In Chaos, a Chance for True Greatness

I have previously observed that whoever gets elected this fall will find himself in a very complex domestic and international scenario. Or, as I put it then, "whoever wins, he or she could easily become the next Carter - an intelligent, well-intentioned president hopelessly overtaken by events that leave no politically palatable way out." Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party, who has a weekly column in Die Zeit, sees in the brewing recession and foreign policy complications not merely the spectre of Carterian failure, but also a chance for the next president to become one of the greats. Precisely this opportunity and the certainty that McCain would continue the untenable status quo leads him to a hopeful endorsement of Obama. His is an argument worth pondering for those undecideds who see McCain's experience as a great asset. Here the pertinent paragraphs of Fischer's column in English:

If one adds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the crises in Pakistan, the Middle East and the escalating situation regarding the Iranian nuclear program [to the economic challenges ahead], then it becomes clear that the next American President faces sheer insurmountable tasks. Compared to the next American president, Sisyphos could have been a lucky man. On top of everything, the sole superpower America will have to digest its relative decline in the next few years ahead. In relation to the rising powers China, India and Brazil, but also compared to a Russia empowered by extremely high gas and oil prices, the power of the USA will rather diminish.

One can therefore risk one prognosis now already: Whoever enters the White House will either fail very quickly and will not be reelected for a second term, or he will become one of the truly great presidents. The dimension of the challenges hardly allows for any alternatives.

If one takes these challenges as the measuring stick for both candidates, then more speaks in favor of Barack Obama than for John McCain, although the Republican candidate is clearly the more experienced politician. Why?

The reason is that precisely because of the greater experience of John McCain one can already assume today that he rather represents a continuation of the current domestic and foreign policies than a categorical change. Certainly, John McCain would without doubt change the style of government, especially as regards foreign policy. He would act more multilaterally than the current president and he would try to approach and integrate the allies of the USA. In substance, however, he promises continuity and not change. Precisely this will not suffice.

Barack Obama promises change. "Yes, we can!" is his inspiring message. Whether he can fulfill this promise may be doubted. Certainly he could fail - or not. That is the decisive difference between Obama and McCain: With McCain one knows with high certainty what will come. Obama, on the other hand, could fail, spectacularly even. Or he could become one of the truly great presidents of America.

Martha Argerich in Conversation

Olivier Bellamy of Radio Classique managed to get a rare opportunity to chat with the elusive Martha Argerich in a private setting for nearly two hours. The interview was cut, mixed with some musical excerpts and broadcast a few days ago on Radio Classique on the air and via the web. It is now available for listening on Bellamy's blog for all French-speaking pianophiles, Argerich-fans and classical music tragics generally.

What *Does* She Want?

We have previously speculated about Hilary's motivations in dragging out the primary process. But after Barack Obama finally captured the nomination last night, one really has to wonder what the point of not conceding now could possibly be.

Ever since shortly after Super Tuesday, Obama had built up a lead in pledged delegates that Hillary Clinton was extremely unlikely to overcome by any fair means. Her campaign has largely been kept alive since then through racist innuendo, backroom attempts at making patently undemocratic contests in Michigan and Florida count, and finally through fuzzy math regarding the popular vote. Her claim to winning the popular vote is based on completely discounting caucus states won by Obama and overstating the non-representative votes in Michigan and Florida. Something that the allegedly pro-Obama press rarely pointed out in a critical manner, in effect helping to make the contest seem closer than it really was. Finally, Americans have a healthy sympathy for the underdog. The moment the media punditry proclaim someone "inevitable", the opponent's chances improve. This worked in Obama's favor while Hillary was considered "inevitable" and then worked in Hillary's favor when Obama's delegate lead became mathematically insurmountable. There is nothing more American than escapist denial of reality.

But what is the point now? Obama has the nomination. There are no two ways about that anymore, however you distort the delegate math. Maureen Dowd in today's NYT speculates that Hillary might indeed be trying to damage Obama so she can run in 2012 (as we've argued). Or, alternatively, that she may be pushing for a VP spot. That's equally plausible at this point. Clinton surrogates, afraid that they won't be getting the promised cabinet posts in an Obama administration without Clinton on the ticket, have been making a concerted propaganda push to make that happen. It all started when Hillary, behind in delegates, in a pseudo-gracious put down offered Obama the VP spot just prior to the Indiana and North Carolina contests, and culminated yesterday when an overeager Hillary proclaimed that she would be willing to accept an offer that she had never been given.

But this is far from a dream ticket and very unlikely. It doesn't take Jimmy Carter's advice to figure out that an Obama-Clinton ticket is a very bad idea. Besides Carter's valid points, Hillary's methods are antithetical to Obama's central goal of changing the way politics is done in Washington. Putting her on the ticket would undermine his message and invalidate him as an anti-war candidate. Then there is the small problem of Bill's baggage and his irascibility on the campaign trail. Not to mention that it would be near impossible for either Clinton to really take a back seat and not act as co-president. If Hillary could hardly keep Bill from stealing the spotlight from her, how would she keep him off President Obama's back? Despite the alleged divisions overemphasized by the media, this is still an election that the Democrats should win with ease. McCain, after all isn't half the "maverick" people think he is. Putting Hillary on the ticket, though, will endanger the Democrats' chances. As might Hillary's continued refusal to get out of the way. Strongarming her way to a vice presidency will reflect at least as badly on her as her pathetic attempts to woo superdelegates with fuzzy math that would cause a third grader to hurl. But then again, what the two speeches yesterday showed once more in stark relief was that one candidate has class and the other doesn't.

PS: The WSJ has a detailed analysis of Hillary's flawed campaign and some useful graphs. Note the graphs which show Obama's numbers steadily improving, even though the media liked to portray it as a close contest with Hillary making inroads.

PPS: Don't discount the administration's ability to set up an "October surprise" to help Republican fortunes in November.