Poll Finds Wariness About Cutting Entitlements is the headline. Does anyone believe Pres. Obama or Rep. Paul Ryan will support it through policy?

The austerity play is a wrap, the opposition player now cast. It remains to be seen who will speak for the American people.

Pres. Obama didn’t do it on health care and he didn’t do it when he extended the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%. It won’t surprise me if Obama suggests changing Social Security, though my realist center believes he’ll need a second term to go that far, but I’m in the minority on this one and well could be wrong. He didn’t conjure up the deficit commission on a lark.

From the New York Times/CBS poll:

Yet their preference for spending cuts, even in programs that benefit them, dissolves when they are presented with specific options related to Medicare and Social Security, the programs that directly touch the most people and also are the biggest drivers of the government’s projected long-term debt.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans choose higher payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security over reduced benefits in either program. And asked to choose among cuts to Medicare, Social Security or the nation’s third-largest spending program — the military — a majority by a large margin said cut the Pentagon.

larger & more graphics here


All of this money talk comes at the end of a week where Pres. Obama hosted Pres. Hu Jintao.

Dylan Ratigan has an important post that expands the conversation to the Fed. (Also see Matt Stoller’s post, former senior adviser to Alan Grayson, who points here for you econ wonks.) From Dylan:

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal showed that most of the people who lost jobs in this most recent recession found new ones at lower pay. Over a third of these people had to take pay cuts of at least 20%. Pay cuts. We haven’t real sustained pay cuts across a large swath of Americans since the 1930s.

But this isn’t just a tragedy; it is in fact a conspiracy. The people in charge aren’t just failing to prevent this from happening. They want it to happen. You see, pay cuts for workers mean that prices as a whole in the economy don’t rise. There’s less inflation, which means that banks and creditors make more money.

[...] Officially, of course, we have a Congress, and a President, but to really know what’s going on, you have to read the transcripts from (Federal Open Market Committee) meetings. The Fed releases them on a five-year lag, so we can only know what they were saying as of 2005. That’s better than it used to be; the Fed used to release nothing at all, and shred the transcripts of its meetings.

Regardless, the lack of attention to what these people say and think is key to the dominance of our lives by the big banks. The Fed – the adults in charge – are often working on behalf of Chinese interests, and on behalf of our own oil dependency (for a similar reason, oil imports create financial flows that then recycle back through American banks). They may not know it. Or they just may not distinguish between Chinese interests and the interests of JP Morgan, etc.

I truly wish I could tell you that Obama’s SOTU would be a defense of Democratic principles and would target the big banks and our China challenge, including that they can’t survive without our consumption, but I can’t. With the pick of GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt to Obama’s economic team all we’re going to get is Obama’s show, the 2012 version, which will give whatever he has to in order to grease the skids for his reelection.

Bill O’Reilly is going to come unglued over Immelt, which will no doubt lend itself to more priceless Bill-O head exploding moments.

At the end of a week where Pres. Ju Jintao was given the red carpet treatment, it’s important to remember that differences matter and that while doing business, human rights shouldn’t be negotiable. However, in today’s reality they are.

UPDATE: Great column from David Sirota, “Is America too corrupt to keep up (with China)?:

As Bloomberg News reported during the stimulus negotiations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fiercely lobbied against the “Buy America” provisions when Congress debated them, just as the group lobbies against similar proposals today. That may seem strange coming from an organization whose name pays homage to this country. But don’t be fooled: The chamber is a front group for huge multinational firms whose first priority is not this nation’s economy, but a profit-maximizing business model based on exporting jobs and production facilities to low-wage countries abroad. Those firms, of course, make massive campaign contributions to both parties and such donations come with the expectation of legislative favors – like, say, killing initiatives to strengthen “Buy America” laws.

UPDATE: From transcript of Air Force One press gaggle:

MR. GIBBS: What’s going on?

Q Can you confirm this story the President warned Hu Jintao that if China didn’t step up its pressure on North Korea the U.S. would have to redeploy its forces in Asia?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ll say this. Look, I think we have, through the President, through the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of State, have worked to bring — to express our concern about the aggressive activities of North Korea and to work to bring the Chinese effectively into helping us deal with some of those problems.

We were pleased out of the summit — or, I’m sorry, out of the trip that, as I said yesterday, that the Chinese acknowledging for the first time in the statements that we put out the enrichment program that the North Koreans had and the steps that needed to be taken to deal with it. And we’re pleased that the South Koreans and the North Koreans are beginning talks.

The post The Week of Hu, and SOTU Rewrite for Obama & Ryan appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Italy’s Foreign Minister Frattini called the Wikileaks release the “Sept. 11 of world diplomacy.”

Republicans are jumping on the leak, as expected, because transparency scares the bejeezus out of the Right. Rep. Pete Hoekstra using hyperbole to say what allies might ask, “‘Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?’”

Americans have grown accustomed to being kept in a state of permanent stupid on foreign policy. That’s how Iraq happened, but it’s also how dangerous moves in the Middle East towards Iran can be sanctioned through a simple sound bite.

Few news organizations bother to cover the Mideast, which is one reason I hailed Al Jazeera English when it came available in the Beltway area some time ago. Years of covering Israel without any way objectivity, along with Iran, has left Americans with a stilted view of American foreign policy. What’s worse is that the collective American ignorance about other countries and our involvement in their inner workings has given neoconservatives and traditional hawks the playing field, because our foreign policy is always presented as militaristic movements being strong, diplomacy is weak. When you have people like Rep. Eric Cantor making religious based Middle East foreign policy pronouncements, as well as people like Sen. Jon Kyl inventing the Cold War 2.0, circa 21st century, it shows just how vulnerable our foreign policy is to tilts in presidential domestic power, especially when Democrats don’t fight on their own ground.

