Showing posts with label values based decision making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label values based decision making. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Every Journey Starts Somewhere



The Blog Florida Blue Logo Contest was a rousing success. Thank you all for participating. There will be more about the results of the contest later. But that is not the subject of today's diary.

Today we are going to talk about the work ahead. However, we are going to do that by taking a look at where we are starting from. It's pretty hard to get to where you want to go if you don't know where you are starting from.

So, with that in mind, follow me down the rabbit hole....


Recently, Media Matters and Campaign for America's Future completed a new joint report called, "The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth." meowmissy has a diary up on DKos that has a lot of the information from this report. In describing the report, Justin Cole, Online Outreach Coordinator for Media Matters for America, had this to say:
It's a substantial report that will help drive home the point that America – regardless of how the media portrays it – is a progressive nation that
is getting more progressive, including in Florida
.

Now to those of us living here that may sound like a startling statement. However, Mr. Cole has supplied us with Florida specific polling to support this seemingly outlandish claim. Consider just these three elements of this polling:

  • “Providing health insurance for people who do not already have it—should the federal government spend more on it, the same as now, less, or no money at all?”
    Percent answering “More”: 71%
  • "Providing financial assistance to public elementary and secondary schools—should the federal government spend more on it, the same as now, less, or no money at all?”
    Percent answering “more”: 71%
  • “The federal government banning all abortions—do you favor or oppose the federal government doing this?”
    Percent opposed: 67%

Do these results surprise you? Are these the results that you would expect in a state where:

  • Only 2 of 7 statewide elected posts are held by Democrats
  • The Congressional Delegation is 16 Republicans and 9 Democrats
  • 42 out of 120 House seats are held by Democrats
  • 14 of 40 Senate seats are held by Democrats

So we seem to have a pretty progressive electorate given the polling results noted above. That ought to put some wind in our sails as we go into the 2008 election cycle. This is particularly true looking back at the notable successes we had in 2006. This gives rise to the question: What do we do with this information?

Here are my suggestions:

  • We try to run as many good candidates as we can against as many vulnerable Republican seats as we can find.

Good candidates are preferably people with prior elected experience, or absent that, a compelling personal story. They also should be able to raise substantial funds and / or a major grassroots effort on their own. Vulnerable Republican seats are open seats, seats held by freshmen, or seats where the incumbent has an approval rating below 50%.

  • We make sure that these good candidates talk about their progressive values.

Remember that polling data? 71% of the electorate is for doing more to provide health care to those in need. That's compassion and a sense of community. We should be talking about that.

71% of the electorate is for doing more for public education. Quality public education is the great equalizer in this country. That's fairness. We should be talking about that.

67% are against the government banning all abortions. That's freedom. We should be talking about that.

The numbers tell us the public is on our side. We should be sure they know that we are on their side.

That is where we should start our journey in our quest to Blog Florida Blue.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Recap

Six weeks ago, I set out to try to work my way through what candidate I wanted to support this cycle for the presidential nomination. I had a plan. I reviewed the 3 "top tier" candidates in detail. I did a review on Bill Richardson, because I promised my friend Becker. And last week, I finished up with the Final Four. The only one I haven't done is Al Gore. But then, he's not running... or is he?

So where has all this left me? To find out, you'll have to follow me below the fold.

I started with the premise that


There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.
To get to the general, one must first win the nomination, no? I had a list of things I was looking at in the candidates:


  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?


So I started with Hillary Clinton. I found a lot to like in the values expressed in her speeches. I called her vote for the AUMF in Iraq

The albatross around Hillary's neck
I wondered

Is she doing the right things now regarding Iraq? Is it enough to overcome her initial vote and her continued refusal to admit a mistake?

I noted her strength in fund raising in the first quarter. I also talked about having people around her who had made it all happen before. My biggest concern was her ability to win the general elections, should she win the nomination.

What's changed in the past few weeks? Hillary's performance in the first two debates. She has been the hands down winner in each debate so far. She keeps that up, she just might make a believer out of ...?

Next up was John Edwards. I really liked the values expressed in Edwards speeches. He still has the most detailed policy pieces on the issues of any candidate. He is foursquare for ending the war in Iraq now. Edwards did not match the stunning amounts raised by Clinton or Obama. He did raise enough to continue to execute his plan. And his plan to win the nomination (he's leading the polls in Iowa, still) is a good one. Here's what I wound up saying about Edwards:

John Edwards message and values reaches me. His call for One America, his stance on Iraq, and his ability to clearly communicate his values resonates with me. ... Edwards would be a nominee that I would be excited to support. And best of all, Edwards can win the White House in 2008.
What has changed in the last few weeks? Edwards has stayed mired in third in the national polls. He had a better debate in New Hampshire than he had in South Carolina. I had a personal experience with the Edwards campaign in Florida this weekend. At the Florida Democratic Party's big Jefferson-Jackson weekend, the Edwards campaign didn't look like it could organize its way out of a wet paper bag. They sure didn't have a clue how to organize in Florida. And it showed.

So that leaves Barack Obama from the top tier. I also really liked the values expressed in Obama's speeches. I noted his "somewhat less forthright" stance on Iraq, despite his having initially opposed the war. Obama has not laid out many detailed positions on the issues. However, his values translate pretty well into the stances on issues that he does talk about. Obama raised a ton of money in the first quarter, stunning nearly everybody. He has surrounded himself with some very experienced campaign operatives. At the end, here is what I had to say about Obama:
There is a lot to like about Barack Obama. His message of working together to solve our problems, to turn the page does resonate with me. The values expressed in his speeches are my values. I'm more than a little concerned about his unwillingness to let those values guide him in his current views on Iraq. It concerns me all the more because on other issues, he has not laid out any measure of specificity on how he would proceed. In sum, Senator Obama has not closed the deal with me at this point.
Has anything changed in the last few weeks? Obama has not exactly helped himself in the debates. He is stuck in second behind Clinton nationally. And he has slipped into third in Iowa behind Edwards and Clinton. Obama did show an organizational presence in Florida this weekend. And if anybody wants to see a passionate plea by a surrogate, get hold of the videotape of Congressman Bob Wexler speaking for Obama this weekend.

