You Go, Girl

Patricia Kelly puts Maureen Dowd in her place for comparing George W. Bush to her late husband, the utterly incomparable Gene Kelly:

To the Editor:

Re ”Soft Shoe in Hard Times” (column, March 16):

Surely it must have been a slip for Maureen Dowd to align the artistry of my late husband, Gene Kelly, with the president’s clumsy performances. To suggest that ”George Bush has turned into Gene Kelly” represents not only an implausible transformation but a considerable slight. If Gene were in a grave, he would have turned over in it.

When Gene was compared to the grace and agility of Jack Dempsey, Wayne Gretzky and Willie Mays, he was delighted. But to be linked with a clunker — particularly one he would consider inept and demoralizing — would have sent him reeling.

Graduated with a degree in economics from Pitt, Gene was not only a gifted dancer, director and choreographer, he was also a most civilized man. He spoke multiple languages; wrote poetry; studied history; understood the projections of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. He did the Sunday Times crossword in ink. Exceedingly articulate, Gene often conveyed more through movement than others manage with words.

Sadly, President Bush fails to communicate meaningfully with either. For George Bush to become Gene Kelly would require impossible leaps in creativity, erudition and humility.

Patricia Ward Kelly
Los Angeles, March 16, 2008

Here is the real thing. Enjoy. Thanks, Nicole Belle.

Governor Clinton?

That’s what some unnamed “Democratic Party insiders” are floating as a “consolation prize” that might convince Hillary Clinton to drop her presidential aspirations, according to Jonathan Alter in Newsweek.

Joe Gandelman aptly remarks that the story’s legitimacy depends on its provenance:

The key to this story is: who sourced it? Did it come from someone sympathetic to the Clinton campaign or a Clinton associate? Or did it come from someone close to the Obama campaign, or Democrats who never really liked Clinton and want her out now ASAP both due the political train-wreck-in-Denver scenario that seems closer every day and the fact that they never really supported her anyway?

It’s not a small question. Because if the story is based on sources that didn’t like Clinton, then it should also be seen as part and parcel of the ongoing attempt to have her quit the race early. For the early part of the campaign the motif was Clinton’s “inevitability.” In this phase, in many quarters, it’s Obama’s “inevitability.”

Hmmm, wonder if Patrick Leahy is one of those “Democratic insiders”?

Memo to Ralph Nader: It’s not about whether it’s Clinton’s right to run; it’s whether Clinton is right to run at this point. Is she doing the right thing for the Democratic Party and for the country as a whole? Is she doing the right thing for herself when it comes right down to it.

And since we all know this latest piece of self-indulgent crap is really about you, and not about Clinton, let me just add that all of the above applies to the Nader/Gonzalez ’08 campaign.

Americans Are Hungry for What Obama’s Got

And that’s integrity. I blogged the other day about this Pew Research Center poll, which shows that Obama has gotten through the Wright controversy without any serious damage. That good news is in Section 1 of the poll report.

Now, I want to focus on Section 5 of the report, which measures “political values, traits and emotions” as they connect with voters’ views of the two Democratic candidates. There is some very good news in there for Obama that has largely escaped press notice:

Solid majorities of all Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters describe Clinton and Obama as inspiring, honest, down-to-earth, and patriotic. In addition, most say both candidates have made them feel hopeful and proud. But Democratic voters are considerably more likely to attribute positive traits to Obama than to Clinton, while negative traits are more often associated with Clinton.

About eight-in-ten Democratic voters say Barack Obama is down-to-earth (82%), inspiring (82%), and honest (80%). By comparison, about two-thirds see Hillary Clinton as inspiring (66%) and honest (65%) and slightly fewer say she is down-to-earth (62%). …

Even on patriotism, where Clinton edges Obama out at 86% positive for that quality, Obama still gets 78%.

Results do vary by gender and race:

… About two-thirds of Democratic and Democratic-leaning women (68%) say Clinton has made them feel proud. By contrast, just 42% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning men say the same. Women are also much more likely than men to say Clinton is inspiring (72% vs. 57%), honest (69% vs. 59%), and down-to-earth (69% vs. 51%), and to say that Clinton has made them feel hopeful (70% vs. 52%).

Similarly, African Americans and whites express significantly different opinions about Barack Obama. Fully 82% of black Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters say Obama has made them feel proud, but just over half of white Democrats (53%) express this view. And while overwhelming majorities of white Democratic voters say Obama is inspiring (80%) and down-to-earth (78%), and that he makes them feel hopeful (68%), even greater shares of blacks attribute these characteristics to Obama (92% inspiring, 92% down-to-earth, and 87% hopeful).

Clinton’s negative ratings are particularly high when it comes to voters’ perceptions of her sincerity and likability:

Most Democratic voters do not associate negative traits and emotions with either of their party’s candidates, but about three-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (29%) say the word phony describes Clinton, and about as many say she has made them feel uneasy (30%) and angry (32%). Moreover, fully 39% of democratic voters describe Clinton as hard to like. Fewer Democratic voters describe Barack Obama as phony (14%) or hard to like (13%), but larger minorities say he has made them feel angry (19%) and uneasy (25%). White Democratic voters are much more likely than blacks to say Obama has made them feel uneasy (29% vs. 7%).

We can debate the significance of these showings, but I really liked Kyle Moore’s take, which he shared with me in an e-mail:

This is essentially political capital at its rawest form. Obama has a surplus, and Hillary is already starting out with a deficit; I think the only number she is appreciably over fifty on is patriotism. This is really not good for her because the way her campaign is being run those traits are going to continue to slide outside of her favor.

Given that the two candidates have similar positions on many of the substantive issues, political capital is going to be a crucial factor.

From the Folks Who Brought You the Surge

… comes the civil war in Iraq that wasn’t a civil war, but is now over:

To commence the discussion to show us all “The Way Ahead” in Iraq, here is the very first thing that Fred Kagan said:

The first thing I want to say is that: The Civil War in Iraq is over. And until the American domestic political debate catches up with that fact, we are going to have a very hard time discussing Iraq on the basis of reality.

Really?

Fred Kagan, 4/3/06, The Weekly Standard: “the fact is that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq.”

Fred Kagan, 3/24/08: “The civil war in Iraq is over.”

No evidence I can see that he acknowledged the existence of a civil war between those two dates.

So, according to Fred Kagan, a civil war that he said did not exist is now over.

Only it isn’t.

Heavy fighting between government troops and members of al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army continued late Wednesday in the southern city of Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city and a major oil port, a provincial official said.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is leading the operation personally, his office said, with U.S. and British troops playing support roles.

The fighting threatens to unravel a seven-month cease-fire with al-Sadr’s supporters. U.S. commanders credit it with tamping down Iraq’s sectarian warfare.

Glenn again:

Should a person endlessly holding himself out as the premiere expert on Iraq have been able to foresee, or at least anticipate the possibility of, the horrific events that would unfold less than 24 hours later? Even if one wants to be generous on that question, the real point is that people like Fred Kagan have spent the last five years issuing emphatic happy talk to the American population in order to keep them pacified about Endless Occupation there, even though they either (a) have no idea what they’re talking about or (b) know full well that what they are saying is baseless and false.

The White House was ready with an explanation for the renewed violence:

… the administration has gone on a desperate PR blitz to label renewed violence in Iraq as “byproduct of the success of the surge.” “It’s “what critics have wanted to see,” said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, calling it a struggle led by Iraqi security forces.

Today — as rockets rain down on the Green Zone and two American soldiers died — Bush cast the activity as a “very positive moment” in an interview with the Times of U.K.:

[Bush] backed the Iraqi Government’s decision to “respond forcefully” to the spiralling violence by “criminal elements” and Shia extremists in Basra. “It was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law,” the President said.

It’s hard to see what Bush sees as positive. The explosion that burst an oil pipeline in Basra today? Tens of thousands of Shiite protesters in Baghad? A kidnapped “civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation?”

According to the Pentagon, “… the fighting in Basra between government troops and Shiite militiamen is a good sign because it shows the Iraqi government’s resolve and its newfound ability to take on its problems.”

No, actually, the fighting is part of that civil war thingie — the civil war that Fred Kagan said was over, two years after he said it didn’t exist.

The “good guys versus bad guys” narrative is an oversimplification:

This is the take of Anthony Cordesman, the insightful national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cordesman urges those trying to understand the current turmoil in Basra and elsewhere to avoid oversimplifying the current fighting into a good guys versus bad guys dynamic. In the analysis below, Cordesman refers to the Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM, also known as the Mahdi Army, which is al-Sadr’s group and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Shiite cleric Abul Azziz al-Hakim

Much of the current coverage of the fighting in the south assumes that Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr militia are the “spoilers,” or bad guys, and that the government forces are the legitimate side and bringing order. This can be a dangerous oversimplification. There is no question that many elements of the JAM have been guilty of sectarian cleansing, and that the Sadr movement in general is hostile to the US and is seeking to enhance Muqtada al-Sadr’s political power. There is also no doubt that the extreme rogue elements in the JAM have continued acts of violence in spite of the ceasefire, and that some have ties to Iran. No one should romanticize the Sadr movement, understate the risks it presents, or ignore the actions of the extreme elements of the JAM.

But no one should romanticize Maliki, Al Dawa, or the Hakim faction/ISCI. The current fighting is as much a power struggle for control of the south, and the Shi’ite parts of Baghdad and the rest of the country, as an effort to establish central government authority and legitimate rule.

Juan Cole thinks that the power struggle boiled over when a specific date was set for provincial elections:

… My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists [c]oming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists’ paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. …

The Sadrists, of course, are fully aware that Maliki’s government is trying to get rid of them before the elections. Patrick Cockburn describes the “splitting apart” of Iraq’s Shiite community:

A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad.

Heavy fighting engulfed Iraq’s two largest cities and spread to other towns yesterday as the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave fighters of the Mehdi Army, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, 72 hours to surrender their weapons.

The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq’s majority Shia community – which replaced Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime – is splitting apart for the first time.

Mr Sadr’s followers believe the government is trying to eliminate them before elections in southern Iraq later this year, which they are expected to win.

Huge demonstrations against the assault took place in Sadr City:

On Thursday, medical officials in Basra said the toll in the fighting there had risen to about 100 dead and 500 wounded, including civilians, militiamen and members of the security forces. An Iraqi employee of The New York Times, driving on the main road between Basra and Nasiriya, observed numerous civilian cars with coffins strapped to the roofs, apparently heading to Shiite cemeteries to the north.

Violence also broke out in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kirkuk, Baquba and other cities. In Baghdad, where explosions shook the city throughout the day, American officials said 11 rockets struck the Green Zone, killing an unidentified American government worker, the second this week.
[…]
Thousands of demonstrators in Sadr City on Thursday denounced Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who has personally directed the Basra operation, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite cleric who leads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a political party that is a crucial member of the coalition keeping Mr. Maliki in power.

The Bush administration wants to stay on Sadr’s good side and support Maliki’s assault on the Sadrists at the same time, but the only way they can think of to do that is to twist reality:

The showdown has placed Iraqi and U.S. officials in an awkward position. Both have described the crackdown by Iraqi security forces as a sign of Maliki’s determination to stabilize areas plagued by fighting between rival Shiite militias. But they also say Sadr’s fighters are not the problem, despite his militia’s role in such unrest. Mollifying Sadr is crucial to his continuing the cease-fire, which is credited with helping reduce violence nationwide.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip Reeker blamed the violence on a “subset” of the Mahdi Army.

“They really are essentially criminal militias, and they are the ones that have been the difficulty in Basra,” said Reeker, who used the honorific “sayyid” in reference to Sadr, a sign of the United States’ attempts to remain on relatively good terms with him.

Nobody is buying that merchandise:

“They made this crisis because the Sadr movement, they feel, will be an obstacle in the upcoming elections. They feel they won’t succeed in the elections,” said Abu Ali, a Mahdi Army member in Sadr City. The Baghdad slum is a stronghold of Sadr, and thousands there took part in Thursday’s marches.

Ali said violence would soar if Maliki did not halt the operation and meet Sadr’s demands for negotiations. “We will be more determined. Enough humiliation,” he said.

A CNN article uses the word “lockdown” to describe Baghdad:

Baghdad was on virtual lockdown Friday as a tough new curfew ordered everyone off the streets of the Iraqi capital and five other cities until 5 p.m. Sunday.

That restriction didn’t stop someone from firing rockets and mortar rounds into the capital’s heavily fortified International Zone, commonly known as the Green Zone. One slammed into the office of one of Iraq’s vice presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, killing two guards.

At least 14 people were killed and 61 wounded Friday during clashes between Iraqi security forces and insurgents in Sadr City, a Shiite stronghold in Baghdad, the Interior Ministry said.

Some of the deaths resulted from U.S. airstrikes, which have been supporting Iraqi ground fighting.

This McClatchy article from Wednesday gives a sense of the carnage — and the U.S. military’s participation in it:

With the United States providing air cover and embedded advisers, the Iraqi government on Wednesday expanded its offensive against Shiite Muslim militias from the port city of Basra to the capital of Baghdad — and many of the provinces in between.

The day saw street battles in Baghdad and Basra, mortar attacks by Shiite rebels against Baghdad’s Green Zone, bombing by U.S. aircraft and encounters that left government tanks in flames. More than 97 people were reported killed and hundreds were wounded since the operation began early Tuesday.

In Baghdad, at least nine Iraqi civilians were killed and 42 were wounded in mortar attacks, police said. The Mahdi Army, loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, opened fire on civilians in downtown Baghdad and clashed with Iraqi security forces in Kadhemiya in north Baghdad.

In Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City neighborhood, clashes between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces supported by U.S. forces left at least 20 dead and 115 were injured. By early afternoon, people took to the streets in protest of the Iraqi government.

Need some encouraging news? That’s coming up in the next post. Stay tuned.

Thought of the Day

A smile is the lighting system of the face,

the cooling system of the head

and the heating system of the heart.

Anonymous