JDB and King’s College, London

I am proud to announce that I have been appointed a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at King’s College, London.

Kings is recognised as one of the leading research universities in the world and it is a very great honour to be associated with the distinguished group of men and women who have worked there since its founding in 1828.

Over the coming years I will be continuing to conduct research and produce materials that examine the role of the United States on the world stage and will be greatly assisted in my ability to do so with this new and exciting development that will open doors not only at Kings, but with affiliated universities worldwide.

I will be continuing at Richmond University in London in my capacity as Associate Professor and Director of the International Relations Postgraduate Degree Programme.

“The Next Vice-President of the United States…”

For those who are less than inspired by the current presidential election, I have good news; it will all be over in 6 months (well 8 if you include the wait until Inauguration Day)! The dynamics could not be more removed from those of 4 years ago. Barack Obama is far from the historic figure if ‘change’ that he positioned himself as in 2008. He has aged visibly in the role and is failing to stoke the passions as once he did. Unable to run on a platform of ‘change’ he has chosen the rather uninspired ‘Forward’ slogan, that has gone down like a lead balloon.

As a candidate he appears unwilling or unable to take credit for his 2 signature moments without them rebounding in his face: His health care reforms are being considered by the Supreme Court and could be rejected as being unconstitutional any day now, and his efforts to maximise the raid that killed bin Laden were scuttled by his inability to credit the work of those on the ground who actually carried out the raid. So all, in all, Obama is failing to cut an inspiring figure in US politics anymore. He may not be Jimmy Carter just yet, but the signs are worrying.

Facing the president is Mitt Romney. This was the governor of Massachusetts who introduced a health care system so similar to that endorsed by the White House that it was referred to as ‘Romney-care’ by his Republican critics in reference to ‘Obama-care’. This is a Republican that is acceptable in Massachusetts. He is also a Mormon, which causes suspicion amongst some and finally he is the very personification of an old school insider politician; a governor and a son of a governor. This is not exactly the candidate that the Tea Party were hoping for and it is their activism that held so much promise for a potential Republican victory this November.

If the top of the ticket is failing to generate any interest then all that leaves is the VP slot. Readers of The Commentator will no doubt be familiar with the HBO movie Game Change that aired recently and which did much to ridicule the Republican process in 2008 that resulted in the selection of Sarah Palin. Less well known is that the book this was drawn from was focused almost exclusively on the Obama-Hillary race with only a small section focused on the Republican VP process.

However, whilst the selection of Governor Palin provided career a high for Tina Fey and filled ample column inches around the world, the forgotten reality is that the Democratic choice didn’t work out too well either. The initial reaction to Obama’s choice of Joe Biden was hardly euphoric with many, myself included, asking how this choice demonstrated the much-vaunted ‘change’ that Obama had campaigned on. Here in the UK Biden was most known, if he was known at all, for plagiarizing material lifted from Neil Kinnock, aka ‘The Welsh Windbag’ and former Leader of the Labour Party who was routinely trounced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s; Hardy a figure to want to be imitating in order to secure the White House.

Biden, it was argued, helped to balance the ticket. Well, ok, he was white and Obama was black, he was old and Obama was not. Was the implication also meant to be that Biden was experienced and Obama was not? That was a reasonable position to take from the comparison, though hardly a flattering one for the would-be president. Biden was from Delaware and Obama from Illinois, so hardly a great North/South divide. Delaware is also a tiny state with only 3 Electoral College votes, so he didn’t exactly bring much to the party on that score. Since the election Biden has hardly covered himself in glory, committing gaffe after gaffe.

If Obama is victorious in November, his power will begin to ebb away very quickly as thoughts turn to the 2016 race and who will replace him in the White House. Does anyone seriously expect that candidate to be Joe Biden? Of course not. Which brings me to my point: What purpose does it serve to retain Biden on the ticket? He no longer serves any purpose other than to distract attention from the president and to act the fool. He is after all, such a buffoon that even bid Laden recognised the potential value of having him in the Oval Office. So, if Biden no longer helps with the ‘lack of experience’ vote, or with the racial equation, his state brings virtually no Electoral College votes and he serves only as a hindrance, why retain him? There is simply no logical argument for his place on the Democratic ticket in 2012.

Obama needs a candidate who will be his Game Changer for 2012. A candidate to excite the base of the Democratic Party. A candidate who is ready to assume the presidency should the unthinkable happen to the Commander-in-Chief. A candidate with a track record of winning campaigns. A candidate who has demonstrated an ability to be a tough and loyal ally. A candidate whose home state would bring in a large number of Electoral College votes. And finally, a candidate that has a viable chance of winning the White House in 2016. There is no one in the Democratic Party that fits these criteria better than Hillary Clinton. She has denied any interest in the role, but selecting Hillary will also aid Obama in his depiction of the Republican ‘War on Women’ in 2012 and present the Republicans with a dilemma.

The dilemma for Romany is how best to counter a decision to place Hillary on the ticket. It can hardly of escaped anyone’s attention that the Republicans had a week field of candidates this year. The heavy hitters all stayed home, clearly anticipating a clear run against a non-incumbent in 21016. They will be ill at ease with the thought of joining a ticket that, if successful would keep them from the Oval Office for at least eight years, and which if it fails, could end any chance of such a situation arising altogether.

Romney desperately needs a Game Changer of how own, but if Obama selects Hillary then Romney could be accused of playing gender politics if he names a woman as his VP candidate. Not that there is a logical Republican female candidate who brings the same strengths to the ticket as Hillary does for the Democrats. Romney must do something altogether different therefore. His one sure-fire bet is to choose Marco Rubio from Florida. Rubio would excite the Republican base, engage the Latino vote, put Florida in play (remember 2000?) and certainly make a Republican victory more of a possibility than it is at present.

The challenge for Romney is not placing the call; it will be if that call is rejected. The risks are huge on both sides however.  If Rubio refuses and Romney loses, does it get blamed on the petulant self-serving one term senator who placed self ahead of nation and party? If Rubio accepts and Romney loses does Rubio get tagged as a loser, thus running his chances in 2016? If Romney wins, then does Rubio lose all of his appeal when he eventually gets to run, which could be as late as 2020?

This is a debate that has been rumbling for some time and must surely come to a head in the coming weeks. Not everyone agrees with this analysis, which is one thing that makes politics so fascinating. However, with the polls close, the stakes so high, the lead candidates so dull, the VP-stakes could not be more important in 2012.

Frontline: Money, Power and Wall Street

The ward-winning PBS series Frontline premiers a new show documenting the apex of power in American life in which Wall Street gets bailed out, Main Street doesn’t and the terrible implications that this had for democracy in the United States.

The show documents the largest single sector in the American economy, double the size of manufacturing sector. With the power to make and break fortunes, 11 trillion dollars of American net worth has been lost in the recent recession along with 8.5 million jobs. Calls were made for the prosecution of the banking sector, although ultimately the Occupy Wall Street movement took hold on the streets if not necessarily in the courts.

Hearings held since 2008 reveal a regulatory system that was inappropriate to oversee the modern financial system and financial vehicles that appear to defy explanation. The Frontline programme seeks to explain the origins of the crisis and the efforts by financiers to reduce risk in the system.

The show interviews reporters, analysis and the very instigators of the financial vehicles that came to cause so much inadvertent damage to the world ‘s economic system, as the JP Morgan team elected to take a model that had worked previously in the agriculture market and applied it to the financial market to reduce exposure and risk to the bank.

The show attempts to explain the new financial vehicles that led ultimately to the collapse of the  markets and of entire companies. Risk was traded and it fuelled a credit boom. The acronyms and financial data remains boggling for those of us not involved but the show does its best to explain it in easy to consume language.

