with reality?

Let's hope that you, your party and your party's candidates get what they deserve: an overwhelming defeat in November. Your message and what your party has to offer have long been at odds with what America truly needs. Now, they merely serve to prolong everyone's agony - whether it's soldiers in Iraq, homeowners faced with foreclosure, stockholders losing out to corporate greed, or children treated as mindless test-takers. Good riddance and may you and your party experience the agony of defeat a thousand times over.

WHO'S THE BETTER CANDIDATE?

On Saturday, 7 June 08, there appeared on the New York Times op-ed page a rather curious article declaring that Hillary Clinton was the more viable - and electable - candidate of the two in a race against Senator John McCain. The author, Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, author of the book "Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmis Quandries and host of NovaScienceNOW, used a method of analysis about to be published in the journal of Mathematical and Computer Modeling written by two astrophysicists, J. Richard Gott III and Wes Colley. As reported by Dr. Tyson, the two astrophysicists found that "in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election - even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error".

That is a pretty profound claim on the surface. Yet when the professors applied these method in 2004, "they correctly," according to Dr. Tyson, "predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii". That's fairly astounding as results and struck Dr. Tyson as equally amazing. Indeed, Dr. Tyson was so impressed that he decided to apply the same method of analysis to polls conducted during the past six weeks in 19 different states. Then, he decided to predict the amount of the Fall election by comparing McCain versus Obama and McCain versus Clinton. In doing so, he rigorously adhered to the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley.

"(I)n states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie." I should note that the notion of median poll, according to Dr. Tyson, is based on three polls. Thus, median poll related outcomes can be one of three. One result is 3 - 0 in favor of a candidate, while another outcome might be 2 - 1. What happens, though, when the outcome is 1 - 1 - 1 where the middle or median poll represents a virtual tie between the candidates? In this case, the tie-breaker goes to the candidate whose party won in 2004. Thus, writes Dr. Tyson, "the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loes its 17 electoral votes" since "Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero".

The upshot of this analysis is that "if the general election were held today (7 June 2008), Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him". Whew! That's a relief. Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign probably did not have this analysis in its arsenal before suspending its campaign on this self-same day. But, never say never!

Dr. Tyson does caution us that a lot can happen between now and November. Campaigns happen. Gaffes emerge. Candidates falter. Money runs scarce. A lot of things can happen to affect an outcome in November. However, this analysis could be used to track Mr. Obama's progress as he seeks to beat Mr. McCain in November.

Before concluding, Dr. Tyson raised one very important question with regard to the Democratic delegate selection system "when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it". A good question indeed! As I have pointed out in another column, the Democratic delegate selection process is flawed, albeit vastly superior to the Republican winner-take-all system that produced very quickly one candidate with an insurmountable lead in delegates. The reason it is is flawed has much to do with the inherent contradiction between its participatory objective and its hodge-podge of electoral mechanisms that thwart a truly participatory candidate selection process. Eighteen million votes suggests that something is wrong when a candidate can effectively organize at the grass roots and dominate a caucus based delegate assignation process. If the results in Texas where Mrs. Clinton won the primary, but lost in the caususes, is not reason enough to question the democratic content of the Democratic delegate selection process, then I suppose the selection of a candidacy based on majoritarian support is not really the aim of Democratic primary politics.

As I argued earlier, Mrs. Clinton was done in by a system that allowed the Bamistas to storm the caucus states and build up a huge lead in mid-February. Once the primary system kicked in, however, that lead began to erode. Had California and New Jersey held stuck to their original primary dates, the momentum gained from victories in those two states might have persuaded superdelegates to side with the Clinton campaign. Of course, Mark Penn and others contributed their share to the Clinton fiasco, but that story has already been told.

WHITHER HILLARY?

Immediately prior to and after the graceful suspension of campaign speech that Hillary Clinton gave in Washington, DC on Saturday, there was much speculation whether she should be offered the candidacy for vice-president, whether she should accept such an offer if made, whether she should instead aim for the governership of New York, or whether Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, should step aside in January and allow Mrs. Clinton to become the new majority leader if, as almost seems certain, the Democrats retain their slim majority at the least or expand upon it in November. Former President Jimmy Carter was perhaps the most outspoken when he declared that under no circumstances should Mrs. Clinton be offered the vice-presidency. Many others, however, were at least open to the idea. Some argued that it was the best way to ensure that the 18 million voters, many fervent supporters of Mrs. Clinton, vote for the Democratic ticket in November. Unfortunately, the baggage that Mrs. Clinton would bring to such a ticket - the repeated missteps and egregious errors in judgement in her own campaign, as well as the ineluctable presence of Bill Clinton on stage or in the background - outweighs any putative strengths.