Unclassified and not marked secret, 251,287 cables were provided to The Times by “an intermediary on the condition of anonymity.” Below are some stand out elements of what was released, with a fascinating look into Saudi King Abdullah’s advice to Pres. Obama equally interesting. However, the first standout element of the documents take us to Israeli and Saudi worries about Iran, but also fuller information about the Iranians long-range missile capacity.

There was little surprising in Mr. Barak’s implicit threat that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a pressure tactic, Israeli officials have been setting such deadlines, and extending them, for years. But six months later it was an Arab leader, the king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, telling the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

His plea was shared by many of America’s Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.

… The cables also contain a fresh American intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile program. They reveal for the first time that the United States believes that Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow and help it develop more formidable long-range ballistic missiles.

The Right is making a lot of ruckus about the Saudi comments while pointing fingers at Arabists utilizing the See Even Saudi Arabia Wants To Strike Iran. The Right’s anti Arabist sentiment is what scuttled Chas Freeman’s possible appointment. However, the Shia v. Sunni dynamic has been an amped up challenge ever since Pres. Bush let the neoconservatives run things, which began with the disastrous preemptive attack on Iran that altered the balance of power in the region. With shifts in Lebanon, the Shia state rising has as its most important godfathers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, intended or not, something that has been forgotten. But the dynamics being used right now to make the case for Iran action aren’t a sudden revelation with these leaks, though that’s what’s being talked about on the Right.

From The Times:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

¶ An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoyed supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he was undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignored his edicts.

¶ Arms deliveries to militants: Cables describe the United States’ failing struggle to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has amassed a huge stockpile since its 2006 war with Israel. One week after President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department official that he would not send “new” arms to Hezbollah, the United States complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group.

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

Pres. Obama is up against it politically right now, no doubt about it. His reelection map, with his support in the industrial Midwest wiped out, leaves him vulnerable in ’12, though no one should count him out. When Americans hear the Right saber rattling once again it will correctly make them revisit memories of Bush-Cheney and their disastrous foreign policy. But starting in the New Year the difficulty of Obama’s battle is immense compared to anything he’s ever faced before.

When you read about the leaked documents then think about a Republican in office, the possibilities on what could happen with a reflexive neoconservative in the White House should be a sobering thing to contemplate. If that person is a neophyte on foreign policy, which includes everyone running except Newt Gingrich, the dangers for this country jump exponentially. Just listen to the comments you’re hearing on Fox News, which is foreshadowing of more to come as the 2012 campaign on the Right revs up.

The post Wikileaks Diplo Docu Dump appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

The story that’s all the talk today I’m not interested in. The Sarah Palin kerfuffle over her verbal slip on North Korea, which everyone is jumping on as some monumental gaffe. I just don’t hear that in the clip, so I’ll let others get all wee-wee’d up about it. Though I will note that John Kerry got scuttled for saying less, so Sarah should police her patter post haste, because she doesn’t have the foreign policy chops to make any mistakes at all. What I’m fascinated about comes complete with counter intuitive partnering.

It’s the group former Bushie Mark McKinnon talked about launching in December, the official date of the roll out and is called “No Labels.” Nancy Jacobson, the boffo Democratic fundraiser who’s married to Mark Penn, is partners with McKinnon.

From the Wall Street Journal:

An alliance of centrist Republicans and Democrats is seeking to organize a grassroots movement aimed at the “middle” of American politics, a political sphere depopulated by the midterm elections and a vital tool for any potential third-party presidential candidate.

The group, called “No Labels,” has drawn support from advisers to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the country’s most powerful independent politician, raising tantalizing questions about his national political ambitions. Mr. Bloomberg has been invited to attend the group’s Dec. 13 launch.

Political analysts see a potential Bloomberg bid if Washington’s divided government turns into gridlock, if the economy doesn’t improve, and if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and President Obama are the likely nominees. But so far, Mr. Bloomberg has said that he wouldn’t consider running in 2012. “I have the best job in the world,” he said.

No Labels is led by Democratic powerhouse fundraiser Nancy Jacobson and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who were introduced to each other by Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political adviser.

The group has raised more than $1 million to seed its effort against what it calls “hyper-partisanship.” Backers include co-chairman of Loews Corp. Andrew Tisch, Panera Bread founder Ron Shaich and ex-Facebook executive Dave Morin. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as well as U.S. senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, will attend the New York launch.[..]

Quoted in the article is one of Bloomberg’s “top advisers” saying “These efforts aren’t important; they’re invaluable,” referring to a possible Bloomberg run in ’12. Another quote comes from Howard Wolfson, speaking for Mayor Bloomberg who quoted quoted Fiorello La Guardia: “there’s no Democratic or Republican way to clean up the streets,” adding, “The same is true on a lot of other big issues, but partisan gamesmanship keeps the two parties from working together.”

I’m not very interested in “centrist” organizations, which don’t have a compass on policy accept to make deals. Obama’s done that and look what a mess it has been.

Maybe McKinnon and Jacobson, et al. hope to serve up non-partisan types who are more committed to real solutions instead of any deal in order to name it an accomplishment.

The whole thing sounds like the Non Screamers Club.

All that being true, I am for ripping the political entrenchment of the two party system to smithereens. The time is ripe.

Contrary to others I also don’t see Michael Bloomberg as any worse than Barack Obama. Right now, across the political spectrum, no matter who might run and win, better choices do not exist.

