I'm still the kind of American policy wonk who is too jaded to get swept in the obvious emotional vibe in this video of superstar entertainers supporting Barack Obama -- but nonetheless I think that the concept is interesting and powerful.

Joe Klein sent the clip my way. Just FYI.

-- Steve Clemons

Want to know how it feels to be a young journalist passionate about covering one of the exotic countries of the era -- like Pakistan -- and then be deported?

Deportation is scary, as is brushing up against the very real thuggishness of military and intelligence services in Pakistan.

But this is Nicholas Schmidle's story -- which he tells in a piece coming out tomorrow in the Outlook pages of the Washington Post, "Pakistan Kicked Me Out."

Schmidle's treatment reads like a segment of a Pakistan remake of The Year of Living Dangerously.

Nicholas Schmidle, a blonde-haired adventurer journalist and son of a well respected Marine general, grabbed his young wife and said lets have a honeymoon that won't stop living together in Pakistan and reporting from there. . .and off they went, until he became the first American journalist deported from Pakistan in years.

Schmidle had just published this piece in the New York Times Magazine titled "Next Gen Taliban," as well as some dispatches for Slate.com.

Schmidle contacted me from Pakistan when he was being forcefully pushed out of the country, despite General Musharraf's assurances only days earlier that the foreign media were free to report anything in the country and to travel anywhere and everywhere.

Schmidle spoke at the New America Foundation (video above) along with Peter Bergen, Steve Coll, Flynt Leverett, and myself and then did a bloggingheads discussion -- or diavlog -- with me that is worth watching, even though it's been a few weeks since we did it.

I also have copies of the deportation order given to Schmidle and his wife (here is the pdf) -- though the Pakistan government now states it did not issue such an order. It's so interesting how many government officials have read 1984 and now deploy "The Big Lie."

I believe that Pakistan is a tinderbox and one of the most dangerous nations in the world today.

And as briefly discussed in the New America Foundation meeting above, I believe that the US is training special forces units to send in to the Tribal Areas of Pakistan on covert missions to target al Qaeda, Taliban, and other Islamist militant leaders -- and that the chances of George Bush sending in those forces are running about 50-50 right now, which in the odds business on war is high.

Schmidle's story is intriguing and gives a peek into what it takes to penetrate some of the environments we fear so much in the world.

One last comment about Schmidle's piece. The journalist vaguely referred to as having been harassed by Pakistan's military authorities and threatened with being "the next Daniel Pearl" was another New America Foundation/American Strategy Program colleague of mine, Nir Rosen, whose writing on the Middle East is among the most important in the field right now.

-- Steve Clemons

I really like Rachel Maddow and could listen to her all of time if I could give up my addiction to trying to figure out what Dick Cheney and his chief-of-staff David Addington were doing in the shadows every day.

But I'll be discussing politics writ large and how to tell how liberal someone really is or isn't when comparing Democratic candidates. (Hint: The Move On endorsement might be a good market indicator.)

I'll be chatting with Rachel Maddow at 6:30 pm EST at Air America.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I hesitate to write about health care issues at this moment as a colleague of mine is embroiled in a controversy regarding his comments about health insurance policy ads being released by the Obama campaign.

I don't want to go into the controversy or to try and speak on behalf of or defend my colleague other than to say that I very much disagree with the tenor and content of his reported comments on a Clinton campaign conference call. (Len Nichols does offer a statement here on this subject)

That said, I do want to raise an issue about the "choice" question that Senator Obama raised last night in the debate.

And like Senator Obama, I have an open mind on this as well as I don't understand why he thinks that people who are not well off financially would be better off "choosing" not to have health care if in fact he, like Clinton, plans to subsidize the provision of that health insurance.

From my reading of the problem in comprehensive health insurance, "choice" is the problem -- not the fix.

Someone on the road with him should ask Senator Obama if he thinks we should give the elderly the "choice" of being in Medicare.

I received a note this morning from an Obama foot soldier (this may be from a self-appointed follower of Obama rather than an official campaign representative -- I'm not sure) that was sent to me and a good number of other publications and editors. This individual wrote:

Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary and Edwards, but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice!

We as a nation have to decide, do we want to be forced to pay for universal medical insurance, like we are mandated to pay for auto insurance now? Or would we rather have the option of CHOICE -- to be able to decide whether or not we want to buy our medical coverage when we think the time is right?

Barack Obama's plan thoughtfully does not want to put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young, who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it. That is our decision and our choice!

This emphasis on choice by Obama and his followers seems misplaced to me. I don't think he fuly understands why the American health care system is struggling today.

One of the reasons that the health insurance system is failing is that some healthy, young to middle-aged people with the resources to buy insurance are electing not to -- or in your words, their "choice" is not to participate in any insurance at all.

This creates the problem. Choice means that many who are healthy and don't have insurance don't kick into a system that would help subsidize the less well-off economically and those who may be ill. Thus, insurers want to cherry-pick among those they want in their portfolios and want to avoid covering those at the lower end of the spectrum.

Including the non-participants in a comprehensive program would make everyone's costs decline on average, but you need full participation.

Barack Obama is trying to do an honorable thing by putting a plan forward that would cover more Americans -- but he needs to listen to his own words offered in last night's debate. He said that he's not always right and will listen to others. I think he may be wrong on this front -- and his embrace of "choice' may not only inhibit provision of health insurance for the poor but also for others in our society because his system would propogate adverse selection.

I may be wrong as well and have an open mind -- and don't feel as passionately about this as apparently others do. I'd welcome informed comment and thoughtful commentary below on both sides of this question -- and personally, I feel regret for the unfortunate imagery that a colleague of mine used in this policy conversation -- but I don't want to speak for him. He'll do that himself.

But just intellectually and practically on the subject of choice and health insurance, choice seems to me to be part of the problem, not the fix.

-- Steve Clemons

I'll be chatting with Liz Lane of Denver's KGNU along with Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute at 11 am EST about the pending economic stimulus package and the economic priorities of the leading Presidential candidates.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: For those who listened to the interview, this is the link to the forum I moderated titled "As the Economy Screams" featuring economic advisers to the McCain, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns.

I just got an invite from Barack and Michelle Obama to spend Super Tuesday primary night with them in Chicago at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.

I am doing my duties as a pundit for a number of networks that night out of Washington, so I can't go -- but the public and media are invited to this first-come, first-serve event. Tickets are free -- but must be requested in advance through this link.

Doors open to the public at 6 pm.

If I get invited by the Clinton, Huckabee, McCain and/or Romney camps, I'll pass along that info too -- but so far, I've only made the cut with the Obamas. But perhaps you have too.

-- Steve Clemons

The Cold War continues to rage in one last place in the world -- and that is between the United States and Cuba. It makes no sense for a democratic American government to unconstitutionally inhibit the travel of its own citizens to Cuba -- when it has embraced China and Vietnam and is on the way to normalizing relations with North Korea.

One of the protectors of the status quo and a failed American embargo of Cuba is Lincoln Diaz-Balart, one of two Diaz-Balart brothers currently serving as members of the Florida Congressional delegation.

Lincoln and his brother are nephews by former marriage of Fidel Castro -- and any scant investigation of the battle lines in the US-Cuba standoff will show the situation to be something of a nasty, Kentucky-style family spat.

But things are changing. Some of the elders who served on the board or as senior staff of the hawkish Cuban American National Foundation have defected from the pro-embargo Miami cartel against Cuba. Younger generation Cuban-Americans have also departed from the strident position of some of their elders.

And now there is news that Lincoln Diaz-Balart is underperforming in his fundraising and that the popular former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez is gaining some ground in unseating Lincoln, who has too frequently harmed American national interests by not using his influence and networks to change the course of US-Cuba relations rather than promoting a feud that serves only the interests of a small group.

I'm glad to see Raul Martinez putting pressure on him -- and this blog plans to watch this race closely as it may be the first time in a long time that a popular Democrat with more enlightened views on where to take US-Cuba relations might unseat one of the most recalcitrant embargo promoters in Congress.

-- Steve Clemons

My friend Dave Meyer -- one of DC's best political researchers and a co-conspirator on a number of projects with me -- browsed through the scorecard that the National Journal used to produce the result that Senator Barack Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007.

Just for the record, I do think that Barack Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton -- but that said, I don't think that should be considered a negative.

However, Meyer discovered only two scored votes where Obama took the 'liberal position' and Clinton took the 'conservative'.

As Meyer wrote to me:

The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote.

Joining Obama on the 'liberal' side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.

The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19).

Joining Obama on the 'liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

What is interesting and not highlighted by Dave Meyer is that Hillary Clinton had a vote on the Bingaman amendment that would have put her at odds with the Hispanic vote -- and Obama in line with the generally pro-immigrant Hispanic voters. That's a bit of a switch.

-- Steve Clemons

At least thus far, the coalition partner's in Ehud Olmert's current government seemed poised to remain where it is, even after the release of the Winograd Report -- which criticizes the government for its actions and decision-making in the Lebanon War.

I strongly support President Bush's efforts to get some kind of deal track set between Abbas and Olmert on a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. In the current climate, Olmert is probably the best leader Israel has, perhaps other than Foreign Minister Livni, who might be able to deliver politically on a peace arrangement.

There are a lot of obstacles that have to be overcome in the next 11 months, but at least the Winograd Report is in the past now.

-- Steve Clemons

Members of the global steel cartel used to set steel prices at the Duquesne Club where I enjoyed an interesting evening tonight with board members and donors of the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh. My task was to outline some of the fault lines in foreign policy and how this fits into the various campaigns.

I had a great evening with an informed crowd -- but it is a challenge to discuss all of this without getting overly complex, and mired in detail that many who are not foreign policy junkies don't follow. Still, it was great to participate in an exchange and hear the serious questions posed by people not into this 24/7 but who take the challenges now seriously.

Tomorrow I'm meeting students and then doing a World Affairs Council lunch in Pittsburgh before returning to Washington.

Then the day after (Friday) between 11:00 am and 11:30 am EST, I will be chatting with Denver's national public radio station, KGNU, about the various economic proposals of the campaigns which are still standing. The station has live streaming over its site and shows can be downloaded for later listening.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm not sure of this, but my hunch is that Zalmay Khalilzad is probably the highest level Muslim in the Bush administration, and he's brought a skill set of diplomatic dexterity to the Ambassadorial position at the United Nations vacated by John Bolton.

Various UN watchers, international diplomats, and even other colleagues of his inside the White House see that Khalilzad has bolstered America's position and credentials at the United Nations.

But now someone in the White House (and I have a short list of who it might have been) is sniping at Ambassador Khalilzad in a manufactured controversy over Khalilzad sitting beside Iran's foreign minister at a World Economic Forum meeting captured in a YouTube clip.

America negotiated with Iran in stabilizing Afghanistan. America has negotiated with Iran in many different arenas. For one of John Bolton's White House pals to be pounding on Khalilzad for sitting next to Iran's Foreign Minister seems petty.

I have since learned from a source familiar with the Davos meeting that Khalilzad was originally not part of this Iran-focused World Economic Forum meeting and was added at the last moment by the session moderator. That may account for the lack of diplomatic management of panel seating.

Khalilzad's spokesman, Richard Grenell, is quick to point out that Khalilzad and Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki didn't shake hands or meet separately. Grenell told Helene Cooper of the New York Times that Khalilzad was engaged in "just a multilateral conversation with the moderator."

Whatever the truth here, it does seem to me that Khalilzad is positioning himself as an engagement guy, though some close to him assure me that he is not working to undermine America's current "no high level diplomatic contact" posture toward Iran (though I wish he was).

One of the other oddities here is that Condoleezza Rice has not swatted Khalilzad for this seating arrangement/faux pas -- as she did Jay Lefkowitz recently for his comments about North Korea's nuclear program at an AEI event.

The engagers seem to be nudging forward as the pugnacious nationalists in the administration snipe -- but seriously, to go to the New York Times with a seating complaint is quite petty.

One wonders how long the Ambassador will stay in this administration. He seems to be better appreciated by the Davos crowd actually than his colleagues in the White House.

-- Steve Clemons

The Afghanistan Study Group -- co-chaired by General Jim Jones and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering will release its report today in an unusual event in the Senate Dirksen Building.

The Pickering/Jones Afghanistan Study Group report will be issued along with two other Afghanistan reports also to be released today by the Strategic Advisors Group of the Atlantic Council and the National Defense University. The Afghanistan Study Group was launched by the Center for the Study of the Presidency after the completion of the Iraq Study Group report which it also helped sponsor.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) will host the meeting at 2 pm today in Room 419 of the Senate Dirksen Building.

Speakers at the meeting will include Center for the Study of the Presidency CEO David Abshire, General James L. Jones, Atlantic Council President Frederick Kempe, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, and CSIS Senior Advisor Harlan Ullman.

According to the press release, the reports. . .

. . .concur that without prompt actions by the U.S. and its allies, the mission in Afghanistan may fail -- causing severe consequences to U.S. strategic interests worldwide, including the war on terrorism and the future of NATO. The U.S. cannot afford to let Afghanistan continue to be the neglected, or forgotten, war.

I won't be able to attend this today as I'm heading to a forum in Pittsburgh -- but wanted to highlight for others.

-- Steve Clemons

First of all, the Democrats as a party scored big in Florida. Turnout was huge among Democrats -- just truly impressive in a state that knew that it was being neglected by Democratic campaigners for moving the date of its primary ahead of February 5th.

Second, Hillary Clinton -- despite those who say it didn't matter -- scored a win that matters. To some degree, Florida neutralizes the momentum Obama achieved in South Carolina and gets both back to a position where they both have tail winds going into February 5th.

Third, John McCain has now won New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Giuliani is out and giving his loyalty oath to McCain tomorrow morning. Romney is still in -- but he's going to be struggling going into Super Tuesday.

Still much farther to go to know who the finalists will be.

-- Steve Clemons

This is just a great clip on what it's all about. To paraphrase Russ Feingold, it's about the end of liberty. . .

Thanks to Matt Stoller for sending.

-- Steve Clemons

When John McCain lost in 2000 to President Bush, his followers were left to wander in the wilderness during President Bush's first term. They had chosen the wrong horse and Bush's loyalty-obsessed handlers wanted to make the McCain team pay. By the time the second term came around, there was some loosening but not much.

There are stories percolating now that some Dem campaigns are telling others -- "you are with us or you are against us;" "if you help X, then you are dead to us. . .you are nothing;" "you will get no job -- no breaks whatsoever if you help X."

On the Republican side, I've been told by some helping one of the two governors that McCain's team has offered threats that are staggering and at one level, hard to believe -- but I know in at least one case, it happened.

This is bad news folks. If confronted about these kinds of behaviors, I'm sure that all of the candidates would individually disavow them. People could even be fired if they were recorded or reported in any manner that was beyond dispute.

But frankly, the country needs to have the kind of election it is having -- with no heir apparents, no slam dunks, and lots of debate and discussion.

The final four look to me to be Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama. All sides need to be respectful -- and each needs to understand that very decent people with different frames of reference are trying ot make an important choice about who the next president should be. Let them do it -- and respect differences in a civil way.

No one should be threatened or penalized or brow-beaten or harassed to support one candidate over another. Those are tactics deployed by thug regimes -- not America, or at least not the America I want to live in.

-- Steve Clemons

Seven minutes and seven seconds. . .

For those interested, here is a shorter version -- about three and a half minutes long:

-- Steve Clemons

I just had an interesting meeting with a prominent and thoughtful national security expert in Washington. I can't go into any of the details of the meeting, but I am intrigued with the calculation that at least one serious, non-ideological pragmatist in foreign policy is making.

This person's sense is that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would both be the wrong choices for the country. McCain, he/she said, does not have the temperament for the presidency -- and doesn't listen to others and thinks he has most of the answers.

Hillary Clinton too, this person said, brings a group of retainers and pols who think they've done it all before -- and don't understand that tomorrow's challenges are more serious and more complex than any of us have perhaps seen in our lifetimes. According to this policy intellectual, Hillary Clinton's experience led her to affirm the Kyl/Lieberman IRGC amendment, which could have very well been a loophole for another war.

This commentator -- who would not go on the record -- believes that both McCain and Clinton are almost looking for a fight, a contest of wills internationally, to establish their bona fides as strong national security presidents.

But he/she said what was impressive about Obama and Romney is that they both seem to listen, to survey the landscape of perspectives, and judiciously work through the problems. This person has been as put off as I have been by the gut and mystique campaign that some of Obama's followers have been offering in support of him -- though I think it undermines Obama's credibility.

In fairness, I think that both McCain and Clinton have advisers to whom they listen and that they are well qualified and experienced. But the very real challenge for both is that they seem not to have a national security plan or foreign policy vision that would be different than that of President Bush's team.

Continuity of our current foreign policy direction will be highly destructive to America's already faltering global position.

But while I feel it necessary to expose faults and weaknesses in all of the candidates -- particularly in both the Obama and Clinton profiles -- I think it is interesting that a hard-edged, unsentimental national security expert I highly respect sees the strength of open-mindedness in Obama and Mitt Romney.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Someone forwarded me an email to take this American Public Media quiz that would select my preferred candidate based on my policy preferences. It's a very appealing approach to abstract away personalities and nuance and purport to objectively measure candidates simply on the issues. And it appears to be quite popular with 11570 responses last I checked.

But like all empirical research, there's the inevitable mediation of data that injects a set of assumptions, personal interpretations, and delimitation of options, all of which can problematize such a test. And I happened upon a fairly significant one in this test when it came to the candidate's positions on Iran.

The prompt stated:

If you were the commander in chief, would you declare that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and would use any means -- specifically military action, if diplomacy is not successful -- to stop it?

Being the decline-ist, defeatist, apologist I am (my friends attest that I always manage to rationalize the fly in my soup), I prefer not to open up a third front by way of war with Iran.

According to the test, the candidates who appeared to agree with me were Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, and Paul. But I was surprised to find that Obama was not on that list and instead grouped with McCain, Romney, and Giuliani (all of whom have considered the option of a tactical nuclear first-strike).

It's particularly intriguing as Clinton is generally regarded as more hawkish on Iran, especially after her Kyl-Lieberman IRGC vote, and has cast Obama's statements about negotiations with allies as signs of naivete. Obama, on the other hand, is surrounded by and has been praised by a set of foreign policy realists (including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sen. Chuck Hagel) who were pushing back against the Iran hawks even before the declassified NIE.

Moreover, Obama's statements, featured on page one of the New York Times in November of 2007, suggest he's gone to greater lengths than Clinton to detail his diplomatic strategy with Iran -- particularly dropping conditions as a precursor to negotiations as well as shedding the counterproductive regime change language (and policy), both of which inhibit an eventual strategic rapprochement.

Curious about this seeming mischaracterization, I decided to probe further. The test not only shows you how each candidate scores with you on each issue, but also goes offers a tab explaining why they are coded a certain way along with a hyperlink to the hard evidence, in the case of Clinton and Obama's Iran positions, a debate transcript.

For Obama, it states:

ANSWER OPTION: Yes

CANDIDATE'S POSITION: At a debate on 9/26/07, Obama said, "I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran, something that we have not been doing. And, you know, one of the disagreements that we have on this stage is the degree to which the next president is going to have to engage in the sort of personal diplomacy that can bring about a new era in the region. And, you know, that means talking to everybody. We've got to talk to our enemies and not just our friends."

For Clinton, it simply reads:

ANSWER OPTION: No

CANDIDATE'S POSITION: Asked by Tim Russert at a debate on 9/26/07 whether Israel would be justified in a nuclear strike against Iran, Mrs. Clinton said, "Well, Tim, I'm not going to answer that..."

Somehow, not answering is interpreted as being against military action on Iran. But more importantly, that answer was given when Russert asked whether Israel would be justified to take military action against Iran (there was no suggestion of a "nuclear strike"). And this was in the context where Clinton was justifying and supporting Israel's pre-emptive strike on a Syrian facility.

APM or Minnesota Public Radio ought to have another look at this to square it with the seemingly contradictory statements.

I suspect the Obama campaign will not be happy with the mischaracterization of his position on Iran when that is what he touts as one of his significant departures. And I'll bet the Clinton campaign -- trying to sell their candidate as the seasoned veteran with years of foreign policy experience -- would also be unhappy with the impression this leaves that she made the politically naive mistake of taking military options off the table.

-- Sameer Lalwani

Tomorrow (Wednesday) at 2:30 pm, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson will be speaking to the Real Estate Roundtable's State of the Industry Meeting. According to a press release, he will discuss the state of the U.S. economy and the fiscal growth package.

I highly recommend that people watch the first five minutes (and more if you can handle the sound problems -- as the entire panel was stunningly good) of the New America Foundation event video above. During his comments, economist David Hale said that during the early stages of the subprime loan crisis, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke called Hank Paulson 85 times (at 4:05 in the video). Hale said that Bernanke was calling to understand the crisis unfolding because Paulson had helped create the crisis.

Hale's other commentary about the Fed being late to action, not seeing this coming, of sending mixed signals about whether it would raise or lower rates -- is also fascinating to be reminded of. This event took place on November 30, 2007 -- and the fact that Hale, James K. Galbraith, and Zachary Karabell got so much right then in their criticism of the Fed and the Bush administration's policies deserves note.

BUT TOMORROW, someone at the event really should ask Paulson what some of the bullet points were that he shared with Bernanke in those 85 phone calls.

-- Steve Clemons

. . .if not in politics (he says facetiously).

The Washington Post has just launched a new website, The Root, which will attempt to provide a portal for all things cultural and political related to the African-American community. Here is a video intro.

From the Washington Post's announcement:

Conceived by Donald Graham, Chairman of The Washington Post Company and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard and Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, The Root will feature penetrating, lively commentary on political, social and cultural issues, and will showcase the breadth and depth of viewpoints currently shaping black culture. The site will also feature multimedia including slideshows and videos interviews.

"This is an historic endeavor. The Root is one of the world's first web-based magazines dedicated to reporting and commenting upon the interests, concerns and achievements of African Americans and people of African descent throughout the world," said Gates, Editor in Chief of The Root. "Since 1827, black journalists have dreamed of creating a national black newspaper and since W.E.B. Du Bois created The Crisis Magazine in 1910 and John H. Johnson created Ebony in 1945, black people have demonstrated a profound devotion to magazines targeted to their aspirations, dreams and challenges. The Root fulfills both of these goals and through the power of the Internet creates a truly interactive community."

In addition to Gates, Lynette Clemetson joins The Root as Managing Editor from The New York Times. Previously an award-winning national and foreign correspondent for Newsweek magazine, Clemetson has covered race, ethnicity and shifting demographics both in the United States and abroad. Terence Samuel, a top political reporter formerly of U.S. News & World Report and AOL Black Voices, will serve as Deputy Editor of The Root. Associate Editor for the site will be Natalie Hopkinson, former Assignment Editor for The Washington Post's Outlook section.

"The Root resists the notion that there is -- or ever was -- such a thing as a monolithic black community. The Web site will be a forum for true conversation, celebrating the rich mix of voices, issues and points of view that bring nuance and complexity to the black experience. And while the site is committed to topics of special interest to blacks, it is a destination for anyone interested in the dynamic link between history and our collective future," says Clemetson.

Should be interesting to watch how this develops.

-- Steve Clemons

I have friends now addicted to clicking this over and over and over again.

-- Steve Clemons

I just did a video log of my reactions to President Bush's speech last night and will post in a bit -- but my quick bullet point response to the evening included these items:

1. This was Bush's least memorable speech because it may have been his least stridently partisan.

2. On issues of climate change, education, and supporting our military forces with the tools and equipment they need -- Bush has clearly adopted much of the rhetoric of the Democrats. He urged argent action on climate change, even though he popped in some uncomfortable zingers -- like a push on nuclear (which he did with a grin) and a critique of developing nations by saying "no free rides" if we are all going to do our part in cutting greenhouse gases.

3. While his speech didn't have much sizzle, he did profile highly two accomplishments that I think will be remembered by historians as his legacy. Tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. Blurring the lines between religion and government is something I don't support -- but both parties are engaged in this, and Bush will get credit over time for institutionalizing a faith-obsessed trend that probably began with Jimmy Carter and was given a big push by Bill Clinton -- but which George W. Bush made an Olympics sport,

4. The full chamber support that Dems and Republicans gave Bush on Iraq shows to some degree what a seductive guy Bush can be at times. He has convinced Congress that America's goals in Iraq are being met because of the decline in violence and the seeming success of the surge. First of all, I don't buy the outlines of this success if we are achieving results by empowering some Sunni tribal, mafioso-like thugs who detest democracy as well as their fellow-Shiite brethren. But secondly, the surge was supposed to be a tool to reach a political outcome -- not an end in itself, justified within its own context. Bush and Congress were applauding a tactic last night -- not commenting on our strategic success or failures.

5. On Israel/Palestine, which Bush called recklessly the Holy Land, I was pleased to see Bush emphasize the importance of a deal in his speech. He didn't outline how we were going to get to success -- and the absence of some key players in the negotiations process practically assures future convulsions and preempts success -- but still, I'm glad Bush touched on the subject.

Interestingly, when the White House sent out its "State of the Union Highlights" which I posted yesterday evening, Israel/Palestine peace was not on the list.

6. The President mentioned his concerns about genocide and Sudan -- at which point Nancy Pelosi jumped out of her seat clapping strongly and loudly. In contrast, Cheney sat for a bit -- unsure if he should stand or not -- which he finally did.

7. There are many other critiques I could offer -- particularly the absence of a comprehensive global vision of any kind. His cliched and tired comments about "supporting freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma" was just odd and seemed like a check-off strategy for nations that needed to be mentioned. In the case of Cuba, opening up travel -- a Constitutional right of Americans that their government has robbed from them -- would do more to promote awareness and new possibilities of freedom than the administration's failed approach to US-Cuban relations.

8. The oddest thing I saw last night occurred before the speech when Hillary Clinton walked into the chamber and began shaking hands with various Members of Congress sitting around Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama, who themselves were seated together. Kennedy graciously shook Hillary Clinton's hand as did everyone else there -- with the exception of Barack Obama, who just turned away.

I haven't decided whether this slight prickliness that Obama continues to exhibit -- of turning away from her, of pursing his lips as if furious, of reluctantly saying as he did one night in a debate about Clinton "you're likable enough" -- is something I like or not. I want to see some of the more savage and tough-minded qualities of Obama that the Clintons seem to be so good at.

But still the Clintons will shake hands with political rivals like Kennedy.

And Obama -- who says that he is willing to talk to dictators and thugs around the world (something I support) -- seems unwilling, at least last night, to engage Hillary Clinton unless compelled.

-- Steve Clemons

I haven't seen President Bush's speech yet -- just highlights -- though about to watch it tonight. Wolf Blitzer, though, just said that Bush revisits the theme of the "axis of evil" tonight.

Mistake.

Mike Huckabee, responding to Blitzer, just said that we should be pursuing an "Axis of Opportunity" -- not obsessing about an "Axis of Evil." And Huckabee said that the real state of the union is "troubled."

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

According to Andrew Malcolm, Rudy Giuliani dropped a hint that he might drop out of the race -- and then bounced back to say he'd win Florida.

Dems will miss Guiliani I think. He was the best hope that they had of a relatively easy win in November. All of the other candidates -- from Huckabee (who won't win) to McCain and Romney -- are far tougher for either Clinton or Obama.

-- Steve Clemons

This evening, in about 20 minutes, I'll be chatting with Terrence McNally on KPFK Pacifica Radio's Free Forum with Terrence McNally. I'll be up between 8:20 and 8:30 PM EST. Sorry for the late notice.

Just before me, Tom Hayden -- who endorsed Obama today -- will be talking about the elections. After my segment, Mark Weisbrot will be talking about the economy.

-- Steve Clemons

The State of the Union address is a stuffy affair to watch -- unless one is lucky enough to be sitting in the gallery (which I did one year when Bill Clinton was President).

The President often tries to make a point by pointing up at the gallery at some hero, or foreign leader, or wife of some fallen person, or a businessman that deserves recognition for selflessness.

I've already commented on one person on the President's guest roster tonight, but here is the entire list of Presidential guests -- most all of them there to underscore a point in the President's priorities:

State of the Union Excerpts -- 28 January 2008

President George W. Bush -- The White House

As Prepared for Delivery

"The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our Nation long after this session has ended. In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them. And let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time."

On trusting and empowering the American people:

"From expanding opportunity to protecting our country, we have made good progress. Yet we have unfinished business before us, and the American people expect us to get it done. In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our Nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. . .So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures."

On the economy:

"To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy. As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. . .And at kitchen tables across our country, there is concern about our economic future. In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth."

On earmarks:

"The people's trust in their Government is undermined by congressional earmarks. . ."

On housing:

". . .We must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market."

On strengthening No Child Left Behind:

"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance and empower parents to demand results from our schools. In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams -- and a decent education is their only hope of achieving them. Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results. . . Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibility for States and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, and provide extra help for struggling schools. Members of Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents, and their teachers to strengthen this good law."

On the importance of trade:

"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas. Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods, crops, and services all over the world. . . These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers. And they will support good jobs for the finest workers in the world: those whose products say 'Made in the USA.'"

"If we fail to pass this [Colombia free trade] agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life."

On improving our energy security:

"To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."

On combating climate change:

"Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."

On entitlement reform and immigration:

"There are two other pressing challenges that I have raised repeatedly before this body, and that this body has failed to address: entitlement spending and immigration. Every Member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. . .Now I ask Members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and grandchildren."

On the freedom agenda:

"Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals."

On the surge in Iraq:

"Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace. In the last 7 years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. . .And these images of liberty have inspired us. In the past 7 years, we have also seen images that have sobered us. . .[and] serve as a grim reminder: The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule."

"The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw. . .our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return. . .While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just 1 year ago. . ."

". . .Some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

On our 2008 objectives in Iraq:

"Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated, and we can still expect tough fighting ahead. Our objective in the coming year is to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007, while transitioning to the next phase of our strategy. American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission."

On this generation rising to the moment in the war on terror:

"We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America."

On Iran:

"Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you, we respect your traditions and your history, and we look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, and cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."

On the American people:

"The secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our Government, but in the spirit and determination of our people."

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I went off of my computer for just a day and a half while up in Montreal -- and tons of stuff breaks, including Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. This is quite significant but for reasons that may not seem as obvious as the press is promoting.

First of all, Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was inspirational to many clearly -- but it did not move me. I wrote the other day that I thought that the qualities she was celebrating in her iconic and impressive father left some significant pieces of his global perspective out of the picture. But her endorsement is hers to give, and I respect that. Of all the comments that impressed me after my post -- James K. Galbraith's caught my eye the most and made me think.

Galbraith, of course, is the son of famed Kennedy adviser and teacher, John Kenneth Galbraith. Jamie Galbraith, as friends call him, is one of the nation's sharpest economic minds, a progressive, and an adviser to John Edwards. He suggests that Kennedy, had he lived, might have taken steps to end the Vietnam conflict and to take America's direction in global affairs an alternative route. Arthur Schlesinger has suggested the same in his writings -- but while I acknowledge the possibility, much more of Kennedy's actual written commentary and his policy decisions seem to be consistent with him being a Cold War hawk. He was not as far over as Nixon or a John Foster Dulles -- but he was a hard-edged warrior when it came to the perceived battle going on globally between communism and democracy.

But back to the Kennedy clan.

Ted Kennedy has the largest machine in the Democratic Party. When I used to work in the Senate, I marveled at the Kennedy franchise -- at the number of people who had started with Kennedy, who then went on to different positions in government and the private sector, and then came back for his annual "friends only" Holiday Party at which he and his wife always showed up in some extremely cool but outrageous attire (I was there for Beauty and the Kennedy Beast). There were thousands upon thousands at this close friends' party.

The Clintons have a franchise of course. So does Joe Biden and Daschle and John Breaux. But the Kennedy empire is enormous -- and when Tom DeLay tried to stop the hiring of Democrats by K Street, it was Ted Kennedy's machine and his acolytes that he was really trying to hurt.

So this endorsement by Kennedy does have magnitude -- and bolsters Obama's position. The Clinton machine remains formidable and nationally deployed -- and may still have an edge. But there is no doubt that Kennedy's endorsement is not about Massachusetts nor about an aging white liberal -- it is about the thousands and thousands of followers who owe their careers to Ted Kennedy.

This is also about machine politics -- and Kennedy wants his machine to continue to thrive and to have major impact on the course of American policy and politics (and also wants his people to get jobs).

The Clinton franchise could never really be true to the Kennedy machine -- Bill and Hillary have their own many thousands of followers beholden to them.

Obama is fresh enough and new enough that he doesn't have such a machine; now Kennedy has gifted Obama an enormous vehicle which Kennedy hopes Obama will take as his own and keep intact.

On the State of the Union, I'll be watching. I've already been directed to one piece of pandering that I'm not thrilled with regarding the mother of a prisoner in Cuba. This is meant to remind the more fanatical Cuban-Americans in Miami who their patron in Washington is.

The reference (with all due respect to Mrs. Gonzalez referenced below who in my view is being exploited by Bush and other politicians) is to one of President Bush's guests tonight at the State of the Union. This from the White House press release:

-- Blanca Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Fla. She is the mother of Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, a Cuban political prisoner arrested in He has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for reporting on the conditions of Cuba's state-run services and for criticizing the government's management

These kinds of emotional push-buttons are designed to keep the entire United States of America from doing what is in its national interests, and its a disturbing trend in politics -- complete pandering.

In other news, Lou Ann Linehan -- the very capable Chief of Staff to Senator Chuck Hagel and former high-powered liaison between the State Department and Congress -- is stepping down from her position to survey the political landscape. I happen to know that Hagel supports her and wanted her to stay. But Mike Buttry, Communications Director for Hagel, will now become Chief of Staff -- and Rexon Ryu, formerly one of many on a long roster of victims of John Bolton's harassment at the State Department Intelligence & Research Division, is the new Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Foreign Policy Adviser.

The last thing I'll add is that DC has yet another political rag to work through -- and this one looks interesting. It's called The Washington Independent.

I know nothing about it yet -- other than it is allegedly progressive and already features the work of Holly Yeager, a great writer who previously worked with the Financial Times and whose husband is the well known political oracle Mark Schmitt.

Mark Goldberg and I had a chat about the Law of the Sea Convention and treaty politics in general over at Bloggingheads. There are lots of moving parts right now regarding the Law of the Sea, some of which I hope to report on later.

-- Scott Paul

photo illustration by Kevin Van Aelst; reprinted with permission from the New York Times

My New America Foundation colleague Parag Khanna has a vital article out today in the New York Times Magazine titled "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony."

While scenarios of the world's geostrategic and geopolitical future are proliferating today not only i Khanna's essay but in other provocative articles like "After Iraq" by Jeffrey Goldberg, Khanna's comprehensive approach to the question of America's future makes a great deal of sense to me.

What I like most is that he articulates what I've been sensing for some time in the global marketplace of power. Other nations aren't going to count on America's guarantees quite as much as before. They are filling the void of America's perceived decline with their own plans and pretensions and gambling that tomorrow's future will be far more fluid than yesterday's -- and that some of America's allies and foes will be able to surf this lack of global equilibrium into a better position.

Khanna perceptively writes:

At best, America's unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war "peace dividend" was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership.

So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing -- and losing -- in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world's other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules -- their own rules -- without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.

The more we appreciate the differences among the American, European and Chinese worldviews, the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. The cold war, too, was not truly an "East-West" struggle; it remained essentially a contest over Europe. What we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational, multipolar battle.

I particularly liked Khanna's treatment of trends in Asia:

Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia's rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged.

Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America's economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle -- of which China sits at the center -- has surpassed trade across the Pacific.

At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America's grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country -- friend of America's or not -- wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance.

And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries -- the so-called Stans -- China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the "NATO of the East."

Khanna's depiction of what is coming next is essential reading and gives one an informed snapshot of the mess that America will have in tomorrow's world.

Much of what Khanna describes would have happened over time regardless of the failure of both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to put America on a more enlightened and constructive track at the end of the Cold War. But as Charles Kupchan, author of The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century, has told me many times -- "President Bush sped up history and made what would have taken a couple of decades happen in just a few years."

For those who want more, I highly recommend Parag Khann's book which will be out in March, The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order

-- Steve Clemons

The only thing I can tell definitively after the South Carolina Democratic primary is that John Edwards is out, but I thought that before. But not winning in the state of his birth pretty much seals the deal that Edwards will not live in the White House, at least not next year.

Barack Obama had a big win in South Carolina. For those who support him -- this victory was huge. Some are saying he took and handled everything the Clinton machine threw at him and prevailed. Maybe so. When I see that 80% of the African-American vote went to Obama, I can't help but think that this may be a negative in attracting Hispanic votes -- and it is the Hispanic voter that is increasing in weight in the country. Some suggest that a candidate who draws heavily from the African-American vote will lose the Hispanic vote, and vice versa.

We'll see. And the Hillary Clinton people say that they knew this was going to happen in South Carolina and thus sent her off to prepare for February 5th.

I think that the battle is looking very close -- and that Denver should be fun. I'm going to get my accommodations lined up now.

One last note on something that makes me feel very uncomfortable. Caroline Kennedy endorses Barack Obama today in an op-ed titled "A President Like My Father" and promulgates more of the ethereal mysticism about Obama being the new JFK. I won't challenge Kennedy's own preferences or her own assessment of her dad's contributions to national life.

But I will say that JFK, as significant a leader as he was, was a hard core Cold War hawk. He approved the invasion of other nations and approved of regime change as a tool of American foreign policy. While in the end, his intellect and the assembled high quality intellectuals he had around him kept the world from falling into a nuclear catastrophe with the Soviet Union, it was Kennedy's youthfulness and his combination of hawkishness and Wilsonian rhetoric that helped precipitate a number of crises.

Messing with the memory of any icon like JFK has its dangers -- but while Caroline Kennedy may not want to feature these parts of her father's legacy in her endorsement of Obama, I feel I must note them. Obama is a compelling candidate who must know that gravity operates even in the White House.

Mysticism and gut will not assure our allies, deter our foes, restore confidence among our citizens, or make America regain its unique national and international character again.

-- Steve Clemons

My friend and New America Foundation colleague Peter Bergen will always be remembered as the guy who found Osama bin Laden and arranged a famous CNN interview of him when the CIA couldn't find him. Bergen has written two important books about bin Laden and al Qaeda titled Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden and The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader.

While Peter was born in Minneapolis, he has a British accent more distinctive than many Brits and comes off as some kind of grunge-era 007 with very hip musical tastes. Most of the world knows Bergen as CNN's terrorism analyst, particularly when anything bin Laden-esque surfaces.

That's why I found it amusing that today in the New York Times Book Review, Chris Suellentrop notes that Patrick Buchanan refers twice to Bergen in his new book as Peter Burger.

This is not to say, however, that the book is awful. Buchanan can write, and he knows how to provoke. His foreign policy prescriptions -- withdraw from NATO, abandon our commitments to Taiwan and South Korea and pretty much everywhere else in the world -- are not likely to be adopted by the nominee of either major party in 2008, but he presents them forcefully and often persuasively.

They deserve a wider hearing in American politics than they are currently given, if only to challenge the adherents of the prevailing orthodoxy to question their assumptions (although it doesn't bolster Buchanan's bona fides as a terrorism expert when he twice refers to Peter Bergen, the author of "Holy War Inc." and "The Osama bin Laden I Know," as Peter "Burger").

The name is Bergen. . .Peter Bergen.

-- Steve Clemons