In this it mostly succeeds, but the whole point perhaps is that the confusing element is essential to the reason that that occurred in the first place, allowing for sub prime market deals to be bundled together and sold around the world, ensuring that when the crash occurred it hit places that had no connection to their origins.

The documentary covers where things went wrong, where we are now, and what is yet to come. As always, Frontline is fascinating and insightful and makes for recommended viewing when it screens on May 28 on Sky Channel 166.

JDB and PBS

I am delighted to announce that I have been approached by PBS in regard to a series of forthcoming projects. As a result I will be posting a series of observations relating to forthcoming shows on my website and twitter account and hope that you find my thoughts helpful.

As part of this arrangement I will be attending the premier of the new PBS documentary on Jessie Owens at the American embassy in London on Thursday May 24.

PBS offers British audiences multi-award winning and globally respected series including NOVA, FRONTLINE, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE and PBS Newshour. With weekends broadcasting the best independent documentary filmmaking and children’s shows.

The Public Broadcasting Service is one of America’s most valued brands, a non-profit organisation trusted for its integrity and loved for its quality output.

PBS broadcasts in the United Kingdom on the B-SKY-B satellite system, channel 166 and on Virgin Media, channel 243

Reflecting on Obama’s Gay Marriage Decision

In a recent article, Courting Bubba, I noted that former president Bill Clinton had been accused of racism for questioning the credibility of Obama’s 2008 campaign. This was particularly perplexing and wounding to Clinton whom in office had famously been referred to as America’s First Black President by Toni Morrison. Obviously, Bill Clinton was not an African American, but the point was that he was one of only a few Caucasian politicians who appeared to feel comfortable and capable of empathizing with a non-white audience.

This week Newsweek has referred to the supposedly post-racial Barack Obama as ‘American’s First Gay President.’ They even revealed alternate cover mocks ups in case anyone wondered how they arrived at the cover story. Clearly, Newsweek’s decision has much to do with its ongoing ratings war with Time Magazine and its somewhat more risqué attitude under new editor Tina Brown. The decision to do so has ensured that almost as much time has been spent dissecting Newsweek’s coverage of the story, than it has analysing Obama’s decision to support the idea of gay marriage in the first place.

Indeed the coverage of the announcement is a story all in itself and will doubtless be retold over and over as the media clearly loves nothing more than a tale that it essentially about themselves. Yet the media, its coverage of the story and its apparent usage by the White House remains central to the developing tale of President Obama’s statement endorsing the idea of gay marriage.

Recall that despite attempts to present a serene image of a tolerant, thoughtful president whose position had been evolving on this issue, this was not a planned or carefully thought-out decision. Instead, the President of the United States was playing catch up and being forced to address the situation following yet another gaffe by the vice president, the man even bid Laden did not want to target!

Once the vice president had given his support for gay marriage it was inevitable that the president would be required to go on the record in one form or another. The decision to come out and make an announcement appears to have been made quite literally as the president was heading out of the White House door en route to Albany. There then followed a mad scramble to identify an appropriate vehicle by which to make the announcement, with the White House finally settling on using Robin Roberts on ABC’s Good Morning America. The use of Roberts, an African American, was revealing and this must have been factored in when deciding who got the scoop.

With the announcement made, the media have jumped all over it, with ABC congratulating themselves for securing their place in broadcast history. In the week that Time Magazine made headlines for its cover on breastfeeding, Newsweek chose to place its coverage of the Obama story front and centre in what will doubtless be a cover for the ages. Interestingly, just as the White House made a conscious decision in the selection of Robin Roberts, so too did Newsweek in their selection of Andrew Sullivan to write the cover story.

With the media congratulating itself over its coverage of the story, what are the political ramifications? As noted above, this was not a well thought out announcement and whatever one’s views on the morality of the issue, the political timing is dreadful. It has clearly caught the country and Obama’s own party completely flat-footed.

