Chris Nelson, in his Nelson Report, reveals the flavor of a recent alleged meeting of Bush friends and supporters with the President. It's fascinating to get a sense of where the President is now -- though I have to admit I sometimes feel like I'm in the same place:

The Nelson Report -- 30 April 2007

Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we're seeing, so, for what it's worth. . .we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House.

The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK. . .etc., etc.

This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Its relevance to various current issues is all too obvious, including the fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Ask anyone at or close to the Bank, and you know, just as a professional, that Wolfowitz's effectiveness is finished, no matter what. But there are now other issues in play, assuming you think that the US role in selecting the Bank leadership remains important.

Here's a private comment summing up the entire situation, from a Loyal Reader out in the real world of the Rocky Mountains, who happens to be a lifetime Republican, and a business person. We pass it along, as it is representative of comments we get ALL the time from Republican friends. . .a mixture of hyperbole, irony, and angst. . .and is thus a cautionary tale in itself:

"You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out. If he tries to keep Wolfie in that spot, American control could end.

I really wonder whether his failure to distinguish between necessary toughness and catastrophically shoot-ourselves-(America)-in-our-foot pigheadedness results from biological anomaly. His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgments, is just so inexplicable."

Assuming the Europeans want Wolfowitz out badly enough to compromise with the White House on his replacement, ARE there qualified Republican players available, at this point?

One might be tempted to remind Bush that then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick wanted the Bank very much, and one might be tempted to add that Zoellick would have been a perfect choice professionally and personally. . .one who would never have embarrassed himself, the President, and his country, as Wolfowitz seems intent on doing.

One would probably be wrong to remind Bush of all this, and in any event, indicators are Zoellick rather enjoys making a zillion dollars as a big time investment banker, and so maybe he's not available.

One might then be tempted to suggest the former Asia Subcommittee chair, Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican whose defeat last Fall came almost entirely due to the war in Iraq, and who would be seen by most of the rest of the world as a superb choice from his days as a Foreign Service officer, and his three decades in the House, during which he served on both Foreign Affairs and, if memory serves, the Banking Committee.

Of course Leach is a "liberal Republican". . .an endangered species, and not one generally found south of the Pecos River. . .and he was a persistent critic of Bush North Korea policy until the White House finally took his advice, and let Asst. Sec. State Chris Hill actually practice diplomacy. Leach is probably still waiting for the thank-you call on that.

But if temperament, talent, and training has anything to do with it, and with Wolfowitz now absolutely untenable, perhaps the White House might want to give Leach a call, over in his Wilson Center office. Just a suggestion.

Great material. Chris Nelson just packs his fax form of a blog with a ton of great insights and important nuance.

I agree with him that Bob Zoellick would be a solid choice.

-- Steve Clemons

Out of the blue in the Washington Post today, former US Ambassador to the UN and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young decries America's "excessive Puritanism" and makes a plea to give the beleaguered World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz just one more chance.

One can almost imagine Young on the verge of breaking into tears as he grovels for one of the master architects of the Iraq War.

Andrew Young has done many distinguished things in his life, and I don't want to take anything from him on those fronts. But seriously, Ambassador Young has some chutzpah to counsel the rest of America on what lines should and should not be crossed -- and what should be forgiven and not in our public leaders.

One reader remarked to me this morning that "Andrew Young never saw a well-financed cause he did not love."

Remember Andrew Young's perceived conflicts of interest with Wal-Mart? and Nike?

Young's appeal on behalf of Paul Wolfowitz -- who not only worked out automatic "outstanding" job evaluations, automatic raises, and a huge pay increase for his girlfriend Shaha Riza but elevated two politicos, Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland, to senior positions completely beyond their technical competence -- may be more of an appeal for himself.

Young may be scrapping for another chance for himself as well as Wolfowitz. I'll stay silent on Andrew Young's ledger of liabilities as opposed to assets -- but Wolfowitz's "next chance" should be outside of the Bank and should be dedicated to making some effort to reverse -- in the private sector -- the incredible havoc he has brought on the world.

-- Steve Clemons

Behind the scenes of the gladiatorial battle that will take place between Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank Board today are efforts by his lawyer, Robert Bennett, and the Bank staff to negotiate terms of Wolfowitz's departure.

According to some insiders, Wolfowitz wants "some acknowledgment" of the Bank Board's complicity in the messy circumstances surrounding his and Shaha Riza's situation.

Secondly, allegedly on June 1st, Wolfowitz becomes eligible for some large financial bonus -- for performance and time on the job. One estimate puts this figure at about $400,000. Wolfowitz wants to make sure those funds are credited to his private bank account before saying farewell to an institution that has come to despise him.

Both sides have threatened each other with slow, painful, drip-drip approach to the release of damaging information that each side has about the other.

One blast in the battle are revelations that it costs the Bank a whopping $5 million per year to pay for Wolfowitz's security detail. Others have told me of Wolfowitz's failure to discipline aide Kevin Kellems for equally whopping violations of Bank protocol -- particularly while traveling on Bank business.

Wolfowitz is angry at the Bank at all those other than his closest spear-carriers. At one level, he does not want to resign and wants to tear the World Bank apart by forcing escalation in this war. But others -- particularly Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson -- have made it clear behind the scenes that a negotiated outcome that saves some face for Wolfowitz will give all sides an opportunity to push what one Paulson insider calls "the reset button."

-- Steve Clemons

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, staffed by legal counsel Robert Bennett at his side, will have an opportunity to respond to allegations of nepotism and inappropriate conduct at a meeting today. The stakes are high for Wolfowitz and the Bank. If one wins, the other loses.

Sources tell me that there probably will not be action on Wolfowitz's petition today -- but his fate will be determined within the week.

The real issue at hand is corporate governance inside the bank -- and this of course, is one of the Bank's central themes in its interactions with client governments and collaborating partners and institutions.

Reports are bubbling out from Bank staff and World Bank clients that there is no way that Wolfowitz can go back to his position and keep the place from revolting against him, boycotting his presence and work, and the like. Some governments have already issued private communications to Wolfowitz not to visit them -- at least not until this imbroglio is settled. The Bank staff is in open revolt, and many fear that they will be purged by Wolfowitz if they lose this high-risk battle.

All sorts of players are lining up on this. Former Atlanta Mayor and Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young fell a few notches in my eyes for his obsequious piece calling on us to give Paul Wolfowitz "another chance." Young fails to mention that part of Wolfowitz' "portfolio problem" is that he elevated two monstrous personalities who had virtually no development experience to two of the most important jobs in the Bank.

Kevin Kellems -- former spokeman for Vice President Cheney -- came into a key role at the Bank that should have been reserved for those elevated through meritocratic selection. Kellems has been hounding and harassing Bank staffers who were blowing the whistle on the Bank President's "absence of a plan" as well as for those he felt were at ideological odds with Wolfowitz -- particularly on the Iraq War. According to numerous sources, Kellems has had issues not to different from those related to Randall Tobias of late. Even Wolfowitz has been infuriated with a few judgment lapses by Kellems -- with reports of Wolfowitz screaming at him on the phone in Brazil for private misbehavior that also seriously delayed the World Bank delegation and plane flight.

In another new development, I have learned that Robin Cleveland will accompany Wolfowitz to his hearing today and be asked to explain her role in a faked email draft that is pivotal in the case -- and may be evidence of an effort to cover-up some of the massaging of girlfriend Shaha Riza's employment trajectory.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Paul Wolfowitz, Remarks to the Business for Social Responsibility Conference
Washington DC, November 4, 2005

But punishing corruptors isn't the only solution. In fact, it probably isn't the best solution. The best solution is in fact improved transparency, improved accountability, so that corruptors know ahead of time that they can't hide.

Prevention is much better than the cure. Businesses and civil society organizations can play an important monitoring and advocacy role here, so can the press. And anyone who says that the issue of press freedom is purely a political issue that has nothing to do with development, I don't think understands just how important accountability is to preventing corruption, and just how serious a threat corruption is to the development process.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm in the colonial era town Chestertown, MD this morning -- for a short while -- blogging at the town central coffee shop, Play it Again Sam.

This is a fascinating place that used to be one of the primary nodes along a course of travel from the Southern states up to the Northern states, and vice versa. George Washington, according to public records, came through a minimum of eight times and received an honorary degree from the local college here in 1789, named Washington College -- the only college that George Washington consented to have his name affixed to and on which Washington was a member of the Board of Visitors.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted an honorary degree from Washington College in October 1933 -- and Friday morning this week, I was delighted to see a bronze plaque above the "presidential bed" on the long-time (now privately owned) presidential yacht, the USS Sequoia, which stated that Franklin Roosevelt slept in that bed (so did LBJ and JFK on other occasions) when he traveled up to Chestertown, Maryland for that ceremony. (I enjoyed an incredible, private tour of the USS Sequoia Friday morning and may be participating in an important event on the yacht in the not too distant future.)

Chestertown, MD used to be the central base for Episcopal affairs in the country as well -- and the local Emmanual Episcopal Church hosted the 1790 convention that broke the American Episcopal Church away from the Church of England.

L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame was also married to Sara Northrup here on August 10, 1946, though he was already married to someone else, Polly Grubb. (note to Scientologists: Just stating the facts. . .calm down.)

Tallulah Bankhead is buried down the road in Chestertown.

And while Katherine Hepburn was born in Hartford, CT -- she was allegedly "conceived" at a gorgeous 18th Century farm called Shepherd's Delight in Chestertown owned by Hepburn's grandfather, Reverend Sewell Hepburn.

On March 7, 2007, the National Historic Trust for Historic Preservation named Chestertown] one of a dozen distinctive destinations that folks should check out.

More later. I'm off to a brunch with former Australian Deputy Prime Minister as well as Minister of Finance and Defense Kim Beazley -- a big personality from down under who used to head the Labor Party and who I wish was running his country.

-- Steve Clemons

(Obama to Hillary: So you really, really think TV Marti is worth $200 million?!)

Sarah Stephens nudged Barack Obama the other day in a TWN guest blog post on the 13 scant words he offered on Latin America in his recent foreign policy manifesto (that the Washington Post applauded this morning. She otherwise seemed quite complimentary to him and, in my view, pushed her suggestion pretty politely.

A prominent Latin America expert working with one of the more significant progressive think tanks nonetheless considered Sarah Stephens' remarks an unfair attack on Obama and asked me to give "equal prominence" to the Senator's 2,115 words on Latin America on March 8, 2007 -- when President Bush departed for a six-day, five nation tour in Latin America.

It's a good speech -- and this individual's suggestion to print it in full is OK by me -- though you'll have to click the link to "continue reading" below to get it. I want to make clear that I was pleased both with Sarah Stephens' piece as well as by the email that I received in reaction from an Obama fan, though I did write back and encouraged him to take another look at her post.

I think it's a stretch to characterize her blog post as an "attack" -- but such seems to be the general tenor inside some progressive circles who are stressed by the intense electioneering already underway. I hope he recharacterizes his view as "defensiveness" at this stage about healthy suggestions and commentary should be welcomed rather than zapped.

I think it's also fair of any reasonable advocate to suggest that Barack's floor speech on March 8th is not as prominent as his Chicago Council on Global Affairs speech that was designed to let us in on his strategic thinking and priorities as a package.

Before I post the speech, I was interested when reading it for any hint of Barack Obama's views on US-Cuba policy because of my own interest in modernizing an anachronistic Cold War-sculpted relationship that needs review. Barack does not mention Cuba -- but in a quick search -- I learned that Obama in contrast to Hillary Clinton opposed further funding to the hugely wasteful and entirely ineffective TV Marti. While Obama said he opposed the expense for something ineffective, Clinton's support of TV Marti is disturbing and seems to me to indicate satisfaction with the "status quo" in US-Cuba policy rather than incremental change.

So, I'm glad for the email and the debate here. Now for some insight into Barack Obama's thinking on Latin America:

The World Bank does matter. If the world is ever going to turn the "developing nation challenge" around, the Bank has been and will continue to be a vital part of that process. But the place is coming unglued over the Wolfowitz-Riza scandal and the staff have become profoundly distracted by lapses by their leader.

It's CEO, Paul Wolfowitz, is now declaring -- in a very terse tone -- that he has been treated "unfairly" and "shabbily" by the World Bank Board.

I would like to remind Mr. Wolfowitz that he started these problems -- and they did not start with Shaha Riza. If anything, she is only the crescendo in a long line of misbehaviors and serious judgment lapses that range from inappropriately rewarding old Bush administration, political and SAIS pals like former Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems, former Mitch McConnell staffer Robin Cleveland, and perhaps even former Dan Quayle chief-of-staff Karl Jackson.

Kellems became a spear-carrier continuing to defend Wolfowitz from those who wanted to critique his decisions and performance as Deputy Secretary of Defense and his key role in the Iraq War. Kellems reportedly led crusades against Bank staff who refused to yield to Wolfowitz's views. Kellems instituted a "you are with us, or you're with them" strategy inside the Bank.

Robin Cleveland, implicated but not investigated in the Boeing air tanker scandal by trying to get her brother a job, got the portfolio for being a lead on Wolfowitz's anti-corruption effort.

Karl Jackson has been keeping his head very low -- but he's been a kind of roving "fixer" for Wolfowitz. Some like Jackson and others don't. Most can't figure out what he does as the "third" political appointment Wolfowitz made but who has escaped much press scrutiny. What can be reported though is that Karl Jackson has told numerous others that "Wolfowitz has no plan." Jackson has stated that there is no benchmarking, planning, priority development, or any serious organizational scheme beyond the ad hoc and reactive that is driving Wolfowitz's support of one World Bank program over another. Jackson has been trying to be of assistance to Wolfowitz and the Bank in his senior advisor role -- but he has argued that there is no anchor and driving agenda at the top.

Jackson's alleged comments are perhaps the most important and revealing. Wolfowitz should resign from the Bank not only because he has lost the support of his staff and may have engaged in behaviors with regard to his girlfriend's employment circumstances that have triggered serious doubts about his own judgment, he also has been an ineffective CEO on substance.

If one of his closest friends and advisors says that the CEO is not scripting a plan for his staff to follow, then that should be enough for the World Bank Board to call for his resignation -- and for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to make the phone call to Wolfowitz calling it a day.

Wolfowitz will have a chance on Monday to defend himself with lawyer Robert Bennett silent but at his side. Odds makers think Wolfowitz is on his way out.

-- Steve Clemons

Here are three views of the first Democratic Presidential Debate held in South Carolina -- one by someone who watched it carefully on television, one who was on the floor of the debate and a guest of one of the contenders, and one from someone who did not watch the debate live but watched the post-debate punditry and caught excerpts.

The names will not be disclosed.

View One -- TV viewer:

The bottom line is that all showed well, though I don't think Gravel did myself. Some think Gravel stole some of Kucinich's leftist fire.

Joe [Biden] got the most applause and general commentary with his one syllable "yes" answer.

People think Clinton and Obama both gave strong performances. My view is that Dodd was lackluster -- Joe was good. Richardson both good and some how not impressive despite getting a lot right. Why is that?

What bothered me most is that they still think that the best way to respond on GWOT issues is to whack bad guys -- rather than steal the audience, or develop the global economy, etc. . .

But generally this is seen as a first showing , and that probably -- no opinions changed.

View Two -- There in Person:

The way it looked from here, Richardson came off as something of a buffoon, Dodd was invisible, Kucinich and Gravel were an amusing but distracting component, and Edwards slipped on his response to the "moral role model" question.

I would add that I was a little taken aback when Obama said China was "not our friend". Now that I know, I'll stop being friendly to them immediately.

View Three -- After the Fact:

I didn't watch it but listened to commentators on Larry King and learned a lot less about what people said than from your blog -- though it sounds as if it is a lousy format for 90 minutes and so many people. They probably should have limited the topics and asked everyone the same question. Bottom line is nobody won and nobody lost. I was surprised the Kucinich, the pacifist, has a loaded gun in his house.

Also I agree with Obama that we need a larger military, but not with just that statement. I haven't heard any candidate propose what I would do to increase the size of our military and fix its broken state. I would go back to a much larger degree to the old days and get rid of Blackwater, i.e., and have support troops as part of the military and not highly paid mercenaries. And it will take years just to re-equip military. It is badly broken.

