Early Edition

1. Experience and the Presidency
An article excoriating Obama’s lack of leadership experience as the underlying factor in his presidency’s failure. It also should serve as a reminder that the challenger he faces in 2012 needs to have relevant leadership experience combined with a demonstrable mastery of the issues confronting the next president (foreign policy, economy and budget). A lot of people would interpret this as necessarily a Washington insider, but this is absolutely not the case. There are many members of Congress that have made a career opposing establishment culture, and there are many governors across the country whose entire agenda has been driven by opposition to Washington and the protection of their state’s interest. All that to say, the whole Tea Party 2010 phenomenon was great; inexperienced newcomers for whom politics is merely the expression of concerned citizenry and not a career is exactly what the House of Respresentatives is all about. But when we start talking about the presidency, it’s important for those who oppose Obama on the grounds that he is a radical neophyte to avoid falling into the hypocritical trap of pushing an equally bumbling novice into his place on the grounds of ideological purity.

2. Libya
There’s a lot of talk of Libya being a vindication of President Obama’s “foreign policy” (I’m frankly not sure if President Obama has a foreign policy, or if he’s outsourced it all to Secretary Clinton). I do have to say that, in broad strokes, I think President Obama got Libya right (though his execution was sloppy and downright foolish in certain respects). Before I get drowned out by the inevitable caterwauling, what I mean by that is that he had the sense/boldness to pursue a policy in which the United States diffused responsibility for military action in an Arab nation among other participants (including Arabs) and played a role of, at best, a first among equals. Whether or not President Obama did this out of courage is debatable, but the move itself was politically courageous in that it defied the jingoistic notion parroted by the neocons that America must lead whatever fight it decides to pursue (we do not; we should merely be the best fighter among many for reasons of national pride). If the United States makes a conscious decision to rollback the neocon nation-building agenda that’s crippled our ability to credibly exercise our foreign policy, then adventures like the one in Libya become what they used to be only two decades ago: drop in the bucket investments that yield huge dividends for minimal costs. Here is a situation where the Alliance and the United Nations responded to the direct and explicit call of oppressed peoples representing a broad opposition movement to assist them in establishing a pluralistic government, pledged to pay us back for our involvement, and did not require the deployment of conventional ground forces on our part or an indefinite commitment. The total cost to date has been roughly $2 billion, all of which could be paid back by the Libyan NTC if Gaddafi’s frozen assets (roughly $32 billion) are unfrozen and turned over to the NTC, minus our cut. I don’t want this to turn into a full-blown article about the merits of the Libyan operation, I imagine the other aspects of my views of its merits will be borne out in ensuing commentary.

3. “Clovis First” Officially Dead
And neolithic human civilization, with all its mastadon, giant-sloth and predatory flightless bird hunting, is badass.

4. Cain “Clarifies” His Pro-Life Stance
So it seems Cain was simply trying to deflect Piers Morgan’s questions about the extremity of his anti-abortion views and wasn’t putting forward a nuanced, “hands off” approach to abortion with respect to the federal government. Fail. Where I fault Cain is that, despite his reputation for plain-spokenness, he seems too often to try to wriggle out of difficult questions with misdirection (how often have you heard him give a quick, non-answer and then quickly say “Now, secondly…” and move onto another completely unrelated statement). He also sometimes doesn't seem to grasp the implications of his answers or statements to the public's perception of his agenda. The overall impression one gets from these repeated gaffes (he got roasted in the last debate for not only saying in an interview that he could see himself offering a transfer of Gitmo prisoners for a captured American soldier, but his bumbling attempts to completely disown the statement) is that there is either no cohesive policy underlining his campaign or that he is far too unprepared for these interviews in terms of mastering the issues. Bottom line is, while I tried to give him a chance, Herman Cain does not seem to deserve his front-runner spot.