Iranian opposition group seeking justice

I talked again Friday with Nasser Sharif of Californians for a Democratic Iran about the unfortunate fact that the U.S. has designated the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), also known and Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) as a terrorist organization. As I explained in a piece I wrote last June, the designation occurred in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration had some hope of breaking the US-Iranian ice with supposed moderates in power in Iran and fulfilled a request by the Iranian regime to make the designation. Both the European Community and the UK have done extensive investigation and determined that the PMOI doesn't deserve the terrorist designation and have lifted it. As Nasser argued, and I think I agree, this not only harms one of the main Iranian opposition groups (and a democratic and secular one to boot), it effectively puts the U.S. on the side of the regime.

Despite support from some congresscritters of both parties and a lawsuit, little or not progress has been made on this issue. I'm afraid that since it was a Clinton-era decision, the job of officially identifying terrorist organizations lies with the State Dept, and Hillary is SecState, that it will take dynamite or the political equivalent to get action on this issue. But it would be smart.

How Hillary blew it

There's a post on the Register's election blog, Horserace'08, with links to other articles, that discusses some of what Hillary did wrong and Barack did right to bring about Obama's victory (at least we think she doesn't have anything else up her sleeve). The best (somewhat lengthy) treatment of what went wrong for her I've seen comes from Michelle Cottle over at New Republic. Overconfidence, not recognizing a "change" election, personnel problems (friends more than pros), too many themes, planning for a quick knockout and having no real plan when that didn't work, handling the press poorly, and on and on.

Hillary keeps plugging

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the outcome last week of the latest primaries, which give Hillary just enough of a rationale to stay in it, though her chances seem to dim with each passing day. Since then, of course, she made the reference to the RFK assassination in June (which wasn't malicious in context, but could turn out to be the defining gaffe anyway). I'm still not sure if she would really take the veep nomination of Obama broached the subject, which I'm not convinced he well. I'll give her props for persistence, but that's about it.

I should have linked to this earlier, but the trip to San Antonio, followed by a weekend as a househusband with guests coming over for Memorial Day, got in the way of the Constant Blogger.

Hillary on Iran

Jonathan Schwartz over at A Tiny Revolution, has an interesting post on Hillary's by now notorious comment that if she were president circumstances might occur under which she might attack Iran and she wants Iranians to know we could obliterate them. It has been less noted that the comment followed the condition "if they attack Israel." I'm not sure an attack on Iran even under those circumstances would be justified, but it's a little different from attacking Iran first.

He then compares the statement to Saddam Hussein saying that if Israel were to attack Iraq, he would "make fire burn up half of Israel if it attacks Iraq." The comment was used by countless war whoopers to justify taking out Saddam -- but without including the phrase "if it attacks Israel." Since Hillary has made the threat, is it OK if Iran attacks us (as if).

Hillary's fascinating memory

The whole 1996 Tuzla thing with Hillary is quite fascinating. As this Register editorial explains, it suggests that she feels a need to embroider her record to show something resembling courage under fire. Of all the qualities one might want in a president (assuming one is so deluded as to want a president), that is utterly unimportant. If the country is to survive much longer, it would be useful to have a president who insists on accurate rather than cooked intelligence and considers issues of war and peace coolly and rationally, giving consideration to possible secondary and tertiary consequences and with respect for the law of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to get such a paragon.

Big night for Hillary

I spent most of the evening blogging for the Register's Horserace'08 election blog, so if you're interested in my at-the-time thoughts, feel free to go there. But there's little question this was a big night for Hillary. Because of Texas' convooluted delegate allocation system she might not gain any ground in the delegate count (might even lose a couple). But she has plenty of reason to stay in it to the end now.

Hillary miscellaneous

I didn't see the original "60 Minutes" piece, but I finally saw a clip of Hillary Clinton saying "as far as I know" in response to a weird question about whether Barack Obama was a Muslim. It looked worse in print. In conversation it seemed more like an offhand, almost unconscious throw-in, after saying repeatedly that she had no reason to think he was Muslim. Seems like an innocent comment to me rather than some kind of sneaky calculation to keep the issue alive.

But Gloria Steinem really should be checked for operating brain cells. It wasn't just the implicit attack on McCain's POW experience (and in fact, though it was said more snarkily than you might like, it's true that being a POW is hardly a qualification for being president). But what kind of thinking is behind the suggestion that if it had been "Joan McCain" she would have been questioned and denigrated rather than being lauded? What universe does she live in?

One more thing. Andrew Sullivan pointed it out before I did, but I noticed too. In Jack Nicholson's ad for Hillary Clinton, every character shown in the clips from his old movies is a psychopath. I know that's the kind of character he plays best, but did he think about the subliminal message that might be sent?

Blogging the debate

I've been blogging the Democratic debate tonight over at the Register's Horserace'08 election blog. Not quite live-blogging, considering the train schedule, but more like Tivo-blogging. Please check it out if you're inclined to see my instant reactions to what the Hillster and Obamamessiah said when they said it.

Race and identity politics

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register's Sunday Commentary section on the unwelcome but probably inevitable entrance of race and identity politics into the Democratic presidential contest. The more I think about it, the more I think it was a calculated move by the Clintons. Hillary and Obama played lovey-dovey in Las Vegas, but their competitive spirit and obvious dislike for one another came through. I'm sure it's more an entitlement thing than anything remotely resembling a racial thing with the Clintons, but they'll use whatever they think will work.

Hillary's obsessive micro-management

I was not initially all that upset at the charge that Hillary Clinton's staff had fed a suggested question to a young voter at an Iowa campaign event. But thinking about it led to thinking about her tendency to micromanage and control everything down to the last detail. She's famous/notorious for it, and certainly sets an example by being remarkably self-disciplined. But I have little question that's the way she would view the entire country if elected -- as a place that might get out of control and needs heavy doses of micromanagement -- and that would be disastrous (though for me on a professional level, as somebody who gets paid to take potshots at presidents of both parties, it would be a field day for at least four years).

John Dickerson's column in Slate makes some of the relevant goo-goo arguments for why we should view this as something a bit more significant than an isolated gaffe. And then there's this piece by Michael Crowley in TNR. I'm not surprised that she wants to micromanage press coverage and she's more than a little paranoid about the media. But complaining to the NYT about a story about Obama liking to play pick-up basketball that had the effect of humanizing him? Killing a somewhat negative GQ article by threatening to pull cooperation on a separate story another GQ writer was doing on Bill? These people play hardball, but make themselves absurd in the process.