State of Play

From reading Andrew Sullivan, yesterday I watched a BBC series from 2003: State of Play. I watched the first three episodes (there are six total) and so far it's really great. A thriller about a British Minister and his journalist friend and the initial sex scandal that mushrooms into a case of high-level government corruption. It has great acting, a tight script, and an intense, yet naturalistic tone. Plus it's got Bill Nighy, who makes anything better. It's for anyone who is interested in politics and media.

My Inauguration

Here are some of the photos I took last Tuesday. (Click on the pictures for a hi-res version.)

The streets of DC at about 4:30am.



L'Enfant Plaza subway station, just a few blocks from the National Mall.



Arriving at my spot on the Mall. I was about as close as anyone could get without having a ticket and I was still about half a mile away.



The sun coming up around 7am.



The view with my telefoto lens. They still look like dots!



Obama and Bush approaching the Capitol in their motorcade and the resulting cheers. The smallest glimpse of Obama, Michelle, Biden, or the Obama girls would make the crowd go wild.





Taking the Oath.



It's over!

Thoughts Are No Longer Private

Here is an interesting and creepy report from 60 minutes on new techniques for identifying specific thoughts within our brains. Will the last private area in our lives soon fall? It looks increasingly likely that it will. Gulp.

Not Disheartened. Still Disappointed.

Commentor Invisible Man gently chided me for my previous post expressing my disappointment over the nomination of lobbyist Bill Lynn to the Pentagon. Alright, I'll calm down... just a little. I would have to say that I'm not seriously disheartened yet with Obama for doing this. I still have faith that his recent executive orders represent meaningful change. But, the degree of that change now has to come under some question. It is disappointing that a big show is made of enacting ethics and transparency rules and then just two days later those rules are waived. And not waived for someone in a small position, not waived for someone who really just has minor ties with lobbyists, but waived for someone about to enter a top position in the administration and who is intimately connected to a major defense contractor. From the Huffington Post:

[Raytheon] and its subsidiaries are a major force on Capitol Hill, having spent more than $14.5 million on federal lobbying activities during the six years Lynn was working there, according to a review of lobbying records. Raytheon worked to lobby the House, Senate, DARPA, Defense Department, Energy Department, Treasury Department, State Department, and others on issues ranging from long-range guided munitions, sea based missile defense and joint standoff weapon systems.

The government outreach efforts seemed to pay dividends. Raytheon Company received more than $54 billion in contracts from the federal government during that time period, according to fedspending.org, a project of OMB Watch. This doesn't include the potentially billions more that the company was awarded as a subcontractor or part of a group contract.

Isn't this exactly the kind of person that the rule was meant to cover? So far, I haven't read of any adequate explanation from the White House other than that Lynn is "uniquely qualified."

Holy Crap!

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Only Two Days And He's Already Disappointing?

This is truly surprising, stupid, and deeply disheartening. There is no way that Bill Lynn, former lobbyist for huge defense corporation Raytheon, is the only person that is qualified to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

An Impulsive Prediction

I just finished writing a bunch of posts on Obama's first two great days and the impressive executive orders he's signed. Then I glanced at two Times columns from today (Krugman and Brooks) expressing disappointment at his economic stimulus plan. This ties into a feeling I had during the campaign that Obama was strongest when it came to questions of process (I can't remember examples right now -- it's very late!) So, here's an impulsive, will-probably-be-proven-wrong-within-a-week prediction: the Obama administration's greatest achievements will be in the area of process, not legistlation. More than anything else it will have a lasting impact on the government's methods rather than its substantive goals.

Director of Nat'l Intel Nominee Won't Say That Waterboarding is Torture

Though he does say that neither waterboarding, nor torture will happen on his watch. Weird.

It's Already Paying Off!

This is interesting. An example of the kind of real security benefits ending torture and closing Guantanamo could get us.

"On Our Terms"

Today was a great day: Obama signed executive orders that close Gitmo, review military trials and ban torture across the government.

Obama then said this:

The message we are sending around the world is that the US intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals ... We intend to win this fight, and we intend to win it on our terms.

