. . .and to all a better 2008, or as journalist Martin Walker pines -- a more boring, less tumultuous 2008!

-- Steve Clemons

Just drove down 395 South in Nevada from Reno to Carson City. There was only one political billboard up -- and that was Ron Paul telling Nevadans he would secure the borders.

-- Steve Clemons

Just a week ago it seemed that Mitt Romney was on the verge of being swept away here in Iowa by Huckamania and, with McCain coming on strong in New Hampshire, from there on to political oblivion. And in a few short days it still may happen. (Have I mentioned before how fluid and uncertain things out here are?)

But based on the latest polls (yes, yes, I know) it looks like Mitt might be staging a bit of a comeback.

So in that spirit -- and in search of some French Toast, too -- my family and I went down to the Hamburg Inn for lunch today to see Mitt in action.

The Hamburg Inn, with irony perhaps lost on the Romney campaign, is also the home of the famous "Coffee Bean Caucus" which will, in just a few days, provide us yet another scientific predictor of Iowa voting behavior.

Making our way to the 'Burg through Iowa City today was something of an Invasion of the Body Snatchers experience. . .Everything seemed a bit off, but I couldn't figure out why. . .Until it occurred to me that virtually everyone we saw was wearing a campaign button, carrying a sign or box of literature, or otherwise engaged in inflicting sincere and enthusiastic forms of civic engagement on Iowa. . .

When Mitt emerged from the Mitt-Mobile (its not quite as good as the "Hill-a-Copter" or the "Huck-a-Bus" but you can't do quite as much with "Mitt" as you can with "Hill." I have to admit that he looked, well, presidential. The cut jaw. The smile. The shoulders. The touch of gray at the temples. (And yes, his hair is indeed fantastic) And, important in Republican circles, or so I am told, the wife.

He worked the crowd that had gathered outside quickly and with the practiced efficiency of a time and motion study. "Thanks for coming. . .thank you. . .thanks for coming. . .thank you. . .thanks for coming". Smile, shake, pivot and on. No one asked Romney anything of substance, and he and Ann seemed pleased to keep things to genial pleasantries. Ann especially, who got off the bus without her jacket and quickly came to the conclusion that she would rather be inside than standing outside on a brisk Sunday afternoon.

The crowd wasn't huge, but it was enthusiastic. And, sadly for us, once you added in the media it was big enough to keep us out of the 'Burg when Romney went in to work the room. We had been standing in line for a while, but our daughter and her friend were more interested in Sunday brunch than in waiting it out until the crowd cleared and we could get in.

Based on what I heard afterwards Romney kept the event as content-free as possible, shaking hands, thanking supporters, asserting impending victory -- and, most importantly, making sure that all the media got good pictures and B-roll of him working the room in a classic Iowa political institution. And then he was back in the Mitt-Mobile and on his way to the next event.

By all accounts in seeking to counter Huckabee, Romney's campaign has now entered uncharted territory, going negative and attacking his opponent, hard, in the days leading up to the caucus.

Conventional wisdom is that negative attacks turn people off here, and drive your supporters to turn to other candidates. But with the other Republicans all but in the single digits here, or less, (save the rejuvenated candidate hereafter to be known as I Am Legend, the effect of Romney going negative on Huckabee is less predictable.

Arguably Romney faced little choice, and whatever the conventional wisdom may once have been, the big ad buy and the attacks do seem to have gotten him some traction. Of course Romney has also been helped, immeasurably, by Huckabee's own gaffes, especially on foreign policy. Its hard to tell how much these gaffes matter to Huckabee's core supporters, but at the least it is now a race now on the Republican side, too.

And tomorrow, with none of the candidates scheduled to be around Iowa City, I can go back to the 'Burg.

And get a pie-shake. . .

-- Michael Schiffer

Michael Schiffer is The Washington Note's blogger for the Iowa Caucuses and is a resident of Iowa. He is a program officer in Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation based in Muscatine, Iowa -- and was previously senior national security adviser and legislative director in the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

I think Chris Bowers at Open Left just has a terrific, no-nonsense read on where the Democratic and Republican contenders stand in Iowa.

He then runs through what various scenarios in Iowa mean for New Hampshire and then nationally.

And here's his national comment:

Iowa and New Hampshire's impact on the national campaign?

According to fladem, the average national swing for a sweep of Iowa and New Hampshire is 33%. This means that if either Clinton or Obama win Iowa, and thus New Hampshire, the nomination almost certainly breaks their way.

If Edwards sweeps the two states, then it looks like a close two-way campaign between Edwards and Clinton. If Edwards wins Iowa, and Clinton hangs on to take New Hampshire, then it looks like Clinton wins the nomination. If Edwards wins Iowa, and Obama hangs on to win New Hampshire, then all three should have a good shot and it is anyone's guess as to what happens next.

I have to admit, the political junkie in me is kind of pulling for that result. This is great political theater, and I don't want it to all end on Thursday night, or even next Tuesday night.

Interesting stuff.

I'm in Reno, Nevada right now about to go for a run. One odd thing I just saw was a Ron Paul sign in the grass outside the local Neptune Society here. Odd placement.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The other day, I mentioned Bloomberg's increasing fascination with running for President. According to an inside Bloomberg source, the "environment is not yet right" to commit to a run, but "he's working through the details of a possible strategy."

Now we have news that former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren are convening a bipartisan group of 17 senior Republican and Democratic leaders at the University of Oklahoma on January 6th and 7th (list amended below).

The purpose, according to organizers, is to organize "truth-telling discussions" on issues of major national concern and to send a signal to both parties that this group wants to see real commitment to a bipartisan, unity government in the next presidential administration.

Nearly all commentators speculate that this effort could be used to punctuate the beginning of an independent party presidential bid.

But the organizers of this meeting are deluding themselves if they think that getting Republicans and Democrats behind a non-specific agenda is the real challenge for the nation -- or is even worth all of this effort. Unprincipled, unfocused bipartisanship is bland, stale politics. And as Matt Stoller notes, bipartisanship too frequently is called on to anoint bad decisions to give both sides freedom from accountability.

This kind of effort reminds me of former Council on Foreign Relations Vice President Nancy Roman's "Both Sides of the Aisle," a well-intended but policy-lite treatment on what it would take to rebuild common cause across party lines and foster more bipartisanship. One of her core recommendations was that Republican and Democratic Members of Congress travel together on Congressional Delegations (CODELs) more frequently.

Traveling together does not remedy the fact that Republicans and Democrats were complicit in the Iraq War. Both parties have been complicit in the appropriations corruption that came with obscene Homeland Security spending around the nation. Both parties have been complicit in refusing to solidly challenge the most aggressive expansion of Executive Branch authority in more than a century. Both parties have been complicit in failing to shore up investment in the American economy and its workforce. Both parties have been complicit in allowing Americans to be spied on. Both parties have been complicit in allowing low level soldiers to take the hit for Abu Ghraib and allowing the decision-makers in the White House and Pentagon to get a complete pass.

The situation we have today was produced by aggressive, high-fear tactics of minority political operations within both the Republican and Democratic parties -- that then cowed a party membership that passively followed.

But some dissidents have emerged -- and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is probably the most important of these.

From what I know of Hagel, he is not bemoaning the absence of soft and fuzzy bipartisanship. He wants a change in policy -- a change in the course of the nation.

What former Senator Sam Nunn seems to be saying in the commentary he has thus far provided on the upcoming meeting is that bipartisanship should be a goal unto itself. That's wrong.

What the Republican and Democratic party members need to realize is that both of their party apparatuses have been taken over by a combination of ideological and utopian zealots as well as a policy-blind secretariat that passively follows the ideologues. The pragmatists and realists in both parties -- particularly in foreign policy but also in other spheres as well -- have been in decline.

The bubble of America's greatness was punctured by Iraq. America's hegemonic pretensions ended when the world saw America -- which once seemed to have no bounds on what it could do -- show its limits in the Iraq War.

When superpowers show their limits, allies are the first to recalculate their behavior because they won't count on us as much as they did before. And enemies move their agendas.

America's global national security position is eroding. The global equilibrium is in serious flux -- and this is no time for ideological zealotry in either the Democratic or Republican parties.

But it's not a time for purposeless bipartisanship either. This is a time to get serious about challenges and for the dissidents that have been dissatisfied to rebel.

The next President of the United States is going to be tested. Every troublesome player in the international system is going to kick the tires of our new President -- much like Khrushchev did with Kennedy.

Ahmadinejad will spark something, testing us. Hu Jintao will throw some dust in the new president's face. Kim Jong Il will remind the president that good behavior comes at a very high price. Hugo Chavez will work hard to embarrass the new occupant of the White House. Al Qaeda will engineer another mass casualty incident not just for their cause but to test the resolve of the new establishment in Washington. The Taiwanese will flirt with independence. The Israelis will test how much room they are given to run beyond what the Bush administration has already given them. And then there is Russia, and frankly a long roster of other nations that want to consolidate the appearance of their rising international power in the midst of the perception o American decline.

I don't believe that bipartisanship solves the challenges ahead. New policies might help restore some balance and the beginnings of a positive direction. But what is needed now are rebels.

I think Hagel is that kind of rebel, though he is disgusted with Washington and both parties (perhaps a good thing) -- and I think Michael Bloomberg is a hard core pragmatist. Neither of them is perfect, but they are a possible alternative to the less than compelling choices currently on the table.

Some believe that Bloomberg's tough manhandling of protesters in New York disqualify him. Many progressives who like Hagel's leadership in trying to bring the Iraq War to an end fear his social conservatism.

My only fear is that Sam Nunn (who may be auditioning for the VP slot himself with Bloomberg), David Boren, former Defense Secretary William Cohen and others concocting this January fest next week are more about getting Dems and Republicans to pal around together -- not rebelling on the basis of policy that outrages them.

The sad but real truth today is that the Bush administration came in to office in 2001 under suspect circumstances but roared and behaved as if it had won an 80% mandate. The Democrats folded and gave Bush all the room to run he wanted. There is mutual responsibility and complicity in the results we have today.

I don't want more bipartisanship for its own sake. I want dissident Republicans and dissident Democrats to make this government work in the way it is supposed to work -- and to deliver on the policies that the public expects.

So a message to David Boren and Sam Nunn -- whose personal animosity towards gays and lesbians many of whom have done great service to this country is not forgotten here -- is make your meeting about an overhaul of American public policy both domestically and in the national security and foreign policy spheres.

If you have Dems and Republicans lining up behind those policies -- terrific.

If not, this meeting is a waste of time and a fuzzy distraction.

-- Steve Clemons

Those attending University of Oklahoma Unity '08 Meeting:

Sam Nunn (Dem), David Boren (Dem), William Cohen (Rep), Christine Todd Whitman (Rep), Gary Hart (Dem), John C. "Jack" Danforth (Rep), Chuck Robb (Dem), Bill Brock (Rep), Michael Bloomberg (Ind), Chuck Hagel (Rep), Jim Leach (Rep), Alan Dixon (Dem), Susan Eisenhower (Rep/Ind), Bob Graham (Dem), David Abshire (Rep), Edward Perkins (Dem/Ind)

The "One Campaign" has put together a cool compilation of video commentary from every single one of the presidential candidates on "their plans to combat extreme poverty and global disease."

I have watched six or seven of the clips -- and I think the template they used for this is impressive.

I'd love to see other NGOs organize similar clips around their issues with all of the candidates responding, or avoiding the issue, in digitally recorded formats.

I think folks should bookmark this site -- and see what happens when one candidate after another begins dropping out. Note that Tom Tancredo's thumbnail is now plastered with "No Longer Running for President".

-- Steve Clemons

Here are two interesting emails I received this morning about Ron Paul's efforts at soliciting the support of Democrats.

The first is from Iowa resident, Keith Porter, who is the "Guide to US Foreign Policy" on About.com. The second is from a regular poster in TWN comments, well known as "POA" (aka Pissed Off American).

Will Hillary Clinton really keep stroking the most anti-Castro crazed elder generation of Miami's Cuban-American community? Or will she look at the demographic and polling data that show that most Cuban-Americans want a new course in US-Cuba relations, particularly with regard to travel to and from Cuba for Cuban-American families?

Some near Hillary Clinton tell me that given Fidel Castro's recent hint that he is moving from the front line of Cuba's political machine to a row further back (or up) in order to make way for a new generation of leaders, she is considering a full-scale policy review of her stated US-Cuba policy (i.e., potentially changing her position away from embracing the Bush administration's direction in US-Cuba relations).

This would be good -- but the bottom line is that we are forced to guess about what she might do and don't have certainty about what she will do.

Will Barack Obama tilt more towards campaign advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's vision of tough-minded calculation of how to re-sculpt America's place in the world or will he tilt more towards the priorities of his other campaign advisor Anthony Lake?

Lake is actively promulgating a "Concert of Democracies" initiative that seems to ignore the fundamental reality that American power has deteriorated and that most of the challenging problems ahead are with areas of the world where democrats and democracies are practically non-existent. This isn't to say that a Concert of Democracies doesn't have some appeal as a sideshow at some point -- but it does little to re-establish a stable global equilibrium and to get America's national security portfolio on a positive rather than destructive course.

Obama was brave and visionary in suggesting an alternative course for US-Cuba relations. One could think that his willingness to think out of the box and to escape the incrementalism of the current strategic class and the vested interests of today's national security circumstances would be worth embracing and supporting.

But then what happened when the next opportunity came to show the same sort of boldness Obama did on Cuba? Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and nearly all of the candidates -- except perhaps Biden and Christopher Dodd and the non-candidate Chuck Hagel -- went silent during the Annapolis Peace Summit which drew together most of the Arab world, the P-5 nations, Israel, and many European and Southeast Asian nations in an effort to restart negotiations between Israel and Palestine over their long-term standoff. They all went silent as best I could tell.

I agree completely with Zbigniew Brzezinski that America's "defining challenge" in this era is its challenge in the Middle East -- and that not to get America back in a situation where it can help birth a cascading set of positive trends will ultimately turn America into a 'hegemonic has-been' (although the trend may be irreversible). The fact that the leading Democratic contenders had nothing to say about the Annapolis Summit raises legitimate questions about whether they have the commitment and wherewithal to tackle the complexity of America's defining challenge in this era.

John McCain and all of the leading Democrats are all clearly anti-torture while Mitt Romney has been working hard embracing George Bush's tough brinksmanship on Iran and recommended doubling Guantanamo. At the same time, Romney's national security adviser has written articles suggesting that America must engage Syria. In fact, Romney's national security team is about as pro-engagement with some of the world's trouble-making regimes as Obama said he would be during the debates.

But this begs the question of who is the real Mitt Romney and what would the real Mitt Romney do in the Middle East or anywhere else? It's hard to say with confidence.

Ron Paul is the less cluttered and complex version of Jack Murtha -- completely anti-war and wants America's military engagement in Iraq to end now.

Paul is attracting anti-war Republicans and Democrats far beyond the libertarian base that he would normally draw from. He is attracting a lot of progressives who believe in global justice, want the war over, and want to return to a benign American model rather than a view where America is the dangerous destabilizer of the international system.

But then Ron Paul shocks this crowd by running an advertisement that is as hostile to immigration that I have ever seen. He actually has a shocking, Jesse Helmsian line, that outdoes anything that Rudy Giuliani has said: "No more visas for students from terrorist nations." This kind of position would appeal to those buying John Bolton's new book as a Christmas present and who are reverential to the kind of pugnacious hyper-nationalism that Dick Cheney manifests.

Who then is the real Ron Paul?

I could go on in a similar way about Edwards, about Giuliani, even about Huckabee -- who flip-flopped and was pro-economic engagement with Cuba when Arkansas' Governor and now is harsher than George W. Bush when running for President.

One can do this with all of the candidates.

The fact is that no matter who emerges at the top in the coming set of primaries and caucuses, we aren't going to know the real candidate. . .perhaps ever. All of these candidates are vessels for the interests and perspectives that surround them.

I remember sitting in the kitchen of a very close friend who is one of John McCain's closest personal advisers. This friend was deeply disturbed by McCain's speech at Liberty University and his triangulation on the the war and the Bush administration, designed to try to court the Republican "establishment" that Bush and Cheney presided over.

But this person who knows McCain better than most made the point that sometimes the "person" that the candidate is just doesn't matter all that much -- at some point, the candidate becomes a franchise of so many interests and perspectives, sometimes in internal conflict with one another, that what the candidate really thinks or feels becomes less important.

That is why I spend a lot of time looking at advisers, funders, and other interests that surround these candidates. Each is somewhat of a free trade zone unto himself or herself for political interests vying to steer him or her this way or that.

It's lousy that this is the case -- but it is, and we need to be engaged as American citizens in trying to compel the candidates one direction or another -- and to punish or reward based on the positions that they are occasionally brave enough to articulate.

I'm personally sick of platitudes from the candidates.

I want to see pragmatism and steely-eyed commitment to solutions-oriented efforts on both America's domestic and international fronts. I want to see some evidence of sensible judgment. I want to see someone who has an understanding of where incremental trends are taking the nation and some Acheson-like wizardry in re-imagining a different set of global and domestic arrangements (with detail) that can help the country leapfrog out of the morass it is in into a better, sustainable position.

It is really easy to understand why most of the candidates have not captured a decisive edge in the competitions ahead. Few of them want to sculpt in fine detail their political and policy personas and want to remain blurry.

They want us to guess what they might do -- and some of us who turn our guesses into votes for an ultimate winner will still find ourselves disappointed that the reasons we supported this or that candidate got shelved in the end.

Despite all of the drama of this campaign process, when I think this through, I can very easily constrain my enthusiasm for any of the candidates.

-- Steve Clemons

Snow or no snow the "Obama Stand for Change tour" (or whatever it is that they are actually calling it) rolled into Iowa City yesterday.

This event was supposed to target undecideds in the area, and I was told that the campaign was thinking about 300 people would show up. Three times that many packed the Junior High gym. I know that the closing days of a campaign it's hard to make judgments based on crowd size -- I remember the ecstasy and delirium of the overflow crowds turning out to see Dukakis in late October 1988 -- but Obama's being able to turn out a huge crowd on a snowy day is as good an indicator as any as to how hard fought the final week will be.

Another indication might be read into the makeup of the crowd. Beyond just size it was extremely diverse, ranging from High Schoolers too young to vote (even with the caucus rules that let anyone who will be 18 by election day 2008 participate) to retirees, and with about as healthy a component of African-Americans, Hispanics and others as you can expect in Iowa. My wife Wendy commented that at a Clinton event she went to last week the crowd skewed much older.

And a final indication might be seen in where the crowd is: When Senator Obama came to the stage he was introduced by General McPeak and Representative Loebsack. He asked first how many people in the room intended to caucus. Almost all the hands went up.

He then asked who was still undecided, I'd guess somewhere between five and ten percent of the hands went up, maybe a bit more. Do the math, and this is a group bigger than the spread in the polls right now between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

In many ways the Obama "Our Moment is Now" closing argument speech is a collection of his greatest hits, but it is one honed to perfection of delivery by months on the campaign trail. He riffed off the prepared text (I was jumping back and forth, trying to follow him and scribbling furiously whenever something new showed up.)

Not sure what I really think about this video -- it's sort of a free ad (without the gloss) for Chris Dodd.

But it is interesting to hear about firefighters taking their role in the Iowa caucuses as seriously as these guys do.

It's easy to understand why Rudy Giuliani abandoned Iowa today after this encounter.

-- Steve Clemons

Reza Aslan, author of the excellent No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam has a must-read opinion piece in today's Washington Post, titled "He Could Care Less About Obama's Story."

The "He" Aslan is referring to is the "young Muslim boy" that many commentators euphemistically refer to as the person who will be most impacted by the re-branding of America with someone in the White House that "looks" innately different than his or her predecessors. I should add that this should be "She" as well.

Aslan writes:

As someone who once was that young Muslim boy everyone seems to be imagining (albeit in Iran rather than Egypt), I'll let you in on a secret: He could not care less who the president of the United States is. He is totally unconcerned with whatever barriers a black (or female, for that matter) president would be breaking. He couldn't name three U.S. presidents if he tried. He cares only about one thing: what the United States will do.

That boy is angry at the United States not because its presidents have all been white. He is angry because of Washington's unconditional support for Israel; because the United States has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq; because the United States gives the dictator of his country some $2 billion a year in aid, the vast majority of which goes toward supporting a police state. He is angry at the United States because he thinks it has hegemony over almost every aspect of his world.

Now, more than one commentator has noted that on all of these issues, the next president will have very little room to maneuver. But that is exactly the point.

The next president will have to try to build a successful, economically viable Palestinian state while protecting the safety and sovereignty of Israel. He or she will have to slowly and responsibly withdraw forces from Iraq without allowing the country to implode. He or she will have to bring Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, to the negotiating table while simultaneously reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions, keeping Syria out of Lebanon, reassuring Washington's Sunni Arab allies that they have not been abandoned, coaxing Russia into becoming part of the solution (rather than part of the problem) in the region, saving an independent and democratic Afghanistan from the resurgent Taliban, preparing for an inevitable succession of leadership in Saudi Arabia, persuading China to play a more constructive role in the Middle East and keeping a nuclear-armed Pakistan from self-destructing in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

Aslan has it exactly right -- and it is this enormously complex and fragile puzzle that Obama, Clinton, Biden, Richardson and others should be framing in ways more sophisticated than this dictator or that needs to go -- or whether a vote in Congress may have led to Bhutto's assassination.

Flynt Leverett has written frequently about the need for some kind of regional grand bargain that tracks with much of what Aslan wrote in his piece today. These candidates should be reading Aslan and Flynt Leverett and give us their reactions and something compelling.

-- Steve Clemons

From Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance:

I'd been feeling this way all through my stay in Europe. . . For three weeks I had traveled alone, down one side of the continent and up the other, by bus and train mostly, guidebook in hand. (page 301)

Obama relates experience he had in Europe on pages 301-304 of this book.

To be fair to Obama's Senate and Campaign team, I asked them for a record of his travel since 2004.

But I do think that this helps fill out Obama's European profile -- though some will still argue that seeing Europe and wrangling (or even drinking tea) with its leaders are different sorts of experiences.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: Thanks to TWN reader, Pontificator, for the reference.

I've always respected Bill Richardson's diverse public service background and his ability to work out deals with global thugs. But just truth in advertising, I've not been supportive of his ambitions to get the keys to the White House.

I would like to see him serve in a senior position in the next government, however. He would add great value.

Yesterday, his comments that the U.S. should simply push Musharraf out of Pakistan's presidency in the wake of the Bhutto assassination and arrange a new government comprised of technocrats seemed uncharacteristic of him. He's usually the truth-teller when it comes to the fact that America's leverage on most tough problems is limited and that it requires a complex, nuanced, strategic approach. I was surprised that in the midst of major Middle East turmoil, Bill Richardson would advocate another round of "regime change."

All that aside, however, I am a sucker for the email solicitations that have come to me from the campaigns. I liked the "have lunch with Hillary" campaign, which allegedly mimicked the "have dinner with Barack" fundraising effort (according to friends of mine in the Obama campaign).

But I love the line in Bill Richardson's latest email posted below that came from Richardson campaign director Dave Contarino. There's a line in there that reads "I'm not sure if the man sleeps."

I like the sizzle:

Dear Steven,

Right now, this campaign is stretched to the limit.

Over a thousand volunteers are blanketing Iowa and New Hampshire, knocking on doors and trying to get folks to caucus. Campaign staff are working around the clock, talking to the press and handling last-minute contributions.

Now we've just got to hit $400,000 by December 31 to back them up. We've got to pay for airtime, hotel rooms, meals, door hangers -- even gas for the campaign van. So with just 48 hours until the end-of-year deadline, every dollar we raise between now and Monday will count DOUBLE.

I've been on the phone all morning, taking calls from more state legislators and leaders who've come out to support the Governor. Dozens of high-profile Iowans are already backing Bill Richardson, with many more lined up behind him in New Hampshire -- and the calls are still coming!

But no one's working harder than the Governor. He's put us all to shame. He's visited all 99 counties in Iowa. He's covered over 400 miles in Iowa in just the last few days.

You saw him on MSNBC and CNN yesterday speaking about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Why do the cable news channels turn to Bill Richardson in time of crisis? Because he's the only candidate on either side who can speak credibly about global issues.

He went from there to deliver a speech on global terrorism, THEN held back-to-back presidential job interviews in Elkader, Anamosa and Tipton. Today's already packed with a speech on foreign policy, more job interviews, and another slate of house parties.

I'm not sure if the man sleeps.

But this is how he's going to win it. It's not about the press. It's not about the same old news about the "top three." It's all literally door-to-door, town meeting, voter-to-voter campaigning now.

Which is why we need you to keep the engine running.

Steven, YOU have the power to determine who will win this nomination. YOU can give Bill Richardson one last, big push to the finish line with $50, $100 or $250. And if you do it now, it will be DOUBLED.

Never forget that Iowa caucus-goers are not going to be told who's going to win. They don't care what the polls say. And you and I both know candidates who have surged at the last moment and done very well at the very end.

It's volatile. 40 percent of Iowa voters are undecided. But I'm seeing the momentum in the crowds. I'm hearing the phones ringing nonstop in our Iowa headquarters.

Bill Richardson's message is getting through.

Stay with us with $50 or $100 -- and let's blow them away next Thursday!

We've spent the last 11 months getting to this point. Everything is in place. And the nomination is within our grasp.

No other candidate can match the Governor. Let's show them no other supporters can match his, either!

Let's win this!

Dave

I'm sure lots of readers have other political solicitations that have either moved or irritated them -- but this is a facinating new era of campaign materials.

Good luck to the Richardson campaign -- but I do hope Bill gets some sleep along the way.

-- Steve Clemons

Harlan Ullman is a defense strategist best known as the conceptual architect of the "shock and awe" military strategy. He is also a strident critic of the Bush administration. And he was one of Benazir Bhutto's closest friends and advisers in Washington.

I can't share the essay he has written for the Washington Times and which will run next week, but I can say that he has a tidbit in his tribute to Bhutto and commentary on the implications of her death that needs to be revealed now.

Ullman shares that he had two long phone conversations with Benazir Bhutto on December 23rd. Ullman had been approached by a Musharraf emissary to encourage Bhutto to "tone down her attacks on President Peverz Musharraf." The message was that such a gesture might lead to a "final reconciliation" between the two.

In an earlier conversation, Bhutto had already confided to Ullman that she and Musharraf "might meet privately over the Christmas holidays" to work out the details of their Abu Dhabi agreed government roles following the elections.

In other words, despite Bhutto's rhetoric, Musharraf's recent imposition of martial law, and the much-reported decision by Bhutto not to collaborate with Musharraf in any way, she apparently was keeping her options open with him.

I will post the Ullman article titled "Death of a Very Great Lady," after it appears in print.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Obama -- and perhaps all of the presidential candidates -- have been maintaining an incredible speaking and travel schedule.

Yesterday, Obama started his first program at 9:45 am and finished at 10 pm. He spoke in five cities -- and traveled an accumulated 185 miles.

Yesterday, he visited:

Williamsburg, IA - Coralville, IA - Clinton, IA - Davenport, IA - Muscatine, IA

Today, his program started with a drive from Muscatine to Burlington when he began sharing his views at 9:45 am -- and he'll probably run until 9:30 pm tonight, driving about 188 miles for the day.

Here's the line-up:

Burlington, IA - Ft. Madison, IA - Keokuk, IA - Mt. Pleasant, IA - Ottumwa, IA

I don't have their travel schedules, but I guess that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, and John McCain are all managing similar manic schedules.

I wonder how many times these campaigns run into each other coming and going.

But in any case, hat tip to Barack Obama for maintaining such a grueling schedule with a smile.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: I just heard that John McCain is not in Iowa and is off back to New Hampshire.

One of the best al Qaeda watchers, Paul Cruickshank, thinks the Bhutto assassination has all the markings of al Qaeda. The Pakistan government has now accused al Qaeda of the crime.

But others are noting that many in Pakistan -- even in government circles -- wanted Bhutto done away with. Some officials have told me that there even exists the possibility that Musharraf himself might have known nothing -- but that other elders in the intelligence and military establishment could have set this up.

We just don't know.

But this raises the question of how groups might exploit the fragility of the Muslim world right now -- particularly across the Middle East. I've been particularly concerned about some violent group -- within or outside Iran, perhaps even from Iran's own IRGC al Quds force -- staging an attack on Iran in some form that made it appear that Israel or the West had struck Iran.

I'm not predicting this will happen, but I think we're in a situation where shocking incidents will be occurring with increasing frequency -- and the real culprits behind the turmoil may not always be the most obvious -- like al Qaeda in the Bhutto murder.

Others have their agendas too.

-- Steve Clemons

I have just had an interesting discussion with someone close to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

This person says that Bloomberg isn't giving away anything regarding whether he might run for the presidency -- or whether he'll pour into concrete his non-denial denials.

But speculating, my friend thinks Bloomberg is definitely intrigued by a third party run and knows he can get on the ballot in nearly all of the states. The structural aspects of America's two party system still make it a Herculean task to win a plurality -- but the possibility exists, though most serious analysts still think his chances of winning are very low.

This source told me though -- just knowing how he thinks -- that Bloomberg may be making a calculation that runs something like this. . .

If either Giuliani or Huckabee win the Republican nomination, Bloomberg's interest in entering rises. If Romney or Thompson win, Bloomberg's interest declines.

And on the Dem side, if Obama wins the Democratic nod, Bloomberg is less likely to enter -- but he may be more inclined to run if Clinton pulls off the nomination.

According to this source, he may think that in a Clinton vs. Huckabee race or a Clinton vs. Giuliani race leaves room for a third party candidate to come in mid-year, like a storm with a lot of drama and attraction, just as both parties may be feeling some potential buyer's remorse for the candidates they picked.

I don't endorse this scenario. I'm just reporting what someone close to Bloomberg thinks.

And I'm intrigued that Bloomberg is being tutored in foreign policy and keeps meeting Chuck Hagel.

I've been recommending to Dems and Republicans alike to absorb Hagel's template for national security decision making -- and it would be well worth their time for either Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton to do what Michael Bloomberg has been doing -- and have Chuck Hagel over for dinner.

-- Steve Clemons

It's snowing quite a bit here in eastern Iowa today, a not all that unremarkable fact this time of year, except. . .imagine that you are an operative for a presidential campaign in its final days with the race neck and neck, and your job for the day is to make sure that your candidate, the entourage, and the press scrum manage to hit 5 or 6 or 7 events spread out over half the state between dawn and dusk. . .

Are the roads plowed? Can the bus make it up (or down) that hill? Is there an accident on the highway, cutting into the precious time between events? If the candidate is running late, how do you manage to keep the crowd in the room and fired up, ready to go?

Maybe a celebrity to work the room?

And now imagine that you are an Iowan, still undecided, and thinking about going to hear candidate x give a speech, or candidate y work the coffee shop at lunchtime. Digging out is a pain. You can take a snow day off from work, so why not just settle in on the couch with a cup of coffee and a good book for the balance of the day?

And the slippery roads. . .well, is hearing a possible presidential candidate speak really worth risking your life? And what happens when the candidate, because of the weather, runs late, and the 3 o'clock event you haul yourself to becomes 4, and someone has to pick the kids up from their friends where you dropped them for the afternoon? Or the do-able after dinner meet and greet at 8 PM is canceled because by the time the candidate will get there, at 10 PM, everyone simply wants to go home
and get to bed. . .

Everyone talks about how weather impacts turnout on caucus night itself; but weather is also playing a key role in the run up, too. Last week Senator Obama had to cancel an Iowa City event (and a number of other Iowa stops, too) because the heavy fogs prevented his plane landing.

Senator Clinton's Hill-a-Copter was grounded for a bit during the "Hillary I know" tour, cancelling a couple events.

And I can tell you that at least a few people wandered out of the Edwards event I wrote about last week because the candidate's bus, fog bound, was running late.

In a big state, or a state with a different system than the caucuses these factors might not matter so much. But Iowa is not a big state, and not that many people actually participate in the caucuses. The Iowa Democratic Party reported 124,000 participants in 2004, although a number of other observers estimate the attendance to have been lower.

And with the Des Moines Register poll estimates that about 10-12 percent of Iowans will participate in the caucuses this year the difference between the winners and the losers can likely be measured in a handful of votes. Its this small size, combined with the social nature of the caucus system itself that makes impact so When Obama gave what by all accounts was a boffo speech at the Jefferson Jackson Day earlier this year something close to 8-10 percent of all likely Democratic caucus goers -- and the most active ones in the party at that -- were in the room.

Now imagine his campaign if the weather -- "weather in O'Hare", the nemesis of every midwest traveller....-- had prevented him from getting to the event. And for better or for worse what sort of role the weather plays is clearly different for different campaigns. If you are in the second tier struggling to get attention and recognition, not being able to make events could be fatal.

If you are a new face, asking caucus goers to take a chance, not having the opportunity to look people in the eye, meet, make the pitch and seal the deal, face to face, might be a problem. On the other hand, if you have been out here working the state for years and have a solid core of committed supporters who are with you regardless, maybe not so much -- although it may make it harder to move beyond your base.

Or lets say you drew a lucky hand, and by chance are working the western half of the state today, able to make all your events while your rivals"out east" struggle through the snow.

Its a complex and unpredictable web of interactions, to say the least.

So now imagine that you are that campaign worker, again, and try to calculate the difference for your candidate come January 3 if he or she manages to speak with 100 people today or 1,000. . .And all because of the snow. . .

Here in Iowa City the snow is supposed to keep going all day today. With luck I'll get to see both Obama and Romney today. But really, who knows.

-- Michael Schiffer

Michael Schiffer is The Washington Note's blogger for the Iowa Caucuses and is a resident of Iowa. He is a program officer in Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation based in Muscatine, Iowa -- and was previously senior national security adviser and legislative director in the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

If this is a time of policy and not politics -- prove it. Work together.

Pakistan is in confusion about its future -- and whether we want to admit it or not -- America has real stakes in the course Pakistan takes and very, very few options in affecting that course.

So far, most of the candidates have been beating each other up over what they would do if in the White House and confronted with something as shocking and potentially pivotal as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

There is no silver bullet fix to the Pakistan problem -- which is tied to Iraq, to 9/11, to the unresolved, hemorrhaging ulcer of Israel/Palestine relations, to a growing Saudi-Iran Cold War in the Middle East, to its own pretensions as a great state and its inability to convince the totality of Pakistani citizens that modernity will move them forward in ways they want.

I'm of the opinion that this is a time when good policy work is needed, and strategy -- not politics. But we are now in a time of politics and not policy -- as a friend told me recently.

General Wesley Clark has echoed my statement that Bhutto's death is not a time for politics -- but it's clear that all parties in all the campaigns are engaged in one-upmanship. Clark wants all to take the high road, but that in and of itself is political.

David Axelrod blew it in my view yesterday with his assertion that Clinton bore responsibility for Bhutto's assassination. We all are complicit then. The Dems have been complicit in continuing to empower the President to do what he will in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The real culprit in the war and the mess in the Middle East and South Asia is George W. Bush's national security team.

But Clark in a statement below calls for leadership, but what would leadership look like?

General Wesley Clark stated today:

This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama's campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton's actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign.

There is no doubt that Clark's statement is itself politically motivated -- but what if decent leaders who would put aside politics hijacked this statement and made something of it?

I think it would be interesting for someone like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- who really do know this situation in Pakistan well -- called on Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and whomever would join from the Republican side to discuss collectively a sensible strategy for the US to take given the potential consequences of Bhutto's murder.

They all want to try and differentiate themselves from each other in this political marketplace -- but coalescing even minimally in a serious discussion and "encounter" with an informed, diverse set of regional and national security experts would show that these candidates could put the nation's interest before their own ambitions.

Bhutto's assassination may trigger more ahead. Clark is right that this is not something to drive a political vehicle with -- but saying that is not enough.

Who is going to call for a credible discussion on the options America needs to consider in the region.

I think, if asked, most of the candidates would have to accept -- and there is an easily assembled list of smart analysts and Pakistan watchers who could be publicly called on to share their expertise.

That would be leadership.

-- Steve Clemons

Obama Campaign Chief Political Strategist David Axelrod

What the hell is Obama chief political strategist David Axelrod doing?

Nearly all of the major papers and a good slug of blogs have noted with some surprise his comment that Hillary Clinton bore some responsibility for Benazir Bhutto's demise. When Obama has to backpedal for his team, something is up.

Axelrod's basic point is that Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iraq War Resolution motivated George W. Bush to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in order to take on Saddam Hussein. His point is that we were distracted from our true, first mission -- which was to squash al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

If you live in an exceedingly simple-minded world of binary choices, one can understand why Axelrod made this assertion -- but he's really making an argument that Hillary Clinton's votes are sort of like the flap of a butterfly's wings leading up to a hurricane.

I have criticized Clinton's votes on a number of resolutions -- and I think it is incumbent on her to show how she is as good with carrots as with sticks and that she will not be the kind of President (like Bush) to define her presidency through the prism of conflict, war, and high-fear politics.

However, at this point, the global equilibrium has been thrown so far out of kilter that there are going to be assassinations and other forms of political convulsion and turmoil that need something more than vapid finger-pointing to confront.

I have been surprised that Obama and his team have not done what he did so admirably in approaching the need for a new course in US-Cuba relations and providing some detail as to how he would reset this neglected and Cold-War cocooned relationship. Rather than Obama suggesting a strategy that would deal with today's and tomorrow's mess in much of the Muslim world, he has attacked the kind of votes that legislators are stuck with and have to stand by -- but which do not carry with them the imprimatur of executive authority and decision.

I tried to deal with the question of how to measure "executive decision making capacity" when looking at legislators last week -- and was pretty surprised that Senator Obama did not call a single issue-oriented hearing in his role as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe Chairman.

Had Obama held such hearings -- or even if he was planning them now for January -- he might have highlighted Europe's remarkable success in scoring the only tangible success with Iran on its nuclear program in September 2003.

Obama might also have focused his attention on Afghanistan -- which Axelrod says we've all been distracted from -- because Obama's committee has jurisdiction over the foreign relations dimensions of NATO which is deeply embedded in the Afghanistan problem -- which of course, is the Pakistan problem.

So, by David Axelrod's own accounting, his candidate Barack Obama has complicity in our nation's distraction from the serious, building threat of organized Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, by not commanding the resources under his control to raise attention.

And then of course, Biden, Dodd and Edwards all voted for that Iraq War Resolution in 2002 as well. Did they all help to kill Benazir Bhutto too?

I don't think so. Obama's foreign policy team -- of which Axelrod is not really a qualified member -- needs to quickly assemble and get their candidate back in the game.

He was the big picture guy, I hoped -- someone who was going to address the real need that America has to leapfrog out of an incrementalist approach to siloed problems in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine.

Blaming Hillary Clinton -- or Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or John Edwards -- for Bhutto's death is inane. And if many Americans get seduced into that thinking -- then the candidates to look at are those with zero complicity in the votes that enabled the war -- and that takes us to Kucinich, probably Ron Paul, and all of the Governors who want to live in the White House.

There are real problems brewing in Pakistan and its neighborhood today -- and as I told the Baltimore Sun in an interview, the Bhutto slaying may be only a foreshock of a new type of political assassination in the region.

If I'm right -- and I have a lot of fear that I am -- we need something better than blame game inanity to reconnect with Muslims who are deeply alienated from the US and need a sensible, mature strategy to get a stable equilibrium back in place in the Middle East and South Asia.

-- Steve Clemons

Let me add an Iowa-ear view on the earlier posts on the reliability of polling in Iowa. (first post and second post)

In previous incarnations I have had the pleasure of administering political polls, putting the thumb-screws to poll numbers in graduate school, and even teaching a college course on public opinion. But until recently -- until I moved to Iowa -- I can't really say that I have had the pleasure of being a poll-ee. And now, of course, my phone won't stop ringing.

At first it was kind of fun. My opinion counts! Cool. But when you find that you can't even make it through dinner without the phone ringing. . .and ringing. . .and ringing. . .the whole process starts to lose its charm. It may only be once every four years, but I can't for the life of me understand how my friends here who have been subjected to this their whole lives survive.

Its not that the calls themselves, in themselves, are annoying: By and large the people out here making campaign and polling calls are polite, sincere, and really care about what they are doing. They are, in fact, pretty much everything that makes this country great. (The pollsters are just in it for the money, but I suppose that is also what makes the country great.)

But it is the relentless number of the calls. After a few weeks of the nightly ritual -- and we are talking multiple calls every night for weeks on end, not just polls but from the different campaigns, various "not campaign affiliated" interest groups and 527s -- well, after a while it starts to get to you. And then you start to fight back. So you stop answering the phone. That one is easy and happens a lot. Or you start to play games, just to alleviate the tedium (Right now I am trying to learn how to answer the phone with a suitable machine-line intonation to see if can trick the voice recognition software everyone uses and that only routes calls to live humans.

No luck yet, but I still have a few days to get it right. . .) Or you start to toy with the pollsters or to conceal preferences, just for the hell of it. Not lies -- this is Iowa, after all -- but just saying things that are suitably opaque to offer passive-aggressive resistance to what by all appearances is a social science experiment run amok.

A pollster asked me yesterday if I planned to caucus. My response? "Unless struck dead in the next eight days." I assume they coded me as a "certain caucus goer", but who knows; perhaps, I went under the "likely caucus goer" code instead. Or, maybe they did a cross-check with my doctor and put me under "possible caucus goer." I have no idea. But I imagine that there is someone on some campaign losing sleep tonight as they try to make sense of the cross-tabs of the latest poll, and how certain-likely-possible caucus goers for their candidate line-up against the others.

And a good friend likes to tell a story of a polling call that ended with the pollster, frustrated, I guess, by my friend claiming still to be undecided, fuming "We know you people just don't like to tell us what you think" and then hanging up on her.

And that is the second reason why the numbers are and will likely be suspect over the next few days: Things are really really fluid out here, still. In the past few days I have spoken with any number of people on the Democratic side who have cycled through supporting two or three or four different candidates in as many days. Its not that these people are flakes or prone to indecision. It is that they think -- rightly -- that there are several great choices to choose from, and are having a hard time weighing up the pros and cons of each. And they are listening, with genuine interest, to the "closing arguments" being made by the candidates.

Clearly part of good poll design is gaming all these obstacles so you can still come up with a good sample and a reliable poll. And while I recognize that it is generally not considered good form for the patient on the table to offer advice to the doctor about to perform the operation, my guidance for those trying to figure out with poll-like precision what Iowa is going to do is to give it up.

You'll know when we do, sometime late in the evening on January 3.

-- Michael Schiffer

Michael Schiffer is The Washington Note's blogger for the Iowa Caucuses and is a resident of Iowa. He is a program officer in Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation based in Muscatine, Iowa -- and was previously senior national security adviser and legislative director in the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Chris Nelson is correct that while the world is debating the state of democracy in Pakistan -- the military and intel elites are worried about what they should be concerned about -- the nukes.

Here is today's Nelson Report in full:

The Nelson Report, 27 December 2007

PAKISTAN SITUATION. . .predictable? Nukes safe. . .

SUMMARY: the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is one of those horrible "shocking surprises". . .something expected at almost any time since her dramatic return after 8 years of exile, but the event itself is stunning.

At the risk of sounding callous to the predicament of the Pakistani people. . . for the world, key questions tonight are whether the military will be able to keep control of the nuclear weapons arsenal. . .and, is there a risk that Pakistan will literally blow-up into uncontrollable chaos, and so spill-over into the region?

Answers, based on hurried consultation this afternoon with authoritative US sources, are "reassuring" in a crude sense: the nukes are under control, nothing happening now, including the likely imposition of martial law by President Musharraf, is expected to change that situation for the worse.

Experts warn that if the current violence extends from Karachi, Ms. Bhutto's PPP party stronghold, to Lahore, home of the military leadership. . .that will be Musharraf's decision-point.

Suspicion as to the killer/killers must include lower ranking Pakistani military. . .so look to see if renewed attempts are made on President Musharraf and other political figures. The assumption is that Al Qaeda and/or Taliban were involved in today's events. . .and if so, it would be "logical" for further assassination attacks to be launched against Pakistan's leadership.

Indeed, as unwelcome in principle as martial law is, the immediate chaos and risk of violence in Pakistan's major cities probably means it is the best of a bad situation, short and even medium-term. Setting aside the nukes, does that situation pose a threat to the region? Stay tuned for the next 24-48 hours. Again, the prediction, or conclusion, however reluctantly given, is based on a martial law response and the assumption. . .presumption. . .that "order will be restored" however painfully.

Regional risk assessment must include India's reaction. In recent months, the rising uncertainties in Pakistan have caused India to beef-up troops along the Kashmir border. Our experts note that bilaterally, professionals on both sides of the India/Pakistan border have been working to reduce tensions, so for now, the risk is seen as coming from Kashmiri separatists trying to capitalize on the situation by somehow provoking India.

Continued domestic unrest. . .and/or the need to pull troops from the Afghan border. . .clearly will not help US interests, or regional stability.

What about the US goal of free elections as scheduled Jan 8? Seemingly impossible, for obvious reasons. And if re-scheduled, the PPP must designate another candidate. This may prove either impossible or essentially meaningless, since politics in Pakistan is intensely "personal" and Ms. Bhutto was really all the PPP had to offer.

Her husband may seem the logical pick, but his well-earned reputation for corruption and mendacity exceeds even her record, during her second term. . .so not a happy choice.

"Saudi Arabia's" candidate, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, or Imran Khan, are expected to try to move to the front of the political pack, but our experts. . .looking at a situation which, obviously, can change overnight. . .do not think either gentleman will be able to capitalize (one almost uses the word "profit") from Ms. Bhutto's murder.

For now, Nawaz is saying he won't be a candidate so long as Musharraf stays in power, so one of the things we need to find out is whether he has ties to the military. . .and not just to Riyadh. . .and is hoping to see what comes his way.

Flawed as she was, Ms. Bhutto was really the only "candidate" the US had with the capacity to make and enforce some kind of a deal with Musharraf, and to set in motion a return to something resembling normal political life and liberalization.Right now, US policy is in shambles. Is there no hope?

Our experts say if some semblance of order can be restored, and something resembling a real election scheduled, and held, perhaps former caretaker Prime Minister Qureshi. . .or, more likely, Chief Justice Chaudhry, fired by Musharraf. . .may gain mass public support as an alternative to military rule.

Recall that Chaudhry's sacking, which set off the dramatic "lawyers revolt", saw well-dressed professionals in the streets. . .by the thousands. It was seen at the time as "the collapse of the center" which might herald a collapse of the Musharraf regime.

But for the next day or so, perhaps through the weekend, basically "all hell will break loose". . .not a pretty picture, and a real tragedy in the Shakespearean sense, an historic change with unforseeable consequence.

Excellent, quick analysis by Chris Nelson.

I'll offer more on the implications of Bhutto's assassination and politics in Iowa after I get to Carson City, Nevada tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

I am a fan of Zbigniew Brzezinski and generally agree with him that in order to get America's national security portfolio back together -- we have to be wary of seductive assertions that the U.S. can easily manipulate political realities in a place like Pakistan in pursuit of platitudes.

Democracy sounds nice but it is enormously difficult to achieve and does not equate with elections. Focusing only on elections, as Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass has stated, gives us "ballotocracy" -- not democracy.

I agree with Senator Joe Biden that it is likely that Benazir Bhutto's party probably would have prevailed in Pakistan's elections in the coming two weeks, but this would not have made Pakistan democratic. Protected and established rights of minority parties, checks and balances, rule of law, freedom of the press and of civil society, and active political participation of the citizenry comprise genuine democracy -- and in my view, Pakistan would not have been there after the elections.

But beyond that, there is a genuine question of whether America should have been meddling with the internal dynamics of Pakistan's political situation. We helped insert Benazir Bhutto. The Saudis helped re-insert Nawaz Sharif. The political chessboard inside Pakistan was one that many external players have been trying to manipulate -- and this 'may' have been a mistake.

The combination of Pakistan having nukes and also serving as the primary residence of bin Laden and Zawahiri make this a more complicated situation than just whether Pakistan is a real democracy -- or a fake one under military control.

I have just received the statements on Bhutto's assassinationg from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- and also a statement made by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Here is Hillary Clinton's official statement:

"I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people.

She returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy despite threats and previous attempts on her life and now she has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence.

Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served. My family and I extend our condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims and their families and to the people of Pakistan."

Obama's statement is on the same course of Clinton's comment -- but without the edgy detail and acknowledgment of what a challenge democracy building is abroad:

"I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

But then Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski offered yesterday a contrarian critique of America's support of Bhutto on MSNBC. I found Brzezinski's commentary refreshing and honest -- but clearly at odds with his candidate for the White House:

I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don't really think this is America's business and I don't think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan.

I think that this is time for realism -- seeing the world as it is, warts and all, rather than as we would hope it would or should be.

Brzezinski gets that, but all of the campaigns would be smart to realize that Americans having to make their next choice of president are going to choke on platitudes and want the costs and benefits of policy discussed seriously.

Pakistan remains the most dangerous country in the world today -- and like the ticking clock that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists used to post on how close the world was to midnight, and thus a nuclear war, I think that Bhutto's death moves us closer to a cataclysm rather than further away.

The question now is how would a Hillary Clinton approach Pakistan realities today? How would Obama who has Brzezinski's realism on one side of him and Anthony Lake's democracy-or-nothing approach on the other deal with Pakistan? How would Huckabee? or Biden? or Romney? Giuliani?

-- Steve Clemons

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has just declared three days of mourning in the wake of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's murder.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and presidential candidate Joe Biden has released this statement:

Recently, I wrote about my own surprise that Barack Obama had not called together a policy or issue-oriented hearing in his role as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee/Subcommittee on Europe.

I followed this up with a piece that explored what various presidential candidates were reporting on their travel. Obama's campaign staff gave me a roster of travel that did not include any mention of Europe (other than the Ukraine).

His campaign sent a friendly note after my early essays amending the notes they sent me -- stating that he had been to London during a Moscow-focused trip in a delegation led by then Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar. I had already noted this because other press reports had discovered the London stop over and meeting with Blair.

But what was interesting is that I had reported what the press was saying that Obama had stopped in London "on the way back from Moscow." But the campaign staff told me that he stopped in London on the way to Moscow and Eastern Europe -- so I noted the discrepancy.

Now, Obama makes clear that he visited London on the way back from Moscow -- but also shared in an interview with the Iowa Independent this direct comment: "I've travelled through Europe extensively."

I had no idea that this issue would attract so much attention -- but it fell into a groove that the Obama campaign had apparently launched -- which was to emphasize "identity" over "experience."

As I've written before, I have applauded and criticized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but trying to disparage experience as a campaign strategy left me disappointed.

I would just like to see the record set straight now.

Where did Barack Obama go in Europe and when?

And why has the hard-working campaign staff, many of whom are friends, been left to fight in the dark on this issue?

Why hasn't Obama given the campaign staff all that they need to respond to these experience and travel questions?

Let's just get the whole story straight now -- so that we can move on to other real debates about experience, policy proposals, and vision.

-- Steve Clemons

TWN reader Chris Brown shared this interesting and useful essay that probes significant variation in the polls emanating from Iowa.

As we try to understand the trends underway in the scramble towards January 3rd, this kind of steady analysis is valuable.

-- Steve Clemons

Benazir Bhutto had not yet become president or prime minister in her recent return to Pakistan's political arena -- but she was the leading opposition leader in Pakistan.

While it is doubtful that she could have easily calmed Pakistan's increasing turmoil if she had ascended to officialdom while in some power-sharing arrangement with President Musharraf, her death today makes everything much more fragile.

I met Bhutto during one of her recent trips through Washington in a session arranged by Harlan Ullman -- and I found her powerfully eloquent. She acknowledged to the group she was meeting that she was willing to risk her life to try and achieve a different course in Pakistan. I thought at the time that her chances of survival were low in the cauldron of a political scene that requires political leaders to mix with the masses.

A commentator close to Bhutto just told me that Pakistan will not disintegrate because of this incident -- as the military excels in "situations where preventing a meltdown is required."

Bhutto was part of America's hope for political stabilization there -- and that plan has been definitively sabotaged.

Benazir Bhutto is dead now -- and the implication I believe is that while Pakistan's future would always have been messy, that mess will be less managed and scripted and will now be far more uncontrolled, unstable, and dangerous.

-- Steve Clemons

I thought that Hillary Clinton and Obama were basically tied in Iowa -- with Obama with a bit of an edge. Then I saw a poll suggesting Edwards was surging and might take the prize.

A new poll, however, shows Hillary Clinton with a "stunning double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus-goers." This in a report from CNN.

Obama and Edwards are, according to the poll, vying with each other for second place -- and Joe Biden is next with 11%. That's a respectable showing by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman. If Biden places third in the race, beating either Obama or Edwards, he'll be part of a surprise package in Iowa.

The Republican race seems to be tightening, however, with Huckabee and Romney basically tied. McCain is next -- and then Ron Paul with a respectable 10%.

What is interesting is that the drop in Obama's support seems to corrolate time-wise with the discussion of "identity" vs. "experience" among the candidates -- particularly with regard to Hillary Clinton and Obama.

I find it bizarre that the interesting policy proposals Obama has been floating and which this blog has saluted (particularly on US-Cuba relations), his logic about how to approach transnational problems, and his reasonable degree of experience were something his team was williing to abandon, or alternatively, de-emphasize. But it appears pretty clear that the campaign has been pushing the notion that somehow Obama is innately just the best candidate.

This was disappointing for me -- and apparently many others, but he can bounce back if he stops asking Americans to trust his "gut" -- something Americans got wrong in the case of George W. Bush.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The person in DC who is least known but most responsible for building America's imperial presidency is David Addington, Chief of Staff to Vice President Richard Cheney, or better known as "Cheney's Cheney."

Regrettably, sources tell me Addington is waking up each day as energetic and vigorous as ever -- determined to wreck the Constitution as much as he possibly can before leaving office. We have no news about him leaving his position -- which would be greatly welcomed by this blog. But we are worried that Addington's rivals inside the Bush White House are weary. This should worry all of us.

However, others are moving around.

As I noted recently, Hillary Clinton's Legislative Director, Laurie Rubiner, is moving to a new perch as Executive Director of the Washington policy affiliate of Malaria No More.

Rubiner, who is Hillary Clinton's longest-serving legislative director at three plus years, previously served as senior health care adviser to Senator John Chafee (R-RI) and as Director of the New America Foundation Health Care Program. GoozNews written by former Chicago Tribune DC Bureau Chief and health care policy specialist Merrill Goozner has more on the implications.

The Senate Majority Leader's big national security gun, Richard Verma, has gone back into private practice at Steptoe & Johnson.

Verma served for five years as Harry Reid's key senior policy adviser on national security policy and strategy. This blogger knows a bit too much about Verma's efforts (via inside sources) to get Democrats on a smart national security course and admires the work he has done -- even though I suspect that leading, White House-focused Dems have failed to heed some of his most important counsel on how to push a deal forward on withdrawing from Iraq and various aspects of the Iran challenge.

Verma has an interesting portfolio at Steptoe & Johnson which he has rejoined -- and he hopes to work with NGOs, associations, and others working to sculpt approaches to foreign policy that will drive better legislative work and policy implementaion by Congress and the Executive Branch.

Lastly, Kori Schake will be the new Deputy Director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff -- replacing one of the few Bush administration defenders of the Geneva Conventions Matthew Waxman -- who is now on the faculty at Columbia Law School.

Schake is a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, on the teaching staff at West Point, served on the G.W. Bush administration's national security council -- and most interestingly was one of the few grounded "ethical realists" on Rudy Giuliani's roster of official foreign policy campaign advisers.

It has crossed my mind that while I think Schake really does like Guiliani -- that her getting past the political correctness censors in Cheney's wing of the White House was made easier by her extracurricular work for the former New York mayor. But she's very smart and will work with State Department Policy Planning Staff Director David Gordon in crafting policy scenarios for the Secretary of State and President that involve more than Bomb/Don't Bomb decisions.

-- Steve Clemons

A very close friend of mine "just came out" to his brother as a gay man. He did the same with his mother about ten months ago -- and it didn't go well. . .with either of them.

He's a former soldier who worked on some of the most classified missions the military had going -- and despite my criticism of the Bush administration on its invasion of Iraq, I know that my friend had a hand in successfully delivering some of the world's real bad guys to the next world -- both in Afghanistan and Iraq. He reads my blog -- and he has kept an open mind about some of my criticisms of this administration and the national security course it has been on.

But his mother and brother have tried to tell him that if he's gay -- he must not believe in God, he must be a reprobate and must be such a deviant that his brother told him that he will never give him a moment's rest and peace about this issue.

My friend is earnest, a patriot, sober, sane -- and he's being betrayed in America by a lack of the kind of tolerance and modernity that our society is supposed to be about. Iran and any place under the control of the Taliban hang, stone, or castrate gay youth. Egypt imprisons them. In middle America, the intolerant who somehow have decided to channel a vindictive, judgmental, and sin-obsessed Christ harass, disown -- and in the case of young Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming or active duty sailor Allen Schindler -- kill them.

I hate to hold Dick Cheney and his wife out as models, but I'm absolutely going to in this case. Cheney is convinced of how right he is in matters of war and state -- but when it came to family, Cheney and his wife evolved. I know that he does not harass his daughter Mary. He accepts her, her partner, and his grandchild.

This is my personal message to my friend's mother and brother. Your son has options. He has friends and a family he can surround himself with until the end of his days as he is a prince of a person whether you see it through your judgmental eyes or not.

I'm sure when Lynn Cheney was not yet ready to broadcast discussion about her daughter being a lesbian -- she was privately tormented. The fact that her daughter. . .that's right. . .the Vice President of the United States' daughter is homosexual -- took time to accept. But they did it. They remained a family, and I credit them for privately demonstrating tolerance in a way that should influence the most theocratic corners of the nation. I have friends that argue that Mary Cheney hasn't done enough -- but she and her family are one -- and that's enough in my view. And it should be in the case of my friend's family.

Your views about your brother and son can't even be called Medieval -- because as we have recently learned, Medieval knights, lords, and nobility committed themselves to each other in property and love in much the way that civil unions are emerging today.

You think your brother and son "chose" a lifestyle that he has tried not to accept for years -- to the point of considering ending his life.

He made no choice. But you are.

You are choosing to reject him and who he decides to be. If Cheney accepts his daughter and her partner, you should think about why you refuse to do the same. Why aren't you able to join our modern world? Theocracy -- when it harms rather then helps -- is no better here than it is over there.

Merry Christmas, and if you get a chance during your lives to visit the site where Matthew Shepherd was brutally killed, I want you to think real hard about who is saved and who is not.

By the way, I forgive you -- but your son is going to live a good life whether or not you accept him for the great man he is.

I hope that something in this note may be useful to many of the others emotionally abandoned or victimized by a righteousness that has lost its bearings.

-- Steve Clemons

Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner and Annie the kid sis send their very best holiday wishes to everyone.

I'm heading to California today and then to Carson City, Nevada -- and wish everyone a terrific holiday and new year -- though Michael Schiffer and I will be commenting on the political goings-on over the next week on a daily basis.

A couple of things before I go. . .

First, some of you keep asking to be put on the Blog List. The best way to get a nice "daily" unobtrusive, single email that makes it easy to click to any of the posts that day is to sign up in the box on the left side column of my blog -- where it says "Subscribe to The Washington Note RSS feed!" Just put your email address in there -- and then when you get a confirmation email, click the link. . .and then you'll get everything I do here in a neat, ordered way that you can read or easily delete.

Secondly, remember TWN this holiday season. Your financial support -- which you can send via Paypal or send to me directly is most appreciated and keeps the blog growing and experimenting with new formats, and research staff. The Paypal button is in the upper right hand corner of the blog -- and my mailing address which some of you have requested is:

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20009

Thanks again for your support, whether it's posting constructive comments on the blog, just reading, or supporting with tips and ideas -- all of that is appreciated.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

If the speech I went to yesterday by Mike Huckabee presented the kinder gentler face of economic populism (with Republican characteristics), today's Iowa City event with John Edwards offered the full-throated, full-throttle version.

By the time Edwards went on stage at the Holiday Inn this afternoon -- the fog and mist these past few days has been playing havoc with travel schedules -- the crowd, which seemed a fifty-fifty mix of the undecided and the already committed (including SEIU folks in purple T-shirts, UNITE in red and college students from New York, Michigan and Minnesota in for the final push) had been primed by the warm-up act of campaign workers and party and local elected officials for a red meat speech.

And, in a room that either by design or miscalculation was far too small for audience, John Edwards delivered. In case anyone who showed up wasn't clear what the theme of the Edwards campaign is going into the final stretch, forty-five minutes of John Edwards later left little room for doubt or misunderstanding: John Edwards is fighting.

In fact, I literally lost count of the number of times Edwards talked about fighting – and fighting "epic fights" at that -- but I can assure you that the quality of the message discipline was not lost on the crowd.

He is fighting against "corporate greed". He is fighting against "CEOs making hundreds of millions a year." Against "drug companies". Against "insurance companies." Against "multinational corporations". Against "oil companies". Against "power companies". I could go on, as he did, but I suspect you get the idea.

While most people find their mailboxes filled with Christmas cards and the like, this time of year in Iowa (well, this time of year every four years) mailboxes are stuffed to overflowing with campaign direct mail.

This is a representative sample of some of the direct mail pitch that we have received in the past two days. I don't know if the lack of pieces sent our way from Biden, Dodd, Richardson et al represents the tight budgets of those campaigns or a well-developed voter identification system which has simply given up on me.

As best as I can tell based on the mail: John Edwards wants to make it clear that he is fighting for me; Obama that he has good judgement and that he wants me to join him in transforming the country and the world (and in having a happy holiday); and Hillary that she is experienced and ready to go from day one. (Oh, yeah, and apparently Hillary's people (or her people's people at AFSCME) want me to know that if I caucus for Obama some nice people with inadequate health insurance will suffer and die.)

Its hard to tell if the direct mail deluge is truly effective in swaying votes, but it sure beats the bills that make up the rest of my mail today.

-- Michael Schiffer

Jacob Heilbrunn, author of the soon-to-be-released They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, has a devastating critique of the mutually exploitive relationship between co-czar of the neocon establishment, Norman Podhoretz, and former New York mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani titled "Norman's Conquest."

There are two clips in particular that I want to highlight, but I highly recommend reading the entire piece.

First on neither Podhoretz or Giuliani having any substantial foreign policy experience at all:

In June, the former New York City mayor named Podhoretz a senior advisor to his campaign. It is no ceremonial post. Podhoretz speaks regularly with the candidate and trumpets their association.

"As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how [Giuliani] sees the war and how I see it," Podhoretz told the New York Observer in October. And indeed there isn't much daylight between what Podhoretz has written and what Giuliani is saying on the stump. Podhoretz has judged the war in Iraq an "amazing success"; Giuliani in November declared that he "never had any doubt" about the wisdom of invading Iraq.

On Iran, Podhoretz has said, "The choice before us is either bomb those nuclear facilities or let them get the bomb." Giuliani told an audience in October: "If I'm president of the United States, I guarantee you we will never find out what [Iran] will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they're not going to get nuclear weapons."

As a foreign policy guru, Podhoretz is hardly an obvious choice for Giuliani. The mayor has virtually no direct foreign policy experience, and neither does Podhoretz -- he is an editor, polemicist, and literary critic who has never worked in government. Podhoretz is certainly a prominent hawk, and Giuliani needs hawks in his camp to help insulate him from attacks on the right, particularly from social conservatives.

But there are plenty of foreign policy heavyweights who could play that role, from Henry Kissinger to Robert Kagan. And if the candidate wished to put some distance between himself and the unpopular current occupant of the White House, Podhoretz is no help; his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is Bush's deputy national security adviser.

And then this exceedingly juicy exchange between Newsweek International editor and leading realist Fareed Zakaria and Podhoretz:

In short, arguing over the finer points of foreign policy doesn't especially interest Giuliani or, at this point, his advisor. Like George W. Bush, they don't do nuance, and both men are less about debate now than about attitude. Increasingly, Podhoretz has been making his points by resorting to tired analogies and questioning the character of his opponents.

Appearing with Fareed Zakaria on the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer in late October, Podhoretz said, "I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough."

Zakaria responded, "Norman, perhaps instead of calling me names, you could just explain why the arguments are right or wrong."

Zakaria was wasting his breath. Real men don't explain. They seek to intimidate and cow their opponents into abject submission -- which is why Podhoretz and Giuliani were probably fated to join forces. In becoming Rudy's maven, Norman has made his greatest conquest.

Again, this is why I really hope, though doubt, that Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. There is no one better to have a genuine battle with over the future of this country's national security direction.

-- Steve Clemons

Michael Schiffer is The Washington Note's blogger for the Iowa Caucuses and is a resident of Iowa. He is a program officer in Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation based in Muscatine, Iowa -- and was previously senior national security adviser and legislative director in the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Thanks Steve, for an overly kind introduction. One of the first things you learn watching campaigns out here, however, is to try to ratchet expectations down, not up, before you go on. . .That said, I'll do my best to try to provide some snapshots and insight, live from Iowa, for the next thirteen days. After that, we get to go back to being Idaho. Or is it Ohio. . .

The last time I ran into Governor Huckabee -- and yes, one of the wonders of living in Iowa is that we get to say things like that -- was over the summer, when I, preoccupied on my cell phone, came pretty close to knocking him over as he crossed the street in Muscatine (a small town on the Mississippi). At the time he seemed happy to have the attention, accidental and near injurious or otherwise.

Today in Coralville -- the big-box suburb of Iowa City -- was a slightly different story. The hotel room used for his "meet and greet" was overflowing, and filled with the sort of positive buzz and electricity that campaigns just can't buy. Huckabee is the breakout phenomenon of the 2008 campaign in Iowa (all apologies to Barack Obama and Ron Paul), and in the flesh here in Iowa its easy to see why.

I've seen Michael Schiffer smile -- and by way of this blog entry, I'm encouraging the Stanley Foundation to get a pic of him up showing some teeth.

Michael Schiffer was one of Senator Dianne Feinstein's superstar national security advisers and was her legislative director. He's now running the Asia program for the Iowa-based Stanley Foundation.

Through the Iowa Caucuses and perhaps after if I can convince him, he will be posting regularly on the political machinations as he sees them. He's an insightful and plugged-in political analyst and commentator.

Schiffer admits that he's out campaigning for Barack Obama now -- but he's temporarily housing a Clinton campaigner -- and he said he's been nice today to some Edwards, Biden, and Richardson partisans.

But more importantly, he just heard Mike Huckabee an hour ago -- and I'm anxious for his first post and thoughts on what he heard.

Michael, welcome to the team of The Washington Note and the Note Takers. . .

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Obama's campaign has amended some of what it sent my way on his experience with Europe and with European leaders.

Before I post that, I should add that I'm not absolutely sure that having a light slate on Europe is such a bad thing -- as long as it comes packaged with a commitment to get to know Europe well enough to do the hard slogging ahead on any number of major global challenges. Sometimes, those with too much experience in any area get bogged down in the weeds. And those with less experience can possibly move the lines around in more creative ways. But we need to see some evidence of that kind of potential wizardry if we are to overlook some deficits in on the ground experience (or should it be in the air?)

I'm hoping that Senator Obama -- who has been right on target in US-Cuba relations and where they might go -- might respond by talking more about opportunities to leapfrog out of today's mess into a different arena of global institutional, bi-national and multinational arrangements. I still feel that Europe and Japan need to be brought into a re-energized, re-organized global structure -- but that we need to find places to build in Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, Nigeria, Indonesia -- and other of the world's major population and power centers.

But the new news is that Barack Obama has. . .

met with PM Blair three times, and Sarkozy once (who was Minister of the Interior at the time)

Senator Obama and Senator Lugar stopped in London on the CODEL to Eastern Europe and met with PM Blair

Thanks much to Senator Obama's campaign staff for sharing this information -- and please note that my information posted before about Senator Obama meeting PM Tony Blair on the way back from Moscow should now be replaced by the note above that he met Blair on the way to Russia and Ukraine.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator John McCain just sent the following Christmas and holiday message to his supporters -- and I thought it worthwhile to post here.

It surfaced emotions I felt when I saw the brilliant and disturbing Alex Gibney directed film, Taxi to the Dark Side which opens nationally on January 11th. In the movie, you'll hear of horrible things our American guards did to detainees -- a great majority of whom were innocent in the facilities at Bergram and Abu Ghraib.

To give you some sense of the conflict in prison guards, here is a YouTube video of one of the US guards at Bagram, Damien Corsetti -- who I think is one of the good guys. Another film to see to understand about good guards vs. bad -- and how there are some who have been able to resist the manipulation of guards in unusual circumstances that Rumsfeld and Cheney deployed -- is Michael Tucker's The Prisoner or: How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair.

A Message from John McCain:

Christmas Story

As a POW, my captors would tie my arms behind my back and then loop the rope around my neck and ankles so that my head was pulled down between my knees. I was often left like that throughout the night.

One night a guard came into my cell. He put his finger to his lips signaling for me to be quiet, and then loosened my ropes to relieve my pain. The next morning, when his shift ended, the guard returned and retightened the ropes, never saying a word to me.

A month or so later, on Christmas Day, I was standing in the dirt courtyard when I saw that same guard approach me. He walked up and stood silently next to me, not looking or smiling at me.

After a few moments had passed, he rather nonchalantly used his sandaled foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas, even in the darkness of a Vietnamese prison camp. After a minute or two, he rubbed it out and walked away.

That guard was my Good Samaritan. I will never forget that man and I will never forget that moment. And I will never forget that, no matter where you are, no matter how difficult the circumstances, there will always be someone who will pick you up and carry you.

May you and your family have a blessed Christmas and Happy Holidays,

John McCain

I think McCain's message is heartfelt -- but I should add that had McCain's guard been a Buddhist, a Muslim, or an atheist -- this should all be about human kindness -- not tribal clustering around one religion or another.

-- Steve Clemons

For those who want to watch the daily ticks in who's up and who's up less in the early primaries, this may be useful news:

Reuters, C-SPAN and Zogby International have joined forces to poll Americans on the 2008 presidential election, starting with polls in the key U.S. presidential primary and caucus states.

The effort will kick off on Dec. 30 with daily tracking polls from Iowa ahead of that state's caucuses scheduled for Jan. 3. Daily tracking polls from New Hampshire will begin on Jan. 4 ahead of that state's Jan. 8 primary. The polling will continue through the general election in November.

All polls will be released at 7 a.m. EST across the major platforms of Reuters and C-SPAN. Full poll questionnaires and methodologies will be available on Zogby.com.

Not sure yet how much of this I will regularly cover. I may just wake up on January 3rd and see where things are that day. . .these caucuses and primaries are way too early.

-- Steve Clemons

John Edwards is surging on populist themes, but Matt Cooper thinks American business should not worry too much if he wins.

Edwards' Senior Economic Adviser Leo Hindery is mentioned in the Cooper article. I've had numerous discussions with Hindery -- who is not anti-global but is pro-American industry and pro-American middle class.

The real question that has to be struggled with at some point is whether the multinational corporation should receive benefits, access, privileges, and the imprimatur of being American if they turn out be tools of other nation states. I don't believe they should -- but in my book, this makes rational sense as a centrist American. If the populists think that way too, all the better.

-- Steve Clemons

The Times of London has picked up on the issue that Senator Obama has not convened a policy related hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe and added to this something I reported yesterday -- which was that Europe does not figure into Obama's travel profile.

Many people are wondering why any of this travel experience matters -- particularly a bunch of my Obama-supporting friends.

This debate started with the Boston Globe's endorsement of Obama in which it proffered a strange line:

America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has this understanding at his core.

My friend and New America Foundation board member Fareed Zakaria furthered this debate in a direction I don't agree with -- by suggesting that identity trumps experience and expertise.

We've had a president who rules from the gut -- and it was a huge mistake for the nation to go with someone who lacked the experience and facility with global affairs that George W. Bush came to office with.

I want to be clear to friends on all sides of this political campaign that I know Barack Obama has international experience, but it is not wrong to note that there are deficits in the profiles of the people we are considering to live in the White House.

If I'm being asked to support Obama because of innate instinct, I refuse. I would say the same about Hillary Clinton if asked. What we need to know about all of these potential candidates is not only how they operate and work but what the basis of their experience is. Then, for me, I want to see some evidence that the candidate is thinking creatively about how to leapfrog out of today's national security and foreign policy morass into some more stable order that propels American and global interests back in a positive direction.

At the beginning of the John Bolton battle in which I played a substantial part, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold were two early holdouts in our uniting the Democratic caucus on the Foreign Relations Committee against him. After watching a video tape of John Bolton "losing it" on the subject of the UN, when Bolton said that one could take some ten floors out of the UN and no one would notice (in an angry, frustrated voice), Obama changed course and opposed Bolton. This impressed me -- but there was nothing innate in Obama's thinking.

Hillary Clinton, in contrast, might have leaned more toward a minority constituency in New York that was supportive of Bolton, and allowed the "identity" of the situation trump sensible policy. Clinton's people listened to many -- and just knew that when it came to shouldering responsibilities for the American people in the world's most important international institution, Bolton was the wrong person for the job.

I hate this debate about experience vs. identity in making this choice. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses.

But with me, experience -- or demonstrating bold capacity to requisition that experience -- is the primary driver of my political support. Obama supporters, I hope, will drop this cult-ish promulgation of identity politics and will get back on the experience track.

Then, we can have a sensible discussion about the differences between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden -- and the rest.

It still bothers me that Mike Huckabee has been to Europe and Obama hasn't.

-- Steve Clemons

P.S. I want to make one note about Senator Obama and European travel. According to the Times of London story, Barack Obama stopped in London for a quick stopover on the way back from Moscow. I was not given this information by Senator Obama's office, so I am not adding it as of yet. The official material from the Obama office did not include this trip and thus may need to be amended at some point. Steve Clemons

Barack Obama has often said that he would like to have Republicans serve in his Cabinet if elected President. I think that this is a very smart move -- as the only way to get back to results-producing government is to win over enough dissident Republicans to generate a new, workable political equilibrium.

Obama has mentioned Schwarzenegger, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel as possibilities for a government he might run. At the same time, Bloomberg may decide to shock everyone with his own presidential run -- and Hagel is the rumored frontrunner for that VP ticket.

Just to fill out a bit more of the travel picture on where leading presidential contenders (and vice presidential contenders) have been, I asked Senator Hagel for his travel details.

In this case, Hagel responded in the format I originally asked all of the candidates -- which was to share the regions of the world he had visited and the frequency.

Here are the results:

Senator Chuck Hagel - International Travel

Europe

2004, twice in 2005

Africa

2004 (May)

Asia (including South Asia and Southeast Asia; i.e. India/Pakistan)

twice in 2006

Middle East

2004, 2005, twice in 2007

Latin America

2005 (April)

It is interesting to note that Senator Hagel made the time to go to Latin America -- something missing in the profiles of Obama, Clinton, Romney, and Biden, although as First Lady, Hillary Clinton went to Latin America on numerous occasions.

-- Steve Clemons

On Facebook, of which I've become a fan, there is a Google interactive travel map titled "Cities I've Visited." I've ticked off 227 cities listed in 42 countries. Each place has a little pin in it noting Steve Clemons has been there.

But in my case, South America, Africa, and Central Asia are pretty big voids.

But what about the Presidential candidates. I asked all of the campaigns to send me their contender's travel roster for trips outside the US since 2004. I don't yet have all of the data, but I will keep working on it.

An early snap shot though has produced some gaps as stunning as my own record in semi-public view on Facebook.

The biggest void that caught my eye was that despite serving as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe, Barack Obama has not been there (unless we count Ukraine. . .but I'm not ready to do that yet) -- at least not recently. This was a bit of a follow-up to a piece I wrote the other day that Obama did not call any issue or policy oriented hearings in the Subcommittee during his tenure.

Laurie Rubiner, Legislative Director on Hillary Clinton's Senate Staff, is departing her position by the end of the year -- i.e., in two weeks.

Rubiner has been one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton's Senate legislative profile has been praised by so many. Clinton gets high marks from nearly everyone for how she has worked the levers of the Senate's institutional machinery to achieve policy and political traction.

Laurie Rubiner, a former senior health policy adviser to Senator John Chafee (R-RI) and was the first Director of the New America Foundation's Health Care Program, shared in an email that she was going to be the new Executive Director of a new policy center in Washington affiliated with the NGO, Malaria No More.

Rubiner is Hillary Clinton's long serving legislative director, having served for three years.

According to a friend, "she is working 100% until the very end. She is literally in Iowa at this very moment (today), doing surrogate work as one of Hillary Clinton's primary health care advisors." This friend who is close to the central nerve center of the Hillary Clinton operation stated:

It's no coincidence, and it was noticed in people who follow the issue, that Hillary Clinton announced $1 billion to cure malaria by 2012 only days after Laurie told Senator Clinton what she would be doing. . .

This is an excerpt from the email Rubiner shared with associates recently:

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I wanted to let you know that at the end of the year I will be leaving the Clinton office to be Executive Director of a new policy center in Washington DC devoted to putting us on the path to eradicating malaria.

Affiliated with Malaria No More in New York, the Washington policy center will be tasked with building the political will and financial support necessary to end deaths from malaria, the number one killer of children under five in sub-Saharan Africa.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as Senator Clinton’s Legislative Director for the last three years, and I will miss her and her wonderful and extraordinarily capable staff. But this was an opportunity that I felt was a once in a lifetime chance to make a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of children and I simply could not pass it up. . .

Laurie Rubiner

Legislative Director

Office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

I have previously written about Laurie Rubiner's formidable intellectual and policy skills -- and these were noted in a major profile of Rubiner and her influence on Hillary Clinton's health care plan in the New York Times. Not only was the profile interesting in profiling Clinton's legislative and health policy czar, it was refreshing to see that Hillary Clinton herself had the confidence to allow such a high profile piece to be done on a member of her staff.

There will no doubt be much speculation about what Rubiner's departure means for the Clinton camp which is a couple of weeks from the Iowa Caucuses -- as Rubiner has been one of the inner circle players in "Hillaryland." I have talked to insiders though who have said that there is no drama here at all. One observer said "this is the time of politics and not policy, and Laurie Rubiner is a policy addict." Another friend stated that "Laurie 'agonized' for months, but her love of health care (second only to HRC's, and the basis of their close bond) won out. Laurie had seen the Health Care plan through it's development and successful introduction, so she felt it was a good time."

Rubiner -- who is known to be one of the few insiders who "talks real" with Clinton -- is going to remain part of Hillary's circle of trusted counselors.

In fact, a prominent Hillary Clinton spear-carrier reported to me:

. . .I would just note that many people leave Hillaryland and then come back -- including Neera [Tanden] who went to the DCCC, CAP; Howard [Wolfson] who went to DCCC, Glover Park; and Patti [Solis Doyle] who went to Glover Park, etc.

Nobody every really leaves Hillaryland."

In addition to the comments above, I was told that Hillary Clinton relies on Rubiner for tough-minded policy counsel and straight talk and definitely would have liked to keep her through this period. In addition, this source stated that if "Hillary captures the White House, President Hillary Clinton will want Laurie with her."

Truth in advertising -- Laurie Rubiner is a former colleague of mine at the New America Foundation -- and everything I have written about her powerful political, policy, and intellectual skills has probably been understated.

-- Steve Clemons

A regular TWN reader sent this endearing picture of his pup, Nickee. I empathize completely with the dog and feel up to my neck in all sorts of stuff.

More tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

Fidel Castro has just given the world the opportunity to ponder a new direction for Cuba. Castro has issued a statement that is vague but nonetheless signals that he sees himself departing the political front line and making room for a new set of leaders.

As Center for Democracy in the Americas Director Sarah Stephens said today on a journalist conference call, "Cuban leaders don't communicate by accident." She said that "change is in the offing." And that "Castro is writing the script" of his departure as 'the decider' on Cuba's political life and course.

Peter Kornbluh, also on the conference call, says that the smooth fading into the background by Fidel Castro -- at his own pace -- helps write the final chapter for Fidel and a chapter in which he's clearly in control of the optics of all of this and hasn't been compelled or forced out.

Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, again on the conference call today, really drilled into the details of Fidel's statement. She gets Castro's complexity and sees this statement as a move in a multi-dimensional chess board in which he is both confident and aware of the many political pressures in Cuba's domestic political scene. She thinks Castro is not only saying that Cuba needs to cultivate a new generation of leaders -- but that Cuba needs to yield to them as well. And this may signal a future for a Cuba not run by either Raul or Fidel Castro.

The United States needs to tack now towards a new course. To miss yet another opportunity to change course in US-Cuba relations is a serious mistake. When Russia stopped supporting the Cuban economy, there was an opportunity to move forward US-Cuba relations. That was missed. This is the next chance.

Barack Obama has been supportive of a new course on Cuba. Frankly, Chris Dodd sets the gold standard and thinks that we need a complete overhaul of the US-Cuba relationship and a full opening of commerce, travel, and diplomacy. Bill Richardson just released this paragraph as part of a foreign affairs essay he just published:

The United States of America also needs to start paying attention to the Americas. We need better border security and comprehensive immigration reform. And to reduce both illegal immigration and anti-American populism in Latin America, we must work with reform-minded governments there to alleviate poverty and promote equitable development. We need to strengthen energy cooperation in the region and foster democracy and fair trade. Our efforts to promote democracy must include Cuba. We should reverse the Bush administration's policies restricting remittances to and travel to visit loved ones in Cuba, and we should respond to steps toward liberalization there with steps toward ending the embargo.

Hillary Clinton needs to tack in a new direction too. This is an opening for her to recast how she would modify US-Cuba relations given what Fidel Castro has done to make the question of whether we promote perpetuation of a US-Cuba relations cocooned in Cold War anachronism -- or whether we use Cuba as a template for signaling to the world a new and different strategy for dealing with the world.

And frankly, Mike Huckabee used to be a pro-engagement governor on Cuba but recently denied his past and said that he wants a regime even more strictly constraining than the Bush administration. Giuliani, Romney and Thompson have also not been visionaries on changing the course of both US-Cuban and US-Latin American relations, but all will need to provide a response on what their policy course would be given Castro's surprise announcement.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: To download a transcript of the conference call, click here.

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the clear frontrunners in the Democratic primary race, and the comparisons between them are going to be tough-edged over the next couple of weeks.

I have been very critical of both, and applauded both. I did not like Hillary Clinton's embrace of the Bush administration's policy of keeping Cubans isolated from us while nearly every other nation in the world -- even Israel -- is engaged commercially and increasingly culturally with Cuba. Cuba itself may not interest many or may seem irrelevant to the biggest debates of the day, but it provides a template for candidates to demonstrate whether they will sculpt a foreign and national security policy in the future that leapfrogs out of today's morass or whether they are going to continue a policy of incrementalism, thus reinforcing and validating many of the errors and missteps of the Bush administration.

That said, there is a great deal I do admire in Hillary Clinton -- and one of the things that simply can't be disputed is her work ethic. I've met her a number of times, usually at receptions -- and each time I decided not to waste the moment with trivial banter but to throw an idea at her or mention a person or issue that would help me understand how real, how informed, or alternatively -- how contrived -- she was.

Every single time she jumped on the issue I brought up and expressed two or three dimensions to the issue that showed she was deeply steeped in this or that policy. In my New America Foundation role, I helped build and support programs as diverse as debates about genetic scientific advancements to family work issues, health care, and wireless spectrum -- not to mention my own core interests in foreign policy, national security/defense issues, and international economic policy. Hillary Clinton and I have had quick encounters that involved her sharing incredibly diverse and serious policy commentary.

The last time I had such a discussion with her was after she had won her last Senate race in New York, and she and Bill Clinton were a bit early to a UN Foundation reception honoring Muhammad Yunus. We had a really interesting discussion about what should be on a roster of 21st century threats and how our national security and foreign policy resources should be reorganized to deal with future challenges rather than keeping vested interests tied to old threats well funded. Her quick grasp of what I was trying to get at -- and a detailed response that was serious and level-headed -- really surprised me as I'm used to politicians who typically have to fake their way through detail.

I get the sense that Barack Obama is also extremely intelligent, though I've not had the same kind of encounters with him that I have had with Hillary Clinton and thus can't give personal commentary.

But I am convinced of something about Hillary Clinton's commitment to use every lever and every aspect of government machinery to push her legislative and policy work that I'm disappointed to say that I can't find as strongly in Barack Obama's profile. My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings -- at least that is how the record appears to me.

Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings -- or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair -- or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton on a Subcommittee she chairs, and the zero hearing detail is disconcerting.

By the way, I have to praise the Environment and Public Works Committee for its website. I wanted to know what role Senator Clinton had played in the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and not only found testimony of all involved but found photos showing who was there.

I'm not trying to find a minor, nuanced difference between Obama and Clinton and inflate that to inappropriate levels. I am a fan of some of Obama's foreign policy positions -- though I think that I tend to appreciate his speeches influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski that reflect tough-minded thinking and hard choices rather than those influenced by former Clinton National Security Adviser Anthony Lake that seem to want America to rush into every global cause without clear delineation of priorities and an accounting of potential costs and consequences to our national interest.

But the question of how a Chief Executive would utilize the machinery of government towards the public good has always been of interest to me. Senators do have the opportunity to demonstrate executive-style leadership (or not) in how they deploy the resources taxpayers provide them in pursuing or informing legislative process.

The first day I started as a staff member in Senator Jeff Bingaman's office more than 12 years ago, I was given a copy of Eric Redman's The Dance of Legislation, a chronicle of Redman's experiences and insights into legislative process during a two year stint he had in Senator Warren Magnuson's office decades ago. Jeff -- as we all called Senator Bingaman -- personally inscribed the book to me with a word of welcome and something along the lines of "we expect good work from you in the Senate."

I found the book gripping -- and it motivated me to move out of the predictable contours of legislative process. Redman tried some creative approaches to getting his legislation pushed, and I tried the same in projects I had to work on. In another essay one day, I'll share some of the unusual tactics and vehicles we used in Senator Bingaman's office to push our agenda while in the Minority.

I was a foreign policy and economic adviser to Senator Bingaman -- but I worked in many legislative arenas and felt that it was my responsibility to use every possible vehicle, legislative technique or trick, and support service -- particularly the Senate Parliamentarian, the Legislative Counsel office and Congressional Research Service -- to make our office an active place and not just reactive, passive, or floundering like so many other Senate and House offices I saw.

Senator Obama has a great team. Some of his staff are friends and former colleagues of mine -- though i can say the same about every one of the presidential candidates in both parties.

But his not calling any hearings in a Senate Subcommittee he chairs ought to raise some questions that he needs to respond to. His Subcommittee deals with Europe, with NATO, with various related political and security matters -- and he's got the gavel and can set the agenda.

Given the stress NATO is experiencing today on many fronts -- from the question of Europe's evolving security identity, to NATO's deployments in Afghanistan, to the evolving question of how to deal with Russia, Kosovo, and other common challenges -- it seems inconceivable that Senator Obama would not want to highlight important policy concerns by way of hearings.

I hope Senator Obama looks at this post as something to respond constructively to -- as we need to understand how this gap would be fixed or translate into a White House setting.

But while I want Hillary Clinton to get more creative (and Nixonian, in the good sense) in looking at foreign policy deal-making through a different lens, particularly on Israel/Palestine matters and Cuba -- which are important opportunities to telegraph change in America's posture to the rest of the world -- I want to commend the fact that she does work every aspect of the legislative machinery and knows these policy issues well.

Next time I see her, I won't be surprised at all when she teaches me a lot I didn't know about the Superfund.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Alexander Steffler)

I've just flown home from Pittsburgh and was looking through some photos that a good friend and blogger, Alex Steffler, took of my house. The one above is of a step after a recent snow.

-- Steve Clemons

In response to my note that "The Guantanamo Detainee" be named TIME's person of the year because of the legal and political convulsions and hemorrhaging that will be caused for years ahead by institutionalized extralegalism there, Michael Scheuer sent me a thoughtful note of his own on the subject that needs to be read.

Scheuer, as most know, was head of the CIA's now terminated "bin Laden unit" and authored Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, Through our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, and the forthcoming Marching Towards Hell: America and Islam After Iraq.

From Michael Scheuer to Steven Clemons, 15 December 2007

Steve,

With respect, I would have to say that a Congress and Executive that refuse to execute the laws (borders and immigration); a Congress that has abdicated its exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and so allows wars to be initiated on one man's whim; and the negligence of Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations to secure all the weapons in the Former Soviet Union's Nuclear arsenal -- one of which used in the United States would damage our civil-liberties environment for decades -- are far better candidates than the Guantanamo detainee group for "Person of the Year."

The failure to set these issues right will have far more impact on America's future than the detainees. The less said about Gore and Rowling the better.

The real problem with Guantanamo is that the prisoners there should have been treated as prsioners of war from the first.

Put them in World War-II-syle stockades, let them write home, and facilitate access for the Red Cross.

The most troubling issue regarding Guantanamo, CIA installations, DoD prisons, or the idea I just presented is that the men held in each for the most part can never be let go.

For me, this is the crux of the issue and it has not been addressed. For the first time in Western history we are capturing POWs who cannot be released; we already have had dozens go back to battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan after being released.

This problem is going to take folks with far better brains then mine to remedy, and so far the issue has not even be joined.

-- Mike Scheuer

Michael Scheuer hits the nail on the head. We've created a legal purgatory from which there is no easy exit. The first thing that is crucial is not to add to the scale of this problem and add any new detainees to Guantanamo.

But this kind of blunt, sensible clarity from a key player engaged in hunting and killing bin Laden's team is what many should be considering.

-- Steve Clemons

(Graphic credit: Mario Loundermon)

Gary Sick of Columbia University sent me today this fascinating and thoughtful essay, "The Coming Liberal Cycle," written by Matthew Kohut.

Read the whole thing -- particularly the comparison of Howard Dean to Barry Goldwater who took nearly two decades to see his views bubble up as mainstream conservatism -- but here's the start:

An interesting set of headliners -- including former National Security Adviser to Ronald Reagan Robert "Bud" McFarlane, former NSA Director and Bush family pal Bobby Inman, and Committee on the Present Danger Co-Chairman R. James Woolsey -- co-signed a statement strongly opposed to torture as a tool of detainee interrogations and in support of Senator John McCain's position, with whom I agree on this issue.

I do not know what, if anything, McCain has done with the statement -- and have not seen it noted anywhere as of yet, but the statement is important both for its substance and its signatories -- some of whom I am occasionally at odds with.

But I commend all of the signers for agreeing to affix their names to a statement solidly, unambiguously against torture.

Letter in Support of John McCain's opposition to use of torture in any form, December 2007

Whether in war or peace, there is no place in civilized discourse among nations for torture. The reasons for this should be obvious to experienced leaders:

-- For any nation to use torture invites equivalent treatment of its soldiers by all other nations;

-- Torture seldom produces reliable information;

-- The use of torture takes a nation from the moral high ground to the depths of inhuman depravity.

Moral authority is more than a metaphysical abstraction. It is fundamental to garnering respect among nations and any aspiration to lead them.

If a nation expects others to follow, allies must find it worthy of respect -- especially in the humane treatment of prisoners and adherence to the laws of war including the Geneva Convention.

In the years ahead as we wage the global struggle against radical Islam we must have the moral authority to rally others.

We, the undersigned, declare our abhorrence of the use of torture and stand with Senator John McCain in his principled position on this issue.

Honorable Robert McFarlane, LtCol. USMC (ret); former National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan

Hon. R. James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI); Under Secretary of the Navy

Admiral Bobby Inman, Former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; Director, National Security Agency

General P. X. Kelley, USMC (ret); Former Commandant of the Marine Corps

Honorable Orson Swindle III, LtCol USMC (ret); Former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; POW 6 years in Vietnam Prison

Honorable Everett Alvarez, Commander USN (ret); longest held POW in North Vietnam (8.5 years)

Rear Admiral Robert Shumaker, USN (ret); second longest held POW in North Vietnam (8.0 years)

Major General John Fugh, USA JAG (ret)

Brigadier General David Brahms, USMC JAG (ret)

I had a note from a friend at Sandia National Weapons Laboratories this morning who referred to my suggestion that the "Guantanamo Detainee" be made TIME's person of the year as a "dumbass idea". He asked if I remembered the victims of 9/11.

Of course I remember the victims -- but I also know that the suspension of habeas corpus for any one held by the state -- no matter how monstrous -- makes the rest of the nation's citizens victims as well. I know that torturing detainees will harm for decades America's place as the beacon on the hill.

I'm not empathetic with torture victims. I've never had that sort of experience. John McCain may be. I'm not sure.

My objection to torturing even the most evil of human beings behind 9/11 is that this practice will divide America within. It will divide America from its allies and motivate its enemies. It has already been ferociously divisive even within the White House itself.

Thus, I stand by my nomination of the Guantanamo Detainee -- because how we determine the fate of those held there and what we do with that facility will signal to the world what kind of nation we decide to be.

-- Steve Clemons

J.K. Rowling is way ahead of Al Gore and Barack Obama on Time Magazine's poll for "Person of the Year." My bet is that Nobel Laureate and 'global climate change franchise owner' Al Gore will be the eventual winner -- but as of today, I confirmed with Time that there still is no decision and that the opportunity to influence the magazine is still open.

My pick would be the "Guantanamo Detainee" because this unresolved problem goes to the very core of what America decides to be in the future.

Lots of other names come to mind -- Ahmadinejad, Putin, Petraeus, Ron Paul, Obama, Schwarzenegger, Sarkozy, George Soros, Angelina Jolie, Larry Craig, Dick Cheney, the Guantanamo Detainees. . .and lots of others no doubt.

I talk about this in the video above -- and look forward to your thoughts on who really ought to be the person of the year. Feel free to post here -- or email me at Steve@TheWashingtonNote.com.

I will tally the names here and send them off to Time as well as publish them on both The Washington Note and Huffington Post.

-- Steve Clemons

So far, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama have returned Global Solutions Candidate Questionnaires. Much of what they have to say is predictable, but there are a lot of important differences in rhetoric and even some key differences in substance. They're worth a read through.

Given all that's going on in Bali, it's worth taking a closer look at what each of these candidates have to say about energy and climate. It's worth noting that all of their policies are leaps and bounds better than the status quo.

As of this writing, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Bali have not yet produced a final agreement. That's ok. The tectonic shift in international climate politics has already occurred.

It was clear almost from the beginning of the event that the U.S. was engaged in "hard obstruction," attempting not only to avoid commitments for itself but actively working to block other countries from setting further targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. That's been the policy in place for the last seven years.

What has changed is the European position. In past years, Europeans have been content to state their preference for a faster pace toward a new set of emissions targets and then timidly give up 90 per cent of their negotiating position to bring the U.S. on board. The diplomats would then typically attempt to downplay any major rift and present a far more united front than really exists.

This year is different. When the Americans flatly rejected any mention of a new set of targets, the EU promised to boycott the U.S.-hosted major emitters climate summit, which is at best a complement and at worst a distraction to the UNFCCC process.

As a result, it looks likely that the U.S. may compromise. But even if no compromise is reached or targets agreed to, this is a major step forward. Environmental and civil society groups have long been pushing for the Europeans to move forward with an ambitious agenda that the U.S. may eventually catch up to. It seems at last that if the U.S. will not come along, Europe is willing to make progress anyway. By 2009, we should all be on the same page.

I've heard that there has also been significant progress on the adaptation and deforestation angles in Bali, but I have yet to read through the details of either. Plus, I always like it when youth find their voice on this issue. Any way you slice it, this conference will be seen as a major step forward.

-- Scott Paul

Update: A deal has been brokered in a small group that a larger plenary will consider in a few hours. It calls for a "two-track" process, dealing with both Kyoto and the larger UNFCCC, that will culminate in a new deal to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Unclear as yet whether it includes any mention of concrete targets. UN Dispatch, It's Getting Hot in Here, and Bali Buzz are following closely.

In the last week, I've had over ten meetings with Senate staffers on the Law of the Sea Convention (I hope this explains and excuses my recent absence from this blog). In every meeting -- without exception -- staffers have agreed that U.S. interests are served by ratification of the Convention. Yet, every single staffer also added that they are being bombarded by calls from right-wing activists who say that ratification would mean a loss of sovereignty for the U.S.

These meetings were instructive for two reasons. First, it shows that some senators are more than willing to put politics over substance, which I think will come as little surprise to most readers. Second, it shows how badly right-wing activists misunderstand both the Law of the Sea Convention and the concept of sovereignty itself.

These activists misconstrue sovereignty as the notion that the U.S. should be able to do what it wants, where it wants, however it wants. And they reject the basic and legally indisputable premise that treaty law is expressly recognized as the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.

Sovereignty has numerous definitions and applications, the most traditional of which is the ability to govern without external influence or meddling. Yet even that would not be eroded with ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. In fact, it would be enhanced. The U.S. would gain formal international recognition over its claim of a 12-nautical mile territorial sea that would be subject to U.S. laws, a huge, 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone that would be subject to U.S. economic control, and exclusive economic rights in an extended continental shelf beyond that 200-mile limit. The idea that the U.S. would sacrifice control of waters beyond that point is ludicrous, as neither the U.S. nor any other country has sovereign rights in international waters.

The fact is that sovereignty is a two-way street. Other countries now suspect that America refuses to ratify the Convention because it does not respect their sovereignty. And you can bet that Indonesia, India and Malaysia, critical players in regional maritime security, will make a better effort to accommodate the navigational rights of the U.S. Navy when they are sure that the U.S. respects other countries' sovereign rights.

At some point I'll go into greater detail on how absenting ourselves from the treaty actually does threaten sovereignty, but not now. More on that later.

-- Scott Paul

Note: For an excellent summary of opposing arguments to U.S. ratification, see the second comment in the thread below.

Imagine a society where even the firemen were trained to spy on a nation's citizens -- reporting back to central "big brother headquarters" what suspicious things that they may have seen while in someone's home ostensibly to save lives and squelch fires.

That used to be places like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam and the like -- but today, we need to look at ourselves -- the United States of America.

Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) has a disturbing, revelatory article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today about precisely the scenario above. Here's the start of the important article:

The image of the friendly firefighter helping rescue a wayward kitten from a tree might need updating. If the federal Department of Homeland Security has its way, firefighters across the country will be armed not only with firefighting equipment, but also issued training materials on how to recognize suspect behavior on the part of citizens and what to look for in peoples' homes that might be "suspicious." In other words, firefighters would become domestic spies. In fact, such training already has begun.

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, in a recent speech to the country's fire chiefs, reminded his audience that in the government's view, a fire or any natural disaster should be seen as no different from a terrorist act. The secretary noted that among the billions of taxpayer dollars that had been distributed to fire departments since the Sept. 11 attacks, were significant sums to develop "fusion centers" in the various states (including Georgia). These strangely named "fusion centers" (officially, "Counter Terrorism Information Centers") already include firefighters. Chertoff did not in his public remarks to the fire chiefs explicitly mention training firefighters to spot "suspicious" activity or items as among the training they do or should receive, but recent news stories are detailing the troubling manner in which the feds are doing just this.

As usual, New York City -- training ground for public officials such as former mayor Rudy Giuliani and current mayor Michael Bloomberg who apparently consider surveillance the Holy Grail of modern government -- is leading the way.

Fire chiefs in the Big Apple, for example, already have been granted federal security clearances to further this "integration" of firefighters into the homeland security. According to published accounts of such training, firefighters are being trained to watch for "hostile" or "uncooperative" individuals, or those "expressing discontent" with our government. They are also trained to watch for and report on things that "seem out of place" in a home or business such as firearms and video recording equipment. Rooms with "little or no furniture" fall within the reportable suspicious activity.

We don't agree on everything, but I certainly commend Bob Barr for his staunch support of civil liberties. I heard him this morning speak about this article and the issues involved -- and I think that all Americans, on the left and the right, have got to work more vigorously to stop the quickening creep of the Sovietization of American government and society.

-- Steve Clemons

Delancey Place has a nice clip from Anthony Everitt's Cicero: The Life and Time of Rome's Greatest Politician. Cicero's efforts 2000 years ago to balance monarchy, oligarchy and democracy became the defining feature of the American Constitution and republic.

I had recommended the Cicero book to Richard Vague who runs this "thought of the day" blog -- and I highly recommend signing up to the daily notes from Delancey.

But this reminds me that someone out to send Anthony Everitt's book to those Bush administration and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress who have been tilting this nation towards monarchy and oligarchy and away from democracy.

-- Steve Clemons

The Washington Post and ABC News have just released a new national poll on the relative positions of Democratic and Republican candidates:

Republicans

Giuliani -- 25 pct

Huckabee -- 19 pct

Romney -- 17 pct

Thompson -- 14 pct

McCain -- 12 pct

Paul -- 3 pct

Hunter -- 2 pct

Democrats

Clinton -- 53 pct

Obama -- 23 pct

Edwards -- 10 pct

Richardson -- 3 pct

Biden -- 3 pct

Kucinich -- 2 pct

Dan Balz and Jon Cohen have useful analysis here -- and of course, everyone seems to have to say that Iowa is wide open and competitive in the Dem race.

But I have to admit skepticism that any Iowa poll at this point will seriously disrupt a 30 point lead nationally. What an Obama or Edwards win in Iowa could do is buoy up just a bit anti-Hillary forces in the Democratic Party, but even combined, Obama and Edwards are only drawing 33%.

Hillary Clinton has the only juggernaut political machine in either party today, and stopping a juggernaut requires both sizzle and a political operation I haven't seen yet -- even with Oprah in the game.

-- Steve Clemons

Sorry for the late notice, or early -- depending on your spot on the globe, but I'll be doing a segment on Australia's ABC Radio National Late Night Live with Phillip Adams in a few minutes (at 6:15 AM EST). I doubt many will get the alert in time, but it seems the show can be downloaded later.

What makes this of possible interest is that I'm going to be in a discussion on the implications of the Iran National Intelligence Estimate along with a former Chinese diplomat to Iran. We should be talking to the Chinese about their views towards Iran and many other parts of the world -- but until this radio interview, I haven't seen that done in the American or international media.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

It speaks volumes about the moment United States Cuba policy is in that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus holds a hearing and invites three strong, articulate voices for a new Cuba policy and only two of the old guard clinging to underwhelming rhetoric of Fidel the communist and constructing painful rhetorical stretches about Cuba's support for terrorism.

That's just what happened today in Dirksen 215. On the realist side of the equation were Col. Larry Wilkerson, co-chair of New America Foundation's U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative; Mr. David McClure, president of the Montana Farm Bureau; and Sgt. Carlos Lazo, Iraq war veteran and Cuban emigre. Representing the "stay the course" community, Mr. Frank Calzon of the Center for a Free Cuba and Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami.

Take a look at Col. Wilkerson's testimony here. It's a clear-eyed, realist case for gradual rapprochement with Cuba.

At least in this forum, the reality of modern-day Cuba is overcoming the static caricatures of the Cold War. Senators like Baucus, recently returned from Cuba, are leading the way. Cuba is ahead of the United States in access to health care, is breaking new barriers in biomedical and pharmaceutical research, and is sending doctors around the world to help countries like Pakistan and South Africa. Cuba is a major tourism destination for the rest of the world, so much so that the supply of hotel rooms cannot keep up with demand. Even Israel, which regularly votes with the U.S. in the UN against Cuba, has companies investing in Cuban citrus farms.

Senator Grassley, the ranking member on the committee, is a fascinating study in the changing mood, at least in the Senate. Grassley said today, "Given the current leadership situation in Cuba, now is perhaps an appropriate time to review the status of our bilateral relationship." Of course, he's talking about the transfer of power from Fidel to Raul. Grassley is no ideologue. He's a realist from an agricultural state and Cuba is a big new market. Change is on the way.

But perhaps the most important indicator of the changing tide on Cuba policy on Capitol Hill was a verbal altercation between Mr. Calzon and Col. Wilkerson after the hearing had concluded. Mr. Calzon walked over to Col. Wilkerson's side of the table and the conversation escalated to a polite shouting match.

The content of the argument itself was insignificant (it was about Colin Powell's view of U.S. policy towards Cuba). What is significant is that a few years ago, Mr. Calzon would have ignored Col. Wilkerson. Today his side's control of Cuba policy is not so certain.

-- Patrick Doherty

Last Thursday, the 6th of December, I spent my evening at a 50th Anniversary black tie dinner commemorating the founding of the Japan America Society of Washington DC with former Vice President of the United States and Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale. I was the guest of Society President and former Ambassador John Malott -- and I've taken a few days to mull over both Mondale's speech and a discussion I had with the former vice president privately.

On one level, Walter Mondale's speech seemed safe and non-controversial, but reading it again -- his remarks were densely packed with some important messages.

First of all, Mondale addresses the realities of 'divided government' in both Japan and the U.S. -- and in a nuanced passage refers to Japan Ambassador to the U.S. Ryozo Kato's comment that the "relationship is under stress." And then Mondale notes that Japan as a subject, language, and focus of diplomatic efforts is no longer drawing the best and brightest.

Mondale stated:

I don't buy the argument that Scooter Libby has dropped his efforts at an appeal because of the time, hassle, and money involved in continuing the appeal. Although since presidential candidate Fred Thompson was one of those hosting fundraisers for Scooter's legal defense fund, perhaps the distractions of the presidential race have taken a toll.

But I do wonder whether Scooter Libby has been informed that a pardon is in the works. It would not surprise me if it was the case.

-- Steve Clemons

Michael Rubin offers a bizarre entry at National Review Online today:

An apology owed to John Bolton [Michael Rubin]

The most recent Iran NIE confirms that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon back in 2003. Forgotten in much of the recent press coverage is that this proves John Bolton, at the time was undersecretary of state for Arms Control, correct. Many of the people under and around him, perhaps fearing that his analysis might get in the way of their initiatives, attacked him and leaked anonymously in the press to undermine him. And yet, now we know that Bolton was right. It seems that a number of journalists, diplomats, and Senate staffers owe Mr. Bolton an acknowledgment, if not an apology.

As one of the lead critics of John Bolton's brand of pugnacious nationalism, I find this appeal by Michael Rubin to be strangely deficient on Bolton's record.

First of all, I for one never challenged Bolton's view that Iran had been on a covert weapons track. In fact, my blog regularly has commented that I believe that Iran has wanted nuclear weapons (or something close -- like a full fuel cycle capacity that mimicks what Japan has) and that it probably had a program of some kind. My colleague Jeffrey Lewis of ArmsControlWonk.com has also suggested the same.

So if Bolton needs acknowledgement for asserting something that I did, Valerie Plame did, Jim Risen did, and Russian, and Chinese, and French, and German, and Israeli intelligence analysts did -- by all means.

But Bolton and Co.'s proclivity to assume the worst case analysis always and to stove-pipe intelligence and to try to take to market "raw intelligence" produced significant misreadings on other fronts -- particularly Iran's alternative course. But he also got wrong Iraq's WMD activities, Cuba's WMD activities, North Korea's direction and intentions, and other issues.

Bolton's brinksmanship on Cuba was embarrassing for all concerned.

So, by all means -- if Bolton needs or wants an apology for being criticized for having gotten something right on Iran as reported in the recent National Intelligence Estimate, where are Bolton's apologies to the rest of the national security community for his errors -- and for his commentary of late that it is "politics" driving the latest Iran NIE, not intelligence?

-- Steve Clemons

Helene Cooper has a useful primer on which presidential contenders got a boost or got headwind from three major foreign policy issues last week.

She noted that President Bush hand signed a personal letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, a man Bush had called a "pygmy" and who John Bolton several times called "human scum." The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran also set back Iran hawks. Last, there was the news that the CIA videotaped the harsh interrogation (i.e. torture) of certain high value prisoners and then destroyed the tapes.

I mentioned that before even consider how the current campaigns were affected, one had to consider Chuck Hagel -- even though not in the campaign. He is the one person whose profile in national security and foreign policy issues would have anticipated all these bits of news and is well positioned in the country on them. He is pro-engagement, anti-torture, pro-transparency, and wants the government to prepare for things as they are not as ideological fabulists would have them be.

From Helen Cooper's article, "Winners and Losers of the Week in Foreign Policy":

So, who among the presidential hopefuls was helped and who was hurt by the Bush administration's foreign policy holiday presents?

Over all, political observers and foreign policy experts say the three developments hurt Republicans and helped Democrats.

"The Republicans as a whole lose because of these revelations," said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington. "If Chuck Hagel were running, he would be the beneficiary, but there's no one like Hagel on the Republican side."

Mr. Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska , has strongly criticized the Bush administration, particularly on foreign policy. He has also advocated dialogue with America's adversaries, criticized some of the interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo, and called for less hawkish behavior against Iran.

The rest of the article is useful.

Cooper notes that McCain gets a slight boost because of anti-torture credentials, but that the Republicans as a whole were hurt by this past week's news.

On the Dem side, Obama gets the biggest boost as the most pro-engagement of the candidates. Hillary gets some headwind because of the assist she gave the administration in supporting the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization.

Joe Biden gets a boost as one of the most experience foreign policy hands who has been opposed to over-hyping the Iran threat and has been offering a fount of serious tactical and strategic proposals for America's engagement in the Middle East and globally.

Finally, John Edwards remains relatively unaffected despite the claim that his first action as President would be to fly around the world to work on reconstituting key alliances. Most see him as focused on middle class economic issues -- and not the broad national security portfolio.

As I have written before, it would be wise for one of the candidates -- now that Hagel is out of the presidential race -- to copy Senator Hagel's template for thinking about national security and foreign policy issues. Whether it is Obama, Edward, Clinton, or others -- Hagel's views are out there to borrow and run with.

-- Steve Clemons

Janet and Mike Huckabee at the Grand Hall of the Arkansas Governor's Mansion

In 2004, an associate of a friend began a correspondence with Janet Huckabee, wife of then Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. His concern at the time was that Janet Huckabee was simply too aggressive and snarky at a polling station when challenging those who did not show identification at the polls -- and in some cases, sending people away when it was, in fact, their right to vote whether or not they chose to show identification.

I wrote about the situation in October 2004 and thought that even though the Arkansas First Lady might not have known that voters were not required to show identification at the polls, her aggressive behavior seemed to some to be more hostile towards voting participation than inclusive.

The email correspondence below also refers to some "charity waitressing" that Janet Huckabee did at a Waffle House. While former First Lady Huckabee does make clear her high regard for those working at Waffle House, the citizen who was writing these emails was disturbed that there was no acknowledgment by the Huckabees or others that Waffle House staff were working for bare bottom wages and had no health care.

The next exchange deals with the Huckabee First Couple registering at a wedding registry with Target Department Stores and Dillard's for friends attending their farewell party at the Arkansas Governor's Mansion. Janet Huckabee took dramatic exception to the right of the press or of citizens to raise questions about this strange incident.

While this practice by the Huckabees may seem odd and inappropriate to many Americans, it was also something that Bill and Hillary Clinton did when leaving the Governor's Mansion. Well, not exactly. As I understand it, the Clintons welcomed gifts -- but they didn't register at Target.

In any case, the exchanges reveal something about 'temperament' and seem relevant to the Huckabee bid for the White House.

The correspondence begins with Nancy Bingham, personal assistant to the then Arkansas First Lady.

Janet Huckabee then takes over the long-running correspondence herself.

I have blocked the name and email address of the person who had the exchanges with Janet Huckabee and her staff, but I am leaving the time stamps on the emails so that any interested parties can confirm their authenticity through freedom of information act inquiries.

The first email I have acquired raises questions about the appropriateness of Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee serving at a voting polling station -- where she later kept challenging the identities and voting rights of many who came to the polling station -- reportedly African-Americans for the most part.

From Arkansas Citizen to Nancy Bingham, Personal Assistant to Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee, 19 October 2004:

From: XXXXX@hotmail.com

To: nancy.bingham@gov.state.ar.us

Subject:

10/19/2004 09:37 AM

Dear Ms. Bingham,

As a citizen of the State of Arkansas, would you please pass on to the first lady that I believe it hugely inappropriate for her to be volunteering at a polling station. Serving at the position that she does, surely she can see the conflict of interest.

Perhaps the first lady might do better to volunteer with a local charity or some other worthy cause. If not, perhaps the Waffle House might have her back?

Sincerely,

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

From Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee to Arkansas Citizen, 19 October 2004:

From: FirstLady@gov.state.ar.us

To: XXXXXXX@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:21:16 -0500

Dear XXXXXX,

I received your e-mail concerning my working at the polls. I am sure that you understand that if I can pay taxes and serve on a jury, I certainly can work on the polls. I , by the way, volunteer at several charities and the Waffle House has already said they would give me a job.

So, I guess the question for you is what is my conflict of interest? I am not an office holder, I don't get paid by the state and I am not a criminal. I don't see your point, but thanks for your e-mail of concern.

Janet Huckabee

forwarded by:

- - Nancy Bingham

- - To: First Lady/Governor's Office@Governor's Office

- - 10/19/2004 10:06 AM

Then in November 2006, when Mike and Janet Huckabee were leaving office and the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, they hosted a party and registered under a "wedding registry" so that friends could buy them farewell gifts.

The person who had the email exchange with Janet Huckabee over the polling station had another exchange of correspondence with the then First Lady.

Note from Arkansas Citizen to Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee, 15 November 2006:

From: XXXXXXXX@hotmail.com

To: FirstLady@gov.state.ar.us

Subject: Re: Gift Giving.

11/15/2006 04:04 PM

Dear First Lady,

I find your recent foray into the world of freebies not only tacky, but very disheartening. Is this proper behavior or the sitting governor and his wife?

I think not.

Of course a small, intimate house-warming would be fine, asking for things such as the ever-handy cork-screw or the new toaster. But asking for things in this number and in this manner (for the world to see), well, I think you might have crossed a line.

If your family honestly needs these home accoutrements, perhaps a part-time, no-health insurance job might be in order. Do I smell Waffle-House?

Please reconsider, for the dignity of the state.

Yours,

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

Here is the interesting, somewhat defensive response from Janet Huckabee about the wedding registry affair. Note that she copies her husband, Governor Mike Huckabee, on her response.

Note from Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee to Arkansas Citizen, 16 November 2006:

Subject: Re: Gift Giving.

To: XXXXXXXX@hotmail.com

CC: governor@gov.state.ar.us

From: FirstLady@gov.state.ar.us

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:29:23

I am not asking for freebies and I am sure that I can buy anything that I want. You, as most of the so called journalists, have stirred up and boat load of untruths and trouble. If it were just me that these articles are attacking it would be one thing, but when my family, my children, my mother and my friends who love me see read and hear these things it hurts.

Perhaps you don't understand invitation only. It was for a select few through an invitation, not the public. For you to call me tacky and to say I am displaying improper behavior is the true disheartening part.

You don't even know what is going on, you merely take a blog or article and make your nasty remarks. How sad is that?

As far as the part time no health insurance job goes, why would I want that? I have been working full time, with health insurance, since July.

So again , you don't know what you are talking about. My last thought with you on this is simple. How dare you insult some one who is working at the Waffle House? They have far more class than you and I would be honored to work with them, share a meal with them, or have them over to the Governor's Mansion for dinner long before you would be invited. They and I have class, not you.

I should note that I respect Janet Huckabee's proclivity to respond to constituent emails. There may be more to these stories than that which of I am aware, and I would be more than happy to run any serious response to this commentary from her -- on both The Washington Note and Huffington Post.

But until then, the best registries in town are Crate & Barrell, Macy's, Nordstrom's, and yes -- Target, over at Potomac Yard.

-- Steve Clemons

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times offered a brilliant take on the Romney speech on religion which I have only now just read. His blunt read in "Press Preys on Wrong Question" of Huckabee's flirtation with the anti-Enlightenment commitment to creationism is worth reviewing too.

But on Kennedy, the take-down of the media's read on Romney is definitive. Here is a part of it:

. . .that sort of institutional blindness to what is at stake in the current struggle over religion and politics made it all but inevitable that Romney's address Thursday would be misunderstood by much of the media. First of all, it was nothing like Kennedy's storied speech in setting, intention or content.

Kennedy was straightforward; Romney was clever.

Kennedy spoke to a hostile audience of Protestant clergymen and took their questions afterward; Romney spoke to a hand-picked crowd at a Republican presidential library and took no questions.

Kennedy defended -- indeed, insisted on -- separation of church and state; Romney simply asked that what is essentially a religious test for office be expanded to include his religion.

Kennedy and his advisors sought the advice of one of American-style religious liberty's foremost defenders -- the great Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray; Romney sought the counsel of political handlers skilled in stage managing the religious right.

-- Steve Clemons

I interviewed award-winning documentary film maker Alex Gibney after a screening of his film, Taxi to the Dark Side.

His response is clear, but my question to him is not. Here is what I posed to him:

Steve Clemons: "Alex, this film seemed to be a lot about missing accountability -- accountability in our system for very horrific acts, undermining norms of our democracy and not letting something stay hidden. That's the way I'm reading it. Your thoughts?

Note that Gibney says he's sending copies of the DVD to Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush.

-- Steve Clemons

I hosted a screening the other night of Alex Gibney's powerful chronicle of America's torture policy and activities, Taxi to the Dark Side.

Afterward, I asked some of those who appeared in the film some questions. In this clip, which is not high quality film production and dark, but still important to see, I ask former military interrogator Damien Corsetti about what he saw and participated in at Abu Ghraib and Bagram detention centers. I then asked former FBI Special Agent and interrogator Jack Cloonan why after seeing the interrogation scene in Iraq and Afghanistan the FBI pulled out. His response which reflects on 'future blowback' from the Abu Ghraib abuses and photos is important and chilling.

-- Steve Clemons

When MoveOn.org ran full page ads just before the Congressional testimony of General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker with huge headlines saying "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", John Bolton's fellow travelers went great lengths to condemn Move On for its lack of appropriate respect for dedicated national security leaders. Resolutions in the House and Senate were passed to condemn Move On.

But in today's Washington Post, John Bolton -- who in addition to his own State Department team was infamous for trying to mine raw intelligence and manipulate it towards political ends -- essentially accuses the entire national security intelligence establishment of betraying American interests in the 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate.

So many have asked for a new picture of Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner and Annie the kid sister that I have this about to share. (Here is a slightly larger photo for the real fan club members)

Thanks to all for the sensible, thoughtful commentary below on Comments. I think we are all collectively on the right track. I very much appreciate the spirit folks are demonstrating in making the comment something a collective responsibility for mutual learning and quality discourse.

I plan to write more tomorrow -- on the powerful and disturbing film Taxi to the Dark Side and the discussion we had this evening with director Alex Gibney, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, former Abu Ghraib and Bergram military intelligence interrogator Damian Corsetti, and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson. I'd write something now -- but am pretty "whacked" as my British friends would say and just can't pull it together until tomorrow.

Also, important Supreme Court hearings were held today on two Guantanamo related cases -- and that will deserve some review.

But most importantly, I learned something this evening that may be significant and which AP also just reported. Today, the Senate-House Intelligence Conference voted today to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all detainee issues in interrogation and detention methods -- or "the law of the land" as my source told me. That means for the CIA and all branches of the national security, military, and intelligence establishment.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I am going to enable the comment function on this blog again. But I need to say that the quality of discussion and exchange on line when I started this blog was better for the first couple of years than it is now. I want to return to the quality of that exchange.

Thus, while I will not monitor every post -- ANY post about which I receive a justifiable complaint will be removed. Any ad hominem attacks on any person for any reason whatsoever will be removed if I see them.

Comments that do not remain essentially on policy debates and instead rush to the "personal motivations" of someone else's comments may be removed as well. That goes for all posters. Those who challenge my decisions about blog posts in an offensive way -- or who continue to engage in patterned, abusive behavior will be permanently blocked from the site.

Regarding my own posts and commentary, I am not the type of blogger who likes to spend a lot of time in the comments section. I don't have time. I'm a public policy focused person in Washington -- and I write about whatever I want to write about. I write about the parties I attend, the experiences I have, the afterthoughts that occur to me. Sometimes I try humor, usually not successfully. Sometimes, I post pictures of my dogs or of other things that catch my fancy.

Sometimes I have conversations with Senators or the administration via the blog because I'm trying to influence them. I have my own calculus -- it's what I do and I don't really care how other bloggers pursue their avocation. I don't want to be like others -- and I'm tired of hearing how others manage their content and course.

ArmsControlWonk's Jeffrey Lewis and nuclear weapons watcher Paul Kerr turn out to be the winners of the what-is-Iran-really-doing prize. In July 2005 and then again November 2006, they reviewed the evidence and suggested that Iran's concerns about a confrontation with the UN and the bureaucratic reorganization of its nuclear activities led it to shut down its covert weapons program.

President George Bush said today, quite specifically and emphatically, "Iran shut its weapons program down." He also said that there was a lot to worry about -- but the definitive statement that the nuclear weapons program is not active is a stunning, important admission.

Last evening, I attended a forum with former General, Labor Party Knesset Member, and former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. In response to a question from the floor about the Iran NIE, Sneh said that the "report was a lie." He asked "why would someone leak this now?"