Mr. Rove turns his guns on Obama.

Today Karl Rove published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal describing the "tears" in the fabric of Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric. Alas, it seems that Mr. Obama has a leftist Democratic agenda under his cloak, laments Mr. Rove.

Several months ago, Mr. Rove wrote an op-ed for Newsweek entitled "How to Beat Hillary." Hillary Clinton was then the strong Democratic frontrunner and the greatest fear of most Republicans. Obama penned a very similar open letter to Mr. Obama himself, "Memo: win Iowa or lose the race," subject heading: How to Beat Hillary. Well, apparently Mr. Obama read the letter well. He did indeed win in Iowa and since then his campaign has steadily outperformed Hillary's, which seems to have taken a nosedive.

Now that Clinton has faded a bit and Obama seems poised to seize the Democratic nomination, it makes sense that Mr. Rove is realizing his earlier error in offering strategical advice to the young candidate on the Obama-Hillary takedown. Mr. Rove realizes -- probably with alarm -- that Obama can, and likely will, beat Mr. McCain, and that he is a much bigger threat now that Hillary ever was. Oops. So now Mr. Rove turns his guns on Mr. Obama. It all makes sense. Damage control.

Don't know if the tide can be stopped now, though, Mr. Rove. It appears that you and every other American who underestimated Mr. Obama are in for a surprise. Will it be the collapse of the U.S. into the dark days of a leftist Democratic agenda? I seriously doubt it. Anyway, what could be darker than the last eight years over which your administration has presided with such damaging and disheartening carelessness?

Goodbye Castro, Hello . . . ?

Well, I guess we're all waiting to see if brother Raul will hold off on opening the floodgates until Fidel actually bites the chorizo. So while the old guy is still alive, perhaps it's time to get a bit nostalgic.

Last year Foreign Policy Magazine published a debate between two Cuban scholars (one is in American "exile") as to whether or not Castro has been good or bad for Cuba. We all know the charges levied against Castro falling on the negative side: forbade competition and caused imposition of embargos by alliance with Soviet Comintern; prohibits freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; and, worst of all, banned elections and made himself pres. for life. Those are pretty bad allegations, especially if one heavily favors the United States' ideological and strategic position during the Cold War. Which reminds me of another bad point not included in the scholar's own list: Castro allowed the Soviets to put nuclear warheads on his island, knowing full well that if the Soviets ever used one of them against the US, fired from Cuba, that Cuba would be utterly destroyed. That was perhaps an instance of taking too much liberty with his population's security.

On the positive side: The Revolution and Castro's government prioritized medicine, education, and egalitarianism, such that Cuba now has one of the finest medical systems in the world and some of the best trained doctors (of whom there are more deployed per capita doing international aid work than any other nationality), such that Cuba boasts one of the finest education systems in the world (to which students travel from all over Latin America), and such that race does not exist as a factor in daily life for most Cubans, who are overwhelmingly mestizos of one sort or another. Racism still exists institutionally, in the sense that dark black comrades are less likely to advance to high party posts than "whiter" comrades, but racism as such does not exist -- so I'm told -- in the way that it does in the United States. Cuba's advanced mestizo culture was an ideological selling point for Castro during the Cold War, when the United States preached freedom and democracy to the world while turning dogs and firehoses on peaceful black protesters in Alabama, when the United States still demanded that a citizen have white skin in order to vote.

And Castro's government accomplished all of these positive things while under embargo from the US, and thus suffering from a lack of US investment and export trade. So the pro-Castro scholar suggests that had Castro's Cuba been able to profit from a trade relationship with the United States, it would have been the lone successful communist project in world history (by successful I mean that the standard of living for all comrades would have approached, dare I say, "middle class," without, of course, ever becoming bourgeois). So it was the US, for all of those years, that kept Cuban children shoeless and living in dilapidated tenements, not Cuban communism.

It's an interesting thing to think about, and I'm sure the truth about Castro's influence -- as always -- lies somewhere between our two arguments. Certainly, however, Castro was no villain and his vilification in the United States has been an embarrassing reminder of our own national insecurities rather than a declaration of legitimate disapproval from on-high.

So, I guess I say, "Viva la revolución!" But I also say, to all of those farmers, landowners, and businesspeople whose lands and livelihoods Castro seized in the name of the revolution, I'm sorry. I hope that you are able to finally find the justice you've been looking for after Castro.

Obama v. Clinton: Maureen Dowd on why Clinton promises to carry us further toward the Darkside.

This from a recent Maureen Dowd editorial in the New York Times titled "Darkness and Light"(www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):

Hillary Clinton denounced Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, but she did not absorb the ultimate lesson of the destructive vice president:

Don't become so paranoid that you let yourself be overwhelmed by a dark vision.

I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as "the best man for the job," and she told David Letterman that "in my White House, we'll know who wears the pantsuits." But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.

Darkness seeking darkness. It's an exhausting specter, and the reason that Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and so many other Democrats are dashing for daylight and trying to break away from the pathological Clinton path.

"I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire," Senator McCaskill told David Gregory on MSNBC on Tuesday. "You know, we've had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that's something that we have to capture."

I cannot remember the last time I was positively inspired by a politician, or any other public figure for that matter.  I am not naïve enough to pine nostalgically for some bygone era when politicians were brilliant, morally unassailable, and charismatic to-boot.  Politicians have always been, well, political, a basic fact that necessitates degrees of manipulation, cajoling, and varied self-representation.  I know that many people saw Lincoln and FDR as dubious and divisive figures who threatened the future of the country, but I also know that the lasting power over the American imagination held by men like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan results from the very real inspiration they engendered among Americans of all political stripes.  I know that the hope they embodied helped bring the country together in the wake of terribly divisive events in our national history.  Kennedy inherited a populace torn asunder by Cold War panic and its most reprehensible manifestation, Joseph McCarthy.  Kennedy also presided over the opening salvos of what would come to be known as the Civil Rights era.  Reagan took the Oval Office after the devastating economic losses of the late 1970s, during which time all of the social progress set in motion during the 1960s began to backslide.  Kennedy and Reagan inspired the American public to reunite, and Barack Obama can do the same, while the other major candidates will almost certainly tear the country further apart.  

Barack Obama is often criticized for a "lack of experience," but such criticisms fail to account for one region in which he clearly demonstrates the value of the experience he has had: he has experienced a nation and a political system on the brink of profound failure, and from that experience has learned the value and the immediacy of unity.  Obama has promised, above all else, to center his political agenda on national healing, something which he knows can only be accomplished through careful management of the economy, foreign policy, and social programs like education and healthcare.  When the two Democratic candidates' policy proposals are so similar, it's worth examining the foundations of -- the inspirations behind -- their candidacies, and in that regard, Barack Obama is a light on a hill, while Hillary Clinton lures us toward the Darkside. 

Making it all worthwhile.

I'll make this brief: I was pissed when Bush decided to invade Iraq, and even more pissed when it came to me -- a Virginia National Guardsman -- to do the dirty work.  But I did my job.  Ever since I've been plagued by the idea that perhaps we could have brought some good out of a very bad decision had we only pursued intelligent strategies and tactics from day one.  Of course, we did no such thing, and until very recently it did not appear that we would ever approach our mission conscientiously or intellectually.  And so I fell in with the staged-withdrawal crowd, advocating for hard time-lines and all of that.  It broke my heart.

Now I'm a bit perplexed: the "surge" (the "success" of which we're all a bit hesitant to acknowledge), the population displacements, the failure of al-Qaeda in Iraq to maintain support among the people with whom they live and whose lives they endanger by their presence, and maybe even the possibility of American withdrawal looming in the election politics, have all worked to spur the most sincere effort at cooperative statebuilding we've seen since 2003.  Such statebuilding can only continue -- now that it is finally going on -- in a safe situation; that safety will be compromised if we leave.

After this roller-coaster -- which I admit has taken quite a toll on my conscience -- I am left asking myself again: "shouldn't we stay as long as necessary to make all of this sacrifice worth something?"  And I ask that question with full knowledge that it's the same question that has dominated Republican sophistry for the past three years.

But shouldn't we guarantee security as long as the Iraqis are willing to make good use of it?  Don't we owe it to them?  And to ourselves?  If I knew that the private sector fraud, waste, and abuse that characterized Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority and set the tone for 2003-2007 were finally under control (e.g. Halliburton's recent loss of no-bid contractor privilege); if I knew that strategists like Gen. Petraeus would remain in place; if I knew that something would be done from within the Iraqi administration to quell the tide of displaced persons; if I knew that we could somehow re-budget the unsupportable expense of the war ($200 billion a year not adjusted for interest/inflation?); if I knew our troops could handle the taxing deployment schedule for another five years; if I knew all of these things, I would say "let's stay the course." 

But I'll never know any of these things for sure.  Nor will any President or Congress[wo]man.  That's why we put our trust in our national leadership, and that's why I'm so concerned about who will become our next President. 

Read this if you're in a swoon because of all the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

I've often heard over the years that there's a lot of "good news" in Iraq that never makes it to press, and that all the media wants to report are the horror stories, the corruption, the fledgling government's failures, etc. blah blah blah.  It's true that many media sources have harped on the horror, at times overshadowing small victories and even somewhat hopeful human interest stories.  But in the wake of the "surge" and Presidential election politics, it's become more important than ever for the Right to condemn the "liberal media" for refusing to acknowledge our "success" in Iraq.  It's important for Americans to believe that their Army is winning against the insurgents and succeeding in its mission to establish security; it's important for Americans to believe this untruth as the Republican election machine that has been so tied up with Bush's Iraq policies gears up for another White House run.

Just a clarifying point: the media has not been shying away from reporting the "good news" coming out of Iraq. In fact, it's become common sense across the airwaves that "the surge is working"; hence McCain's sudden appeal, and hence the Democrats sudden fear of the powerful question: "So, Dem candidates, all of you have opposed to war for some time and campaigned on a promise of scheduled withdrawal. Now that the 'tide has turned' in Iraq, how have your Iraq plans changed?"

Articles citing the success of the "surge" have appeared in both the NY Times and the Washington Post in recent weeks, sometimes begrudging admissions from journalists who previously advocated immediate withdrawal. The sentiment is this: "Damn. It seems like there might actually be hope. Now what do we do."

But anyone who uncritically accepts the "good news" coming from Iraq is begging for long term disappointment. The "good news" has perhaps less to do with the success of the "surge" and more to do with a record exodus of displaced Iraqis. Over 800,000 Iraqis were displaced either within Iraq or to one of the neighboring countries in the past year. There are now as many as 4 million Iraqi refugees spread throughout Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (a country that recently closed its borders officially to Iraqis, though they'll still come illegally — and they're in most of the other countries illegally too).

So who does all of this "good news" benefit exactly? Also, remember that news of "decreased violence" does not signify an actual decrease in violence to manageable levels, only a decrease from the completely chaotic violence of 2006-2007. Now we're back to mere chaos instead of full-scale civil war. It remains to be seen whether or not the Iraqis will take this relative "calm" and run with it. And when they do decide to "get serious" about things, how will they handle the flood of four million displaced and frustrated people that will come pouring back into their borders, having been kicked out of their host countries?

Don't talk to me about "good news" from Iraq. When it comes to war, there's really no such thing as "good news." You demean the seriousness of the situation by reducing to simple questions of good or bad media, as if the media have anything to do with the way the military conducts the war in which we are currently embroiled and probably will be for years to come.