[[links on this post are screwed up, and a lot of text is missing. I'll repair the damage when I get to another computer and will repost this]]

I’m starting to see signs that certain not-starry-eyed Democratic partisans do indeed see the forest for the trees. But first, let me set this up with an observation from Mr. Hitchens about the fog of excitement that prevents a lot of observers who should know better from seeing reality during this exciting but also totally over-hyped run-up to the election:

I remember going to several of the mass events generated by Colin Powell’s memoirs a few years ago, and being very touched by the eagerness with which young and old “white” people hoped he would give them the chance to elect (what would in fact have been) our first West Indian president. It was all book-tour hype as it turned out — I could have told you that then — but now it has resurfaced in a similarly naïve way.

Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama’s Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified “white” candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?

And now let me get back to my point. The other day, I noticed (and noted) Arianna Huffington’s surprising tack toward Iraq and the war on terror as a continuing issue for Democrats.

As Arianna Huffington wrote yesterday, Iraq and the “war on terrorism” are still major concerns for the electorate. Today, she’s declaring Hillary the winner in the debate last night and encouraging Hillary to stay on this theme. (I don’t know why Arianna is taking this pro-Hillary stance. I thought she was a Hillary hater. Goes to show you how much I know. I haven’t been following along to see who in the media is on whose side in the campaign.)

Now comes Tom Edsall, also (coincidentally? I think not) writing in the HuffPo about the possibility that the Dems might get “blindsided” by “terror issues”:

While many Democratic strategists are confident that the deteriorating economy virtually assures the victory of their presidential candidate on November 4, there is a quiet debate over whether the party and prospective nominee are likely to get blindsided by Republicans raising issues of terrorism and national security. …

Anyone who read what Karl Rove had to say (I wrote about it here, in a post titled “Resurrecting Rudy“) will, of course, not be surprised to hear that the Republicans still consider national security their strong suit—so when this comes up in the national election, it will not be a matter of the Dems being blindsided but rather of their misreading the electorate.

See, there are a lot of people in America who are actually deeply concerned about national security (I didn’t say fearful of terrorism; I said deeply concerned about national security). We read the papers, we read widely on the Internet, we read blogs, we watch TV, we read books, we think for ourselves, and we see external threats to America—not as “Republican talking points” but as real. And then there’s the rest of the electorate—the uninformed masses. They too get some information—a lot of it in the form of reductive crap that I call “infotainment”—but they get the message. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about: punchy and straight to the point:

You may laugh at this, dear readers, since you are such an educated bunch. But you overlook its impact at your peril if you’re a Democrat who says phooey about the “war on terrorism,” because unless your candidate acknowledges this issue as deeply important, he or she will lose. Let us not forget, for example, that the United States is still engaged in a war in Iraq. Primary voters may be looking for “change,” but the electorate has not forgotten that change in Iraq, for example, will come slowly—for us and for Iraq.

Various Dems and liberals (a catch-all) tell Edsall not to be alarmed—the electorate is interested in lots of issues, especially the economy.

But Brian Katulis tells Edsall something else entirely: that the Dems still have no coherent “narrative” about national security [e.a.]:

“I wouldn’t say that Democrats have avoided national security as much as they have not yet developed a coherent narrative that simply goes beyond ‘Bush screwed things up.’….Conservatives have an overarching story when it comes to talking about national security - it’s not dissimilar to Bush’s narrative: there are bad people out there, we need to go out there and try to kill them ourselves before they get us. Simplistic, and applied to many different threats, but it’s kind of an easy story line….

“It’s those political consulting classes on the Democratic side who are particularly wounded and still operating on the defensive when it comes to national security - which is truly a stunning thing when you think about it, given all of the strategic errors conservatism is responsible for on the national security front the last seven years.

“So I think there’s a sweet spot for Democrats to actually say something that connects the dots on the national security and terrorism front - one that actually responds to a need from the American people to hear a viable alternative - but we’re just not hearing it yet at that political communications level.”

Am I the only one who is totally intrigued by the Gigantic Ego that is the new French president?

Not two hours ago, I posted about the hopeless (irony alert!) mess that is Samantha Power’s “advice” on how to rethink Iran and just now I come across the brass-balls-out maneuver of Sarkozy that has even Marc Lynch—who knows a LOT about the Arab world—scratching his head [e.a.]:

Speaking of the Gulf, I’m struggling to understand the significance of the stunning announcement that the UAE had agreed to the establishment of a major French military base in Abu Dhabi. … A long-term French strategic position in the Gulf challenges American exclusivity, and potentially undermines the fundamental architecture of the hegemonic American position in the Gulf. Perhaps Sarkozy truly is a neo-Gaullist after all….

Here’s the announcement, from Wednesday, January 16 [e.a.]:

PARIS - In a major strategic shift, France is setting up its first permanent naval base in the Persian Gulf, just across from Iran, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced during a visit yesterday to the United Arab Emirates.

The 400-strong military base will be built in Abu Dhabi, the wealthiest and most influential of the Emirates, and will include a significant intelligence operation, French officials said.

It will make France one of a small number of Western countries alongside the United States to have a military presence in a region that is of increasing geopolitical importance both because of its lucrative gas and oil resources and because of its proximity to Iran.

The agreement is “a sign to all that France is participating in the stability of this region of the world,” Sarkozy told reporters after signing the accord, the Associated Press reported.

“France responds to its friends,” he said.

Only one week earlier, Sarkozy was telling the French press that it was free to ignore his steamy personal life (my characterization, not his), remember?

Very interesting. I have no idea what the guy is up to, but it’s clear he is intent on making himself known far and wide.

Here’s a link to the various things I’ve had to say about Sarkozy recently (none of them about politics or foreign policy).

From Christopher Hitchens, natch:

Let us give hearty thanks and credit to Rudy Giuliani, who has never by word or gesture implied that we would fracture any kind of “ceiling” if we elected as chief executive a man whose surname ends in a vowel.

Yet actually, it would be unprecedented if someone of Italian descent became the president of the United States and there was a time — not long ago at that — when the very idea would have aroused considerable passion. Now that it doesn’t, is it not possible to think that that very indifference is the real “change”?

Indeed. Hitchens also nails the real problem—identity politics—with a delicious bon mot [e.a.]:

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of “race” or “gender” alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

So what else is new?

Samantha Power, a distinguished and eloquent author and academic and supposedly a close adviser on foreign policy to Barack Obama, suggests that we “rethink” Iran. Perhaps not surprisingly, considering who she is advising (the King of Hope), her expert “advice” is also founded on hope—and nothing but,, as she herself admits in this pathetic, intellectually dishonest, and useless piece in Time magazine [e.a.]:

A new Iran policy should start with the premise that any country behind a problem can also be behind a solution. No aspect of the Iraq quagmire can be resolved without Iranian involvement. Washington has a better chance of modifying Iran’s influence in Iraq–and Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon–than of immediately halting it.

To do so, we need to broaden the range of policy tools we draw upon. That means refraining from redundant reminders that military force is still “on the table,” which only strengthen the hand of hard-line Islamists and nationalists. It means broadening cultural contacts with the Iranian people, bypassing the regime through Voice of America and the Internet. And it means trying high-level political negotiations, something the Bush Administration has so far shunned. Supporters of engagement should not equate dialogue with concessions. We should ask international negotiators to insist–as we did with the Soviet Union during the cold war–that Iran address human-rights issues as well as security concerns. It’s true that earlier attempts at engagement have produced few dividends. But what negotiations can do is diminish perceptions of U.S. arrogance and remind the world of the urgency of getting Iran to cooperate on issues of shared interest, from preventing state failure in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan to caring for Iraqi refugees.

Dear Samantha Power:

Your candidate repeats this cute phrase over and over again on the stump: that it is stupid to keep trying the same things over and over again and to expect a different result.

Let me remind you that

a) successful negotiators (like, for example, John Edwards) never take anything off the table before beginning negotiations.

b) recent cultural exchanges have led to Americans being jailed and then intimidated after their release

c) Iran has a tendency to change “negotiators” just as negotiations begin to get somewhere (i.e., just as Iran is tempted to make some compromises)

d) international “negotiators” are working against the businessmen in their own countries, who are writing contracts with Iran right and left, now that the NIE declared Iran kosher.

e) “diminishing perceptions” of U.S. arrogance, such as for example Bush’s recent Middle East trip, are a PR exercise in futility. Photo ops and talk are cheap. People the world over are not as stupid as you think.

The Iranians don’t want to deal. They want to rule, with an iron “Islamic” fist—over people who are not interested in their manner of governance.

Stop selling false hope. You are not doing your candidate—or our country—any favors.