Interesting perspectives. I have to say that in my own critique of those who just want to increase the size of the military without a true "management fix", View Three's comment about the problem of private militaries and displacing them with official military personnel is the best counter-point I have read to my views.

-- Steve Clemons

I am. Click here to get to MSNBC's site on the set-up and a live stream feed.

So far, everyone looks a little stiff. No zingers yet. I do like that all the candidates are giving short responses to questions -- even Joe Biden.

John Edwards thinks Americans want a "decent" and "honest" person as President. Sounded sweet. He is a good guy -- but gosh, I wish I could see a bit more of his rough edges.

Hillary Clinton is taking responsibility for her vote supporting the Iraq War -- but says she would not have voted for the resolution if she knew what she knows today. She then said that what matters is what we do now and blasted President Bush for his stubborn commitment to "not" ending the Iraq War.

Bill Richardson: "This war is a disaster." I happened to see Bill Richardson last night and briefly met him -- though I muffled my name a bit for reasons that don't need to be resurrected here. He is absolutely right to emphasize the need to link discussion of withdrawing from Iraq to a large international stakeholder conference on Iraq -- as well as a "Donor's Conference." Richardson is saying this over and over again -- and I applaud him.

Kucinich is smart and ethical. He does not believe in war. He is a pacifist -- and he won't vote for any bill that funds a war. It's laudable -- but it's not going to get traction with many across America's political spectrum.

Obama just blew an answer in my view. He said that the military is nearly broken, stretched to unacceptable limits. He said that to fix this, we need to increase the size of the army. Bad call. What we need to fix is the management that took a huge military -- and took the largest military budget in world history, larger than all other nations combined -- and still ruined the military. Making the military bigger is a vapid and shallow response that doesn't address the fundamental problem of what undermined the military to begin with. I will ease up on him when he begins to get this point right.

Why did Edwards pay for his campaign haircut out of campaign coffers? Wow. Good question. Edwards said it was a mistake -- didn't shirk it. But while admitting he is a privleged elite, like many -- so too were the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and others who have been privileged but still helped those with fewer resources and chances in life. But not a bad answer overall.

Chris Dodd: "I'm a pro-growth Democrat." Need to figure out more what that means. He also needs more stories about real people to tell about his important work. It's a little too much "I, I, I."

Dennis Kucinich gets too honest again: "This presidential race is not American Idol." If only it were true.

Biden is asked about whether he could reverse being an uncontrollable "gaffe machine" and "uncontrollably verbose." He answered with one word, "Yes." Got the biggest laugh of the night so far. He did well on that.

Gravel says no first use of nukes ever -- and says that the "top tier" candidates on the stage disagree with him. He just accused Joe Biden of arrogance. And he just went left of Dennis Kucinich. Somewhat unbelievable for a politician from Alaska. He said "We should just plain get out of Iraq."

Edwards made a good statement that he should have made more often when he was running for Vice President. He said that the recent Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion is an example of how consequential the next election is. (Well, the last election was really the consequential one -- as the swing on the Supreme Court has happened.)

Senator Biden supports Roe v. Wade but would not pose "litmus test" question to potential Supreme Court nominees. But he would bring people in who "shared his values."

Hillary thinks that the federal government did something -- not sure what yet -- that failed the student victims at Virginia Tech. Ahh. . .guns in the hands of the mentally unstable. She has a point.

Bill Richardson is asked whether in light of the Virginia Tech tragedy he would reconsider his opposition to gun control. He's for guns -- but against insane people carrying them. And he wants "instant background checks." Not sure those would have fixed this problem.

Show of hands -- Gravel, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich have all had a loaded gun in their homes.

Biden then said "shotgun. . .not handgun."

Health care is next. Brian Williams said it is the second highest priority for Americans in nearly all polls. To get more health care coverage funded, Edwards said that he would reverse Bush's tax cuts. He outlined his universal health care plan -- funded entirely, I think (but could be wrong here), through employers.

Senator Obama wants a national pool that people can buy into if they don't have health insurance through their employer. He then seems to be calling for cost caps in the medical field. He is also emphasizing the "catastrophic insurance" course for some firms and some citizens to avoid being undermined by bankruptcy.

Wow. Hillary Clinton just made a bold statement that she would not support putting more federal money into our health plan until this "broken system" is fixed. If only she would say something like that with regard to the men, women and money she supports going into a broken Pentagon.

Email questions in now -- the first from Daniel to Joe Biden. Why are candidates in South Carolina if the NAACP has asked people to boycott the state until the confederate flag is taken down from the South Carolina state house. Biden identified a prominent black politician who brought the debate to South Carolina -- good answer. Obama said that the flag belongs in a museum. Hint to his campaign: in the future Obama said that the flag we should all respect, all rally around, is the American flag -- and any other flag, particularly ones that reflect such pain and national horror should be ripped out of the public square.

Ugh, I don't really enjoy education questions -- like the one Joe Biden just had to respond to. The federal government is mostly impotent on education and few want to admit it.

John Edwards makes a compelling statement about making a transition in our oil and energy use -- and the importance of denting those contributors to climate change. He knows the language of climate change -- understands cap and trade and carbon sequestration -- and was confident. All good.

What do the candidates want to do on their first day in the White House? Richardson wants to launch an "Apollo Mission" like program for renewable energy. We all do. He also wants to use that first day to get out of Iraq.

Barack Obama said our three most important allies are the European Union, NATO (almost the same thing -- but not quite, and sort of odd to call NATO an ally since we dominate it. . .maybe I misheard him somehow). He then said Japan. That will make Prime Minister Abe happy at the White House tonight. Obama then said that China was neither friend nor enemy. Brian Williams then went after Obama on Israel/Palestine -- and Obama clarified his statement a few months ago that no one suffered more in the world than the Palestinian people. He stated that that suffering was almost entirely the fault of Palestine's leadership. Triangulation it's called.

Biden -- very good statement on the importance of reestablishing American engagement in the world and enlightened, principled leadership.

Mike Gravel sounded like he basically wants to draw back home and basically "disengage" from the world -- not in a nasty way, but just to get out of everybody else's business abroad.

On Russia, Bill Richardson would think about what America's basic strategic interests are as the basic driver of his strategy with Russia. Richardson gets an A-plus for that answer. Commenting on Bush, he said "being stubborn is not a foreign policy."

Hmmmm. . .great question! Do the candidates feel that there is a genuine "Global War on Terror." Kucinich rejects the GWOT in its entirety. Brian Williams goes further and asks what happens if we had two new al Qaeda attacks on two American cities. First to Obama who said that we'd have to make sure our "emergency response teams" and capacity were in place. Then he'd have to figure out who committed the terror -- without using bad intel or manipulating the intel that any party might want.

Edwards would find out who was responsible and respond harshly and immediately. Then he'd ask how did the strikes occur without early warning from our intelligence machinery.

Hillary Clinton, Edwards, and to some degree Obama are strongly emphasizing the "play the harsh card" with terrorists. But they all lose. They are trying to emphasize killing actors who are trying -- through their terror act -- to look legitimate in the eyes of some people. We need to spend more effort stealing the audience, not just knocking off the actors. None of the candidates said this -- though Kucinich probably would have.

Is there a difference between gay marriage and civil unions? Dodd said that the way to perceive this is the way a parent would hope for their own children. He believes that civil unions are appropriate and proper but doesn't support gay marriage.

Biden embraces a Manhattan Project approach on energy. But he gets right to the point. Advances take multi-billion dollar investments. That's right.

Richardson said that we need to plan for "a post-Castro Cuba." That means we need to end the travel restrictions and consider a set of alternative and different courses with Cuba. He gets a B for his response, but it's on the right course. He wants democracy and trade unions in Cuba -- wants to build in the Cuban-American communities in Florida and New Jersey and move collectively together. Easier said than done -- but still good.

Question to Senator Edwards -- who is his moral leader? He thinks he really doesn't have one. Mentioned his Lord and wife. I think he gave the only appropriate answer.

Hillary had good response on whether Wal-Mart was good thing or bad thing. She said Wal-Mart was a mixed blessing.

Joe Biden said that there is a winner on the stage tonight -- a lot of winners -- and that the Democratic Party will perform strongly. Good response -- and Biden got the last word.

No one really fell apart tonight -- though I think Mike Gravel didn't get very far. All the rest seemed assured and probably made their constituencies feel great about their performances.

The biggest theme that bothered me about most of the field was that they all think that they still have to run hard and tough in standing up to America's threats and to the terrorists lurking beyond our borders. They offered few compelling strategies that might really undermine this threat. Obama talked about "building trust" in the world -- but emphasized whacking bad guys much, much more.

-- Steve Clemons

Sarah Stephens is executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas and sent this blog post in the form of an open letter to The Washington Note

Dear Senator Obama:

I just had the pleasure of reading your foreign policy address before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It was an eloquent statement about a post-Iraq foreign policy that can make our country safer, and win a new hearing from allies and adversaries in the world about our intentions and aspirations for the future.

While I realize that no speech can tackle every subject, and those that try will invariably fail, I still wondered why your address contained just thirteen words about the entirety of Latin America.

You said:

In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. When narco-trafficking and corruption threaten democracy in Latin America, it's America's problem too. . .

And that was it.

To be sure, if one looks past our border -- to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America -- you will see corruption and an active trade in illegal drugs. But if that is all you see, you miss nearly 600 million people and how estranged we are from their problems due to the irrelevance of U.S. policy to their lives.

For more than a generation, the United States has failed to offer a constructive foreign policy in the Americas. Instead, we have diminished our country's influence by demonizing leaders we cannot depose, railing against developments we cannot control, and hiding behind the false security of a wall that has deeply aggrieved our neighbors throughout the hemisphere.

There are better, more relevant answers to the problems of this region, and in a speech that is yet to be written, we hope to hear them echoing in your campaign.

For starters, we need to get serious about income inequality in the Americas, a problem which connects to everything from migration to instability and gangs.

We need a fast and thorough education about how our policy debates on issues like trade liberalization affect our image in the region and how votes in favor of constructing a wall reverberate and boomer-rang against us.

We need a new policy toward Cuba, one that reflects the national interest rather than the exaggerated strength of one Florida constituency. Make no mistake: reforming this policy will help reframe the image of the United States across Latin America.

Finally and more broadly, we need to stop dictating to the nations of the Americas and start listening to them as the neighbors they are and the partners they are largely eager to be.

More, of course, can be said and done. But let me close with this thought.

Senator, we share a common border and a range of common interests with the people of the Americas. Their problems affect our security and well-being, and they demand the attention of a foreign policy that has importantly addressed so many of the other challenges our nation is facing.

I hope you will consider these ideas and say more about the region in your next address.

Sincerely,

Sarah Stephens
Executive Director
The Center for Democracy in the Americas

The pups feel as if they have been neglected on the blog a bit.

They send particular greetings to Senator Chuck Hagel for his vote today.

-- Steve Clemons

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY AND WIFE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN, MRS. ABE AFTER A VISIT TO GEORGE WASHINGTON'S MOUNT VERNON ESTATE Mount Vernon

Mount Vernon, Virginia, 1:51 P.M. EDT

MRS. BUSH: Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to welcome Mrs. Abe to Washington. Later this evening, President Bush and I, and Prime Minister Abe and Mrs. Abe will have dinner together at the White House. But I thought it would be really fun for me, and I hope for her, too, to have this chance to visit Mount Vernon, the home of our first President. Mount Vernon, as you can tell from all the tourists you've already seen, is a very, very popular place for Americans to visit, but it's also a popular place for Japanese tourists to come. And other Prime Ministers have been hosted -- from Japan -- has been hosted here, as well as members of the Japanese Royal Family.

So it's a thrill to have this chance to bring Mrs. Abe to Mount Vernon.

MRS. ABE: (As translated.) I have met Mrs. Laura Bush during the APEC meeting, so this is the second time I am meeting her. And I was looking forward very much to coming to the United States.

I have been to Washington, D.C. many times, but this is my first visit to Mount Vernon. This is a place of history. And I heard that Mrs. Laura Bush liked this place very much, and I am so pleased that she has taken me to her favorite place.

And I have also been treated to a wonderful lunch. I understand that this is the place that honors the President of the United States, President Washington. I was very moved that many Americans, as well as many children, come here to study American history. And I think that is a wonderful thing.

Tonight I will have dinner with President Bush and Mrs. Bush at the White House. I am looking forward to that very much, as well. And I think my two days here will be very meaningful.

Thank you very much, all.

MRS. BUSH: Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much, and welcome again.

END

I don't have anything more to add. But I have a hunch that if Hillary wins the election, Bill is going to demand that "Ambassador to the World" title really, really fast -- then get out of town -- and hopefully never have to make anodyne comments like these.

-- Steve Clemons

Bob Wright is the new P.T. Barnum of some of the most interesting virtual political and policy web-discussions anywhere at Bloggingheads.tv. He invited me to spend about an hour with him yesterday discussing Barack Obama's speech, currents in our evolving foreign policy, and general takes on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East broadly, and China.

Wright, who has been writing up a storm for the New York Times this past month, throws out some fascinating ideas that we both wrestled with on the subject of Israel's nukes and Iran's hunger for them.

Because it was mentioned during the discussion, I'm already being deluged for requests for the April 2003 New York Times article that I wrote after the Iraq invasion suggesting a stakeholder model to build a new class of political and economic winners in Iraq -- who were helped by us. This is the proposal in which I suggested that the Alaska Permanent Fund might be a model for distributing oil wealth to Iraqi citizens much like we helped break up aristocratic estates in Japan then distributing this land to farmers throughout the country.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

It's become fashionable in the blogosphere to take whacks at the Joe Lieberman pinata from time to time. With his piece in today's Washington Post, he's earned himself a few more shots.

I'll confess I've given Senator Lieberman more leeway over the last few years than many of my colleagues and friends have, and far more, in retrospect than he has deserved. Why? I'm not willing to write off anyone over a single issue, no matter how important that issue is.

A lot of people voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Some have apologized. Some won't apologize, but, with the benefit of hindsight, would have done things differently. Some would do things the same way. All three groups include well-intentioned public servants with whom I agree more often than not. Lieberman, for example, has a solid record on issues that my organization works on and that I care a lot about.

So what makes Lieberman different? From this morning's Post:

"When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent."

What sets Lieberman apart from the pack is not his support of Bush administration policies, it's his adoption of its fear-based rhetoric, his intentional simplification of a complex situation into victory versus surrender, and his demonization of those who hold alternative views.

Until he's willing to respect people who hold opposing viewpoints, I won't be inclined to respect him either. Swing away at that pinata, folks.

-- Scott Paul

The US began building walls throughout Baghdad in early April, hoping to limit population flows and establish obstacles to vehicle-born bombs. The theory is as simple as "If we keep the bad guys out, then we win," according to 1st Lt. Sean Henley.

Shockingly, the tactic has sparked strong protests from residents of Baghdad, both Sunni and Shia. Last Sunday, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, announced his opposition to the first wall, around the Sunni Adhamiya district: "I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop...There are other methods to protect neighborhoods." Since then, there have been large protests throughout Baghdad, with frequent allusion to the Israeli wall on the West Bank and the Berlin wall. It looks like some sort of wall will ultimately be built around Adhamiya, though "instead of a tall concrete wall, smaller concrete barriers and barbed wire will be used."

It seems, though, that the protests may have been based on a misunderstanding. According to one Max Boot, writing on Commentary's blog, the walls are really nothing to get worked up about. Here's his explanation:

The whole process ought to be familiar to students of counterinsurgency. It is, in essence, an update of the old plan known as "concentration" zones or camps. The latter name causes understandable confusion, since we're not talking about extermination camps of the kind that Hitler built, but rather of settlements where locals can be moved to live under guard, thereby preventing insurgent infiltration. The British used this strategy in the Boer war, the Americans during the Philippine war, and many other powers took similar steps in many other conflicts. In Vietnam they were known as "strategic hamlets."

-- Dave Meyer

Photo credits: Ali Yussef/AFP via Iraqslogger.