I did review Bill Richardson. He has the potential to break into the top tier. However, he has not helped himself in either of the debates so far. And his near melt down on Meet the Press did not help him any either.

As stated earlier, I reviewed the Final Four. Enough said about them.

So, where does that leave me. The candidate who I worry most about general election electability (Clinton) seems to be easing some of those fears in me. Some. Not very many, but some. The guy I seemed to like the best (Edwards) is going nowhere fast nationally, but still has a viable plan to win the nomination. He needs to get better organized (and soon) in some other states than Iowa though. Otherwise Iowa could turn out to be a pretty empty victory. Obama seems to have peaked (for now) in the polls. However, there are recent hints he could have another stunning fund raising quarter. That would certainly keep the buzz going awhile. Richardson is still stuck in single digits and the other guys are still nowhere.

Speaking of nowhere, I am nowhere nearer to figuring out which candidate to get behind than I was six weeks ago. Is Al Gore running?

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Bill Richardson

A month ago, I laid out my plan to review our candidates for President to try to determine who I was going to support for the nomination. I started with Hillary Clinton and followed with John Edwards. Last week it was Barack Obama.

I was going to cover the so called "second tier" candidates in one diary and then do a review. But thanks to my friend, Robert Becker, Bill Richardson's Iowa State Director, today's diary will cover New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

If you haven't seen the other diaries in this series, it would help to give them a quick look. And after that, here we go...


As I discussed in the overview to this series:

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:

  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?

Let's take a look at the values projected in Bill Richardson's message. In a speech titled The New Realism and the Rebirth of American Leadership in February, Richardson said this
Realists like Truman and Eisenhower understood that defending Europe and ourselves from the Soviets required a strong military. But they also understood that we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow.

These and subsequent American Presidents knew the importance of moral leadership. Our remarkable military and our prosperous economy gave us the power to lead. But our commitment to human dignity – including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to follow.

In remarks to the Arab American Institute at their Kahlil Gibran "Spirit of Humanity" Awards Dinnerin April, Richardson had this to say
We want to make this world more peaceful, more understanding and more livable for all people; so that everyone may fulfill their dreams and live in a world respectful of race, ethnicity, sex and religious tolerance.

America should lead the world in spearheading a Middle East, North Africa, and Asian multi-national Marshall Plan that includes support for public education in the Muslim world which is the best way to mitigate the role of Salafist madrasas that foment extremism. We must help those Arabs and Muslims who promote a vision of peace, prosperity, tolerance and respect for human dignity, who form the overwhelming majority of the Arab and Muslim world, as opposed to the apocalyptic fantasies offered by a vocal minority of jihadists.

Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.

And at the New America Foundation this month, Richardson had this to say
Today, I am going to stake my claim to being the next president, the Energy President, on the concept of a fast, comprehensive energy revolution in the United States

Here are the principles that guide my thinking.

Our energy policy solutions must fight global warming, which threatens human, ecological, and economic catastrophe literally everywhere on earth.

Our energy policy solutions must wean us from oil, because any oil addiction perverts our nation’s strategic objectives, limits our options, and costs us both blood and treasure.

Next, in meeting this challenge, we must support and help people, communities, industries, and small businesses who could be hurt by a careless transition – but are being terribly hurt by soaring prices today.

Further, I am a market-oriented Democrat. I want to set clear regulatory standards and systems and incentives, and allow the markets to respond.

Finally, we must keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology development – exploring frontiers, finding solutions to our energy and climate challenges.

These are my bedrock principles -- they are not subject to negotiation.

Let's look at how the values expressed in the speeches translate into Governor Richardson's stance on the issues. Of course the paramount issue of the day is Iraq. In a recent CBS News/New York Times Poll, 31% named the war in Iraq as the most important problem facing this country today. No other issue even reached double digits. Richardson's plan for Iraq is to
de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops by the end of the year
Richardson goes on to say
Congress must continue to use the power of the purse without cutting funds for troops on the ground, but we should also go one step further. Congress should assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under the War Powers Act. Congress can then set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops.

On health care, Richardson opens with
Affordable and secure health insurance for every American should be our national goal.
He continues with a litany of measures to extend coverage and assist families in paying premiums. However, this is not a call for universal single payer health care.

In Energy Policy, Richardson makes a strong call for
a New American Revolution -- an energy and climate revolution
As we saw above in his speech to the New America Foundation, Richardson puts a premium on energy policy for both national security and environmental security concerns.

Richardson had this to say on fund raising
voters will judge the candidates on their experience, on their records, on their passion, and that fund-raising will be secondary
He better hope that's true, because he is truly in the second tier of fund raisers. His $6.2 million raised in the 1st quarter puts him fourth on the fund raising list, behind Senator Chris Dodd and well behind all the "first tier" candidates.

