But If You Try Sometime, You Just Might Find, You Get What You Need

Jerome Corsi arrested:

A leading American neo-conservative author has been detained by immigration authorities in Kenya as he tried to launch a book smearing Barack Obama.

Jerome Corsi, of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth fame, was this morning being held after failing to reckon with Obamamania.

He had been planning to launch his book, entitled The Obama Nation Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, before travelling to one of Nairobi’s slums to donate money to the Senator’s half-brother George, who was found living in squalid conditions two months ago.

But officers swooped hours after Dr Corsi was described as "author of a smear crusade" by local newspapers.

Immigration officials claim he had been detained because he did not have a work permit, however one of Dr Corsi's assistants said he was "just answering some questions".

"We have been given water and are very comfortable," the assistant said.

I'm sure this will be given as perfect evidence that Obama's jack-booted thugs are detaining serious opponents. You know, maybe getting the work permit would have been an option.

There are similar conspiracies running through the rat wheel brains of wingnuts over NBC pulling an SNL sketch off of Hulu - a sketch which is still on YouTube and aired on national television, so I'm missing the "censorship" part. BTW, considering that the sketch, which blamed wealthy Jewish bankers for the economic crisis in extremely familiar terms, approaches defamation, scrubbing the site is probably a good idea from a financial standpoint. Also, George Soros sought to stop the bailout, but you know, never mind.

Conspiracy theories and persecution complexes really are the last refuge for these scoundrels.

Obama's Bind

I guess that the "Obama is a Muslim" issue came up among voters in Southern Ohio in last night's 60 Minutes report. Now, I don't have much to say about Sen. Clinton's answer about this, which offered a little bit of wiggle room in print, but if you listen to it she pretty quickly dismisses it. What I want to hone in on is Obama's remarks:

"I have never been a Muslim, am not a Muslim. These emails are obviously not just offensive to me, as somebody who's a devout Christian, who's been going to the same church for the last 20 years, but it's also offensive to Muslims because it plays into a certain fearmongering there."

This is better than what he's said in the past, but Obama's of course in a real bind. I'm worried about these denunciations of anyone daring to suggest that someone is a Muslim, as if being a Muslim is the worst thing you can be. I recognize the political realities here, but it's troubling to buy into the demonization of a whole class of people based on religion and/or ethnicity. Obama at least acknowledged that to an extent, although I'd much rather see him say "I'm not a Muslim, but if I was that would not have any impact on my governing ability, and it's offensive for anyone to suggest otherwise. I know he can't actually say that, so this is about as close as we're going to get.

But it should be noted that there are plenty of Muslim American voters that might not be altogether happy with this constant distancing. In fact, a substantial amount of Muslims live in the swing state of Michigan. And they are speaking out about this, and you really can't blame them:

The Muslim faith group also finds itself politically isolated. Though candidates have been courting voters in this tight race, none of the three top contenders has met with major Muslim groups. Neither, they say, have major interfaith groups and politicians rallied around them to loudly condemn the anti-Islamic strategies.

"It would be good if the president and leaders of both parties would say: 'Enough. We're better than this,' " said Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. "It's disconcerting to me they haven't."

In addition, the immediate denunciation of the photo of Obama in Somali garb that surfaced last week risks the potential for a backlash. Kenyans don't believe Obama did anything wrong, and indeed he didn't. The Obama campaign has to thread the needle between denouncing anyone who brings these things up and alienating Muslims or Africans who may understand that any association with them has become politically toxic.

I believe that Barack Obama is a committed civili libertarian (that Jeffrey Rosen article is a must-read) who has a strong belief in equality for everyone under the law. Indeed he would be a positive President for those who are subject to increased hate crimes, like Muslims. But he really has to walk a fine line here.

Strains of Peace

This hope thing may be catching. Kofi Annan managed to broker a deal in Kenya between the two political factions after a disputed election erupted into violence. The two sides agreed to share power in a unity government. Let this put to rest the familiar bleating on the right about the fecklessness of the UN or its surrogates like Annan. Conflict resolution is, in fact, a positive development.

In a development that is perhaps MORE positive, 24 Senators on the Finance Committee have written to the Secretary of State, asking for a reassessment of US-Cuba policy.

Our current policy of isolation and estrangement has failed.  Cuba's political system is stable after five decades of American efforts to force change on the island.  New laws that tightened sanctions in 1992 and 1996 have had no effect. The administration's 2004 sanctions and its comprehensive plan to bring about transition in Cuba have failed in their objective.  The absence of Fidel Castro for 20 months has not led to a change in the system.

Instead, our current policy deprives the United States of influence in Cuba, including the opportunity to promote principles that advance democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  By restricting the ability of Americans to travel freely to Cuba, we limit contact and communication on the part of families, civil society, and government.  Likewise, by restricting the ability of our farmers, ranchers, and businesses to trade with Cuba, the United States has made itself irrelevant in Cuba's growing economy, allowing Cuba to build economic partnerships elsewhere.

There is no magic U.S. policy that will transform Cuba.  But with Cuba facing a period of change, we have a new opportunity to seize.  Our policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting should end.  We need a new approach that defends human rights, is confident about the value of American engagement with Cubans, builds new economic bridges between America and Cuba, and seeks every possible avenue of increasing American influence.

We urge you to take a fresh look at our policy toward Cuba.  We should seize upon Castro's long-awaited and welcome departure to chart a new course that favors hope and engagement over isolation and estrangement.

I think that when you see a political campaign run the way that Barack Obama has run it, and how successful it has become, and how it's built such a movement for change, politicians, which generally follow the herd, TAKE NOTICE. Strong advocacy against the current Cuba policy makes perfect sense. We are not fighting the Cold War anymore, and constructive engagement has continually led to democratization. I'm not saying that the answer to all of our worries in the world is to send in the New York Philharmonic, but clearly isolating and alienating an island 90 miles from Florida for the last 50 years has done nothing. It's good to see a bipartisan commitment to fixing this error.

The Kennedy Endorsement

Heckuva speech. The cable news wags were framing it as "his last big political speech," but that's what they called his endorsement of John Kerry four years ago.

You can break out the rhetorical flourishes, but I don't think it's necessary. Kennedy was strident and very bold in his support, explicitly connecting Obama's message to that of his older brother. I was actually more struck by Obama's remarks, which were unusually emotional, talking about his father's dream of going to an American college being realized by a bill passed in the Senate by John Kennedy. This has always been Obama's gift, connecting places and people and events and showing us how we all have a stake in one another.

I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life. And his prayer was answered when he was brought over to study in this country.

But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.

That's just priceless, and in a way, in informs how his Administration would perform. He would work to end tribal violence in Kenya, not because it has any particular geopolitical significance, but because we all have a stake in a country being ripped asunder, for reasons of basic humanity as much as of national security.

Obama Leads In Nairobi; How About Washington

Barack Obama has shown some abilities we didn't otherwise characterize in him before during this election cycle. He's shown that he has the capacity to fight back (we'll see how successful he is), the capacity to, scare Republicans shitless and the capacity to lead in a way many Presidents haven't on a global stage. At a time of continuing election violence in Kenya, Obama published an op-ed in a Kenyan newspaper, calling for calm.

While participating in our own presidential elections in America, I have closely followed the tragic events that unfolded after Kenya’s polls closed. My thoughts and prayers and those of my family have been with the more than 650 victims of the violence and their families, as well as the 250,000 Kenyans who have been displaced.

Clearly, Kenya has reached a defining moment. It is up to Kenyan leaders and the Kenyan population to turn away from the path of bloodshed, division, and repression, and to turn towards reconciliation, negotiation, and renewed commitment to democratic governance. There is no doubt that there were serious flaws in the process by which presidential votes were tabulated. There is also no doubt that actions taken by both sides in the aftermath of the election have deepened the stalemate.

But Kenya’s hard-won democracy and precious national unity can be salvaged. Now is the time for all parties to renounce violence. And now is the time for President Kibaki, Raila Odinga, and all of Kenya’s leaders, to calm tensions, to come together unconditionally, and to implement a political process that peacefully addresses the controversies that divide them and restores the Kenyan people’s confidence in their political system.

This will not get Obama one more vote in the United States, but it's the right thing for him to lend his credibility to trying to get some sense of order in Kenya.

However, there's a moment right now to lead right here at home. At this hour the Senate is debating a terrible update to the FISA law that would give amnesty to lawbreaking telecom companies. Chris Dodd has vowed a filibuster and needs the support of his colleagues. Barack Obama has South Carolina fairly salted away, and is looking to a big boost nationally to help him in the February 5 states. What better boost could he give to his campaign than to come to Washington and onto the Senate floor, to deliver a long speech on the virtues of civil liberties and the need to uphold the rule of law. The guy is a Constitutional scholar and a law professor, ferchrissake. He can get into this back and forth about candor and records and low-down politics, or he can show that he actually wants to lead. Furthermore, he can show a willingness to take the desires of the bottom-up progressive movement to heart.

I hear Sen. Edwards may be pushing in this direction tonight on Keith Olbermann's show. Obama should do the same, and with more than a press release. He needs to go to Washington and do his job. Clinton too.

World Report

I've got a lot of international stories that probably aren't worth a full post, so here goes:

• Opium: it's not just for Afghanistan anymore.

The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops.

Afghan with experience in planting poppies have been helping farmers switch to producing opium in fertile parts of Diyala province, once famous for its oranges and pomegranates, north- east of Baghdad.

Failed states eventually become narco-states. It's a fact of life. And the real question is whether or not this money is flowing, like to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to insurgent and anti-government forces.

• By the way, Pakistan is a complete mess. A fort in Waziristan has been overrun by Islamists, and the intelligence service has lost control of the key elements of the militant networks there. At the same time, the United States is slowly creeping forward with a greater military role inside the country, leading us into yet another untenable conflict.

• In Kenya, amidst credible evidence that the election was rigged, the resulting unrest has once again turned violent, with riot police using live ammo and killing protestors. The anti-government forces are now looking to economic boycotts and other peaceful protests to make themselves heard. What is very worrisome is the continued tribal violence, which is not limited to Kenya inside the region. Just next door in Rwanda, the ideology of genocide is still being taught in schools.

• Nicolas Sarkozy is no longer the darling of the right, I'd gather, after the fairly trashy saga of marrying an ex-model months after a messy divorce, after his ex-wife called him "a man who likes no-one, not even his children." Of course, the Republicans are the party of Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston... so maybe it's not a big deal.

• The fallout from President Bush's "Ignorant Abroad" act through the Middle East is just starting to be felt. After a right-wing faction pulled out of Ehud Olmert's government because of the slightest hint of peace talks with the Palestinians, Olmert put his hawkish hat on.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed on Thursday to wage a "war" to stop Gaza militants firing rockets into Israel, despite warnings by Palestinian leaders that Israeli military strikes would harm peacemaking.

"A war is going on in the south, every day, every night," Olmert said in a speech.

"We cannot and will not tolerate this unceasing fire at Israeli citizens ... so we will continue to operate, with wisdom and daring, with the maximum precision that will enable us to hit those who want to attack us," Olmert said, minutes after the air strike.

Israel has a right to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the immediate fallout from Bush's visit was a break away from peace and talk of war.

• Elsewhere, the Ignorant Abroad talked about freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia while not meeting any democracy activists or dissidents, claimed that Egypt is moving toward political reform when he has done nothing of the sort, and basically spent his trip lavishing gifts on the Gulf states in the hopes that they would raise production of oil. And by the way, got no concession for his efforts. So, lies, incompetence, and failure. Just like at home!

Obama on National Security

I do think it's notable that John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama today. Kerry has a 2 million-strong email list from his run for President. I don't think anyone has a much bigger contact set on the Democratic side. This follows Tim Johnson of South Dakota's endorsement yesterday. And there's at least speculation that Ted Kennedy could be next. If Obama is so dead in the water after the New Hampshire victory for Hillary Clinton, why are so many people and organizations now rushing to endorse him?

(Update: I forgot that he also got George Miller's endorsement, which is a de facto Nancy Pelosi endorsement.)

I don't think that you can look at this news story about Obama's grandmother in Kenya and not think that there's something really transcendant here, something that actually could resonate around the globe. I don't want to put too much on this "Great Man" theory that a cosmopolitan American President would be a game-changer, but the fact that Obama also seems committed to a different kind of foreign policy is something that I find very attractive. I think this Ari Berman article misses the mark. Almost all of the foreign policy advisors to Obama had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war, whereas in the Clinton camp you have people like Lee Feinstein who say things like "the problem with pre-emption is that it may not go far enough." Berman calls the differences "stylistic," though he does say that "doesn't make them less interesting." I think the difference is very simple: wankers like Michael O'Hanlon can't stand Obama. That's actually good enough for me.

1. O’HANLON: “[Obama] seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war.”

O’Hanlon offers up a thinly-veiled defense for analysts like himself who offered tragically wrong advice in the war in March 2003 — O’Hanlon cannot seem to face up to the fact that he lined up on the wrong side of the arguments on Iraq, and America has suffered serious damage to its national security as a result [...]

2. O’HANLON: “Obama’s second Iraq problem is his insistence that, whatever happens there during 2008, he would withdraw all our main combat forces in the first 16 months of his presidency.”

Here O’Hanlon again offers bad advice and displays his unwillingness to recognize the Bush surge in Iraq has failed to achieve its fundamental goal — to advance political reconciliation among Iraq’s leaders. It’s a good thing that fewer Iraqis are dying, but Iraq’s leaders are no closer to a political settlement, which was the point of the surge. Unless Iraq’s leaders strike the power-sharing deals necessary to stabilize their country, the drop in violence is not likely to be sustainable. O’Hanlon favors fostering the dangerous and dysfunctional culture of dependency among Iraq’s leaders that comes with his proposals to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Today is the first anniversary of the Bush speech on the surge, and here O'Hanlon is making the same false arguments that propagandists like John McCain and Joe Lieberman make today in the Wall Street Journal. They try to say that "the surge has worked" while acknowledging that "there has been no political progress," when political progress was the only function of the surge. Both Clinton and Obama have been fine in speeches and debates talking about this, but only Obama is singled out for scorn from the kind of people like Michael O'Hanlon. Michael Bérubé has more.

In the wake of the Bush Administration failures, progressive have an opportunity to lead on national security, just as there was an opportunity to lead on economic security in the 1990s.

...there is a substantive policy reason for progressives to offer a clear contrast: Americans are less secure at the start of 2008 because of a failure of conservative ideology. Growing instability around the world is not simply a result of mismanagement or poor implementation. How conservatives view the world and the role of government is at the core of America's inability to tackle global terrorism in the nearly seven years since 9-11. The conservative push for ever smaller government at home and an obsession with tax cuts has not only weakened America economically, it has also created a budgetary house of cards that could collapse and create strains on America's ability to project its power and influence in the world in the years to come [...]

First, progressives need to continue to provide a clear alternative on the key issues like Iraq and the fight against global terrorist groups. Saying "me too" and just simply stating that we're "tough and smart" didn't work before, and it won't work in the coming year.

Second, progressives need to beware of muddled arguments to blindly move to the "center" without evaluating the reality (which is exactly what progressives did in 2002 when they mistakenly supported bad arguments for invading Iraq). In addition, the center has shifted on national security, and Americans want a clear alternative that puts more emphasis on other components of American power like diplomacy and economic might.

Finally, progressives should also avoid tactical arguments like the ones presented in 2004, such as plans on how America will train Iraq's troops effectively. Americans want to hear more from their leaders about how they are going to revive American power and moral authority after eight years of Bush and his allies in Congress making the wrong choices.

And I think that someone like Obama, who reaches out to heal the nation of Kenya while on his campaign bus, has the temperament and moral authority to lead in this area. It's a past-versus-future argument that I believe is much more than stylistic.