"On our terms." That is the central, essential idea when it comes to the fight against terrorism: Fighting terrorism the way that Bush did -- a lack of due process, the use of torture, black sites, extraordinary rendition -- was to fight on Al Qaida's terms. It was to let this group, a bunch of fanatic thugs, determine the nature of the fight, to fight on its level, with its principles, and not ours. What Bush and Cheney never got was that the great challenge of terrorism -- all terrorism -- is that conflict happens not just on a physical level, but on a moral and propagandistic one. Terrorists aren't just a threat because they might use illegitimate weapons and kill civilians, they are a threat because of how they tempt governments to respond. Getting a government to overreact is a victory for a terrorist group -- it is one of the chief weapons of terrorism -- because overreaction undermines a government's legitimacy and/or popularity. It undermines the principles on which it is based. We end up doing to ourselves what Al Qaida never could alone. Fighting terrorism while keeping our principles denies this weapon to our enemies. This is what Obama gets.

With these, as well as yesterdays ethics and transparency orders, the first two days have been way beyond what I hoped. I want to emphasize that it is still early, and we won't really know how serious Obama is about these policies until they colide with real world situations (already the ethics rules are encountering some challenges and not coming out totally clean.) But so far there is good reason to be optimistic.

If This Turns Out To Be True Then He Is The Anti-Bush

This is a pretty striking for a president to say:

Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the white house counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

Obama said it yesterday when he was signing his first executive orders regarding transparency and ethics rules. I think someone should ask both him and AG Eric Holder what they each think about executive priviledge. It will most probably arise at some point and that, it seems to me, will be a key test of the new transparency.

A Moment In History

So I forgot to mention that I am right now in Washington D.C. to watch the inauguration. My friends and I got up at 3:30 am, walked through a city empty of cars, but full of people at 4:30, then sat down in my very good spot on the Mall near the very front of the public section. It's been a humbling and moving and fascinating day to see the ritual of a powerful democracy peacefully change its government. I hope to write more about this day when I get back to NYC, but for now I'll say that he has lived up to the moment. In his inaugural speech he did exactly what I hoped he would: He spoke honestly -- even gravely -- about the world we live in and finally did what presidents should always do: treated us like adults. He demanded a lot from us. I only hope that we -- and he -- can rise to the challenge.

The Inauguration Show

If you want to get even more of an Obama-inspired glow than you might be feeling this week, or, if you feel nothing, but still wonder why everyone is so excited, then listen to last week's episode of This American Life: The Inauguration Show.

I'm Starting To Like Chuck Todd

Right now I am listening to a really fascinating interview Chuck Todd did last week on Fresh Air. Todd has some great, surprising insights into the Clinton, McCain and Obama campaigns. Even though there was a lot of day-to-day ups and downs, there were telling details from the very beginning of each campaign that set in motion their respective fates.

The Obama Express

Today, Obama started his inaugural Whistle Stop tour in Philadelphia. Once he got to Delaware he picked up Joe Biden:





Obama is shaping up to be a master of political theater. The association of these images with classic images of Lincoln or Roosevelt waving to adoring crowds from a train can't help but get me excited. It's also a reason to be extra vigilant. As we all know from Bush, who used it well, whistle stop tours, YouTube videos, backdrops can all be used to manipulate and distract just as much as to inspire.

I'll Miss His Speeches Most Of All

The final montage of Letterman's Great Moments in Presidential Speeches.

We'll Never Get Rid Of It Now

This is Obama's official portrait that will hang in Federal offices. Notice that he's wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin. Sigh. Including this silly little pin on the official portrait means that it has now become a permanent part of the theatrics of presidential politics and a necessary sign of Obama's patriotism. So many months ago he fought the good fight to not have wear such a vapid symbol, but you have to pick your battles, I guess. Sigh.

Holder: Waterboarding is Torture

In his senate hearing today, Eric Holder, nominee for Attorney General, was clear and unequivocal on: waterboarding, the geneva conventions and unlimited commander-in-chief powers.



The end is key: the president acts most forcefully and powerfully when his actions are consistent with "congressional intent". One of the Bush administration's worst elements was its use of signing statements to broadly interpret the laws Congress passed to its liking and ignore what Congress intended if they thought it went against Bush's commander-in-chief powers -- powers that the administration itself defined as nearly limitless. A sad, tragic chapter in U.S. history is ending. Yeah, baby!

Some Stimulus Skepticism

The issue of how big the stimulus should be is something I've been wondering about lately. Over the last 15-20 years I've become more a little more skeptical of the government's ability to create effective and efficient programs, of its ability to intervene in society and in the economy without there being large, unforeseen consequences. It's not that I think that government stimulus is wrong, it's just that the economic, political, social, and cultural forces that the government is interacting with here feel too complex and uncontrollable for things to go as planned.

Regarding this, Megan McArdle, economic blogger over at the Atlantic has a good post:

I'm becoming extremely concerned about the stimulus, for the following reasons:

1) Where is the strong evidence that the kind of truly massive stimulus people like Krugman are pushing for will do anything but provide a very temporary respite before the economy slumps back, more indebted and no better off than before? The chief complaint about the two historical examples we have, the Great Depression and 1990s Japan, is that such stimulus was not sufficiently tried.

2) What about the permanent income hypothesis? If we make the stimulus spending temporary, I presume we have the same problem we do with tax cuts--rational consumers will save most of the extra income. If we make it permanent--that's a different, but bigger, problem than we have now.

3) We are a nation of net dissavers, which contributed greatly to the bubble. Can we really prolong this?

The last point is key, it seems to me. Eventually, we'll have to pay for the massive debt we've been and are incurring -- it's unavoidable. Is the stimulus simply postponing a prolonged belt-tightening? The idea is that the stimulus fixes a situation that has become a crisis, putting us in a place, afterwards, where we can be austere and save, but do it in a more gradual and less harmful way. I agree with this in general -- I think a large stimulus in necessary -- but, the question is, for me, can the public, and the government, be counted on to behave this way once the crisis is over in a few years? Instead us doing the saving that we need to do will we just go back to our spendthrift ways and the whole thing starts over again?

Dept. of Making Amends

I missed this when it happened a few days ago. Obama has asked V. Eugene Robinson to deliver the invocation at Sunday's "kickoff" inaugural event. Robinson is an openly gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire. The Obama people claim that this was in the works from before the Rick Warren flap -- so it wasn't a reaction to it -- but, it is still a welcome move. For me it goes a way to getting over the Warren pick and for regaining some (but not all) of my faith in Obama.

Rick Warren yesterday, in a statement that shows why he's not at the Dobson end of the evangelical spectrum, praised the selection of Robinson and Obama's desire to "be the president of every citizen."

(By the way, how weird is it to call the first inaugural event the "kickoff" event? U.S. culture does love its sports)

Letterman's Great Moments In Presidential Speeches

Taken out of context (probably), but still.

Prankster-In-Chief

You know Bush really wants to do this stuff.

Reassurance

From early on, one of the reasons I supported Obama was because he favored net neutrality: maintaining the internet as an open medium, allowing anyone to access and use it freely, and privileging no one group (or giant telecom) over any other. (Background on net neutrality here.) The internet is the new global commons; its role in free expression and uncensored debate should remain sacrosanct. Today, Obama's pick of Julius Genachowski to head the FCC signals that he intends to deliver on this issue. Genachowski helped develop Obama's telecom positions.

I feel like Obama is on a role here, reassuring me that on key issues where I thought he might waffle he will actually deliver. First, there is this appointment. There is also Dawn Johnsen as the new head of the OLC, the Panetta appointment to CIA and Robert Gibbs clear answer as to whether or not Obama will repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell: "Yes." (The answer comes at about 4:15 on the video.) All through the campaign I was concerned that Obama would back off from controversial, undiplomatic stances or stances unfriendly to business that he didn't really need to take to get his primary agenda done. Now, he's not President yet, and we still need to see what he actually does. But, these recent decisions are unequivocal good signs that he intends to back up his campaign promises with action.

The "D" Word

This is kind of scary. Respected economist Tyler Cowen lists the eight reasons why he thinks we are in a depression:

1. We have zombie banks.

2. There is considerable regulatory uncertainty in banking and finance.

3. There is a negative wealth effect from lower home and asset prices.

4. There is a big sectoral shift out of real estate, luxury goods, and debt-financed consumption.

5. Some of the automakers are finally meeting their end, or would meet their end without government aid.

6. Fear and uncertainty are high, in part because they should be high and in part because Bush and Paulson spooked everyone.

7. International factors are strongly negative.

8. There is a decline in aggregate demand, resulting from some mix of 1-7.

He goes on to describe how we are handling, or not handling, each one.

A Little Honesty Is So Refreshing

Paul Krugman in today's Times:

On Saturday, Christina Romer, the future head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who will be the vice president’s chief economist, released estimates of what the Obama economic plan would accomplish. Their report is reasonable and intellectually honest.

Though Krugman is liberal, so he's inclined to agree with them, he's also a bit sour on the Obama plan, which makes me believe in the report's overall honesty more. After eight years of obfuscation this is a very welcome change.

Bill Moyers Brings His Humanity To Gaza

Bill Moyers is, hands down, one of the most thoughtful, compassionate, independent and engaged journalists working today. This essay on the tragedy in Gaza, with with he ended a recent episode of his PBS Journal show, musters all his insight to remind us of the humanity of this calamity, and treats the war with all the care and seriousness that is the exact opposite of a political culture that instead treats life and death, in his words, as "abstractions of policy".




Also, his essay reminds me of one of the essential truths of terrorism and how it applies in this case, that the whole point of terrorism is to get your enemy to over-react. Terrorism is the tool of a weak actor who, on purpose, fights outside of convention by attacking civilians in order to cause fear in the population and get the enemy government to use so much excessive force that it deligitimizes it's actions, either domestically or internationally. That is, the Israeli massive assault is exactly what Islamic militants want Israel to do. By Israel bringing so much suffering to the Gazans it makes the prospect of real peace that much harder and furthers the goals of extremists.

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used, Ctd.

Continuing with my ruminations on fear of terrorism and the U.S. society, here is a blog post from the excellent James Fallows. As bloggers say, here is the "money quote":

Yes, the 9/11 attacks were a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, some group, somewhere, will probably manage to attack the United States again. But many, many societies around the world face an ongoing risk of attack. Life is dangerous. Over the long run, we judge societies by how they bear up under such threats (and, of course, what they do to contain them.) Compared with the Brits, the Indians, not to mention the Israelis and I bet also the Iraqis, our security theater makes us look like chickens.

"Is it just me? Or does Bernstein look like Dustin Hoffman?"

I love the comments on my blog, probably because those who write them are people I know. But, generally speaking, I hate comments. This video, showing live comments to a Leonard Bernstein performance, shows why:

When Will You Just GO AWAY!!

Our favorite Joe, Joe the Plumber (and by favorite I mean HATED) is now going to Israel as a... war correspondent!! I wonder what goes through John McCain's head when he sees what he's created?

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used, Ctd.

It also doesn’t make me happy that Panetta talked about the “very dangerous time” and “a time of great peril” that we live in. It’s subtle, but the sense that that language creates in us is that we are all besieged, that a terrorist attack is always imminent, and that we should always be afraid. Well, sure an attack could happen, there are people who want to hurt us, that’s clear. Though I think it’s an open question just how much danger we are in, any threats we do face are threats we will have to live with for decades -- they are not going away. What we need is to not be afraid, to know that if we do get attacked we will go forward, we will get through it. We need, especially, to realize that, to some extent, living with terrorism is simply part of the reality of living in the globalized, open society that is the United States in the 21st century. It can be mitigated, made scarce, but not eliminated. It is the “new normal” The Obama administration needs to communicate the reality that we live in without making us feel that something could happen this very second, that since there are threats out there, we need to develop a certain amount of toughness. It’s time that the government acknowledge the world that we live in and figure out a way to get past the fear tactics of the Bush administration. Bush created a color-coded terror-threat level (when was the last time we saw that?), engaged our fears and ended up turning us into scared children, with the administration as the parent we all have to trust and depend on. Obama should expect us to be able to handle certain tough truths about the world and then treat us like adults.

"War on Terror": Worst Phrase Ever... And Still Being Used

One of the good things that John Edwards did during his campaign one year ago (already one year ago!) was reject the idea that the US is engaged in a Global War on Terror – GWOT, in military-speak. He called it a “bumper-sticker” phrase, something that is used to sell a government agenda, but that is ultimately simplistic, counter-productive and wrong. I couldn’t agree more: as many people, including Joe Biden, have pointed out, “terror” is a tactic, one used by many different groups for many different reasons. There are Islamic groups, Colombian groups, Chechnyan groups, etc. each one with a different political goal. Even the Islamic groups themselves are not a monolithic block, some groups, like Hamas, having more local concerns than global groups such as Al-Qaida. Using one phrase to group all these groups under the same term: terror, lumps individual problems into one big problem. Worse, by declaring “war” it seems to say that all these fights require the same level of aggression and unrelenting commitment from us. I hate the term.

During the campaign I was skeptical that Obama would banish the term from use. When the Democratic candidates were all asked one year ago if they believed that a GWOT existed Obama said yes. When he was on Bill O’Reilly in the fall he said he believed a we were in a War on Terror. Now that he’s won I’ve been eagerly awaiting to see what would happen (especially with Biden as veep). So far I’m pretty disappointed. Today Obama named Leon Panetta to head the CIA and in the press conference he said used the damn phrase: “I commit to consulting closely with my former colleagues in the Congress to form the kind of partnership we need if we’re to win the war on terror". It’ll be sad if Obama keeps this up once in office, but I’m afraid it could be part of his political caution and pragmatism where he doesn’t want to get into useless a fight with conservatives over it, and where maybe he thinks it’s politically useful to keep it to show his hawkish credentials (and of course, maybe he actually believes it). It’s this kind of small, but telling detail that makes me wonder how bold he will be. I’m still hoping that they will slowly sweep it under a rug and then just get rid of the damn thing.

Are The Cogs Are Coming Into Place?

Former spy Robert Baer on the Panetta pick:

Leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein have already criticized the choice of Panetta, claiming the CIA needs to be led by an experienced intelligence professional. But right now political clout, and the ability to be a strong advocate for the CIA, far outweighs the virtues of being a professional spy, someone who knows the difference between a "live drop" and a "dead drop." A professional from the ranks would be eaten up by Hillary Clinton at State or Bob Gates at Defense. Or end up like Bill Clinton's CIA Director Jim Woolsey, shut out of the White House, ignored and irrelevant.

If this is what the Obama team is thinking (and we don't know this) it strikes me as further evidence of Obama's interest in forming a balanced executive branch where all its parts actually work together and where each department will get its voice heard.

Panetta On Torture

From an article he wrote for the Washington Monthly early in 2008.

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

We still need to see how he answers specific questions now that he'll have actual responsibility over gathering intelligence. Skepticism should be maintain, always, and in the end, nothing really counts more than action -- we've seen a lot of honorable talk in the past. But still, I think things are looking up.

The Hits Keep Coming: Panetta at CIA

Leon Panetta gets named to head the CIA. It concerns me a little that he has no hands on intelligence experience, and there seems to be little actual information on his intelligence opinions, but he is someone who had nothing to do with the intelligence policies of Bush-land and so represents a clean break. Connections to things like wiretapping and torture were the kind of thing that sunk Obama's first choice, John Brennan. On top of the Johnson pick at OLC, it's like icing on the cake. As Andrew Sullivan notes, and I echo (with realistic hope): This is a good day for America's soul.

Good News On The Most Powerful Position You Never Heard Of

The Office of Legal Counsel, in the Justice Department, is extremely powerful, yet little known. It’s lawyers basically give legal interpretations as to what the executive branch can and can’t do. They define the legal position of the administration. This is the office that was much misused during the Bush years and that created the legal structure for the administration. It’s here that Bush’s extremely broad, uncontrollable presidential powers were defined. It’s here, where John Yoo worked in 2001, that torture was redefined and started to infect our policies.

Today Obama named Dawn Johnson, Professor of Law at Indiana University, to become the head of the OLC. Here are some quotes from an article she wrote at Slate.com:

we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power. Otherwise, our own deep cynicism, about the possibility for a President and presidential lawyers to respect legal constraints, itself will threaten the rule of law--and not just for the remaining nine months of this administration, but for years and administrations to come...

OLC, the office entrusted with making sure the President obeys the law instead here told the President that in fighting the war on terror, he is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted.

And another Slate.com article

I'm afraid we are growing immune to just how outrageous and destructive it is, in a democracy, for the President to violate federal statutes in secret.

This is someone who does not mince words. She seems to genuinely be deeply outraged at Bush's trampling all over the constitution and the rule of law.

Of all the issues that Obama would face, executive power was one I was most worried about. Maintaining the US as a country where even the president has to respect the law, even when it’s difficult, is one the most important challenges we face. When it comes to deciding what is or is not legal for a president to do, precedents set have very lasting consequences way beyond the administration where they happen. Johnson really seems to get all this. This is really good news.

Yoo and Bolton: Presidential Power should Be Limited!

Gee, now that we’re about to get a president who will probably enact foreign policy that they disagree with, all of a sudden John Yoo and John Bolton rediscover the importance of treaties and their ability to be “a bulwark against presidential inclinations.” These are the same people who argued for unlimited executive power in foreign policy, one of whom (Yoo) wrote the original torture memos allowing the most extreme techniques? Apparently it was Bill Clinton who misused legislative loopholes to get what he wanted when Congress opposed him! I suppose when they called on the idea of the Unitary Executive, that was purely to be faithful to the Founding Father’s constitutional intentions. But, oh wait! Reading the article, all they seem to care about is preventing the United States from actually having to make treaties and not getting its way all the time. Like when I wonder? Like when the US might become a member of the International Criminal Court. And I wonder why they would care that US officials could be internationally tried for war crimes?

(And why, oh why does the New York Times feel the desire to publish op-eds by a war-criminal??)

Dipping My Toe Into The Middle East Debate

First post of 2009!

The holiday season has made me late for everything, and so I am for the attack on Gaza, but still, a post is in order. I’ve actually wanted to write one for several days, but I hesitated. Nothing with this conflict is simple or clean, and it’s always best to learn as much as possible before spouting off on the Middle East (this is true with any subject, of course, but here there is just so much more to learn and every detail seems to count for more).

In 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza, though it has blockaded it since June 2007. Since 2007, Hamas is the government of the Strip. (I know I’m just giving facts, but this is actually for MY benefit, to get things straight in my head). Since the end of the cease-fire on December 19th Hamas had been launching rockets into southern Israel, hoping to pressure Israel to end the blockade. So far there have been around ten Israeli deaths vs. about 500 Palestinian deaths. The stated purpose of the attack is to fundamentally change the security situation for southern Israel. Since the initial air attack was not able to fully destroy Hamas’ ability to do this, a ground invasion has started. Israel plans to keep this up for days, maybe weeks.

From a simple moral calculus, Hamas launching rockets into Israel is unjustifiable and Israel has a right to defend itself, it seems to me. So, at the simplest level, the assault makes sense. It’s logical, even counting the massive discrepancy in power. But, the sticking point has to be: what are the ultimate consequences of the attack? Does the attack increase Israel’s long term security and the possibility of peace between the two groups? This doesn’t seem clear to me at all. If anything, it looks like a probable net loss for Israel. To permanently eliminate the threat of rockets into Israel, how far does Israel have to go in hurting Hamas? Does it leave it severely wounded, and destroy it’s ability to obtain military resources? That seems to mean destroying mosques, colleges, government buildings, and routes that supply regular goods to the Gazans as well as military hardware to militants. It means pushing more people of Gaza into the arms of Hamas and making more Arabs around the Middle East enraged with Israel. If wounded, even severly, Hamas will probably still declare a moral victory for simply having survived the assault. That’s how an asymmetric war – between two actors of vastly different capabilities -- works. Israel is fighting on the physical level, but Hamas is fighting on the moral level. And, it’s hard to believe that, if Israel leave Gaza with Hamas defeated, but not destroyed, the rockets won’t eventually be once again landing in Israel.

Then, does it stay inside Gaza? Occupation may be the only way to guarantee that no more rockets are launched. Does Israel depose Hamas and have to once again become responsible for over one million Palestinians? No one in Israel wants this, from what I’ve read.

So what then? Israel has rejected a cease-fire, so that’s out. It seems to me, from my very layman-esque perch, that the only real solution to this is for a third party to come in and cause intense pressure on both sides – political, diplomatic, economic pressure. But the Bush Administration isn’t going to do it. They’re blaming Hamas for breaking the cease-fire. So that leaves Obama, and he has remained quiet. My hope is that this is only because he’s being careful to observe the one-president-at-a-time rule, and taking the time to form a coherent response and strategy that he can reveal after he becomes president. It’s my hope, but I’m a bit skeptical – Obama has made fairly hawish statements in the past, regarding Israel specifically, so I think it’s anyone’s guess as to where he comes down.

Mick Franken

So it's looking increasingly likely that this guy is the new senator from Minnesota: