Why Not Address the Nation on Afghanistan?

President Obama recently addressed a joint session of Congress (along with the nation watching) on health-care, an important issue if there ever was one, to rally up support for his vision of reform. While I thought the speech was a re-hash of basic points that have already been made in the past, the point of the address was to win over people. Yet there is another issue the Obama administration can no longer ignore, the drop in support for the war in Afghanistan. The polls continue to be low, with a majority now opposing the war. Yesterday, CentCom Commander David Petreaus gave a speech in London to a wary British public that better days lay ahead in Afghanistan, if only we are committed. Joshua Keating at the Passport commented:

Sending Petraeus to rally British support makes sense, but it makes me wonder why the Obama adminsitration hasn't used Petraeus -- certainly the most well-known military officer in the country and a bona fide pop-culture icon -- to pitch the Afghanistan strategy to the U.S. public.

We need President Obama to make the case for us, not Petraeus. The President needs now to address the nation on Afghanistan and why we need to be there. If he does not do this soon, his own party will start to go against him (really without choice, as Democratic support for the war is currently at 23%) , and he'll be in a worse off situation than he is in today. It was easy to criticize the Iraq war while he was running for president, for good portions of the public were against it. This task will be much harder, yet it will be worth it. Not only for our security, but for generations of Afghans.

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton Campaigning for Gender Equality

This is definitely a positive of having her as Secretary of State.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Africa last month, she visited war-racked eastern Congo to speak out against widespread rape by militias. She choked up after meeting with two rape victims and promised more US help – $17 million for medical treatment and security for victims.

Now she's taking the issue to the United Nations, where the US is leading an effort to shore up a resolution to end sexual violence against civilians during armed conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 1820 last year, but follow through is sorely lacking.

Women's rights are becoming a signature issue for America's top diplomat. In her official travels, Mrs. Clinton talks with women, meets with female activists, and presses the twin challenges of women's rights and abuse with political leaders. She wants US development aid to focus more on women, and has appointed the first US ambassador for global women's issues.

The Bush administration, too, championed women's rights, especially in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan. But no secretary of State has sought to make women as high a priority as Clinton is attempting. It's a potentially powerful shift. If she can pull it off.

This is not a surprise, being that she has been heavily involved in the issue for a long time.

I say, carry on. The world will be better off because of it.

Source: FP's Madame Secretary

Protesting: Why Organization Matters and Why the Media is Wrong

There is one thing for sure about protests, no matter what the cause, they will attract nut jobs. This is one reason why I normally dislike them and rarely attend them (I have participated in only a couple protests in my lifetime. Luckily, for me, the protests were well organized and the issue was clear). The message of the protest morphs to be something that is counter to the original intention. Anti-war protests become anarchist and communist magnets, muddling the message of no war. The tea party protests become birther and racist magnets, muddling the message of government overreach. This is mostly due to a lack of organization within a protest, causing hostile message carriers to dilute the image and message, ultimately ruining any chance of convincing observers to their cause.

Yet one thing that I dislike more than protests is the media ignoring them or portraying all of them as nut jobs. The anti-war protests in response to the Iraq war were large and widespread throughout the world, yet were mostly ignored* by the media. Why? They did not fit the media's narrative. While my views have changed over the years on Iraq (was anti-war, then reconsidered due to borderline ethnic cleansing taking place in Iraq), I will never forget the lack of coverage of millions of people protesting. This can also be said of the protests of government overreach, where those who are protesting do not fit the media narrative. There is a difference though, whereas the anti-war protests were largely ignored, the government overreach protests are widely covered, and misrepresented. With some of the media going as far as to call ALL of the protesters “teabaggers,” it shows a very ugly side of journalism. The protesters have legitimate points, and to ignore them, is to be biased and unfair (looking at you MSNBC and CNN). On the other hand, to be completely in favor of the protests, is to also be biased and unfair (looking at you Fox News and the polivangelist Glenn Beck). This not only hurts the credibility of the media, yet it also ruins the chance for a casual observer to hear all sides of the argument.

Here is what I think needs to take place:

1. Those protesting government overreach need to organize better, and to reject the racists and birthers who want to join them.

2. The media needs to treat opposition to Obama fairly, without portraying ALL of them as lunatic nut jobs.

Photo from: Howstuffworks History

Be sure to look at The New Centrist's take on demonstrations.

*Update 1: The protests of 2003.

Update 2: Be sure to check the comments.

The 9/11 Commission Report

You can read it here for free.

A Moment of Silence

For those lost on 9/11.

Independents

Here is a report by Charlie Cook about independents and why the Democrats need to pay attention to the current lack of support from them.

Listening to two briefings -- one by a Democratic pollster who had just conducted a survey for a group favoring health care reform, the other by a Republican pollster more skeptical of the reform plans -- I felt as if I were hearing a pair of reports by the National Transportation Safety Board on the same plane crash. But in sorting through the problems facing President Obama and congressional Democrats, focusing too narrowly on their disastrous handling of health care would be a mistake.

Obama and Capitol Hill leaders don't need to worry too much about their modest drop in support from Democratic voters or the predictable drop on the Republican side. But top Democrats should be very frightened about the sharp drop in support among independents, because it could ultimately threaten their party's hold on the House and shrink their majority in the Senate.

Lowering the deficit is key to winning them over.

Yet I'm sure if the Republicans act loony enough, the party of Obama will have nothing to worry about.