Richardson's campaign manager is Dave Contarino. Contarino ran Richardson's first campaign for Governor, served as his Chief of Staff for 3 years and most recently was the Chair of his re-election for Governor campaign. Amanda Cooperia is overseeing fund raising. Cooper was Richardson's re-election Campaign Manager and Fundraising Director. Cooper oversaw raising $14 million for the Governor's re-election campaign and led the effort to raise $28 million for the DGA in Governor Richardson's two year term as Chair. Bsides the aforementioned Robert Becker, Richardson's experienced and tenacious Iowa state director, Richardson is putting locally experienced operatives in place in Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

More than anyone else in this campaign, Bill Richardson is running on his resume. Every speech he gives, he reminds his listeners that he is the governor of New Mexico. He was Ambassador to the UN, Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton and a Congressman. In Iowa, Becker has this to say about Richardson's campaign
Make no mistake about - while we are using today's latest technology (including this email!) and innovative, engaging TV ads - we will run an aggressive, old-fashioned, one-handshake-at-a-time caucus operation.
He needs to shake a lot of hands. The latest Real Clear Politics 2 week average has Richardson at 8% in Iowa, far behind the top three. He needs a stronger than expected showing in Iowa (in the top three) and a very good showing in Nevada, with its heavy concentration of Hispanic voters to get to New Hampshire with any chance at all.

So far, Richardson is too low in the pack for anyone to be doing head to head polling against the leading Republican contenders. So we don't know where that stands right now. He is a governor, however, and he does have that extensive foreign policy experience. And that foreign policy experience is 180 degrees different than we have been experiencing under the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For my money, Richardson is running too much on his resume. In looking for Richardson's expressed values in his speeches, I had to wade through endless repetitions of his resume before I could find kernels of his values. Elections are about the future. Yeah, we want to know what makes you think you're qualified. But more than that, we want to know what you stand for and what your vision is.

In the end, I don't get that from Bill Richardson. Not yet.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Barack Obama

Three weeks ago, I outlined my plan to review the Democratic presidential hopefuls and come to some resolution on who I would support for the nomination. I started with Hillary Clinton. Last week was John Edwards turn. Today it is Barack Obama.

If you haven't seen the prior diaries in this series, it would be helpful to give them at least a quick scan. Below the fold, I'll briefly review my methodology and reasoning when evaluating the candidates. OK, here we go...



As I discussed in the overview to this series:

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the
candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:

  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?

I am a true believer in values based decision making. Here are the values I have chosen to bring to bear on this particular process:

  • community
  • individual liberty and capacity for self-government.
  • equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none.
  • thirst for innovation and civic duty.
  • insist upon new, viable means to achieve progressive ideals.

OK, having said all of that, here we go with Obama's values expressed in his speeches. Obama burst on the scene for most of us with his Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention on July 27, 2004:

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will he counted, or at least, most of the time...

The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of
opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that
choice.

In Remarks to the American Legion Legislative Rally on March 01, 2005, Obama had this to say:

I thought about the hundreds of Illinois veterans I've met over the last few years. We asked them to leave their homes, leave their families, and risk their lives in some far-off place to protect us. And yet, somehow, we're still hearing stories like the one I heard from a veteran named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. That's what I thought about. And finally, I thought about a young man named Seamus Ahern, who I met during the campaign at a V.F.W. hall in East Moline, Illinois. He told me about how he'd joined the Marines because he was so proud of this country, and he felt that as a young person in his early twenties he wanted to give something back. He was getting shipped out to Iraq the following week, and as I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: When Shamus comes home, will we serve him as well as he served us? That's the question we should be asking ourselves when we talk about veterans' benefits and the veterans' budget. And that's the standard we should meet.
On May 02, 2005 at an NAACP Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner, Obama said:

...it's one thing to know that everyone has a seat at the lunch counter, but how do we figure out how everyone can pay for the meal? It was easy to figure out that blacks and whites should be able to go to school together, but how do we make sure that every child is equipped and ready to graduate? It was easy to talk about dogs and fire hoses, but how do we talk about getting drugs and guns off the streets?" This is what they told me.

And of course, I reminded them that it wasn't very easy at all. That the moral certainties we now take for granted - that separate can never be equal, that the blessings of liberty enshrined in our Constitution belong to all of us, that our children should be able to go to school together and play together and grow up together - were anything but certain in 1965.

In the budget they passed this week in Congress, they gave out over $100 billion in tax cuts, on top of the trillions they've already given to the wealthiest few and most profitable corporations.

One hundred billion dollars. Think about what that could do for our kids if we invested that in our schools. Think of how many new schools we could build, how many great teachers we could recruit, what kind of computers and technology we could put in our classrooms. Think about how much we could invest in math and science so our kids could be prepared for the 21st century economy. Think about how many kids we could send to college who've worked hard, studied hard, but just can't afford the tuition.

Think about all that potential and all that opportunity. Think about the choice Washington made instead. And now think about what you can do about it.

I believe we have a mutual responsibility to make sure our schools are properly funded, our teachers are properly paid, and our students have access to an affordable college education. And if we don't do something about all that, than nothing else matters.

But I also believe we have an individual responsibility as well.

Our grandparents use to tell us that being Black means you have to work twice as hard to succeed in life. And so I ask today, can we honestly say our kids are working twice as hard as the kids in India and China who are graduating ahead of us, with better test scores and the tools they need to kick our butts on the job market? Can we honestly say our teachers are working twice as hard, or our parents?
Speaking at the Pritzker School of Medicine Commencement on June 13, 2005, Obama said this:

...Today, as we continue to find new ways to live longer and better, the greatest single threat to the health of our nation is not a scarcity of genius or a failure of discovery; it is a lack of collective will to ensure that every single American has access to effective, affordable health care. It is our inability, after years and years of talk and gridlock, to finally do something about the crushing cost of health care in America.