Is there an up side? Well, by all accounts there was a great deal of money riding on this that Obama will presumably now be able to secure from the gay community. It has also (and completely unconnectedly, of course) played well in Hollywood. This combination was expected to generate anything up to $12 million in campaign funds in the immediate aftermath of the announcement.

It will be argued that this places Obama on ‘the right side of history,’ that gay marriage is an inevitability and that Obama is right to endorse it now, lest he get left behind on the issue and be forced to play an even bigger game of catch up later. Maybe. It will help with some elements of the Democratic base that view this as a matter of civil rights.

So…. the gay community, Hollywood and the Democratic base are pacified by this.

But where else were they going to go? Would they have ever voted for Mitt Romney? Which forces us to consider the downside to the announcement….

At present, polling indicates that this is a closer race than many (myself included) would have predicted. With the power of the incumbency, a divisive Republican primary season and millions of dollars in his campaign war chest, the expectation was that Obama would be far ahead in the polls.

That he is not is encouraging to Mitt Romney and problematic for the president, who must be wondering where he is going to garner the magical 270 Electoral College votes necessary to secure a second term in the White House. At a time of economic hardship, international turmoil and in the midst of an election cycle, the president’s announcement carries great political risk, with questions raised as to the necessity to address this issue now. Is it a national priority? Is it an issue that the president intends to campaign on? Is it an issue the president is prepared to lose an election over?

Vitally the White House is not proposing to legislate on the issue. The president maintains that this is a state issue and that the federal government will not become involved. He has, however, firmly pined his colours to the mast and will be praised and criticised in equal measure for doing so. His choice will doubtless please his base and appal his opponents. What will be of interest is which side it motivates most to get out and vote in November.

Mitt Romney has come out in opposition to the president’s announcement, which should surprise no one in particular. This alone should appease those who lament a lack of distinction between opposing candidates in an election.

However, elections may be based on issues, but they are won with numbers and right now the president’s numbers on this issue do not look good. Many states can be discounted in a presidential election. There will be those states that will inherently vote Democrat (New York, Massachusetts, etc) and those that inherently vote Republican (Indianapolis, North Dakota etc). However, it is in the all important swing states that the race will be decided; states that cannot be relied upon and where the difference between defeat and victory could be as little as a few hundred thousand votes. It is these votes that will decide the coming election and they do not appear to be in favour of the president’s stance on gay marriage. Seven of these states have provisions of one kind or another that restrict or ban gay marriage. Vitally, the majority of these were not enforced by mean spirited legislators, but were instead passed through ballot measures, which is a major problem for the president.

Same sex marriage is outlawed in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado and there are restrictions in Wisconsin and Nevada. Elsewhere in the Union, over 30 states have legislated against gay marriage. Planning a route to victory for Obama that does not include Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Florida becomes a mathematical challenge. In addition, Democrats are preparing to descend on Charlotte, North Carolina this summer for their nominating convention, the state that acted last week to ban gay marriage. This decision has led to calls to move the convention and to an online petition to boycott the state. As noted above, however, if Democrats are forced to gather only in states that have not passed similar legislation then they must avoid Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Polls released in the aftermath of the president’s announcement indicate that Americans recognise that politics as usual is at play here. This brings the issue around full circle in regard to the lack of planning that was put into this announcement. For an administration to gain public support on a contentious, history making issue, it is necessary to build up a head of steam and to prepare the public for a shift in policy so that when it comes the voters have been prepared to receive it. This did not happen in this case.

The subject does not dominate national debate but has the potential to damage Obama in marginal constituencies. 67% of respondents in a New York Times/CBS poll believed that the announcement was made “mostly for political reasons.” “38 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 24 percent favor civil unions short of formal marriage. Thirty-three percent oppose any form of legal recognition. When civil unions are eliminated as an option, opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.”

At a time when the economy appears to be improving Obama has not aided his electoral chances with this announcement. The economy remains the number one issue for voters but the NYT/CBS poll indicates the decision could cause 26% of voters to be less inclined to vote for Obama.

It’s still the economy stupid, but Obama may have been advised to wait until he was safely re-elected before addressing this issue, which threatens to undermine his carefully constructed re-election plans.

The Ghost of Presidents Past: Bill Clinton and the 2012 Presidential Election

Having been duly chastised for speaking his mind four years ago, Bill Clinton is now being utilised by President Obama’s re-election campaign. President Clinton is appearing in campaign commercials, lauding Obama’s prowess as Commander in Chief and hailing his ability to finish the job that Clinton himself had started in the late 1990s, the killing of Bin Laden.

In 2008 he was the staunchest supporter of Barack Obama’s archrival, Hillary Clinton. The former president was roundly and ridiculously attacked for suggesting that Obama’s candidacy was a joke and for expressing the opinion that Obama’s much vaunted opposition to the Iraq War was a fairy tale. In the process he learnt a lesson that has become apparent in Europe: “Thou Shalt Not Speak bad of Obama for fear of being misconstrued…”

It appears that in politics, if you wait long enough, you see everything and that the troubling details of reality are forgotten, with only myth surviving. In the 1992 presidential campaign both the Democrat and Republican candidates made reference to Harry Truman and attempted to cast themselves as his political standard bearer, albeit for differing reasons. In addition, wave after wave of politicians from all walks of life have attempted to benefit from the legacy of the Kennedy bothers. This election season the ghost of presidents past appears to be Bill Clinton.

Of course the link between Obama and Clinton is an interesting one. Recall that Hillary Clinton was the presumptive Democratic candidate in 2008, only to see her one shot at the presidency usurped by Barack Obama, whose career she has sought to nurture in its early stages. The Clinton’s combined sense of unease at this is understandable and forms the basis for most of the Game Change book, as opposed to the HBO movie, that chose to ignore the Democratic infighting. Equally infuriating to the Clinton’s was the way in which their supporters chose to jump ship to Obama’s banner long before it became apparent that he was guaranteed victory. No defection was more symbolic than that of the Kennedys, whom Bill had courted assiduously during his time in office. Ultimately, Hillary and many former Clinton era officials wound up working for Obama in the White House, in a move that should put pay to the debate to the actor/agency debate in international relations theory.

However, Bill Clinton is also being touted by the presumptive Republican Mitt Romney, who is contrasting Clinton’s New Democrat approach with the seemingly Old Democrat mentality of Barack Obama. Speaking in Lansing, Michigan, Romney said of the contrast between Clinton and Obama:

“President Obama chose to apply liberal ideas of the past to a 21st century America. Liberal policies didn’t work then, they haven’t worked over the last four years, and they won’t work in the future. New Democrats had abandoned those policies, but President Obama resurrected them, with predictable results.

President Clinton said the era of big government was over. President Obama brought it back with a vengeance. Government at all levels now constitutes 38% of the economy, and if Obamacare is installed, it will reach almost 50%.”

President Clinton made efforts to reform welfare as we knew it. President Obama is trying tirelessly to expand the welfare state to all Americans, with promises of more programs, more benefits, and more spending.”

This is the same Bill Clinton that was impeached by the Republican controlled Congress; the same Bill Clinton who couldn’t get a single Republican to vote for his first budget and the same Bill Clinton who failed to receive over 50% of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996. Now, apparently, he is Mitt Romney’s poster boy for sensible government!

All things considered, one can see why Romney would contrast Clinton’s time in office with Obama’s. Consider the economic record of the United States during Clinton’s tenure and the fact that by the 2000 election, the debate was about what to do with the budget surplus! It really is remarkable that Obama has not sought to make more use of Clinton during his first term in his efforts to get the economy back on track.

Of course, Bill Clinton is the ex-president who never really went away. An adroit campaigner, Clinton has never strayed from the limelight and appears incapable of yielding the floor to a new generation of politicians and to be honest, why should he? Over ten years after leaving office, Clinton still remains the Democrat’s most potent campaigner in chief. Clinton’s abilities were often overlooked, or dismissed as being evidence of a Slick Willy mentality, but he was and remains a political mastermind, capable of guile and cunning and a far more able politician than the current occupant of the White House.

Much is made of Obama’s rhetorical capacity, but his stumbling syntax when faced by a malfunctioning TelePrompTer reveals a different story. Contrast this with Bill Clinton’s State of the Union Address in 1994 when he was forced to ad-lib for 20 minutes due to the wrong speech having been loaded into the TelePrompTer.

The irony in all of this is incredible. In 20912 both Republican and Democratic candidates are utilising Bill Clinton in a positive light on their campaigns. In 2000 Clinton’s own vice president, Al Gore, refused to adequately utilise Clinton or even his own record in office and ended up loosing the election by a couple of hanging chads in Florida.

It will be interesting to see how Romney’s remarks play out in Republican political circles. It is likely that they will reinforce the widely held view of Romney as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and that despite Rick Santorum’s middle of the night ‘endorsement’ he remains the “worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama” in 2012.

Obama Caught Dancing in the End Zone: The Commander in Chief on His Victory Lap

Presidential election adverts have the potential to set the tone for campaigns and to make their mark in history. Notable examples include Lyndon Johnson’s notorious Daisy advert from 1964 and the commercials from President Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984, The Bear and Morning in America.

It is unlikely that this latest effort from the Obama team entitled ‘One Chance’, will end up in this category of historically important averts, but it certainly appears that the Obama team has missed an historic opportunity to call for unity in this message. Essentially a 90 second commentary by former President Bill Clinton discussing Barack Obama’s decision to launch the mission that took out Osama bin Laden a year ago, the campaign advert has received widespread criticism.

The film goes beyond mere advocacy of the president’s decision to raise doubts as to whether Mitt Romney would have made the same call and launched the raid that killed bin Laden. It does so by use of Wolf Blitzer reading a Romney quote from several years ago, in which he questions the wisdom of “moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to catch one person.” The suggestion that the president is ‘dancing in the End Zone’ was exacerbated by Obama’s decision to address the nation from Afghanistan last night.

In previous presidential elections, candidates have repeatedly sought to portray themselves as being strongest in terms of national security. During the Cold War in particular any weakness in this area was quickly pounced upon and exploited as a sign of weakness and unsuitability for the highest office in the land. Flaws in this area proved fatal for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, for George McGovern in 1972 and Michael Dukakis never overcame his disastrous tank ride in 1988. Even Senator John Kerry, a decorated war hero, was unable to adequately exploit his escapades in Vietnam despite the contrasting positions adopted during that conflict by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Interestingly, the advert does not feature Obama making any comment upon the killing. Instead he is shown in silhouette, looking out of a window in the Green Room of the White House, in an image clearly designed to replicate George Tames’ classic portrait of President John F. Kennedy in the Oval Office, alone with the awesome responsibility of power.

What is surprising, perhaps, is that Obama has taken so long to play the bin Laden card and one wonders how comfortable he is in doing so? However the president feels personally about this, he and his campaign have clearly recognised that they cannot afford to be out-muscled by their Republican challenger. History reveals that Republicans have traditionally been far more effective at presenting themselves as the natural defenders of U.S. national security in contrast to their Democratic rivals.

There is a long tradition in the United States of electing Republicans in time of national security threats and Democrats in time of economic crisis. This has been referred to as the ‘Daddy’ and ‘Mommy’ reaction to challenges; ‘Daddy’ will defend you, ‘mommy’ will sort out the finances. Clearly, this is far from flattering to Democratic Party sensibilities and the validity of this charge is questionable; it was, of course, Democratic administrations that took the United States into World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam. There is, therefore, something of a conservative myth of national security strength.