It is true that many women were drawn to the Clinton candidacy because Mrs. Clinton did represent the first female candidate with a genuine chance at election to the office of the presidency. And, many of those self-same women are deeply dismayed that Mrs. Clinton lost out by the most slender of margins. Indeed, a few still grouse at the "stolen" delegates from Michigan who were taken from Mrs. Clinton's column and awarded to Mr. Obama by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on Saturday, 31 May. However one chooses to spin Mrs. Clinton's defeat, she still retains a broadly based popularity among many voters. Why not tap into that voting block and make sure those voters vote Democratic in November?

As much sense as such a gambit makes on the surface, it still is quite a risky proposition. Mrs. Clinton, and the coterie of Wall Street executives and Washington insiders who surrounded her, represent the "old" politics. Good old, if you happen to like the Clinton years. Bad old, if you remember the ferocity of Republican attacks on the Clintons. Questionable, if you recall that many of the excesses on Wall Street today are the result of policy changes made under former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and clamored for the Clinton camp. Thus, a marriage between the "new" politics of Obama and the "old" politics of Clinton seems especially problematic.

Still, Obama has not wowed many "leftists" within the Democratic party. As Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, has repeatedly shown, the Obama health care proposal is woefully inadequate in terms of its professed goal of expanding health insurance coverage in the United States. Both the Edwards' proposal, as well as the Clinton proposal, were better, even if they too were fraught with questions regarding their political viability, as well as their ability to hold down ever rising health care costs. Of course, any of these three programs is a vast improvement over the present and the so-called reform proposal put forth by McCain. But, then, why should one expect any reform to come from a Republican party whose vociferous opposition to Mrs. Clinton's health care reform of the 90s served only to postpone needed reforms and to deepen the crisis in health care.

Wouldn't the presence, then, of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket at least guarantee a strong voice for progressive reforms? But, then, wouldn't Mr. Edwards's presence accomplish the same?

Of course, Mr. Edwards did not receive 18 million votes. Indeed, his campaign failed to generate the expected and hoped for excitement that he seemed capable of igniting. Mrs. Clinton did win a few states, some by very large margins. Thus, if a progressive voice is required to balance Senator Obama, then why not choose the candidate who drew the most support?

Bill Clinton, that's why not! It's hard to imagine how Bill Clinton could resist the urge to impress his views upon a new administration, should the Democrats win in the Fall. If you thought the idea of Emperor Cheney was bad, how could any policy role by the spouse of the elected vice president, especially if it gained the clout that Cheney exuded, be any better. One can easily imagine an administration at war with itself.

Let's not put the cart before the horses, however. Though it may very well be that many of the 18 million Clinton voters will be motivated to support an Obama/Clinton ticket, there may be just as many Republicans energized to fight any Clinton on any Democratic ticket just as they have done for the past 16 years. Why give the Republicans any incentive to turn out during an election when this party ought to receive a firm drubbing for its economic and war policies for the past 8 years. Obama may animate the right as well. But that will be the result, not of any character deficiences or questionable conduct inherent in a Clinton candidacy, but of the deliberate use of residual racist and overtly anti-Islamic sentiment post 9/11.

Whatever the outcome in November, success or failure of Senator Obama should rest squarely on his shoulders. Should he continue the miraculous journey that he has ventured down so far, then let him enjoy the sweet taste of victory. If, on the other hand, his meteoric rise was mere chimera, then let him crash in the agony of defeat. Four years of a McCain presidency may be very bad, especially if it represents a continuation of the Bush quagmire in Iraq and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration domestically. Yet, a Democratic defeat that arises because of the Clinton presence on the Democratic ticket would be inexcusable.

THE NIT-PICKY MR. ICKES

On Sunday, 1 June 2008 in an interview broadcast on NPR's Weekend Edition, Harold Ickes, the son of former Roosevelt Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, sought to rationalize the discontent still present within Clinton circles after the decision handed down Saturday by the DNC Rules committee. Using the words fair and square to describe delegates Mrs. Clinton "won" in Michigan and claiming that it was unfair to take away some of those delegates and award them to Mr. Obama, Mr. Ickes continued the Clinton campaign's obfuscation of issues. In addition, Mr. Ickes questioned the motives of both Edwards and Obama as each had his name removed from the Michigan ballot after the DNC ruled that the 15 January primary violated Democratic party rules. None of his arguments was persuasivei n the least and the net effect of his comments was to sully further his own fast receding reputation within the Democratic party.

The failure to be treated fairly and squarely by the DNC rules committee is a not a charge to be taken lightly, especially not in light of the Democratic party's ongoing efforts to broaden voter participation in candidate selection. Though the strange mish-mash of caucuses and primary elections only partly meets the demands of participatory democracy, the Democratic party stands light years ahead of its Republican revival which allocates too many delegates via winner-take-all elections. Still, perhaps the rules - and specifically their interpretation Saturday - failed to honor the choice of voters. That's the argument Mr. Ickes was making.

That assumes, however, that the results of an election conducted contrary to the demands of the Democratic party carries with it any legitimacy in the first place. To the extent that voters went to the polls in both Florida and Michigan, the two states with problem primaries, their votes should count for something and their preferences be reflected in the convention delegation. Since both Mr. Obama's and Ms. Clinton's names appeared on the Florida ballot, it can be argued that the outcome in that election should be reflected in the composition of the delegation. And, that's roughly what happened. The composition was not changed; the delegation's voting strength was diluted by half.

Michigan, on the other hand, posed a larger problem. Since neither Obama nor Edwards appeared on the Michigan ballot, there is no practical way to determine what percentage of the delegation should be awarded to Obama. To nit pick, as Mr. Ickes did, and argue that uncommitted is a category of long-standing recognition within DNC rules and that, therefore, Mr. Obama should receive zero delegates, seems absurd. To then blame the victim, Mr. Obama, by arguing that his withdrawal of his name from the ballot, not required by the DNC ruling about the impropriety of the Michigan primary, was self-serving and designed to impress the caucus voters of Iowa is ludricous on its face.

At the time of Mr. Obama's and Mr. Edward's withdrawal of their names from the Michigan ballot, it was by no means certain that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards would finish one and two in the Iowa caucuses. Indeed, Mr. Edwards had hoped that four years of organizational efforts in Iowa might be enough to allow him to win the Iowa caucuses. In fact, his campaign was predicated on an Iowa win. Finishing second there and losing in South Carolina essentially ended the Edwards campaign. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, was an unknown quantity whose first place finish was quite a shocker.

As a lawyer, Mr. Ickes should at least know that prior facts cannot be explained based on subsequent results simply by mere juxtaposition. The fact that Obama and Edwards did as well as they did in Iowa says nothing about their motives for withdrawal from the Michigan ballot. For all we know, these two gentlemen truly believed that their names should not appear on the ballot since the primary was unlikely to be valid under DNC rules. In short, these two gentlement chose the reputable route, a path that Mr. Ickes seems unable to discern in light of the Clinton campaign's ever changing goal posts that can recognize only one score, a victory by the Clintons.

Despite Mr. Ickes best efforts to cast the Michigan ballot as a fair test of strength among the candidates, the results of that election can never be viewed as representative. The absence of both Edwards and Obama from the ballot is but one of the problems. The second, and perhaps more important, objection, raised with respect to both the Florida and Michigan elections is that many voters were kept from going to the polls because the DNC had ruled that the elections were meaningless. It is estimated that half of the potential voters in Florida remained at home rather than participate in a sham primary. Similar estimates are probably correct for Michigan, too. Finally, none of the candidates, including Ms. Clinton, campaigned in either of these states. Unless the argument is made that campaigns contribute nothing to the outcome of elections, then it is hard to argue that the results are an accurate reflection of what might have occurred had the Michigan primary been held in February after a vigorous period of campaigning. Indeed, the presence of Ms. Clinton's name on the ballot lent a false sense of validity to the primary proceedings and made it virtually impossible that any new primary in May or June be held in Michigan.

In short, once again the Clintons want to have the results fall as they require them. A "new" Michigan primary might have diluted the Clinton margin of victory and required the spending of campaign monies it sorely lacks. Second, the results as they are gave Ms. Clinton a tremendous advantage, and even more so, if uncommitted votes were not awarded to Obama. Alas, it is easy to understand Mr. Ickes's dismay. Assigning additional delegates beyond the uncommitted votes did dilute Ms. Clinton's margin of victory and did "reward" Mr. Obama for doing the right thing and withdrawing his name.

For all his pointless nit-picking, Mr. Ickes wants to preserve the option of the Clinton campaign to challenge the Michigan delegation as now constituted before the credentials committee. That alone would prolong the controvery until August and prevent the party from uniting behind Mr. Obama. He leads in the delegate totals and surely will command a majority even without the "questionable" Michigan delegation. All that Mr. Ickes has done is to damage his own reputation within Democratic party circles. What neither he nor the Clintons apparently understand is that legal niceties, even if stretched beyond recognition, cannot undo a campaign built on a false premise and paid for by over-reliance on big donors. As a result, the Clintons haven't enough delegates nor do they have enough money. It's time to end this now.