Scott Paul took on the Clinton campaign for pushing the high-fear button in a television ad. Now the Obama campaign has fired back with its own 3 am ad. They are both depressing.

Jonathan Chait humorously skewers the Clinton staging here -- but as far as Obama's comments are concerned, I'm glad he had the right judgment on Iraq and cites that Afghanistan and al Qaeda were the challenge at hand -- but there must have been more criteria for him deciding against the war and I don't hear much about those.

I guess I don't like the 3 am premise at all -- in either ad. Obama's issues about the Iraq War and trying to prevent loose nukes don't sound relevant to the sort of 3 am crisis calls being suggested -- but then again, I'm groggy.

It happens to be 3:00 am now in Israel -- and I'm about to leave for the airport to catch a plane back to the U.S.

I have to admit when I saw the ads -- and the mention of kids -- I was reminded of this neocon front organization I wrote about some time ago called Family Security Matters. It's webpage doesn't seem to be loading -- but I don't think the group is out of business.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

This has to stop.

Hillary has every right to tout her experience -- it's probably her biggest selling point in this election. But she's got to find a way to do it without heightening the fear, discussing our "dangerous world," or constantly reminding voters that we are at war. These may or may not be true, but including them in her stump speech only serves to shift public opinion towards solutions that emphasize guns and bombs over diplomacy and cooperation.

I'm headed to New York this weekend to see the ultra-popular (and ultra-vulgar) Russian ska-punk-folk band Leningrad, a fave of mine while I was in Russia. That reminds me: I wasn't pleased with either Clinton's or Obama's answer to the Russia question last week and I'm not crazy about McCain's stance either. More on that next week.

-- Scott Paul

Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner sent this note to me during my travels this week in Israel and Palestine:

There is no such thing as peace. Only equilibrium.

Something to think about. Clearly, he is making a play for a bone.

Perhaps my friend Daniel Levy should change the name of his blog from Prospects for Peace to Prospects for Equilibrium.

-- Steve Clemons

This trip to Israel and today to Palestine has been extremely eye-opening. Condoleezza Rice will be here on Monday -- and there is antipathy to her trip at the highest levels of government.

I've been told that she comes with no plan, no ideas, no pressure to move in any direction whatsoever. According to a source very close to Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert, she doesn't even ask questions about the basic positions on each side so as to understand the "gaps" and then to offer ideas -- or even pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians -- to close the gaps. Those engaged credibly in the peace process here want American engagement -- and want the U.S. to play a role in defining "best options" among many competing visions of how this is going to work out.

I'll have more to say later regarding some surprising perspectives I've encountered about Hamas. Yesterday, a Haaretz poll showed that 64% of Israelis favor direct talks with Hamas. This is tough to work out -- since Israel and the U.S. have told Abbas that even he can't bring Hamas into a unity government if he wants a peace deal with Israel (not that Abbas is eager to talk to Hamas, which he isn't).

More soon -- Off to Ramallah.

-- Steve Clemons

There is breaking news that Kevin DiGregory, the top prosecuting attorney in the espionage case against two former AIPAC employees -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- is leaving for a private sector position at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.

Republican Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Larry Craig (R-ID), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) join 19 Democrat Senators on a letter calling for the State Department and Condoleezza Rice to do a full policy review of America's relations toward Cuba. This follows a similar letter sent from the House of Representatives to the executive branch with the signatures of 100 House Members.

Here is a pdf of the Senate letter -- and some other excellent analysis at TWN by guest-blogger Anya Landau French.

Senator Joe Lieberman may be trying to pump up support for John McCain among American Jews and even those in Israel, but a national poll out yesterday showed Hillary Clinton drawing roughly 60% support among Israelis -- and Obama just about 20%. Preference for Democrats over Republicans was huge in the poll -- and John McCain was third in preference behind Clinton and Obama.

What is interesting is that in my meetings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem this week, the center right personalities with whom I am meeting all strongly prefer Hillary Clinton.

Every single one of the center left politicians and thought leaders I have speak to prefers Obama.

But the one fear that the center left has about Obama is that given the constant pounding on him about Muslim identity issues, he won't "be himself" when it comes to helping to broker different outcomes than today's status quo in the Middle East. They fear that he'll be constantly "having to declare himself more Jewish than the Jews, more of an Israeli than Israelis" and thus prove everyone wrong that he is the one to get beyond the "false choice politics" in the region.

Even today, Obama is out telling Jewish leaders that he has never been a Muslim.

Obama is stumbling here and not presenting himself as the transcendent candidate many feel him to be. He may not have been a Muslim -- but it should not matter. He hasn't been a Jew either -- and that shouldn't matter. He is playing into the game of identity politics -- and that is what the center left in Israeli politics fears he may continue to do in the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

Anya Landau French joined the Lexington Institute in February 2008 as a Senior Fellow, focusing on U.S.-Cuban affairs.

The waiting may soon be over. Today, twenty-four U.S. senators, led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), wrote to Secretary Rice (for letter click here) -- as did 104 members of the House last week--urging a rethink of U.S. policy toward the island of Cuba.

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

While it is highly doubtful that Secretary Rice will have the opportunity to heed their advice in her remaining months in office, Congress may be set to press the issue next year, when there is a new administration to work with.

Majorities in both chambers have repeatedly voted to ease current U.S. restrictions on travel to the island, and have favored facilitating agricultural exports to Cuba. Previously, President Bush strongly opposed any relaxation of U.S. restrictions relating to Cuba, and former Majority Leader Tom Delay was known to make sure any such changes would die in conference.

What might happen next year, when there is a new president and a new Congress?

Most surely, a coalition of largely farm-state Democrats and Republicans will again get behind legislation to ease restrictions on cash transfers and bilateral travel by US exporters and Cuban buyers. But this time, the president might not stand in the way of a one-way export opportunity.

A majority in Congress is also likely to ease new restrictions on Cuban American family travel and remittances to the island, whether by clarifying the 2000 guidelines for categories of allowable travel, or by refusing to fund enforcement against such travel.

While easing family travel restrictions would be considered a humanitarian act, giving preference to one group of travelers would be an untenable position. Lifting the entire (de facto) ban on travel to Cuba remains the swiftest means to extend U.S. influence on the island and preserve all Americans' rights to travel, but it faces determined--minority--opposition in both chambers of Congress.

Yet, such opposition could be overcome, and the next president may not bother (when there are far more pressing matters in play) to veto less-expansive legislation that categorically allows and encourages people-to-people, humanitarian, academic, religious, family, and agricultural export-related travel to Cuba. All such categories of exchanges are already legal, but President Bush curtailed or ended them altogether four years ago by revising the regulations interpreting the law.

What else might the 111th Congress do? Numerous issues sitting on the back burner deserve prompt attention. Certainly there will be interest in oversight of such matters as human and labor rights advocacy, agricultural trade and other economic issues, US AID grantmaking, drug interdiction, military-to-military contacts, the US designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and anti-terrorism cooperation, Cuban intelligence operations in the United States, intellectual property and other rights under signed conventions, settlement of U.S. claims against Cuba, return of fugitives from justice in the U.S. and Cuba, Radio and TV Marti quality and viewership, and environment cooperation to prevent damage to the Florida coastline due to oil exploration in Cuban waters.

The foregoing legislative agenda would mark a clear shift in U.S. policy toward increasing U.S. influence--leverage arguably more potent than sanctions--and protecting U.S. interests relative to Cuba. There is no guarantee that conditions in Cuba will improve as a result of a U.S. policy shift. But no matter what policy the U.S. president stakes out, it is not likely that this Congress, or the next, will put much stock in waiting another fifty years to find out.

-- Anya Landau French

In December, I did some research into how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each used legislative machinery at their disposal in the Senate to get some sense of their "executive abilities". For some reason, I expected Hillary Clinton to be too busy for things like subcommittee hearings and Obama to be drilling in and learning as much as he could because his experience in federal level legislative affairs might be perceived as weak.

I found the opposite -- and discovered that Barack Obama, despite his role as Chairman of the European Subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had not held a single policy hearing during his tenure. In the Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, I found that Clinton had chaired and been actively engaged in a number of hearings during the same period.

When I discovered this, a number of Obama's own foreign policy advisers called me -- and one said, "I am as surprised as you are."

What is important to understand here is not that Obama is somehow weak on policy or performance because he didn't hold any hearings. It raises questions about how he deploys people in an array of different directions simultaneously. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has a huge staff -- and some compensated in part to support his committee responsibilities. He should have held any number of Hearings -- but these should have been organized for him by his staff.

This matter finally came up in the debates -- see below -- and I have to say that I was disappointed in Obama's response that he has been too busy to hold hearings because he was running for the presidency. I think that the best thing he can do now is to make sure that during the next months, his Senate staff organizes some hearings for the Subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, Kosovo, or any number of other subjects.

He needs to take this criticism and turn it around so that as he moves through the primary process, he modifies his management focus to make sure that his "substantive work" -- being paid for by taxpayers in his role in the Senate -- is getting the same attention as his ambition to move into the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm in Israel and Palestine through Saturday -- and am finding some interesting stuff on the internet as I fight jet lag.

First of all, Slate has a fascinating Delegate Counter that allows one to go through all of the states left in the Democratic primary process and plug in assumptions about performance. It distributes the delegates -- and then kicks out totals. I may be doing something wrong -- but I can't seem to get either Clinton or Obama to a win using any realistic figures on how they'll split primary voters.

On another front, I have already held the view that the so-called "success of the surge" may be a function of Enron-like accounting and spin -- and agreed with Andrew Bacevich's recent assessment. But for a more powerful treatment of this -- and a look into how we may be arming our adversaries tomorrow, read Nir Rosen's "The Myth of the Surge" in Rolling Stone.

-- Steve Clemons

Just saw this interesting news. Co-Architect of Bush detainee policies leaving government:

Architect of Bush's Detainee Policies to Step Down

A principal architect of the Bush administration's detainee policies is stepping down, just as military officials gear up for the Guantanamo Bay trial of alleged planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, conspiracy.

Since becoming Defense Department general counsel in 2001, William J. Haynes pushed the Pentagon toward a near-revolution in military law, away from traditional procedures for enemy prisoners and through a series of experiments in detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists outside the Geneva Conventions or domestic law.

Teaming up with like-minded lawyers in the White House and the Justice Department, Mr. Haynes, a Harvard Law School graduate and former Army officer, formed the so-called war council that crafted the administration's legal response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Many of those policies, including establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison, plans for military commission trials and detention of U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants," were new or hadn't been seen for decades.

Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington deserves a vast amount of scrutiny for the role that he has played as Cheney's enabler and as one of the single most important architects of the inappropriate, post-9/11 usurpation of authority by the Bush White House and the "Darkness at Noon" style torture and detainee policies of this administration. One of Addington's partners in Bush's "War Paradigm Council" was William "Jim" Haynes.

I admire State Department Legal Advisor John Bellinger for the role he has played in trying to walk back this administration from the true abyss in its torture, detention, and rendition practices. And now I just hope that he will stay at least a few days longer than David Addington will as the Bush term dwindles down.

-- Steve Clemons

Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy address yesterday that has some great strengths. I disagree with her take on Cuba and find it unfortunate that she can't move to roughly the same position of managed cooperation and conflict with Cuba that she advocates with China.

But then I looked for references to Israel and Palestine -- particularly given my presence this week in In the region and my upcoming meetings with lots of Israeli and Palestinian political and thought leaders about the state of the Annapolis Summit process. Condoleezza Rice, in fact, will be here on Monday doing the same.

But Hillary doesn't say the words "Israel" or "Palestine" in the entire speech. I think that Hillary Clinton gets a lot right in her foreign policy commentary -- particularly the sense she conveys that this is a "discontinuous" or "different" time in American history that requires a changed approach.

I very much liked most of her opening:

We are here at such an extraordinary moment in American history. The stakes have rarely been higher. I've had numerous historians tell me that America's point in our arch of destiny, today is perhaps most similar to the situation confronting President Truman when he became our president and commander in chief.

Dramatic events during this past week have reminded us how volatile our world has become and how essential it is that we have sound strategy and strong leadership. From Kosovo to Cuba, from Iraq to Pakistan, to our embassy being burned in Belgrade, these are some of the most challenging spots on our global map. The world is being transformed with enormous risks and possibilities that we must meet with confidence, optimism, resolution and success.

The next president will inherit all of these global challenges and more from a president who failed to handle them well. A war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq. America's reputation at an all-time low. Countries rushing to acquire nuclear weapons. Crushing poverty that stymies economic and political progress in too many regions of the world. Global warming and global health pandemics. Genocide in Darfur. A rise of borderless, stateless criminal cartels. And the continuing real threat of terrorism here at home and abroad.

But while these stark realities carry dangers, they also bring unprecedented opportunities if we act wisely, if we have the right kind of leadership. There isn't any doubt in my mind that we will not only navigate through these uncharted difficult waters but emerge stronger than ever, reasserting both our leadership and our moral authority.

I part company with Senator Clinton on the importance of "reasserting" leadership and moral authority. I think leadership in the years ahead will be earned and negotiated -- leadership will be more done through seduction than assertion. And our moral authority will rise when we get back to getting the innards of our democratic practices back into shape -- and stop engaging in very heavy-handed, neo-imperialist wars and occupations abroad.

I think that there are two places in the world in which America can "signal" a very quick sea change in the terms of its engagement in global affairs. One of these is ripping away the cocoon protecting the US-Cuba relationship from any change from the Cold War anachronism that it has become. And secondly, definitely laying out the comprehensive process for resolving Israel-Palestine peace. Cuba is easy. Israel/Palestine is tougher -- but it's still one of the most easy dilemmas to logistically solve -- even if a political equilibrium seems very often to exist only in fantasy.

Here are comments of my own that were reported in the Financial Times today:

Steven Clemons, a foreign policy expert at the Washington-based New America Foundation, says loosening trade and travel restrictions with Cuba would be the most effective and low-cost means for the next US president to signal a new way of engaging with the world. He expects little resistance to a policy change among the broader US population as fear of communism fades. "The contradiction between trading with China and Vietnam on the one hand and maintaining the embargo with Cuba on the other is becoming more difficult to sustain," he says.

But with all due respect to Senator Clinton -- who does call for the establishment of serious priorities in her impressive remarks yesterday -- I can't quite believe that she left Israel/Palestine off of the roster.

I have friends in both the Obama and Clinton camps. Those on the Obama side could learn quite a bit from some of the issues Hillary Clinton stresses in this speech. Those in the Clinton camp could learn from Obama's forthrightness in indicating a difference between being pro-Israel and pro-Likud.

I don't believe that the Hillary Clinton camp is purposely ducking Israel-Palestine, at least I hope not -- and I have reason to believe that she might even be a "Nixon Goes to China" type on finally resolving this epic dispute. I know I will hear protests about this, but I've talked about this issue with Bill Clinton at some length and more briefly Hillary Clinton and have been told that getting a real deal done quickly would be a high priority after election. I actually do believe this to be the case.

But still -- was it an oversight not to even mention Israel/Palestine? Or on purpose?

-- Steve Clemons

I more than anyone else I've read have spoken out strongly against the Obama campaign's promulgation of "identity and mystique politics" -- that he by his unique upbringing and exposure to different cultures and the like would bring a radically different decision-making calculus to modern American statecraft.

I'm a wonk -- and I appreciate solid policy analysis and ideas. I think rather than resorting to mysticism that there is much in Obama's profile that shows an ability to requisition smart thinking and organize the building blocks of policy differently than has been done in the past. He showed this on Cuba to some degree. I wish he'd be more expansive. And there is some that I would like to criticize him for -- as I have on his health care plan.

But the smear campaign currently underway designed to spread the fear that Barack Obama will somehow be a portal for all things alien, al Qaeda-connected, Muslim related, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish is wrong. I fear that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg of what those who want to push "high-fear buttons" will try and do to slime Barack Obama.

If the Clinton campaign is behind this, it should stop -- and apologize. This kind of innuendo defiles what is good and great about America. . .or what is left of the good part. (Clinton camp denies involvement.)

But I think that the McCain camp as well as many of those not part of any of the campaigns but motivated by a neo-strand of American nativist bigotry will try and swift boat Obama's unique lineage, about which he should be proud.

It's a gross part of American politics, and I have a feeling that this bigotry will backfire on those purveying it.

But here's a question for the Ohio debates that should be posed to both candidates:

DO YOU HILLARY CLINTON -- AND BARACK OBAMA -- HAVE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL WITH A MUSLIM SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

That's what it boils down to -- so let's put it out there. I want a Muslim to be President of the U.S. to demystify the issue. I'd like to see a Jew as President -- and a Buddhist. Perhaps one day we can get some agnostics and atheists in office too.

When Barack Obama was asked about his religion in the past in debates -- he quickly got defensive and talked about his Christian views, faith, and upbringing. I think Barack Obama should be able to celebrate his Christian faith -- but I would have loved to have seen him embrace the ability of any American citizen of any faith aspire to the presidency.

And I think Hillary Clinton and John McCain should embrace the same. And if not -- if they can't see Muslims on the Supreme Court, in the Senate and the House, as Governors, as scholars, as firemen and county clerks, as whatever they can be in our free society -- then they are promulgating a racism that is Un-American.

Zalmay Khalilzad is a Muslim and is Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations -- and he's doing a darn good job in my view -- given the circumstances.

It's time that our candidates stop trying to surreptitiously slime each other -- and frankly -- they should all be compelled in public to either embrace all religions -- including those of Muslim belief and background -- or to spit on it so that all can see.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm way behind in my movies this year. Been too busy blogging!

But I have special interest this year in two films -- one directed by Charles Ferguson called No End in Sight -- Alex Gibney is one of the executive producers. An incredible documentary on the horrific management of the Iraq occupation. Here are some of my thoughts on this film earlier in the year.

And another is Alex Gibney's film Taxi to the Dark Side -- which has Sidney Blumenthal as one of the executive producers. I wrote about this film recently.

Former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson appears in both -- and I think that the country needs to see and digest each of these films. Good luck to all.

-- Steve Clemons

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)

Blogs are strange beasts on occasion. By noting that I thought that Barack Obama's "Harry and Louise II" ads were despicable and calling for him to apologize -- predictably, I got a number of emails accusing me of bias towards Hillary Clinton. These folks apparently haven't paid much attention to my commentary about Obama vs HRC on Cuba, or Hillary's vote on the IRGC Kyl/Lieberman amendment, or more recently -- my view that the race is essentially over and that Obama has most likely won the Democratic nomination and that a different kind of struggle is taking place at the moment.

But let's set all that aside. On a policy basis, I completely agree with Hillary Clinton's perspective on health care -- and I entirely disagree that Barack Obama's plan achieves universal coverage or can even aspire to because of the high cost of covering American citizens on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum without inclusion of the middle class Americans who can afford insurance but elect not to get it.

This is a disagreement. There are other matters I disagree with Obama and Clinton about -- and other things that get my applause and support.

But the Harry and Louise ads have also turned the stomachs of many of Obama's own policy staff. They are controversial -- and he should hear from those of in civil society that they harm his profile.

For those who argue that turnabout is fair play and that the Clintons should be apologizing for things they have done before Obama does, fine. Chase that windmill. I think that the Clintons have done a number of things wrong -- and that were unsavory -- but guess what? They are losing this race. . .

This isn't about the Clintons and what they have done or not done to Obama. It is the signal that Barack Obama, who I think will be the Democratic nominee, is sending about the politics of health care coverage.

I am a huge fan of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle -- who has campaigned harder for Barack Obama than just about everyone except Barack's wife Michelle.

I recently received Daschle's excellent new book out this weekend in bookstores titled CRITICAL: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis. I think that Daschle's thinking about health care and the gridlocked politics in the debate are essential reading.

But I found this clip in his final chapter worth emphasizing:

If the next president is dedicated to reform, he or she can use the formidable power of the White House to create a sense of urgency on this issue and forge a consensus on how to move forward. This means going on the offensive; we cannot wait for the next "Harry and Louise" ad to define the debate. We cannot assume that the public recognizes the distortions and fallacies peddled by reform opponents; we have to educate people on the emptiness of antireform rhetoric.

Tom Daschle supports Barack Obama -- and I know Obama takes Daschle and his views very seriously. Something tells me that this "Harry and Louise II" ad is not real Obama but is being driven by other string-pullers in his campaign. I hope I'm not wrong about this.

In any case, I think that people need to look beyond the tit-for-tat gaming between Obama and Clinton and get their heads around the policy parameters at stake. Some who support Obama's position think that the politics of wage garnishing is a loser. Those who support true universal coverage say that there can't be a loophole for those without coverage to just free-ride the system until they are sick. These are the terms of debate.

But in this case, I think Tom Daschle sets the right tone -- and it's the tone that both candidates should seek to achieve.

-- Steve Clemons

To the degree that Hillary Clinton is still really pursuing an upset in Texas and Ohio and not in fact negotiating for other positions in Obamaland, this polling data from the Des Moines Register is going to be hard to shake off.

The poll finds the following in possible pairing in the November presidential race:

Obama 53% - McCain 36%

Clinton 40% - McCain 49%

These are snapshots now. Numbers can change dramatically as a race nears -- as we have seen in the Obama-Clinton race. This snapshot is of just one state as well.

But the hill keeps getting steeper and steeper for the Clinton team.

All this said, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in Barack Obama's use of the "Harry and Louise II" ads criticizing Hillary Clinton's health care policy proposals. For me, it's one of the very low points in this race. Obama should pull the ads and apologize.

-- Steve Clemons

A friend, John McAuliff, has a letter in the New York Times today in response to a very good editorial the Tims ran last week titled "Twilight of the Dictators: And a Chance for Cuba -- and the U.S."

McAuliff reminds that before Bush tightened restrictions on Cuba by executive order in 2004, non-tourist people-to-people initiatives were on the upswing. These were choked off by Bush.

I think that this represents the minimum base-line that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should speak to when discussing taking US-Cuba relations a different direction. It's one thing to talk about opening family-related travel and increasing the amount allowed in remittances of Cuban-American families to their relatives in Cuba. It's another not to even talk about restoring what existed before George Bush began paying off the elders in Miami's exile community for their role in manipulating Florida's election results in 2000.

Hillary Clinton needs to do a serious "full policy review" of her Cuba position -- and Obama needs to go farther than he already has. The benchmark that existed in 2003 should be a minimum start in this process.

Monday evening, I'm taking off for Tel Aviv and will be spending the balance of the week in Ramallah, Jerusalem and perhaps Jericho. I'll be reporting back on what folks see as the real state of play on the Annapolis Summit Israel/Palestine peace effort.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, 11:45 am Mountain Time, 1:45 pm EST, I'll be on "Action Point with Cynthia Black" discussing Fidel Castro's announcement that he is stepping down as Cuba's president and the impact this news may have on US-Cuba relations and our presidential politics.

Word is that today at 2:30 pm EST, the Cuban government will air live the announcement of the decision of its National Assembly leadership as to who the next President of Cuba will be.

-- Steve Clemons