In 2008 Obama was a less muscular candidate and was attacked on this basis by Senator Hillary Clinton in her advert asking whom America wanted in the White House to take an emergency call at 3am. With a distinguished military record and family heritage, Senator John McCain was the national security candidate, but this was of little benefit in a time of financial crisis, which helped deliver the presidency to Barack Obama.

Four years later Obama needs to take advantage of his dual role as President and Commander-in-Chief to maximise his chance for re-election. To do so he is seeking to emphasize his successes, minimise his errors and exacerbate any perceived weakness in his opponent. In doing so he has the benefit of having been the president who authorised the mission that finally killed Osama bin Laden, over a decade after the assault on Washington and New York.

Some have suggested that his attempt to benefit from such an action is akin to Nixon claiming credit for the Moon landing in July 1969; an event that occurred under his watch, but which had been initiated almost a decade earlier by his fiercest political rival, President Kennedy. This, however, is disingenuous. All presidents have to take responsibility for events that occur on their watch, both good and bad. Just as President Carter was forced to run for re-election having launched the disastrous effort to recapture American hostages that resulted in the loss of life following helicopter crashes in the desert, so Obama gets to run as the president who got bin Laden. To deny him this achievement is petty.

Taking credit for operational successes during tenure in office is a time-honoured tradition. Claiming credit for engaging with the enemy has occurred in presidential addresses before and will happen in the future. President Obama is far from unusual in this regard.

However the campaign advert has missed an excellent opportunity to rally support and unify the nation. In seeking to highlight only the role played by the president in launching the operation to kill bin Laden, it has rightly been criticised for not mentioning the vital role played by the intelligence services, the military in general, SEAL Team 6 in particular and the work put in by the Bush Administration long before Obama came to office. A few words to share the accolades would have made a world of difference and actually benefited the White House by appearing to be magnanimous rather than triumphant. It has even led to criticism by the very Navy SEALS who led the operation.

This poor choice has been compounded by the un-necessary decision to raise questions as to whether Mitt Romney would have launched such an operation. Such a stance is churlish and un-becoming the office of the presidency. Strategically it makes no sense; this is a campaign message by the President of the United States and he should not need to engage his as yet un-anointed opponent in such a broadcast.

The Obama campaign’s actions have actually granted Mitt Romney the opportunity to appear gracious and generous in his response. Speaking alongside former Mayor Ruddy Giuliani in New York, the presumptive Republican candidate spoke yesterday of his admiration for ALL concerned with the raid that killed bin Laden, including President Obama, but also the SEAL Team 6, the CIA etc. Vitally he noted the strategic error that the Obama campaign had made: “I think politicizing it and trying to draw a distinction between himself and myself was an inappropriate use of the very important event that brought America together,” Romney said. It was, perhaps, the most presidential that Romney has sounded on the campaign so far.

With the campaign season in America about to move into high gear, we can expect to see far more of these commercials, advocating one candidate or another. The Romney campaign has proved to be the masters of attack ads during the Republican primary season. The Obama campaign would be wise to note that the best American political ads have not needed to highlight the apparent flaws in an opponent, but merely to advance the unifying qualities of their own candidate to inspire the very sense of hope and calm that is required in national leadership. The Obama campaign must devise a better, more bi-partisan way of doing this if it is to avoid falling prey to the inevitable attack ads that have so far proved to be so successful for Mitt Romney.

A version of this article first appeared on The Commentator.

I was asked to appear on Sky News to discuss the President’s activities this week, I hope you enjoy my comments:

JDB Interview on Sky News’ Boulton & Co Today

With the President of the United States making a sudden and dramatic flight to Afghanistan I was called upon for comment today, first on Pippa Jones’ Magazine programme on ITalkFM and then with Sky News’ Political Editor, Adam Boulton.

I appeared on Boulton & Co along with Hagai M. Segal from NYU to discuss the next steps in America’s on-going conflict with political violence. Enjoy!