Reading Dana Milibank’s “Teetering on the border” brings to mind some of the best lines from a visionary Irish poet, whose poem could be said to epitomize the scenario that Milibank draws in his article: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

The last but one paragraph to the article is particularly striking in its sequences:

<<<It was a brief speech but insufficiently inspiring. After she got to the part about health care (“I’m not going to leave anyone out; Senator Obama leaves out at least 15 million”), the mariachi band walked off the arena floor in single file and headed for the exit. After she passed the part about “alternative renewable energy” and announced her pleasure at having “the endorsement of the United Farmworkers Union,” there was a steady flow of people from the arena floor and out the exit below Section 120.>>>

Yet, the last sentence that closes the article is quite revealing in what it purports to say of the campaign:

“There’s nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed once we have new leadership,” Clinton called after them. “I will work my heart out for you and your families.”

A frank yet desperate cry that will hardly fail to move the heart of any, except for the most hardened. The end, however, was in sight, the article seems to say, “the falcon could no longer hear the falconer”.

Is the article too early an epitaph on the Clinton campaign? Definitely, yes. Hillary is a tough and passionate fighter capable of bringing herself together, galvanizing her long standing connections in Texas and Ohio, the women and blue collar workers and staging a come back.

“If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she’ll be the nominee,” former President Clinton said Wednesday in the course of a speech to Hillary’s supporters in the town of Beaumont, Texas. “If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be.”

Given the strength of her campaign team in Texas particularly, it is too early to rule out a turnabout victory as in New Hampshire last January.

In the end, however, the ultimate selection of the candidate to be nominated lies in the hands of superdelegates, of which her husband is one. So all is not lost: the center hasn’t fallen apart completely.

“Unlike pledged delegates won through a primary or a caucus, superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose, and they are not beholden to vote for the candidate they endorse”, Tom Raum (AP) reports.

“I don’t think it’s going to come down to the president’s vote, but as he has said many times, he would be supporting her even if they weren’t married,” The AP reports Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna as saying in a written statement

Teetering On the Border
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Thursday, February 21, 2008; Page A02

OBAMA WAS RIGHT: “U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice;Unilateral attack on al-Qaeda commander called a model for operations”

Following the Washington Post article (Adviser Defends Obama on Foreign Policy) By Jonathan Weisman, Barack Obama’s campaign did not have to show reticence in responding to John McCain’s attacks early yesterday morning, when the latter singled out a statement Obama made last year suggesting he would take unilateral military action against al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan if Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf was not willing to.

Rice repeated that, but said Obama was referring to action only after he had “actionable intelligence” on “high value terrorist targets. .

All the Obama’s campaign had to do was to follow details of the strike on senior al-Qaeda command, Abu Laith al-Libi, widely reported in the press, but only expanded on by MSNBC News (U.S. strikes within Pakistan without notice: Unilateral attack on al-Qaeda commander called a model for operations) .

As usual the press reported on the attack (or killing or whatever) but left the details to the winds, due to the pressing need to cover the primaries. The successful operation indicates that Obama’s proposal was and remains is far more realistic to the charge of naivety credited him by his adversaries.

The success of the operation and the fact that it falls in line with Obama’s prior proposal indicates his solid understanding of what it takes to accomplish certain tasks or goals. Most importantly, it shows his trust in what US forces are capable of achieving under insightful leadership.

The charge that Obama’s foreign policy experience is slim is nothing but rhetoric. His purported “lack of experience” does not trump his understanding, intelligence, and analytical skills or his ability to manage and benefit from a think-tank that would deduce models of operation capable of blunting the war on terror. He himself has largely questioned the experience that led to the disastrous expedition in Iraq, a perspective that must be kept in sight even beyond the presidential elections.

When not backed by actionable intelligence, insight, and an understanding of the facts on the ground, acting on the basis of experience alone particularly in these modern times, often ends in failure. The difference Obama offers perhaps is that between incisive intelligence, surgical strikes, putting he pressure on the terrorist front and simultaneously engaging a broad-based global diplomacy at the official level as well as re-energizing the Peace Corps, Fulbright and other educational and humanitarian missions around the world, to both reclaim and redefine the role of the US in a fast changing and often hostile world.

Ultimately in relation to the Commander-in-Chief question, one has not heard the other side of the equation, that is, the opinion of the body that is to be commanded. That would be of course difficult to determine as they are supposed to stay out of politics. However, my guess is that given the propositions of the candidates, Obama would be most likely to win the favor of a cross section, given his intellect and ability for both horizontal and vertical organization understandings.

In fact, his “bottom-up” or grassroots approach is far more likely to enable him achieve better results and bring about positive change through generating enthusiasm and a need of dynamic engagement – just as he did in the challenged neighborhoods Chicago before becoming a senator.