The post New ‘No Labels’ Group Focuses on ‘Centrist Voters’ appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

[...] When the prime minister doesn’t immediately apologize and invite Chomsky back to the country, we can be sad. When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views like those of Reichman, the situation is apparently far beyond desperate. – Gideon Levy

First, I want to bring your attention to my post over at Huffington Post on Rand Paul. The comments are very interesting, with quite a few libertarians weighing in and getting creamed. Following the faulty logic in their defense of Rand Paul leads them smack into the wall built by white supremacists.

Via Greg Sargent, from the Stamford Advocate.

“I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”

It’s the drip, drip, drip of damaging information that kills you.

On another front, it seems Bill Clinton is going all in for Blanche Lincoln. This is not transactional politics, folks, it’s about his relationship with her. I’m not rooting for Clinton or Blanche Lincoln on this one.

Oh, and least we forget BP’s oil spill, the disaster hit shore today. Robert Redford, whom I met on another environmental issue, has done an ad for NRDC as we meet the one month mark since the disaster happened. Unfortunately, nobody’s listening.

…and the “war on terror” has now morphed into CVE, aka “countering violent extremism.”

The post NEWS NOW: Levy Calls Israel North Korea, Another Blumenthal Quote, Bill for Blanche, and An Act of War appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror,” the official said. “Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama’s invitation to the conference.”

The official added: “But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combatting (sic) terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT.” – Haaretz

Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking his smallest, sending Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor to Washington, because of a potential shift in the nuclear security summit meeting that might include a discussion targeting Israel’s nuclear “ambiguity.” (To update, Chuck Todd reports NSA Jones briefed press pool on AF1, saying Netanyahu “needed to stay in Israel for Holocaust day.” Using this commemoration as cover, because Netanyahu obviously knows the dust up he’s causing, is truly a new low; Obama White House obviously offering Netanyahu as much cover as possible.)

Over 189 countries, including Arab states, are part of the NPT, with only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea not signing on.

It brings to mind the interview Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren had with Fareed Zakaria that I wrote about at the time, which was akin to Zakaria having to pull Oren’s rhetorical teeth to get him on the record regarding Israeli ambiguity about their nuclear capabilities.

FAREED ZAKARIA: If you don’t believe you can deter a country, why did you build 250 nuclear weapons yourself?

MICHAEL OREN: Israel’s position is that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the Middle East. Stand by that position.

FZ: Wait, let me be clear. Are you denying that Israel has nuclear weapons?

MO: I’m saying that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry into the Middle East.

FZ: When you say “introduce,” you mean use.

MO: I mean introduce.

FZ: “Introduce” means actually have them.

MO: To “introduce.”

FZ: All right, so… But the common sense understanding of that word is that Israel does not have nuclear weapons.

MO: The idea is that Israel will not be the first to introduce, deploy nuclear weaponry in the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s fear of being pressured on the NPT puts Israel on the spot and in a very bad place during a time when Pres. Obama is asking the entire world leadership community to stand up against nuclear proliferation, but also each nation’s own responsibility to help create a non-nuclear world.

Pres. Obama is willing to put U.S. skin in the game to get it done, asking other nations to do likewise. It is nothing less than a Reagonesque move, when back in the 1980s Pres. Reagan dared to dream about nuclear zero. This historic reality renders the caterwauling from the right even more ridiculous. Obama going one step further by prioritizing the policy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is, by his diplomatic ducking, saying he will remain outside the world community, further ostracizing Israel, which doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be safe. Not only do they have conventional weaponry for aggressive defense of their country, but the world community, led by the United States, would rightly act on Israel’s behalf if she was ever threatened.

There are other issues involved as well, including commitments of Arab nations, inspired by the dangerous saber rattling from Iran and Israel. From Haaretz:

[...] Many Muslim countries have voiced alarm at alleged nuclear programs in Israel and Iran, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.

In late March the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door sessio, calling for a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons.

They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

If Israel feels its national security is threatened by signing on to the NPT, Prime Minister Netanyahu should not equivocate in making that case strongly to world nations at a nuclear security summit if it comes up. It’s what strong leaders do: stand up for their own national security in the face of criticism or challenges of their policies.

Ah, but the problem with that is that Mr. Netanyahu might be confronted and be forced to admit that Israel’s conventional weaponry and the deep defensive and offensive structure they have built is more than enough to take out any enemy, including Iran. Face that the world actually stands behind the defense of Israel if threatened by Iran’s potential nuclear weaponization, even if that’s a long way off, and that the time to join the world to fight Iran on different turf than mere belligerence is an idea whose time has come.

The issue to be discussed at Obama’s nuclear security summit is “the danger of nuclear terror,” not the NPT, and Mr. Netanyahu hiding behind potential challenges to Israeli policy makes his country look like an unsophisticated, scared rogue nation, instead of the powerfully great little democracy it is today.

The post Netanyahu Cancels Plans to Attend Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“NO NUKES: EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE!” – Drudge squealed.

Honestly, conservative cowardice is only outmatched by their inability to grasp national security reality. As if any United States president would not retaliate if seriously provoked with all means necessary. The conservative idiocy is simply astounding.

Pres. Obama has delivered a policy that matches his speech in 2009 on non-proliferation. In doing so, he also was specific to carve out a special place in U.S. policy for Iran and North Korea, two countries whose leaders have shown they cannot be trusted. From the New York Times:

[...] It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. [...]

Outside of this discussion, just to acknowledge a wider reality, we have Israel, a country which is waiting on sanctions against Iran, as well as a promise to be delivered that a country they perceive as a mortal enemy will not acquire nuclear weapons. No one will say it out loud, but there is nothing the U.S. is prepared to do or actually can do, beyond sanctions, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, unless the Iranian leadership chooses that course themselves. The rest is about what Israel will do in response.

How Israel fits into Obama’s U.S. policy on non-proliferation is interesting to ponder, because by all measures it seems clear that as Obama moves the U.S. into an important, even groundbreaking clarification on U.S. nuclear policy, which takes us into a 21st century stance that moves away from prior ambivalence as well as Bush-Cheney’s tactical nuke fetish, Israel remains moored in the 20th century unable to make the shift, either on peace or diplomacy.

On the political front, Republicans and conservatives are already delivering 20th century arguments in a 21st century moment. From Power Line:

On its face, that is unbelievably stupid. A country attacks us with biological weapons, and we stay our hand because they are “in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty”? That is too dumb even for Barack Obama. [...] The danger here is not that the Obama administration has really gone pacifist. On the contrary, the significance of today’s announcement appears to be entirely symbolic–just one more chance to preen. The problem is that our enemies understand symbolism and maybe take it too seriously. To them, today’s announcement is another sign that our government has gone soft, and one more inducement to undertake aggressive action against the United States.

From Jihad Watch, who channels Cheney:

Sadly, the path President Obama is taking to achieve his vision of a world without nuclear weapons fails to address the real nuclear threats from terrorist entities. Dithering on the part of the Democrat-led government in Washington offers a leadership opportunity for the Republicans.

Hot Air is disconcerted that the U.S. won’t respond with a nuclear attack if we’re hit with a biologic from a non-nuclear state.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000 people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold.

After a century of U.S presidents having a national security policy of “all options on the table” it seems remarkable that even given Pres. Obama’s new nuclear policy parameters that people don’t understand that any president can and will change his or her mind if a situation presents itself and requires a response not previously outlined.

Pres. Obama wants countries to reduce their stockpile, while also sending a signal to Iran and Israel. But no one should assume this is a decision made out of weakness or that it limits U.S. options if provoked.

The post Obama Limits U.S. Nuclear Weapons Response appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“President Clinton helped create a model for individual responsibility and collective action through the Clinton Global Initiative and it is a model that all of us are going to be studying for a very long time.” — Barack Obama, President, United States of America

As the Clinton Global Initiative kicks off, USA Today lands in the hotel rooms of the attendees, big shots and not, all converging on New York City. Talk about timing.

Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and civil rights historian’s story is hitting everywhere right now, as Branch intends to offer the “unvarnished perspective” of William Jefferson Clinton. Back when Branch began gathering the story, the tapes were very tightly held: Parking on the South Lawn, he would head to the White House family quarters for interviews so secret Clinton stored the tapes of them in his sock drawer.

On Lewinski:

But one night in August 1999, six months after he had survived the Senate impeachment trial, words “spilled out” from an emotional Clinton. He told Branch the Lewinsky affair began because “I cracked; I just cracked.”

[...] The Democrats’ loss of Congress in the November 1994 elections — on top of the death of Clinton’s mother the previous January and the Whitewater investigation — made Clinton feel beleaguered, unappreciated and open to a liaison with Lewinsky, Clinton told Branch. The affair began during the government budget shutdown in November 1995 and resumed briefly a few months after Clinton’s re-election in 1996 — a victory that he felt should have been vindication but didn’t still his critics. …

Dissecting former Pres. Clinton’s state of mind when he succumbed to his carnal nature with Monica Lewinsky may seem trivial to some. But when considered in the context of the right wing, while understanding that the Republicans let Richard Nixon, for cover-up crimes, at least where impeachment and punishment were concerned, and Ronald Reagan for Iran-Contra, off the hook, as well as Barack Obama ignoring what happened under Bush and Dick Cheney’s watch, it’s instrumental in understanding how the two parties differ in accountability given the opportunity and cases of serious illegal acts v. stupid sexual indiscretion. After all, Clinton’s consensual affair hardly compares to what either Nixon or Reagan did, not to mention George W. Bush. But yet it’s Bill Clinton who was drawn and quartered on the impeachment dock, with hatred so over the top that a leading right wing evangelical was yelling from the TV screen that William Jefferson Clinton was a murderer, with many on the right still forwarding nonsense about Vince Foster.

As Branch chronicles, even Al Gore blamed Bill Clinton for his loss in 2000, as Gore refused to use WJC where he could have made a difference, as people like me pleaded in interviews to let Bill loose where he could help. Branch revealing a serious blowup.

Then there was Clinton’s take on a heated, two-hour discussion he had with then-Vice President Gore just after Gore had lost the 2000 presidential election to Republican George W. Bush.

The meeting started politely enough, Clinton recalled. Then Clinton, who felt underutilized during the 2000 campaign, told Gore he could have tilted the election to the Democratic side if he had been dispatched to stump in Arkansas or New Hampshire, both states in which Clinton was popular. Either state would have provided the electoral votes Gore needed to win.

Gore replied that Clinton’s scandalous shadow was a “drag” that had plagued Gore at every step of the campaign. The two “exploded” at each other in mutual recrimination.

Being a strong supporter for former Vice President Gore, the Clinton “drag” became a self-fulfilling prophecy because many Democrats bought into and swallowed whole the right-wing talking point that was so skillfully sewed into the political narrative.

Today, people seem to have also forgotten just what the Clinton’s fought against, the full scale onslaught of the right that started the moment WJC took office, making light of the viciousness and no quarter aspect of the political mayhem.

It remains to be seen when we’ll hear about it all.