45 million Americans are uninsured - over 5 million more in the last four years. This isn't just a moral shame, it's an economic disaster that's catching Americans in a vicious cycle. Because the uninsured can't afford health care, they put off seeing a doctor or end up in the ER when they get sick. Then their care is more expensive, and so premiums for all Americans go up - to the tune of $922 a family. Because everyone's premiums go up, more Americans lose their health care.
And on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, which he voted against, Obama said this:

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way.
The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
So how do these values expressed in these speeches square with Obama's positions on the issues? As always, I am starting with Iraq. It is still the biggest issue on the minds of the public, by far. Unlike, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Barack Obama was not in the United States Senate when the AUMF came up for a vote. He was in the Illinois State Senate. But he did say this Against Going to War with Iraq on October 02, 2002:

I don't oppose all wars... After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is a dumb war...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Now that he is in the US Senate and faced with actually voting on these issues, Obama is somewhat less forthright. Obama reportedly told the Associated Press the Congress should pass the war funding money without a time line for withdrawal if Bush vetoed the spending bill. Statements like that have not enhanced Obama's standing with the progressives in his party.

Obama has not laid out detailed positions on many of the other issues. However in Remarks to the National Conference of Black Mayors on May 05, 2007, Obama laid out strong positions on education, energy independence and global warming and affordable housing.

Obama's position on Health Care from his web site:

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, and in a series of speeches and public events Barack Obama has outlined specific principles for providing affordable and comprehensive coverage and for improving quality of care and reducing of costs for everyone. These include tackling medical inflation and spiraling health care costs, developing new mechanisms to extend portable, affordable coverage, and reforming health care delivery so that it emphasizes prevention and efficiency.

As a first step, Barack Obama wants to hear from you. He is hosting a series of community discussions around the country to hear not only from policy experts, but also from real Americans who are struggling with the health care system, doctors and nurses, people with insurance and without it.
There does not seem to be a ringing call for single payer universal health care in there.

Obama is the only candidate who takes on Government Corruption on his web site.

On fund raising, the New York Times had this to say at the end of the first quarter:

Mr. Obama’s total for the first fund-raising period of the 2008 presidential race was close to Mrs. Clinton’s. She reported Sunday that she had raised $26 million, but declined to provide a breakdown of contributions for the primary season versus the general election. Mr. Obama said $23.5 million of the money he raised was for the primary season.
It did turn out that Obama had actually out raised Clinton in primary money. He also had more contributions under the campaign finance limit, meaning he has more mileage left in his donor base than Clinton. This was a truly stunning development.

Obama has put together an interesting campaign management team. Certainly the finance department, led by Julianna Smoot, has proved to be top notch. Smoot was finance director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this past cycle.

At the top of the campaign is David Axelrod, his media strategist. Axelrod is founder of Chicago-based AKP Media and handled Obama's 2004 Senate race. He has an "A" client list and consults for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Washington Post has this to say:

David Axelrod, a former newspaper reporter who has worked on past campaigns for no fewer than five of the Democrats racing to the White House, a form of political ubiquity that only enhances his reputation. This time, he's with Obama.

A measure of his status in the top tier of Democratic spinners, scripters and fixers is that when his peers detect something subtle and good, they presume Axelrod must have had a hand in it.
David Plouffe, another partner in AKP Media is the campaign manager. You can read up on Plouffe at his Wikipedia listing.

Despite the credentials of the top management, the Obama campaign has had a couple of stumbles so far. There was the dust up with the Clinton campaign over the David Geffin remarks. More recently, CNN had a story titled Obama publicly scolds staff for scheduling decision:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told New Hampshire firefighters Friday that he was frustrated his staff did not build into his travel schedule a personal appearance before their union meeting taking place in the coastal city of Portsmouth. Instead, the presidential hopeful had to address the IAFF and Federation of State and Provincial Firefighters Association this morning by telephone.

"I have to tell you, I wish I was there," Obama said over a speakerphone. "My staff had already scheduled some things and they couldn't wiggle out if it. They heard from me a little bit because I wasn't happy I couldn't be there personally."

Altogether not a big deal. But it is something to watch for as the campaign goes on.

Obama's primary strategy can be devined from a review of his campaign staff. The staff is weighted with folks heavy on Iowa experience. New Hampshire, not so much. Obama is a Senator from Illinois, a neighbor state to Iowa. Somewhat like Edwards, it appears Obama is looking to get momentum going with a strong showing in Iowa. In the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, John Edwards is leading at 29%, but Obama has slipped past Hillary Clinton into second at 23%. Clinton trails at 21%. A second in Iowa would not be a campaign killer for Obama. Particularly if he beats Clinton.

New Hampshire shows Clinton with a 12 point lead over both Obama and Edwards according to the Real Clear Politics Average through May 15th. Whatever momentum is developed coming out of Iowa and Nevada will surely have a major impact on New Hampshire.

In head to heads against Republicans, the latest RCP average has Obama leading Giuliana by 3.4 points and McCain by 5 points. These are not quite as big a lead as Edwards has over the GOP rivals, but certainly in the ballpark. Obama appears to have a better than reasonable chance of winning the general should he be the nominee. Certainly a better shot than Clinton does.

Now we are at that very subjective point. Does this candidate make me feel it? There is a lot to like about Barack Obama. His message of working together to solve our problems, to turn the page does resonate with me. The values expressed in his speeches are my values. I'm more than a little concerned about his unwillingness to let those values guide him in his current views on Iraq. It concerns me all the more because on other issues, he has not laid out any measure of specificity on how he would proceed. In sum, Senator Obama has not closed the deal with me at this point.

So where does that leave me? Let me know where it leaves you. Next week, a look at the "other" candidates.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: John Edwards

Last week, in the first diary of this series, I reviewed Hillary Clinton. I included a poll asking whether people thought this process was useful. I was gratified to see that 65% of the respondents did think the process was useful. As of 5:00 PM Sunday, the diary had drawn 106 comments and 18 Recs. Thank you all for participating.

As promised last week, today is John Edwards turn in the barrel.


The two broad criteria I am using to evaluate the candidates are these:



The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to
win the general election.
You can check out the other criteria being used at the Overview Diary for this series. But I am a big believer in value based decision making, so I am putting a lot of stock in the values expressed by the candidates.

Here are some of the values expressed in John Edwards speeches:

London School of Economics Speech




When hundreds of thousands of children are now orphaned living in tents and
temporary shelters, their despair and disillusionment is a threat to their
stability and to our security
. For disillusionment is the fuel that feeds the
fire of hatred and tyranny. And when millions of people — men and women who used to be able to work and support their families — are at risk of slipping into
poverty, it is the moral conscience of the world to give them hope.

For example, how do we ensure that the great divide between the "haves" and the "have nots" starts to close? How do we lead so that developing countries understand that education, market reforms, and just governments will bring hope to even the most desperate places?

And today, many ask whether America and Europe can continue to work together to ensure the broader spread of democracy. The only answer to that question must be yes.
This is the moment when we must strengthen our partnership to ensure that in the 21st century, the world moves toward liberty and opportunity.


The Transatlantic Partnership in an Age of Global Challenges



America has a responsibility to lead and to lead on the issue of extreme poverty around the world, not just addressing the millions of Americans who live in poverty everyday... How do we win the hearts and minds of young people, especially the millions who are struggling in the Middle East and in Africa who feel that the modern world offers them absolutely nothing? How do we reach them and give them an opportunity to climb out of hopelessness and into a better life just as we did here with the Marshall Plan after World War II?


National Press Club Policy Address




On the America we want to achieve in the next twenty years, I don't think the picture is hard to draw. It is an America where we are well on our way to ending poverty. It is an America where every American has health care coverage — not access to health insurance or other wiggle-word ways we try to describe something less than health coverage for every American. It is time. It is an America where businesses and working people thrive in a competitive and fair international marketplace. It is an America where everyone can join the middle class and everyone can build a better future than their parents had.

I want to live in an America free from dependence on fossil fuels, where our environmental policies reflect our pride in the blessings of a beautiful and abundant country and our commitment to preserve that country for our farmers, our fishermen, our children. Sacrifice, conservation, and innovation will be required.
I want to live in an America that has not sacrificed individual liberties in the name of freedom, where — in the fight to preserve the country we love — we do not sacrifice the country we love, where we don't make excuses for violating civil rights, though we understand the test of liberty is in the moments when such excuses almost sound reasonable.

I want to live in an America where we value work as well as wealth, because we understand that we are only strong because our people work hard, that we are made strong by our longshoremen and autoworkers, our computer programmers and janitors, and disrespect to any of them is disrespect to the values that allowed for America's greatness in the first place.

I want to live in an America where the difference in our best schools and our worst schools cannot be measured by Newsweek, where those who can teach are encouraged and rewarded and where the world of learning is opened to every child.


How do these values translate into play via Edwards' stance on the issues? Let's start with Iraq. If you can not get past the Iraq issue, you are nowhere. In a recent CBS News Poll 36% of Americans named Iraq as the most important issue. No other issue was even in double digits.


Like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards was in the Senate and voted for The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. Unlike Clinton, however, John Edwards has acknowledged that he made a mistake. Edwards has been urging Congress to stand firm on ending the war in Iraq.



The president today asked for yet another chance. We can no longer afford to bet American troops on a chance. In fact, even members of the president's own party are running out of patience with the relentless pursuit of his failed Iraq policy. Why on earth would Congress make a concession to Bush when support to end the war may be climbing? Congress should stand firm. The only real power it has to end this war is to cut off funds. They passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. Nothing else will work. And if the president vetoes it, then it is his willful behavior alone that is standing in the way of what our troops need.

Edwards is alone among the top tier candidates to have rolled out detailed plans on the issues.

Edwards Announces Plan for Universal Health Care
Edwards Lays Out Comprehensive Proposal To Enact His Plan For Iraq
Edwards Announces Rural Recovery Act; Plan would restore economic fairness and help struggling towns
Edwards Announces College Opportunity Agenda

Universal Health Care, Iraq, Rural Recovery, College Opportunity. No other candidate has laid out in such detail their plans for these and other issues important to the voters. That gives Edwards a leg up in this department.

How does Edwards measure up in the fundraising department? He finished behind Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton in first quarter fundraising numbers. That's the bad news. The good news is that Edwards did raise enough money to execute his campaign plan. Here's what the Edwards campaign had to say about the first quarter fundraising numbers:

Edwards Campaign Raises More Than $14 Million During 1st Quarter
John Edwards for President Apr 1, 2007

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – The John Edwards for President campaign announced today that it raised in excess of $14 million during the first quarter fundraising period, far exceeding its budget and nearly doubling the amount Edwards raised during the first quarter in 2003. Americans from across the country and from a wide range of backgrounds supported Senator Edwards' campaign to start changing America today with big, bold ideas.
First quarter fundraising figures from the John Edwards for President campaign include:
More than $14 million raised total.
More than 40,000 contributors from across the country.
80 percent of contributions were $100 or less.
$3.3 million raised from online contributions.
Around $1 million raised in general election funds.

It remains to be seen if Obama and Clinton can continue their torrid fundraising pace into the second quarter. If they do, Edwards will have to pick up the fundraising pace to be competitive with the air time buys of the other two candidates.

John Edwards has assembled a first rate campaign staff. In Iowa, he has many of the same people who helped him to his stunning second place finish in 2004. The Edwards campaign just recently announced:

Joe Trippi Joins The John Edwards For President Campaign

Primary campaign strategy will either be Edwards crowning glory or his Achilles heel. Like a riverboat gambler, Edwards has bet the house on Iowa. In addition to assembling a superb staff in Iowa, he has been practically living there the last 4 years. So far, it is paying off. Edwards leads the polls in Iowa. Last cycle, John Kerry won Iowa and the rest was history. Will history repeat itself?

The Democrats have tweaked the primary schedule this year. Nevada follows Iowa with a caucus this cycle. Although recent polls show Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead, Nevada presents some interesting opportunities for other candidates to fare better than anticipated in the Nevada caucus. Nevada is heavily unionized and John Edwards has worked hard to be the favorite son of unions this cycle. Hispanics make up a large voting block in Nevada, something that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson hopes to capitalize on. Those factors could cause some surprises to people who only focus on the polls in Nevada.

Early momentum from Iowa and Nevada could make Edwards the apparent front runner heading into New Hampshire and South Carolina, Edwards birth state. Florida's recent legislation moving its primary up to January 29th has still to be figured into this mix. Also, John Edwards beats every other Republican contender in head to head match up polls.

John Edwards message and values reaches me. His call for One America, his stance on Iraq, and his ability to clearly communicate his values resonates with me. His very human reaction to his wife Elizabeth's struggle with cancer resonates with me. There is nothing I don't like about Edwards. OK, $400 haircuts don't excite me all that much. But that, aside, Edwards would be a nominee that I would be excited to support. And best of all, Edwards can win the White House in 2008.

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Hillary Clinton

Last week, I outlined my plan to work my way out of my candidate selection funk. Today is the first stop in this process. I have decided to review the candidates in alphabetical order by last name. That means we start with Hillary Clinton.

For the Joe Biden fan out there, and I know there is one, I also made a decision to start with the so called "top tier" candidates. So despite Joe's great one word answer in the debate, I am going to wait to cover the "other" candidates out there. Next week, therefore, John Edwards will be on the block.

Follow me to see how Hillary Clinton measures up.


The two broad criteria I am using to evaluate the candidates are these:

The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their
ability to win the general election.

I am a true believer in values based decision making. Here are the values I have chosen to bring to bear on this particular process:

  • community
  • individual liberty and capacity for self-government.
  • equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none.
  • thirst for innovation and civic duty.
  • insist upon new, viable means to achieve progressive ideals.

Here's the values Hillary Clinton has expressed in her speeches:

Foreign Policy

  • bipartisan consensus and; non-partisan competence
  • "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind"
  • we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military.
  • "Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

Economy

  • we can't be secure without a strong economy.
  • we cannot sustain our deepest values without an economy that rewards hard work.
  • fiscal discipline,
  • rewarding hard work,
  • investing in our people,
  • growing a strong middle class by giving everyone a chance to succeed.

Energy Policy

  • Energy we all know is essential to our economic security, and the trend lines are terrible.
  • our values demand that we be good stewards of the planet for our children and our children's children.
  • how will we get there? Two words: innovation and efficiency.

How does Hillary bring these values into play via her stance on the issues? Let's start with Iraq. If you can not get past the Iraq issue, you are nowhere. In a recent CBS News Poll 36% of Americans named Iraq as the most important issue. No other issue was even in double digits.

The albatross around Hillary's neck is her initial vote to authorize the war. She continues to exacerbate this by refusing to acknowledge that this vote was a mistake. Whether she can get away with this is still an open question.

Beyond the initial authorization of the war, Clinton has been a harsh critic of the Bush administrations' prosecution of the war. After Bush vetoed the supplemental approps bill, Clinton said this:

With his veto today, President Bush has made it clear that he is standing in
the way of ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The nation is
ready for the President to stop disregarding the will of the American people and
to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin
redeploying our troops.

Two days later, Senator Clinton:

announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end
authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 --
the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of
force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.


Is she doing the right things now regarding Iraq? Is it enough to overcome her initial vote and her continued refusal to admit a mistake?

Hillary has not made a lot of noise about the economy lately. At least not according to her press releases. As for health care, she seems to be taking an incrementalist approach. She is talking about expanding health care for children. Haven't seen anything from Hillary on Universal Health Care.

Clinton led the pack in fundraising in the first quarter of this year. However, she did not blow away the field as many people expected. The bigger news was that Barack Obama actually raised more primary money than Hillary. However, Hillary was able to transfer $10 million from her Senate campaign to her presidential campaign. It also remains to be seen if she can sustain this torrid fundraising pace.

Say what you will about James Carville and Terry McAuliffe. There is one thing they can say that most of the rest of us can not. They have won the big enchilada. They have been there and done that before. Between Bill and Hillary Clinton, there are a ton of folks out there that owe them favors, and they are putting together a first rate team throughout the country. Two knocks on the team so far:
  • They have been very ham handed in their fundraising efforts. People are giving, but they don't like their arms being twisted so much.
  • There is some concern that these guys think they are running the 1992 campaign all over again. This election is about the future, as all elections are.

Hillary's primary strategy seems to revolve around the inevitability of her nomination. She has been leading the polls from the outset. She has received the endorsement of Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack when he dropped out of the race.and thus gets the benefit of most of his Iowa organization. As the Senator from New York, she pretty much has favorite daughter status in New Hampshire. And Bill's huge popularity in the African American community give her a big leg up in South Carolina.

With all that she has going for her, I still am not feeling it from the Clinton campaign. She just does not get my juices flowing. Maybe she's too calculated. Maybe she still doesn't get it on Iraq. Whatever it is, she has not closed the deal with me at all.

One of the other things that I am trying to evaluate is the candidates ability to win the general election, should they be the nominee. I have the least comfort on this factor with Hillary. Here is probably the biggest reason why:

A new Gallup poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton's approval rating in the net
negative territory
, with 45% having a positive view and 51% having a negative
view. This has dropped dramatically from the start of the year when her
favorability rating was 58% positive/40% negative.


This means that Clinton must convince people who already don't like her to change their minds. This is a much more difficult proposition than her primary rivals face. It is my biggest concern about her candidacy. And it put her on the bottom of the list of top tier candidates for me.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Overview

This time 4 years ago, I was firmly committed to Florida's favorite son, my former boss, Senator and former Florida Governor Bob Graham. I had taken a look at Howard Dean and liked what I saw. I was not enamored of John Kerry (more on that later) and I thought John Edwards suffered from premature ejaculation (er, uh, candidacy).

This cycle, I am much more conflicted. There is not one candidate who stands head and shoulders above everyone else, in my opinion. Maybe the best candidate isn't even in the race. Maybe the best candidate is ineligible to run again. There are at least two candidates who I would be equally happy to have as my party's nominee. This is the embarrassment of riches we seem to be suffering this year.

Today, I am launching a series of diaries to try and get the fencepost out of my ass. This series is going to be a little bit like examining my navel, something I have successfully avoided doing to this point in my life for the most part. I hope at the end of the day to have developed a coherent reason to support one candidate over all the others.




There are a couple of caveats I should make here. I am going to support the Democratic nominee. Period.

I want to become a paid employee of, or consultant to, the campaign I end up choosing to support. I could repeat my pattern from the last presidential cycle and spend my energy on the Congressional level. That happened after my first choice, Bob Graham, decided he couldn't sustain a viable campaign. This cycle though, I hope I wind up catching on with the ultimate nominee.

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election. You can't have one without the other. That's what happened to Howard Dean in Iowa last cycle. Iowans came to the conclusion that Dean could not win the general. They also came to the mistaken conclusion that John Kerry could, so what do they know?

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:
  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?

I am going to go back to square one and do my own research on all these factors. I am a devotee of values based decision making, so I am going to start with that navel gazing thing. I am going to have to come up with a set of criteria to evaluate how each candidate's message resonates with my values (That's the first and the last criteria on the list above.) Those criteria are, by their nature, subjective. The other criteria are more objective in nature. At the end of the day, it is going to come down to my gut feeling as to which candidate makes me feel it more.

That's how I intend to proceed. It should be an interesting journey.

Saturday, February 3, 2007

How to Talk About Universal Health Care Insurance: Part 2

In How to Talk About Unviersal Health Care Insurance: Part 1 I talked about how the main crisis is not health care delivery, rather it is health care insurance.

This conversation was sparked by the response to another diary of mine published in December, How to Talk to Small Business People . Almost all the responses from small business people mentioned health care. They told me they are looking for a good way to get affordable health care insurance for themselves, their families and their employees. Of course these responses came from small business people who are progressive enough to comment and / or post on Daily Kos.

This diary is for people who want to advance the cause of Universal Health Care Insurance by persuading others. So let's get started...


If you have seen any of the other How to Talk to diaries, then you know the drill. If you are new to this, here is how we go about the task of talking to people already on our side. The purpose is to give them the tools to persuade people who should agree with us, but don't, that our ideas are the better ones.

The first thing to do is to define the values that relate to the task at hand. Here is my list of values applicable to this subject:

  • Community
  • That the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none
  • Mutual Responsibility
  • Inclusion
  • Work and Family

We then have to incorporate those values into an argument that fits into these tasks:

Define the Overarching Strategy

Define the Terminology

Mangle the Memes

We start with the strategy.

Define the Overarching Strategy

When you talk to the other side, you should start with your goal in mind. So first, you need to define your goal. Only then can you determine the best overarching strategy to achieve your goal without compromising your values.

As in most of these tasks, our goal is to persuade people who should agree with us but do not yet. We need to do this in a way that does not lose our audience at hello. The target community must receive our message in a way that resonates with them on a personal level. This can best by done by research and real world examples. First, some research.

Some of the best and most persuasive resarch done in this field has been has been done by physicians%20themselves.%20 This research covers topics ranging from the huge administrative cost of our current system, taxes and who actually pays for these costs, and the sad fact that we already pay for national health care insurance, but don't get it.

If that isn't impressive enough, consider the research done by medical students . If the physicians already working in the health care delivery system and the medical students working to join them are in agreement, why would anyone else tell them that they are wrong?

Define the Terminology

Defining the terminology is akin to choosing the battlefield. If you let the other side define the terminology, you will be fighting your battle on the other guys’ battlefield. Any tactician will tell you that he who determines the battlefield has the much better chance of winning the battle.

We also must remember our audience. We are not preaching to the choir here. Out goal is to reach out and create a majority coalition in support of Universal Healthcare Insurance. Our target audience to get this coalition into the majority is twofold:

  • Small Business people who already know how hard it is to obtain affordable health care insurance in the current inefficient market.
  • Middle class taxpayers who mostly already have health insurance through their jobs.

The best way to reach this audience is to craft arguments where our values intersect with theirs. As we saw in Part 1, the census bureaus's research brought us these two telling tidbits:

  • 73% of the uninsured in the workforce worked sometime during the year.
  • 63% of the uninsured who worked during the year worked at companies with fewer than 100 employees.

This data give us the first things we can say about Universal Health Care Insurance - Most people who are uninsured are actively in the workforce. We are not talking about some giveaway program going mainly to those who are unwilling to work. We are talking about folks who work for a living just like you and I. Also, nearly 2/3rds of the uninsured in the workforce work for small businesses. This is just one more area where small businesses get the short end of the stick in this country.

So who are the uninsured? They are folks in our community who mostly work for small businesses. One would think that in a country that values entreprenuership, work and family, that we would take care of our workers and their families by making sure they all have equal opportunity to access quality, affordable health care no matter the size of the business they work for.

The other argument that should resonate particularly with small business people is the inefficiency of the current system. Health care insurance is ridiculously expensive, particularly so for folks who are not part of large byuying groups (big business, unions, professional associations, etc.). One of the reasons for the heavy cost is that the private insurance delivery system is incredibly inefficient in delivering the product. Small buisness people know better than most how crucial it is to control costs. The big business of health insurance delivery seems to believe thay can just pass these cost along to us.

What most of us don't know is that the government is already paying the lions' share of health insurance costs in this country.

the amount of public health spending in the U.S. is greater than the combined public and private spending of nations which provide universal comprehensive health insurance. A single-payer system could provide such coverage to all Americans with no need for additional health dollars.

So we could provide equal opportunity for an all inclusive health care insurance sytem without spending additional tax dollars. Is that not a win-win for middle class taxpayers and small business people?

So why do we not already have such a sytem?

Mangle the Memes

The first thing to understand is that there is a powerful lobby in this country that is determined to maintain the status quo. One of the main ways this lobby goes about maintaining the status quo is by demonizing the alternatives. So let's talk about what we are not suggesting.

We are not talking about socialized medicine. Remember, this discussion is about health care insurance. The main problem is not with our health care delivery system. So do not let anyone get away with telling you that it is.

We are not talking about some inefficient government bureacracy deciding who gets what health care procedure and when. In fact, an efficient health care insurance system will put even more of the choice for health care decisions back into the hands of the doctors and their patients. Doctors and patients will take back the decision making from some faceless private insurance bureaucrat.

How do we do that? With a single payer universal health insurance plan, we would wring the waste out of our health care insurance delivery system. Turns out this is a case where private industry is less efficient than government.

administration consumes 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending. Average overhead among private U.S.
insurers was 11.7
percent, compared with 1.3 percent for Canada’s single-payer
system and 3.6 percent for Medicare.

Who would have thought that the US government provides health insurance administration at one third the cost of private insurance?

We have a mutual responsibility to include working families in the health care insurance system. Healthy communities are productive communities. W can provide equal opportuity for access to affordable health care insurance at no additional costs to taxpayers. Ultimately we will have the luxury of seeing health care insurance costs falling for everyone.

So, get away from the keyboard and get out into your communities. Deliver thse messages to your elected officials and other opinion leaders in your community. A concerted netroots / grass roots campaign for single payer universakl health care insurance could get this issue past the tipping point.

What are you waiting for, someone else to do it? Start today.





Monday, January 1, 2007

Values Based Foreign Policy

As the 110th Congress is getting ready to come into session, I have been thinking quite a bit about a Values Based Foreign Policy. The Democrats in Congress have been shut out of any meaningful role in US foreign policy for six long years. Now, with the advent of Democrats in control of Congress seems to me a good a time as any to write about how we define our foreign policy parameters.

I will confess first that I have been thinking about this in terms of Values Based Decision Making, but otherwise within the vacumn of my own little noggin. A little research quickly showed me that, once again, I have not come up with anything particularly original. But I still believe a discussion of this topic is particularly timely. So, here we go...


I had intended to start this diary off with a discussion of the famous "Long Telegram" by George Keenan which was published in Foreign Affairs in July 1947 as The Sources of Soviet Conduct by X. It was in this article that the policy of "Containment" of the Soviet Union was first and most famously espoused. I was, in fact, all set to blame Keenan for all the sins against "values based foreign policy" committed in the name of "containment". Imagine my surprise then upon re-reading this article and discovering this:

It is rather a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time. (Emphasis mine)


And this, the conclusion of the article:

Thus the decision will really fall in large measure on this country itself. The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will find no cause for complaint in the Kremlin's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.


In essence, Keenan was saying that we only had to live up to our values to ultimately prevail. Forty years later, in 1987, Keenan had this to say about "containment":

There are many other sources of instability and trouble. There are local danger spots scattered about in the Third World. There is the dreadful situation in southern Africa. There is the grim phenomenon of a rise in several parts of the world of a fanatical and wildly destructive religious fundamentalism, and there is the terrorism to which that sort of fundamentalism so often resorts. There is the worldwide environmental crisis, the rapid depletion of the world's nonrenewable energy resources, the steady pollution of its atmosphere and its waters -- the general deterioration of its environment as a support system for civilized living.

And finally, there is much in our own life, here in this country, that needs early containment. It could, in fact, be said that the first thing we Americans need to learn to contain is, in some ways, ourselves: our own environmental destructiveness, our tendency to live beyond our means and to borrow ourselves into disaster, our apparent inability to reduce a devastating budgetary deficit, our comparable inability to control the immigration into our midst of great masses of people of wholly different cultural and political traditions.


At this juncture, I was going to launch into my own discussion of the pitfalls of the so called "pragmatic approach" to foreign policy versus the "values based" model. I still intend to do so in future diaries. I would be entirely remiss if, at this time, I did not offer my apologies to the late George Keenan, a man who 60 years ago typed these words on his typewriter:

gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership