What to make of all this?

Quite an eventful week in American politics. The Democratic love-in got off to a bit of a slow start, but thanks to deft speeches by Mr and Mrs. Clinton, a surprisingly lively one from John Kerry, and an effective, if not overly "inspiring" address by the candidate for the Presidency himself, the Dems had themselves a pretty great convention.

Barry's speech at INVESCO field on the final evening was actually quite impressive, and even a bit reassuring, salted as it was with policy details instead of windy rhetoric. For those who were wary of the young first-term Senator from Illinois, with his messianic pretentions and the cult-like devotion he has inspired in true believers, it was actually nice to have the candidate put some meat on the bones of his lofty pronoucements about change and show that he is not all charisma and grand speeches devoid of substance. It was also nice to get a sense of just who this guy is... I write this notwithstanding the Grand-Canyonesque-holes in his carefully expurgated biography, as evidenced by the neat little introductory film they showed prior to the speech --just what was he doing between the ages of 8 and 28, frinstance? And what about all these half-siblings we keep hearing about?

On the negative side, I cannot believe that some of Obama's supporters are still saying that Hillary did not go "far enough" in her endorsement of their chosen one. She came right out and said that her supporters should vote for Obama!... as did hubby Bill, which incidentally, must have really stuck in his craw. What more could people want? I suppose they would have her throw herself at his feet like Magdalen and beg for absolution, if that was within their power. Seriously, after reviewing the text of Senator Clinton's speech, any reasonable observer would have to say that she went further than either Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan ever did in their respective convention concession speeches, which hardly endorsed the other guy:





This anxiety over the Clintons' support speaks to a very understandable concern among Democrats that they must move forward fully united as a party if they are to defeat a resurgent McCain come November. And it is clear that even after Hillary's entreaties, some Clinton supporters are still smarting, still bitter, and still reluctant to grit their teeth and get behind Obama... especially now that John McCain, in a real game-changer, has
thrown a major-league curveball at American voters.

No one is going to convince me that there was not an element of cold pragmatism, if not outright tokenism, in McCain's veepstakes calculus. Go ahead and tell me with a straight face that if Alaska's governor was a dude, he would be on the Republican ticket. That being said, in Tina Fey doppleganger Sarah Palin, McCain has a young, telegenic, accomplished --if decidedly conservative-- partner; one who might very well appeal to some Independent or Democratic women while reinforcing his bonafides with the party's base. Oh, and Palin is the only one of the four politicians on the ticket with executive branch experience... weird, that!

The level of condescension coming from the more rabid partisans is hilarious. Let's face it, being elected as the governor of any state is a singular achievement. I dare say that ANY female Democratic governor, even one with the lightest of resumes, would never be subjected to such dismissiveness from the ranks of the Democrats. On the other hand, the Obama campaign is being more circumspect. It's almost like this choice was so unexpected, so out of left field, they hardly know what to make of it.

Will the audacious choice of Palin bring over alot of Hillary supporters? Doubt it. She is pro-life, for one. Some feminists recoil in horror at her. "Not one of us!" they sneer, insulted by McCain's cynical one-upmanship and openly contemptuous of a woman who refuses to adhere to their orthodoxy.

But the point is, with 18 million votes going to Hillary during the primary season, McCain doesn't need to peel off all that many Clinton supporters. If things are as close as they seem to be shaping up to be, one twentieth or perhaps even one fiftieth of those Hillary votes going to McCain could make a difference, especially in some of those battleground states where an authentic, charming, folksy, working mother of five could conjure some real magic on the stump... And has anyone noticed that Hillary hasn't exactly blasted McCain for his selection? At least, not yet.

Things are really starting to get interesting!

Iraqracy

Newsweek has a great interview with General Petraeus, the man who will never admit victory --a wise strategy, given the history of "mission accomplished" in the Iraq War.

It is clear by now to even the most ardent advocate of American withdrawal from Iraq that Petraeus' surge transformed the situation on the ground. While the political settlement remains tenuous, nearly all serious observers of the conflict are saying that the bulk of American forces in Iraq could and should go... it is now a matter of when and how America makes its exit that occupies the discourse --A remarkable thing, when you consider the dire state of affairs in that country two years ago.

Watching the Democratic Convention, it is indeed interesting to see how the narrative of this war has been transformed from that of a "lost war" to one of an "unecessary and costly war" that America must extricate itself from so that it may redirect the $10 billion a month it is costing somewhere else... a sum particularly galling to many when one considers the almost grotesque gobs of oil money that the government of Iraq is now raking in.

Meanwhile, politicians from every part of the political and ideological spectrum are congratulating themselves on their shrewdness and foresight, cherry-picking their own statements and nuances to demonstrate their wisdom and foreign policy acumen in advocating "the surge" or "timetables" or "staying the course" or whatever, cheerfully disregarding anything they got somewhat or utterly wrong.

And through it all, the American military, cast adrift by the politicians and foresaken by a significant part of the populace, continues to do what it has done throughout the hard months of the surge, competently and professionally executing the mission laid out by superiors and through dogged stubborness and the use of intelligent counterinsurgency tactics, snatching success from the jaws of failure and ignominy.

My favourite bit of the interview is this:

Petraeus: I think it's true that they are past Al Qaeda. They are past ... an organization that embraces an extremist ideology, employs indiscriminate violence, and practices oppressive social actions such as forced marriage or cutting fingers off smokers.

Newsweek:Forget that, no smoking ...

Petraeus: That was the tipping point when they cut the fingers off the first person who was smoking. I mean, can you imagine an Anbar sheik being told he can't smoke?

Will historians in decades to come say that Al Qaeda was defeated because of its opposition to tobacco use? As someone with personal experience in the matter, I can tell you that an Arab having a nicotine fit is a fearsome adversary!