Why would the president say no?

In a ritual that's got to be 50 years old by now, journalists bemoan and ridicule poorly targeted pitches sent by PR people. You're a Bloomberg "healthcare" reporter covering, say, large hospital chains.  You get press releases urging you to inform your readers about a promising new skin cream. What cretin would send you such drek?

Good PR people do constantly hone, refine and update their media contact lists. But they winnow down only to a point.  Those lists are initially generated by media database screening software: you punch in, say, print publications with circulations over 200,000 and reporters covering "healthcare" and get a list of, say, 700 names. You might shrink that list to half its size, but probably not to a point of perfection, because a) the "negative" work of shrinking a list is time-consuming, and b) the cost (to your potential work result) of leaving out someone who might respond is higher than the cost of leaving in people who won't.  The costs to credibility of sending poorly targeted email are incremental and cumulative (unless you're featured in James Fallows "The Glamorous Life of a Journalist" series); the cost of striking someone off of a list who might have responded to your pitch is potentially high.

Keep talking, Cheney

Galling in a way that coverage of Obama's major address on national security is universally yoked to the delusive self-serving bilge of the former Vice President:

Cheney Repudiates Obama on Terrorism Policy (NYT)
Obama and Cheney's remarks on terrorism (LAT)
Obama, Cheney Offer Rival Security Visions (WSJ
Spin Meter: Obama vs. Cheney (AP)
Obama, Cheney offer competing views on national security (CNN)
Compare and Contrast: Obama and Cheney's Divergent Views on National Security (FoxNews)

But then reflect: Obama's approval ratings more than triple Cheney's. Cheney's speech is full of lies, distortions and delusions that Americans have broadly rejected. And the hammering Obama's taking from civil rights activists is in some measure neutralized by this assault from the authoritarian side.

A "seam-ly" internal Administration debate resolved?

So this is how Obama divided the torture memo baby: 1) the memos are released; 2) CIA operatives who conducted the torture will not be prosecuted; and 3) the President asserts his right (in fact his "duty") "to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security."

The seams of internal Administration debate show in Obama's Statement on the Memos, but in a good way. There is an implicit rebuttal of those who argued that releasing the memos would compromise national security, balanced by an implicit nod to those who argued to protect CIA operatives, and further balanced by the "reservation of rights" to withhold other documents cited above.

Note the weave back and forth between the opposed camps through the heart of the memo, and note that there's no "triangulation" here, just a sober balancing of powerful interests:

While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Note that Obama decided to protect the operatives -- not necessarily those who devised and approved the policies authorizing torture - though he did say

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.

I would have to disagree with him there. The United States is required by law - international and domestic - to prosecute those who authorized torture. We will see how the Adminstration handles this duty over the long haul.

Obama's Metapolitics

It's often said that Obama's speeches are stirring but unsubstantial -- long on hope, short on policy.

But Obama's pitch to the nation isn't insubstantial. It's meta-- a substantive critique of our political process, built on this core insight: "we need to do more than turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney policies; we have to turn the page on the politics that helped make those policies possible."

A long train of politicians have told us that "Washington is broken." But Obama has put together a sustained critique of how the political process is broken, and how to fix it. Here, from a Jan. 30, '08 speech in Denver, is Obama's litany of the modes of political malfunction:

Lobbyists setting an agenda in Washington that feeds the inequality, insecurity, and instability in our economy.

Division and distraction that keeps us from coming together to deal with challenges like health care, and clean energy, and crumbling schools year after year after year.

Cronyism that gave us Katrina instead of competent government. And secrecy that made torture permissible and illegal wiretaps possible.

It's a politics that uses 9/11 to scare up votes; and fear and falsehoods to lead us into a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and should've never been waged

Lobbying. Partisanship. Cronyism. Secrecy. Fear-mongering. Lying. Promising to fix these malfunctions can sound gauzy, because much of the cure lies in the power of example in the leader making the promise. You can legislate lobbying rules, and against secrecy -- but not against lying, or scorched-earth attack politics, or cronyism.

With regard to partisanship and honesty, Obama is his argument. His pledge to remain truthful, his manner of addressing the whole country, the support he's attracted from independents and Republicans while laying out a full "liberal" agenda, his record of moving bipartisan legislation on lobbying reform, videotaped police interrogations, Schip -- he seeks to demonstrate a transcendence of paralyzing partisanship without mincing on an agenda of progressive action on health care, tax policy, global warming and troop withdrawal. He says explicitly: this campaign itself embodies the politics I am promising:

And we are showing America what change looks like. From the snows of Iowa to the sunshine of South Carolina, we have built a movement of young and old; rich and poor; black and white; Latino, Asian and Native American. We've reached Americans of all political stripes who are more interested in turning the page than turning up the heat on our opponents. That's how Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress. Not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change.

With regard to Hillary, he seeks a delicate balance in responding to her (and Bill's) attacks on his record and leveling own critique of hers. Implicitly he's arguing that the attacks are different in kind, that she and Bill were distorting his record, but he's not distorting hers. Most delicately, he's incorporated his response to the Clinton smears of January into his critique of Clintonism:

Each candidate running for the Democratic nomination shares an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration. But we must decide...just what kind of Party we want to be, and what lessons we've learned from the bitter partisanship of the last two decades. We can be a Party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress; or we can be a Party that puts an end to it.

The "do-anything, say-anything" tag is Obama's takeaway from the Clintons' suggestions that he was soft on opposition to the war in Iraq and in defense of abortion rights. Those attacks have become Exhibit A in his portrait of a broken political system. He is saying: you can't build a mandate, a lasting majority if you rely on Rovian campaign tactics. And he carries that attack on Hillary-as-part-of-the-problem into her policy choices, which he suggests are shaped by political calculation. Is this unfair, or a distortion? Judge:

If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs. We don't need a candidate who agrees with Republicans that lobbyists are part of the system in Washington. They're part of the problem. And when I'm President, their days of setting the agenda in Washington will be over.

If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't just tell people what they want to hear. Poll-tested positions and calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome them; it's not how you inspire our nation to come together behind a common purpose; and it's not what America needs right now....

Finally, and most painfully, Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton lacked "judgment" and "courage" in her response to the rush to war in Iraq:

I will end the mentality that says the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, acting and voting like George Bush Republicans. It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right - it's time to say that we are the Party that is going to be strong and right.

It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that's exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One.

This is tough but fair. As argued in a prior post, Hillary did fail in judgment and courage in the run-up to war in Iraq - not because she voted in support of the resolution authorizing force, but because she later failed to hold Bush to the conditions she laid out in her speech supporting the resolution: seek international support, try weapons inspections first, do not rush to war. When Bush cut the inspections short and prepared for invasion in February and March ''03, she offered her support. Why? She has defended her vote and speech in support of it eloquently, but not her conduct in the months following.

Obama needs to make this case, and he is not shying from it. Paradoxically, his primary proof of "a different kind of politics" is in leveling a devastating but accurate critique of Clintonism.

Contrary Fact of the Day

Today's Wall Street Journal's story about how lobbyists smoothed the way for sovereign wealth funds' massive investments in bulge bracket investment banks has all the earmarks of a classic WSJ expose: front page billing, a load of detail about how the process works and who the players are, lots of case study detail. Instead of uncovering a scandal, though, the story opens the window to a heretical thought: occasionally at least, lobbyists win one on the merits. Consider, for example, this exchange between an Ogilvy lobbyist and James Webb:

Blackstone executives briefed several dozen lawmakers, with the firm's chief executive, Stephen Schwarzman, sitting in on some sessions. Stiff opposition came from Sen. James Webb, a first-term Virginia Democrat. Sen. Webb wrote a novel published in 1991, "Something to Die For," in which Japan uses its financial muscle to gain influence in Washington. The senator worries Beijing could do the same.

Mr. Webb wanted the China investment deal delayed so regulators could examine whether Blackstone's stake in a semiconductor company posed national-security problems. One of Mr. Berman's partners pointed out that the firm produced off-the-shelf chips. Sen. Webb withdrew his objections to the deal, though he remains skeptical of sovereign investors.

Exhibit B: Dubai Aerospace tries transparency as a lobbying strategy:

Wall Street and the U.A.E. thought they had turned the corner by spring 2007 when another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Ltd., bought two firms that owned small U.S. airports and maintenance facilities that serviced some navy transport-plane engines. The Dubai firm pledged to submit to government security reviews and submit its employees for security screening. It also thoroughly briefed lawmakers on the deal. It ran into no obstacles on Capital Hill.

"I call the strategy, 'wearing your underwear on the outside,'" says one of Dubai Aerospace's Washington lobbyists, Joel Johnson, a former Clinton White House communications adviser. "We have to show everybody everything -- no secrets, no surprises."

Of course, elected officials have to be very careful not to appear to compromise security, so it's likely that lobbying on this front won't succeed unless the logic at least seems bullet-proof enough to protect the responding politician. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that lobbyists can have reason on their side and sometimes even deploy it as an effective lobbying tool.