For historians wanting to plunge into the Clinton presidency, the unprecedented interviews will be invaluable, says Russell Riley, head of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. He calls their existence “a major historical event,” though Clinton hasn’t said when and under what conditions they might be available to scholars.

Branch also reveals a vein of a deadly Democratic Party virus that runs through so many quarters, with people always so eager to talk trash about Bill, seen fully in political vermin like the odious Dick Morris.

GQ: The Bill Clinton in this book is very different than the version we came to know in the press. You describe a guy who was steadfast and idealistic, very different from the wishy-washy, flip-flopping caricature who let Dick Morris tell him what to do.

BRANCH: It was almost like a credential for old liberals to look down on Clinton, because if you looked down on Clinton, you could say, “He’s betrayed liberalism,” but you didn’t have to uphold anything yourself. All you had to do was talk about what a shit he was or what a sellout he was and you could get this cheap credential.

A guy who was steadfast and idealistic.

Bill Clinton never gives in or lets his best hopes and dreams be hijacked by the lesser mortals among us. There is always more work to be done… for others.

UPDATE: An interesting back and forth in the In the News diary section with reader LakeLady is worth adding here. Though it’s about the new media post, which ended up in the thread on WJC:

LakeLady: …. Taylor~ I just caught up with your post on Obama’s remarks on old media. Just a little self serving? Huh? Listen when you want to cover something and don’t have the funds for it ….start an online drive,we will all do what we can. I would love to have you in New York right now.

TM: When the President talks about what I do FOR A LIVING as less important than old media, damn straight I’m going to categorically offer proof he’s ignorant on the subject. It is my fault, however, that you and others think I’m always talking about you ponying up, for which I apologize. There are advertisers and many others who should do much more on new media sites like TM.com that offer serious content to whom I’m speaking directly. Unlike other big group blog sites, I don’t send out weekly money asks for the work I do outside this blog. I get these asks constantly, as I’m sure some of you do too. In the end, however, YOU have to decide to give or not give based on my daily work, not just when I ask for it. I also prioritize what I spend income on and with new priorities I just couldn’t rationalize WJC’s CGI meeting, which I told them.

No business model can survive under the Ask When You Need It model. It’s preposterous to expect new media to do just that; but when you consider all of this started out free, well, that’s what we’re up against. Understanding that I never had this challenge, going back to when I began on the web in 1996, until I shifted to blogging. It’s the blog application that began as a lousy business model, which is why I always refrained from that title, as my work is about much more, with this aspect the last to be added to my arsenal.

But I have no intention of writing for free at this point in my life, even as I don’t expect to get rich on this side of my biz. However, if my work here ever equates to doing it for free or losing money on it, you can bet I’ll stop doing it that instant.

The post The WJC Tapes and Beyond appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Clinton has been in Africa all week, her tour eventually taking her across seven countries, talking about trade, but also Somalia, that sliver on the “horn of Africa” you see on the map to the left, where it isn’t safe for Clinton to venture. What some are calling Obama’s Afghanistan. While the Washington Post reports that support for Islamist forces are at their weakest point, which could make them more desperate and dangerous.

Mrs. Clinton boldly declared that Al Shabaab, the Islamic militants that are close to toppling (Somali President Sharif Ahmed), sees “Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism.” A victory for them – much like the 1996 takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban – might also destabilize nearby countries, such as Kenya. She noted the group’s attempt to recruit followers abroad and its alleged plot for an attack in Australia. – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

As you see, Hillary is not exactly looking, sounding or acting like a woman upstaged, “once again” or otherwise.

Wonderful shots as well as a video of her statement after the rescue of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, which focuses on the Obama administration’s position on North Korea. Something that Sect. Clinton was firm to press remains separate from the pardon given to the U.S. journalists and the humanitarian mission of her husband, former Pres. Bill Clinton.

Enjoy.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with women from AWARD (African Women in Agricultural Research and Development) during a tour of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) near Nairobi, Kenya August 5, 2009. [State Department photo]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with women from AWARD (African Women in Agricultural Research and Development) during a tour of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) near Nairobi, Kenya August 5, 2009. [State Department photo]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plant a tree during a tour of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) near Nairobi, Kenya August 5, 2009. [State Department photo]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is greeted by a gentleman from African Heritage wearing a costume from Cameroon at the Hotel Intercontinental in Nairobi, Kenya August 4, 2009. [State Department photo]

The post The Week in Africa appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

This week’s podcast is up, also available through RSS and ITunes (and also the direct link).

Great audio clips this week, helping to tell a wonderful tale of rescue and happy endings. Including Chris Matthews, who actually gave Bill Clinton his due (thus the flying pig). Went through the hot news, starting with Sotomayor, then Edwards’ ex-mistress seen in court, Eric Cantor being un-American in Israel, as well as closing with a wild clip of Lou Dobbs imploding over Olbermann, and of course, this story, which proves new media is making traditional media errors. The podcast is lots of fun.

Speaking of North Korea, journalists and the Clintons, back at work today, Bill Clinton didn’t ducked the questions, while doing his day job, announcing the foundation’s new agreements for low-cost AIDS and tuberculosis drugs for the developing world, reported by the Washington Post.

Clinton, appearing at a news conference about his foundation’s efforts to combat AIDS, deflected questions about his impressions of Kim and about whether he had made concessions to the North Koreans to free the journalists.

“My job was to do one thing, which I was honored to do, as an American and as a father,” he said. “I wanted those young women to be able to come home.”

“Anything I say beyond that could inadvertently affect the decisions and moves either here or in North Korea, and the attitudes of our allies,” Clinton continued.

… Clinton described a “deeply emotional” first encounter with Lee and Ling. He said they were “delightful” on the trip home to Los Angeles by private plane, so happy and excited they couldn’t sleep. Lee talked frequently about being reunited with her young daughter, he said.

Enjoy the podcast.

The post TM-DC Podcast, North Korea Rescue Edition appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Yesterday was a pretty big day. The lives of two amazing journalists were saved, their families spared more emotional agony. It all started, as the New York Times reported it, after being arrested on March 17 near the North Korean border with China while reporting on human trafficking for Current TV. But yesterday, Laura Ling and Euna Lee were rescued by former President Bill Clinton in a feat of diplomatic aplomb that left anyone with a heart teary eyed and choked up, and a nation very grateful.

However, instead of blasting a headline of jubilation, someone inside Huffington Post decided to take the road down Clinton Derangement Highway, choosing the headline you see at the top of this post.

What were they thinking?

See Paul Krugman.

Being privileged enough to contribute over there, frankly, I was appalled. I wasn’t alone, as they no doubt saw in your own comment section.

So, since someone missed it, let me tell you how something like this actually works. In order to pull the whole thing off and make sure Bill Clinton went over there, got the pardon, then got home with both reporters quickly and before something went wrong, the Obama administration had to keep the political away from the humanitarian, you know, in case something actually did go wrong, creating an international incident. I’m sorry if this sounds like a lecture, as well as for those at Huffington Post who were as horrified as I was, but somebody obviously missed the whole point of no one in the Administration going. And by the way, Secretary Clinton certainly couldn’t have gone, as it would have put Obama’s foreign policy on North Korea in a ringer, which was the whole point in having someone neutral and outside the Administration involved. The other issue being that the North Koreans actually wanted Bill Clinton, because he’s a former president and a political rock star across the globe.

I shouldn’t have to tell them this. They are way too smart. So, it’s obvious their goal was something else entirely different, lowering their status to Drudge like territory.

I also shouldn’t have to tell that that running a headline blaring “BILL UPSTAGES HILLARY…. ONCE AGAIN” on a day two journalists lives were saved from doing twelve years hard labor in a North Korean prison camp made Huffington Post look silly. Petty. Small.

You screwed up. Badly.

UPDATE: I agree with Michael Calderone 100%.

I agree that headline wasn’t the most appropriate for the moment, but at the same time, it’s a good thing HuffPo allows for such criticism on its own site.

The post Dear Huffington Post, About That Headline… appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“I want to thank President Bill Clinton — I had a chance to talk to him — for the extraordinary humanitarian effort that resulted in the release of the two journalists.” – Pres. Obama

“Thirty hours ago, Una Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment we could be sent to a hard labor camp. And then suddenly we were told that we were told that we were going to a meeting. [pauses, tearing up] We were taken to a location. [pause] When we walked in –[pause, tearing up]– through the doors we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton. (applause) We were shocked. But we knew instantly in our hearts that [pause] the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end. And now we stand here, home and free. Una and I would just like to express our deepest gratitude to President Clinton and his wonderful, amazing, not to mention super cool team [laughter] including John Podesta, Doug Band… .. .. and the United States Secret Service who traveled half-way around the world and then some to secure our release. We’d also like to thank Pres. Obama, Sect. Clinton, Vice Pres. Gore, who we also call Al, the Swedish ambassador… people at the U.S. State Dept., Steve Bing and his crew… and I know I’m forgetting a bunch of instrumental people right now. .. .. The past 140 days have been the most difficult, heart wrenching time of our lives. We are very grateful that we were granted amnesty by the government of North Korea, and we are so happy to be home. .. …” – Laura Ling

The plane carrying Euna Lee and Laura Ling, as well as Bill Clinton and his team, arrived in Hangar 25 at Burbank Airport where it was taxied inside. The first people to leave the plane were Laura Ling and Una Lee, both of whom were greeted by their families, as well as Vice President Al Gore, who the moment this tragic story began has worked endlessly to get his reporters released.

When former President Bill Clinton finally emerged from the plane it was to applause, with Al Gore embracing Clinton in a tight bear hug the second he hit the ground. The families quickly surrounded him, thanking him, as he beamed with pride that this adventure had indeed ended in a very happy ending.

Laura Ling spoke movingly, then Al Gore spoke for the families, while William Jefferson Clinton stayed in the background, not offering comments, proudly watching the scene unfold, then quietly walked away with the families.

Since Hillary Clinton ran for president, there has been a determined group of people inside the Democratic Party ready to diminish the Clintons relevancy, hoping beyond all hopes that both Clintons can be pushed aside as if they never held sway in American politics. This continued during the time when Hillary was being considered for secretary of state, many progressives even openly writing they just didn’t get why Obama would choose her, quick to concoct fictional scenarios of Clinton back-channeling her own agenda around her President boss. I’ve said it before, but I’ll reiterate it again. You cannot diminish pure star power and unadulterated political talent earned through years and years of strife, setbacks, great glories, humiliation and comebacks, no matter how much people want to try. Though there will no doubt be the small who delight in squealing about Pres. Clinton supposedly upstaging Sect. Clinton on this one, forgetting that he couldn’t have gone if the Secretary hadn’t sanctioned it, but also that two lives were at stake, so political pettiness over prowess simply wasn’t part of this mix.

So, once again Pres. Bill Clinton got the call. Working with his wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with Pres. Obama’s blessing for this humanitarian mission, as his Administration no doubt did all they could while staying out of anything diplomatically explosive; following Vice Pres. Al Gore’s lead, as he helped pull it all together, while playing liaison with the families. But it was Bill Clinton whom the North Koreans called upon, proving that when things go bad in far away lands, the one person who can still break through where others cannot remains William Jefferson Clinton. The North Koreans told the journalists they’d give them amnesty and release them if Bill Clinton specifically came to North Korea.

Maybe this will convince the professional Clinton haters, those people who always delight in making less of WJC, but also Hillary. Thinking either of them can be replaced, understanding that Barack Obama stands on Bill Clinton’s shoulders, just as Clinton stands on Carter, to Kennedy and on and on. Democrats are stronger because of the Clintons, not in spite of them.

To prove the point, let’s ask the question: Why did the North Koreans ask specifically for former Pres. Bill Clinton? During Clinton’s presidency, diplomacy reined, with containment the smart policy, especially when compared to Republican preemption, which even smart Democrats like Hillary Clinton mistakenly bought into, against what her husband had taught. Obama was smart enough to learn early. Today, what Clinton left Bush can be seen in direct contrast to what Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush, as Obama mimics much of what Bill Clinton represented in reaching out to all nations, particularly when it comes to Middle East “peace,” able to take it one step further because of who Barack Obama is. But no one worked more tirelessly than Bill, some would say to a fault, to manifest an agreement between Israelis and the Palestinians, but also the Syrians, Jordanians and other Middle East nations. Many errors were made in the mix, particularly caving to Arafat’s demands time and again, while believing the notorious terrorist would keep his word, but no effort was spared through Clinton’s work, which continued throughout his presidency, even to the last weeks. Ireland is another example, with Clinton’s unparalleled diplomatic commitments a hallmark of his presidency whether you’re talking about the Middle East, Russia or North Korea, amidst the horrific mistakes like Rwanda, which Clinton has admitted himself. So that as Obama comes into office he understands even more fully how he can utilize, build on and expand the work Bill Clinton began before him. In time, learning from former President Bill Clinton, I truly pray that Barack Obama will take the lessons taught through Clinton’s Middle East efforts, as well as the bridges built, to finally forge true equilibrium in a region crying out loudly for it today. All of this stands in direct contrast to what George W. Bush and the Republicans pushed, instead instituting the Anything But Clinton policy, which has proven to always come back to bite the politician who ignores the lessons of what Clinton ventured to manifest. John Bolton being the latest crazed George W. Bush alumni to make a fool of himself when trying to criticize Bill Clinton’s brilliant rescue of the journalists, which happened because of what Bill Clinton still represents to most of the world. Today, he is a statesman without equal.

It continues to be a wild ride for the Big Dawg, with this latest triumph making him a hero once again.

The post Why the North Koreans Picked Bill appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“President Clinton has safely left North Korea with Laura Ling and Euna Lee.” – Clinton’s spokesperson

Breaking news from multiple news sources that both U.S. journalists (video at the link) will leave with former President Clinton tonight.

The pardons were announced by North Korea’s state-run news agency, The Associated Press reported. … .. The source, who has knowledge of the Clinton team’s mission, was hopeful that the two will leave North Korea tonight for the United States, possibly even on the same plane as Clinton.

This was a flawlessly orchestrated diplomatic mission carried off without a single hitch.

It remains to be seen if Clinton will carry any information back to Obama that will be helpful going forward.

The post PRES. BILL CLINTON RESCUES JOURNALISTS appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

TM UPDATE 4.4 @ 10:10: Nobody commands more respect around the globe than former President Bill Clinton, especially in North Korea. This is being proven out by the developing story that the North Koreans reportedly contacted the relatives of the girls to tell them they’d surrender the journalists to Bill Clinton, something that’s been in the works for weeks. MSNBC was the first to report this part of the story. Politico’s Mike Allen has more. The White House gave their blessing, but from what is known now, was not involved in any way in actually facilitating WJC going. That was specifically on request from the North Koreans, at least as we know now. It’s a “solely private mission,” says the White House:

“While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment. We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

To add, it does set the stage for an interesting moment of potential opportunity, so the mind reels at what else could possibly be discussed, however informally that would be.

________original post below_________

Scott Snyder, a North Korea expert for the nonprofit Asia Foundation, said Clinton’s standing as a world statesman carried weight with Pyongyang. “The North Koreans have a lot of nostalgia for the end of the Clinton administration,” he said. – LA Times

According to multiple media sources, former President Bill Clinton has landed in North Korea to try to negotiate a way out of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling imprisonment. Neither the White House or State is commenting.

From the Washington Post:

Former president Bill Clinton landed in North Korea on Tuesday, North Korean state radio reported, on an apparent mission to negotiate the release of two American journalists who have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency and China’s official New China News Agency also reported that Clinton had arrived at an airport in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, on a flight from the United States. …

Let’s hope the Big Dog can get this done. I’m sure Al Gore, for whom the women were working when they were arrested, knows the situation is in very good hands. Though no one and I mean no one is talking.

The post Pres. Bill Clinton in North Korea appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Hillary Clinton has broken into the news lately, today it’s surrounding the latest trading of insults salvo between the Secretary and North Korea’s Foreign Minister, which is rather amusing.

At a meeting of southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman blasted Clinton for what he called a “spate of vulgar remarks unbecoming for her position everywhere she went since she was sworn in,” according to the state-run KCNA news agency.

The spokesman called Clinton “by no means intelligent” and a “funny lady.”

“Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping,” the statement said.

Ouch. “A pensioner going shopping”?

Here are Clinton’s remarks that sparked this rather churlishly personal response from North Korea:

“What we’ve seen is this constant demand for attention,” Clinton, who is in India, said in an interview that aired on Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “And maybe it’s the mother in me or the experience that I’ve had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention — don’t give it to them, they don’t deserve it, they are acting out,” she said.

Of course, Clinton is right on. There is a “look at me, look at me” quality to all things North Korea.

But this isn’t the only attention Secretary Clinton has garnered recently, even before her world power tour. There was quite a discussion back and forth about her disappearing from the spotlight, which she and her team slapped down as best they could, though one has to wonder why they’re so worried about her prowess in the press. She’s secretary of state, not president, which may be why the presidential question won’t go away, no matter what Clinton says, including that she’s happy with the arrangement she has with her boss.

“He said, ‘Look, I really need you and I believe that we can have a great relationship.’ And we do. It’s been everything I could have hoped for,” Clinton said.

That said, Clinton’s “defensive umbrella” remark, talking about the Middle East and if Iran nuclear weaponizing capabilities, recently was evidently swatted down by the Obama administration, according to David Sanger, who, in an interview on MSNBC, said the Administration responded to Clinton’s remarks by saying “she was speaking personally.” The result, however, was a “clarification” from Clinton.

Clinton later clarified her comments on Iran, delivered in advance of a regional meeting here, saying that her warning that the United States would create such a “shield’’ did not represent any backing away from the Obama administration’s position that it must prevent Tehran from obtaining a bomb capability. But her words suggested the administration is already thinking ahead to what would amount to a containment strategy, should all efforts at negotiation fail.

We’ll see how this plays out on Sunday when Clinton is on “Meet the Press.” Want to bet whether Gregory asks the presidency question? Biden got it.

The best write up on the presidential question comes from Glenn Kessler, who’s traveling with Clinton.

Clinton said that from her own experience living in the White House as first lady, she understands that the president is always going to be the top policy-maker. “The president is the president. You know, I tried to be the president but I was not successful,” she said to loud applause. “But I know — the president is the president.” The questioners pressed Clinton on her run for the presidency and whether she still entertained the notion of running again.

“That’s not anything I’m at all thinking about,” she replied.

She was asked if she had ever given up hope, and she said: “I don’t know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever be part of my life.”

Is it wait and see? “No, no, no, no.”

Finally, one questioner pressed, “Never say never,” and Clinton seemed to shut the door.

“Well, I am saying no because I have a very committed attitude to the job I have and so that’s not at all on my radar screen.”

It’s a futile exercise to wonder what might happen in 2016, but that hasn’t stopped anyone from wondering. It’s 7 years away, with a lot of travel and SoS duties lying in between. But Hillary’s fans haven’t given up and still pine for that moment when she throws her hat in the presidential ring once more.

Back in reality, there is no evidence whatsoever of the competitive Clinton we saw in the 2008 primaries. As secretary of state there shouldn’t be. But beyond her relevancy campaign, because the press was writing her out of the spotlight, the fact is that her current job is not a center stage position. However, the bigger point is that it’s also far afield from politics as usual and the fight and struggle for political stardom that makes a presidential bid possible. The other thing to think about is to gear back up for the food fights after being on the world stage, handling matters beyond the petty stuff that’s required to run for office, Hillary Clinton just might have found some peace.

Hillary’s poll numbers have never been higher. She’s obviously suited for State, and she’s thrown off any pretense of ego that had her coiffed, highlighted, dressed to the nines and aggressively enjoying her place in the sun. Whether that’s a good thing or not is up to you. But Secretary of State Clinton has instead chosen a modest, low key, even dowdy persona (when compared to glamour Clinton of the ’08 primaries), content to let her intelligence, grasp of the issues and stellar analytic ability speak for themselves without the trappings of style or show. But also without trying to attempt a star tour at State many of us assumed she’d adopt. So far at State, a very different Clinton has emerged, especially juxtaposed against the person who fought for the presidency so hard only to come up short. It’s a real question whether we’ll ever see that Hillary Clinton again. It would take a lot of work to turn and start firing political salvos again after playing diplomat in chief.

It’s a lot like Al Gore’s weight watch, when everyone was speculating whether Gore would get back in the race based on whether he began to lose weight. Waiting on style and competitive spirit watch regarding Hillary could be equally frustrating.

The post Contemplations on Clinton appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Elliott Abrams speaks, tagging Hillary as “wrong on settlements.” A rule of thumb I always use on Mr. Abrams is the more emphatic he is about something the more skeptical we should all be of it. This goes double on settlements. Read Marc Lynch, who is recently back from Israel with some interesting news. As for Hillary, Abrams is the one who is wrong.

On another front, if the Leveretts go any further they’ll have to eat their way out of the corner they’re in. This headline is likely the silliest I’ve read in recent memory: Will Iran be President Obama’s Iraq? I’m assuming the Leveretts, both of whom are very smart people, realize we’re not going to invade. After the event at New America Foundation, where Flynt Leverett was described as the “crack cocaine of realists” by Steve Clemons, to say they’re a little defensive in this piece is an understatement. That they still give no credit to the dynamics and courage of the protesters is stunningly callous in my view, as well as not very good analysis.

Obama to North Korea (yesterday), via the White House:

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA

On June 26, 2008, by Executive Order 13466, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the current existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula. The President also found that it was necessary to maintain certain restrictions with respect to North Korea that would otherwise have been lifted pursuant to Proclamation 8271 of June 26, 2008, which terminated the exercise of authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1-44) with respect to North Korea.

Because the existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on June 26, 2008, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 26, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466.

The post What You Might Have Missed appeared first on Taylor Marsh.