Joe, Is there any way you could encourage or cinvince Senator Barack Obama to run for President next election? He hasn't been in D.C. long enough to be corrupted much yet, and he is is smart, caring, and has common sense. The democrats need new blood.
Bob Ross
Harrisburg, Il

JOE KLEIN: Well, there seems to be a Barack Obama boomlet these days. Maureen Dowd and Margaret Carlson promoted him in their columns this week. From my conversations with the Senator, I sense a level-headed judiciousness: he's going to make his move when he senses the time is right. But I'd be shocked if he didn't make the move sooner or later. You're right, though—he's smart, caring and rational. I hope he can maintain that in the maelstrom to come.

Joe...I heard a very convincing argument on the radio the other day in favor of the public funding of political campaigns. I think it was George Miller, and his point was that if we could prevent just one stupid, costly piece of lobby-driven legislation per year (his example was a $7 billion subsidy to the oil industry) this would more than pay for a year of campaigns, and then the country would be less controlled by special interests. I love this idea, but is it way too good to be true? Could this ever really happen? If not, please explain before I make a complete ass out of myself by repeating it all over town at cocktail parties. Thanks,
A. Faust
Portland, Oregon

JOE KLEIN: There are two strong arguments against it. One is the First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech. The second is the reality that almost every time we "reform" campaign financing, the situation seems to geet worse. It is impossible to construct a loophole-free system. I'm in favor of some modest reforms—like more free time for candidates (and more freedom for what they can do with it—if they want to run political ads, so be it). The most hopeful development in this area has been the invention of the television remote control—more and more people are clicking off the garbage that passes for political advertising, which is limiting the influence of money in politics.

Many independent observers are now calling the events in Iraq a 'civil war' — Bush & Co., of course, refuse to call it this. Who is correct?
Cornel Scor
Naples, Florida

JOE KLEIN: It's a low grade civil war between the Arab sunnis and shiites in Iraq. The insurgency always was, predominantly, an indigenous sunni operation (with a small number of foreign sunni terrorists joining them); in the past year, the Shiites have begun to respond with equal violence—much of it coming from the militia-controlled Ministry of the Interior. The Bush Administration has been reluctant to acknowledge that the "democratic" government in Iraq has been an active participant in the sectarian conflict.

Joe: It's amazing and incredibly disappointing to have one party control all three branches of government and have the poor results we're seeing now. Runaway budget, lopsided foreign exchange, war profiteering, congressional scandals, etc. Are we (the people) better off with a divided Congress that hopefully learns to negotiate/moderate, or do you think this is just the fault of this administration?
Jon Eisen
San Diego, CA

JOE KLEIN: You need a bipartisan consensus to do important things in this democracy. I'm much more comfortable with divided government, especially given the hyper-partisan nonsense going on in both parties right now. Here's to the sane center!

Hey Joe, CNN published a survey where about 40% of the respondents said that they would not vote for a woman for President under any circumstances, for either party. This does not bode well for Hillary's chances. Do you think that a woman should run for Vice President before President to get the public used to that idea? It seems the next logical step after Albright pushed the glass ceiling higher as Secretary of State.
Dave
San Francisco, CA

JOE KLEIN: Polls like that don't mean much. A great woman candidate—someone who is informed, tough, comfortable, funny and not some famous guy's wife—would melt away that 40% in a heartbeat. As for VP, people don't run for vice president. They're selected...and it'll take a terrific woman, with real credibility as a potential president, to be selected.

I quite understand that the UAE acquisition of operational responsibilities for those 6 ports is not breaking news but I still have some lingering questions about the situation as a whole.

If the objection is that there should be no foreign government proxy acting as the entity with managerial responsibility for operational activities of major ports, what can be said about those ports under Chinese control? Am I to believe that there are economic structures in China that somehow evade the influence of the Chinese centralized government? Wouldn't it be more realistic to concede that the Chinese company in control of daily operations of those several ports is in fact an entity of the Chinese government in exactly the same way that DP World is an entity of the UAE? Is there some sort of double standard in play here, leading to the butressing of the claim that we have some Arab/Muslin bashing as one dimension of the recent controversy?

And if we can scuttle the DP World deal, what about the Chinese counterpart? Are they too significant a world player to be treated in a similar fashion? Or is it just too late to squelch the deal already made and somehow the antennas failed to pick up this particular transaction?
J. Kelly McNamara
Valley Center, Kansas

JOE KLEIN: Good questions. First, let me say: the level of demagoguery and political disingenuousness about the Dubai Ports Deal was an American disgrace. Dubai is an important U.S. ally in the region—its own port is an essential resupply area for the U.S. Navy. Many of our covert intelligence missions are staged from Dubai. This controversy was all about the political exploitation of anti-Arab feelings, so yes, there was a double standard.

