Senator John Sidney McCain III is still running for president.

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've ranted before about the insanity (inanity?) of these repeated announcements, but this is at least his third.

He has had his exploratory announcement, his Letterman announcement, and his bus tour. Now he is "officially" announcing.

This is certainly just an attempt to recapture some of that "lightning in a bottle" that he had in 2000. McCain's campaign is struggling - granted, this is at least partially due to overly-high expectations: he has been the perceived front-runner for a long time, so any stumble can hurt him. However, he has been outraised by both Giuliani (who was married to his second cousin for 14 years) and Mitt Romney (governor of that bastion of traditional conservatism, Massachusetts). Giuliani also leads in virtually every national poll.

Perhaps spending the last four years demonstrating just how blatantly opportunistic a politician can be has hurt him. Oh well. Announce all you want, but people still won't forget this.

Oh, and this just in:
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

read more...

According to the BBC and CNN, McCain is in for 2008. In case the exploratory committee didn't generate enough press. Additionally, there will be a formal announcement in "early April."

Damn it, just tell us you're running and let's be on with it.

I hate this ludicrous, multiple-announcement bit. At least Sen. Obama seemed to actually be considering it while his exploratory committee was operational. McCain has a third "official" announcement coming up, apparently, in April.

If you can't get press for something other than an announcement, you aren't worth the time anyway.

read more...

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. But as a political handicapper, I can be somewhat objective. I'll take the time now to predict the outcomes of the Presidential nominating fights on both sides.

Let's start with the Democrats. Assuming New Hampshire isn't a jerk, and Florida isn't stupid, the order of the primaries will be Iowa on January 14th, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th, with a barrage of states on February 5th, with California, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan likely participating. That day will include more than a dozen contests, with possibly as many as a third of the Democratic convention's delegates at stake on that one day. At least that's the situation for the Democrats.

The Republicans will hold their Iowa and New Hampshire contests on the same day as the Democrats, but will hold South Carolina a few days after the Democrats do, but before February 5th. The February 5th national primary day will be the same for the Republicans.

So, this is where I think the race stands. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are competing for the top three spots in Iowa with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. None of the other candidates realistically think they have a shot in Iowa with those four in the race. Because Vilsack is from Iowa, he is in an impossible situation. He must come in first in Iowa just to be a viable candidate, but a win in Iowa is no guarantee he will be a factor anywhere else. If Vilsack comes in anything less than first, he will drop out of the race.

Edwards, because he is the Iowa frontrunner and came in a close second three years ago, he also must win the Iowa caucuses. A second place finish will not kill him, but he'll be sigificantly weakened. A third or fourth place finish would nearly end his campaign. Obama and Clinton, because of their national organizations and frontrunner status, can afford a second or third place finish without being significantly wounded. A first place finish would give either of them unstoppable momentum, but a fourth place finish for either would weaken them severely. The point is, one of those four will be nearly kicked out of the race from Iowa. Iowa is an eliminator.

So then we go to Nevada. Edwards, because of his union support, must get first or second here, anything less would be deadly to him. Bill Richardson, who is from the Southwest and is Latino, must also come in first or second in Nevada to have any relevance in the process whatsoever. Clinton and Obama must come in at least third place, or will be viewed as weak and won't be able to recover. Therefore, Nevada is an eliminator, as one candidate won't survive it.

Next is New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are viewed as strongest. This contest will be decisive, as both Obama and Clinton must win, and definitely not come in less than second. Chris Dodd has also staked his claim to the nomination on New Hampshire, since he is from New England. He must place at least third to remain in the game. An Edwards finish lower than fourth would also kill his campaign. Therefore, New Hampshire will eliminate a candidate or severely wound them as well.

Finally, South Carolina is a must win for both Obama and Edwards. Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, was born there, and is a son of the South. If he loses the primary, he will be finished. If Obama, who is black, loses a primary where almost 50% of the electorate will be African-American, he will also be finished. Clinton must, simply because of her status, get at least third here. Joe Biden has decided his strategy to the nomination runs through South Carolina, and therefore, a less than third place finish here will kill him.

So after these four contests, where seven candidates all must score in the top three at some point, at least four will be eliminated, and the contests will sort the remaining three in terms of strength. Therefore, our party goes into February 5th with no more than three candidates, with one or two probably stronger than the rest.

Therefore, February 5th has the power to decide the nominee or prolong the fight till early March, when another Super Tuesday will occur. The only people who will have the standing and the money to win on February 5th are Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and if one of them is already eliminated before that day, it will be decisive. Unfortunately for Edwards, out of the four big states, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Florida, that hold contests that day, he has no strength in any of them. Therefore, the outcome of that day could depend on whether Clinton or Obama win big on the 5th.

In the end, I think that Edwards will probably not do as well as expected (it's hard when you're the frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, you've got to place first in all three or look weak), and Clinton will probably place low in a number of the early contests, weakening her. I think all of the second tier candidates will all flounder, with maybe one exception, who will be eliminated after February 5th. On February 5th, Edwards, who will already be weak form the first few contests, will not do well, eliminating him. Obama and Clinton will probably pretty evenly split wins on February 5th, which will set up a contest leading up to the next Super Tuesday in March. Obama will probably do well in Ohio and some other states that day and Obama and Clinton will be neck and neck until the convention. In fact, I see a convention fight as likely in 2008. I know I'm out there in left field with this thinking, but I believe that Edwards will probably stick it out to the end, as a distant third place, and one of the lesser candidates will also have a sizable delegate count and will stick it out till the convention too. With Hillary and Obama nearly even in the delegate count and both with less than 50% of the delegates, I think we will see this fight go to a second ballot at the convention. The second ballot will probably see some of Edwards' votes go to Clinton and Obama pretty evenly, and Edwards will decide to endorse one or the other on the third ballot, and then we will have our nominee. I think Edwards is likely to endorse Obama, but who knows.

As for the Republicans, who I know a lot less about, I think Iowa will be very decisive. McCain is strong there, but Brownback and Huckabee might surprise some people. I think McCain may end up losing Iowa in an upset, and Brownback and Huckabee will be propelled into the top tier. New Hampshire will be a fight among McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the country club Republican vote, which I think Rudy will win. We then go to South Carolina, where McCain, who will be weakened at this point, will square off against Gilmore, Hunter, Brownback, and Huckabee. The winner of that primary, and the second place finisher, will set up a contest between Rudy, McCain, and either Brownback or Huckabee. I do not think that Romney stands a chance, and I've spoken to evangelicals who tell me that Mormonism is going to really hurt him. We then will go to February 5th, where the conservative alternative, likely Huckabee or Brownback (all the former governors and congressmen in the race will have dropped out by now and Gingrich won't run) will not do very well. Rudy and McCain will clean up, and they will fight it out till March, when a bunch of Southern states will support the conservative alternative. I think, similarly to the Democrats, Republicans will have a brokered convention, where Giuliani and McCain will be roughly tied in the delegate count, and the conservative alternative will have a substantial 10%-20% of the vote. This will set up a second ballot that I think will escape from Rudy to McCain and the conservative and eventually Rudy will endorse McCain on the third ballot in exchange for a VP slot. McCain, in my opinion, will turn out as the nominee.

That's my view of the race, what's yours?

read more...

I've heard people like John McCain say that a military option isn't a great idea to deal with Iran but that a nuclear-armed Iran is worse. President Bush sets out as policy that he will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Seymour Hersh recently published a lengthy article in the New Yorker magazine regarding the administration's military planning for a war with Iran, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, also known as bunker busters. Let me explain why we can accept a nuclear-armed Iran if it comes to pass.

First, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Advocates of war with Iran use the same tired arguments they used in preparation for a war in Iraq. AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobbying group), neocons in the Vice President's office, and civilian ideologues at the Pentagon play up the argument that Iran is headed toward nuclear weapon production in the very near future. For instance, these advocates claim that a nation like Iran has no need for a peaceful nuclear energy program:

That explanation makes no sense for a nation with 10 percent of the world's known oil reserves, US officials and some outside experts say.

Sounds smart, right? An oil and gas rich nation has no reason to produce nuclear energy. Only problem with this formulation is that the neocons contradict their own argument. While neocons promote the idea that Iran has no need for nuclear power plants, they also argue that economic sanctions, especially sanctions on oil and gasoline, will force the hand of the Iranians and persuade them to give up their nuclear program:

But while Iran holds the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only increase over time. Thus, sanctions that prevented Iran from importing, say, refined oil products, including gasoline, could bring its economy to a grinding halt.

There you have it, the same neocons who argue that Iran is an energy-rich nation is just like the U.S.A., a gas-guzzler net importer of oil who is consuming greater and greater amounts of energy. So, what does this mean? Well, Iran clearly does need alternative sources of energy to meet their growing demand and supply imbalance. Suddenly, the need for a nuclear energy program becomes more clear. But beyond these arguments, the administration, outside groups, even the inept I.A.E.A., the UN's nuclear "watchdog" as we've come to known it, fail to provide any strong evidence of this alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program. Again, with Iran as with Iraq, we see this administration cherry-picking intelligence and looking to intelligence and facts to support their decisions, instead of the other way around. Supposedly, A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, who is under house arrest in Pakistan, is "singing like a canary" to the Pakistanis and our intelligence assets. Apparently, Khan sold nuclear information to the Iranians. However, according to Khan, he gave Iran this information at around the same time in the late nineties that North Korea received the same information that led to thier nuclear program and the half dozen or so nukes they have today. But according to all sources, Iran's program has gone on longer and has more advanced scientists working on it, yet Iran is much farther behind than the North Koreans. What does all this mean? It means we don't know enough about the Iranian nuclear program to determine the intention or progress of the program.

But let's assume for a minute that the Iranians do want nuclear weapons and that they are very close to constructing one, as their recent progress on uranium enrichment suggests (a quick note to the fact that Iran has declared all of its enrichment activities and centrifuge program to the IAEA; doesn't seem smart for a nation seeking secret nuke program to tell the world's anti-nuke agency about their plans). But even if they do, what are we worried about?

Many say that once Iran gets a nuke, they'll use it on Israel, or American troops in the region, of which their are 250,000 in range of the Iranian Shihab-3 missile, or on oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. What these ideologues fail to see is that the American nuclear deterrent would preclude Iran from using its nuke unless it was on a suicide mission. Even with the use of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, any nuclear strike on US interests could be easily traced to the Iranians merely because there are few coutries with nuclear capability who want to do us harm. Some neocons claim that because of Iran's Shi'a Islam, Iranians would not care about annihilation; this is a serious misunderstanding of Shi'i Islam, which believes in the return of the twelfth imam, al-Mahdi, to establish justice and usher in Judgment Day, though nuclear annihilation has nothing to do with this. The United States, once it makes clear that a nuclear strike by Iran will result in Iran's elimination, Iran would not dare use its nuclear arsenal.

Obviously, it would be preferable to have an Iran without nuclear weapons. But there is no good option for doing this. Diplomacy will fail frankly because the US and the West and the UN have lost enormous credibility, mostly due to the fallout of the Iraq War. Sanctions will fail simply because they always do; smart sanctions targeted toward leadership have a negligible effect and nationwide sanctions just make indigenous populations worse-off, angry, and more anti-American. Sanctions will complicate any goodwill we have in Iran, especially among Iranian youth, who have a great affection for American pop culture. Some neocons and realists believe that a covert and overt program of regime change by promoting public diplomacy, supporting rebel and dissident groups, and using American Special Forces and intelligence operatives to undermine the Iranian government from within can change the regime in Iran to a pro-Western, democratic regime. I wouldn't bet on it. Iranians are not as dissatisfied with their system as we say they are and don't feel brutally oppressed like those in other nations.

Therefore, the only other options available to stop the Iranian nuclear program short of the Iranians miraculously changing their minds is a military strike or invasion. Let me summarize what will happen as a result of a military option being exercised in Iran.

1) Striking Iran, whether it be a conventional air strike, tactical nuclear strike, or ground invasion, will invite retaliation against key U.S. interests in the region. The United States, as I have previously said, has 250,000 troops within range of the Iranian Shihab-3 missile. Even without nuclear weapons, the Iranians could easily harm our troops, killing thousands around the Middle East. Lobbing missiles into neighboring Iraq would be even easier. an attack on Iran would spark an uprising among the Shi'a population in southern Iraq. Our troops in Iraq would be sitting ducks trapped in a tidal wave of Shi'a furor. Because of this, our nation would need to escalate the conflict in Iran, probably by following up the air strike with ground troops and by increasing our troop levels in Iraq to combat the increased Shi'a backlash against us. The Iraqi government would break apart and refugees from Iraq and Iran would flow into neighboring countries like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, and destabilize these already fragile regimes. We risk bombings of our embassies, our oil facilities, our businesses, and risk endangering all other US citizens in the Middle East.

2) Israel is a sitting duck if we attack Iran. Once we attack Iran, they have nothing to lose. Attacking Israel would lead to the destruction of Iran and therefore, they would not think about doing it. However, after an air strike on Iran, we would force the mullahs into a corner, and then any attempt at rational action on the part of the mullahs is thrown out the window, who would certainly fire everything they have into Israel. Israel's Arrow missile defense system could certainly defend against most of the incoming missiles but a few would get by, killing thousands of Israeli citizens. This is if Iran resorts to state action. We should only be so lucky; Iran's control over Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorist groups would bring a wave of terrorism on Israel and possibly on key US allies and interests around the world.

3) If you think oil prices are high now, just wait! Iran has three kilo class submarines in the Persian Gulf, which they could use to bomb ships and disrupt shipping lanes, leading to a huge drop in supply and the skyrocketing of oil prices and an oil shortage. Iran could also mine the Strait of Hormuz, which would make it impossible to ship oil out of the Middle East, leading to price increases of up to $100 a barrel. If you think $3 a gallon gasoline is high, wait till oil prices top $200 a barrel and gas is $10 a gallon. The global economy will tank.

So, you can see why I'm willing to have a nuclear-armed Iran. Plus, as I said before, an air strike alone will not do the job, and the Iranian retaliation will require an escalation of the conflict to the point where we will have to put 500,000 troops on the ground to occupy a country of 75 million people for an indefinite future. Then again, we may be greeted with flowers and candy. But you know what they say? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... we can't get fooled again!

read more...