But we're only talking about the management of ports, here. I don't think either the Dubai or Chinese management companies represent a threat to U.S. security, especially since port security is the responsibility of the U.S. government. We're also not talking about the transfer of sensitive technology—which, to my mind, is a more serious issue than the management of ports (and which is quite common, especially in defense contracting). We live in a global economy. That means there will be extensive foreign involvement in the U.S. economy, and vice versa. We haven't spent enough time figuring out what that means for our future.

Joe, During the last election all we ever heard from the Democrats was "I have a plan" yet they never put a positive plan out for us to see. Do you think they will have "a plan" in the fall and in '08?
Gene Guerin
Albuquerque,NM

JOE KLEIN: What kind of plan? John Kerry laid out extensive plans in 2004—including a pretty good universal health care plan. If you're talking about a plan for Iraq, no one has one of those! In the end, I think Democrats tend to mistake wonky policy plans for beliefs. It's pretty well established by academics that voters make their choice based on character—which I define as the intersection of character and beliefs. Plans proposed in campaigns rarely pan out in the White House. They're only good for giving us a hint of what the candidate's priorities are. That's valuable, but not nearly sufficient.

Joe, All this talk about Bush now turning over to Iraqi security forces...hmmmm, I think I have heard this before. Vietmazation as Nixon and Kissinger called it. Yeah, and when we left they fell like a house of cards. Do you think we will have the Vietmazation of Iraqi forces and it is just a face saving device?
Tony Kendall
Carmel

JOE KLEIN: This is a huge question. Here's the problem: most of the Iraqi units we're training are sectarian. There are very few, if any, blended battalions—that is, units composed of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. The most effective units are militias—Kurdish Pesh Merga; Shiite Badr Brigades—who are simply wearing Iraqi army uniforms. This may well mean that the effect of Iraqification will be worse than Vietnamization, that we're only training this units to be more efficient in killing each other in the coming civil war.

In your recent piece, you suggested that Dick Cheney was traumatized by accidentally shooting his friend, and this emotional trauma explains why he appeared self-centered, callous, and imperious to the press and American people. However, I notice that after shooting his friend, Dick Cheney did not join him at the hospital, but instead sat down with friends to a roast beef dinner. Perhaps the reason Dick Cheney appeared self-centered and imperious is because he is self-centered and imperious. He did not want to face the consequences of his actions, and so he did not. Perhaps this issue has resonance for the American people not because they are shallow, but because they are smart. From Iraq to Texas, Dick Cheney is irresponsible and reckless with the lives of others, and when his actions inevitably have consequences, he tries to hide from them. Dick Cheney breaks the rules, other people pay the price, and he tries to duck responsibility for the consequences of his actions. This incident had resonance not because it was a new story, but because it was pretty much the story of this administration.
Theora Jones
Nashville, Tenn.

JOE KLEIN: You're right about Cheney. I'd also add incompetent into the mix. But he did shoot a guy, which is no small deal psychologically. As I said in the column, I have faint hope that he'll learn anything from the experience—but given the careless, cavalier way he and the President sent Americans off to war, untrained for counterinsurgency warfare, underarmored, understaffed, under-equipped, I was kind of hoping that he might pay greater attention to the needs of the kids in Iraq and those coming home. I've heard some real horror stories from recent Iraq vets about how difficult and humiliating it is to get post traumatic stress disorder treated by the VA.

Hi Joe, I keep waiting for the mainstream media, like TIME, to take a close look at the GOP- aligned corporations that continue to gain a tighter grip on our means of voting, like Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S. Nationwide, GOP appointed election officials (like California's Secretary of State) continue to approve paperless Diebold DREs and optical scanners that have been proven to run on illegal "interpreter" code (on the memory cards). As you know, the only accountability dishonest and inept elected officials understand is the possibility that they could be voted out of office. For the GOP, that fear is diminishing every day. Please look into this.
Joe Irrera
Nashville, Tenn.

JOE KLEIN: Sorry. I'm not that paranoid. Democrats don't lose elections because of cheating. Those lose elections because of ineptitude.

Isn't it far more likely that Cheney was protecting Bush from knowing that he was drunk when he shot his friend, during those first 24 hours when no one knew if Whittington would live or die? Involuntary manslaughter was hanging in the balance.
Harriet Helman
Ronkonkoma, N. Y.

JOE KLEIN: Sorry. I'm not into all these Bushophobic conspiracy theories, either. We have some really serious problems in this country—let's start with the war in Iraq, the health care non-system, the need for alternative energy sources—that deserve our attention more than this sort of idle speculation.

Joe, I always read your column. I disagree with you as often as I agree with you, but I always appreciate your views. My question: With the political polarization in this country into two extremist camps, is it possible for an American Centrist Party to emerge to represent those of us just trying to move this country forward in a rational and balanced way? The current two party system fails America when both represent extreme views.
Jim Ferris
Mesa, Ariz.

JOE KLEIN: I wish. There are a lot of us who are politically homeless. The problem is, most of the special interests on the left and right have embedded themselves into the two existing parties and they will only be dislodged if moderates become as passionate as the wingnuts.

So Joe, when do you start your new job at Fox News? 'Cause they'll be eating this 'Cheney has a heart' crap up with a spoon...
DG
Wilmington, Del.

JOE KLEIN: Actually, what the folks at Fox really like is people like you—left extremists who refuse to acknowledge the humanity of those with whom they disagree. I have no truck with Cheney (see above), but I'm sure he didn't mean to shoot his friend. Your hatred makes it a lot easier for the conservative wingnuts to caricature liberals as crass and foolish.

I just read your TIME piece regarding the port issue. You said, "The president is right on this." I don't think so. The administration argues that because the UAI will not be responsible for security, they will ONLY be managers. That's crazy. Of course they will attend meetings, be familiar with and participate in the security arrangements. How can they be effective managers if they do not? I do not doubt that they have the best intentions. I do doubt that they will be able to provide 100% assurance that they will not have any employees who might, for ideological reasons or money, be willing to share their knowledge of the port and safety arrangements with al-Qaeda. Actually, I have a problem with any foreign country owning and managing our ports or any other vital infrastructure. But it is certainly even more risky when you are talking about a country from the Middle East.
J. Chase
Kansas City, Mo.

JOE KLEIN: Well, there's a debate to be had about foreign countries owning U.S. assets—or receiving defense contracts from the Pentagon, for that matter—and I think we're going to have that debate pretty soon. It may well be that most Americans will agree with you, and it's probably true that we can and should be more prudent about selling our assets. But two caveats: First, we haven't sold the ports, just the right to manage the ports. Second, any turn we take away from free trade and globalization will have consequences—higher prices, a lower standard of living. Those may be prices, in the end, that we're willing to pay. But, as I said, we need an honest, rational debate about it.

I sent you the same question 3 times (large #s active duty military in no way associated with global war on terror missions//thus military needs realignment) but haven't seen your response. If you posted one (and I missed it) would you PLEASE send it? Meanwhile, here's another question: "Our largest domestic problem is "national healthcare," which immediately brings in Medicare & Medicaid and even Social Security. Many national authorities, including Dr. Andrew Weil (TIME cover), have stated the status quo is NOT sustainable (much longer). Neither political party can accomplish the complete overhaul that is needed because they are in a word "political." Can a national non-profit (like AARP, CofC, Common Cause — you know who better than me) step forward and put together a master plan so compelling that both parties will have no choice but to support it? (Hurry — time is running out. The longer the wait the worse it gets). THANKS and best regards.
Bob Newburn
Aiken, S.C.

JOE KLEIN: Never received your first question, but I do believe a major military transformation is necessary to reflect the realities of the Long War against Islamist radicalism. Rumsfeld's quadrennial review and defense budget just won't cut it. As for the other question, I agree that it's time to move toward a progressive universal health insurance system. As I've written, I believe—in fact, most pragmatists agree—that the best way to get there is an "individual mandate" system that would subsidize the working poor. But it's politicians, not non-profit groups, who will have to hammer out the details.

Dear Joe, I canceled my 8 year subscription to Time after your organization named George W. Bush "The Man of the Year," I believe in 2003 or 2004. My question is: do you think, after reading your uber-suck up sob-story about Vice President Cheney, that I made the right choice in ending my support and funding to a sympathetic right wing media outlet? I mean, c'mon, comparing this man to the Vietnam vets' "thousand yard stare" after he so dissed them by not serving with them? At least Clinton had the balls to stand up for his beliefs and burn his draft card! Your final insult was comparing his behavior to the combat vets you've spoken with. My God, how pathetic you've become... Regards,
Mark Elia
Montgomeryville, Pa.

Mr. Klein: Your comment about Cheney shooting Mr. Whittington ("...he sounded a lot like the combat veterans I've spoken with over the years, for whom the living nightmare of firing a weapon under questionable circumstances is a constant theme.") is insensitive and insulting to combat veterans. Cheney chose to drink and "hunt" with friends on the expensive ranch of a well-connected, wealthy heiress. This in no way resembles anything our combat veterans face in war. His behavior (in his appearance with Hume as well as throughout the rest of his life) more closely meets criteria for diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder, a narcissistic personality disorder, or a true psychopath. In his interview performance, he acted like he thought somebody in his situation should act. There was a complete absence of true affect, and the only thing he felt "sorry" about was that the event was made public and brought him attention he didn't want. Please don't denigrate our military men and women's experiences by comparing him to them. Thanks.
Dr. Margaret M. Reiland
Denver

JOE KLEIN: Let me answer both these together. I compared Cheney's shooting experience to the experience of combat veterans for one reason: in the hopes that this accident will cause him to act more responsibly when sending young people off to war in the future. (I mean, we still have three more years of these guys and no end to the cowboy possibilities abroad). I've written extensively over the years about veterans. (You might want to check out my 1984 book, Payback: Five Marines After Vietnam.) I know that Dick Cheney has no idea what warfare actually entails..but now, perhaps, he'll have the slightest inkling.

Previous Responses

Your questions for Joe

Comments:
Name:
E-Mail:
City, State: