Time to Roast Obama.

Last Saturday night, the President took his wife out for dinner. I am sure they would have preferred a quiet evening but they were joined by members of Congress, the Administration, guests and the members of the White House Correspondents Association at the annual WHCA dinner.

This year’s host, Cecily Strong set off a number of barbs. She told President Obama: “Your hair is so white now it can talk back to the police.” She also remarked, “Seriously, the Washington Hilton is great. And I bet when the President walked in and saw all those bellhops, he thought, finally, some decent security.”

The President weighed in with self-mockery, as well as some good shots at his political opponents:

·      “My new policy is paying off. Look at my Cuba policy: the Castro brothers are here tonight. Amigos! Que pasa? What? It’s the Castros from Texas? Oh. Hi, Joaquin. Hi, Julian.”

·      “Six years into my presidency, people still say I’m arrogant, aloof, condescending. People are so dumb. No wonder I don’t meet with them.”

·      “Being President is never easy. I still have to fix the broken immigration system. Issue veto threats. Negotiate with Iran. All while finding time to pray five times a day.”

·      “At this point, my legacy is finally able to take shape. Economy is getting better. Nine in ten Americans now have health coverage. Today, thanks to Obamacare, you no longer have to worry about losing your insurance if you lose your job. You’re welcome, Senate Democrats.”

Nor could Mr Obama resist taking a shot at the probable Democratic nominee for 2016:

·      “I have one friend, just a few weeks ago, she was making millions of dollars a year. Now she’s living out of a van in Iowa.”

·      “As we know, Hillary’s private emails got her in trouble. Frankly, I thought it was going to be her private Instagram account.”

Every year, traditionally on the last Saturday in April, the WHCA hosts a dinner at the Washington Hilton to honor the President and Vice-President of the United States. This year was the ninety fifth anniversary of the dinner, although the first president to attend was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. Occasionally, annual dinners were cancelled or downsized due to deaths or political crises. The dinner was cancelled in 1930, due to the death of former president William Howard Taft, in 1942, following the United States' entry into World War II, and in 1951, over what President Truman called the "uncertainty of the world situation." The Korean War had begun.

For more than its first forty years, the dinner was ‘stag’ but in 1962, at the urging of journalist Helen Thomas, President John Kennedy refused to attend the event unless women were invited. The ban was dropped. And why not? WHCA membership was always open to women.

Until the early 1980s, entertainment usually comprised singing between courses. There would often be a homemade movie about the President and a post-dinner show with big-name performers like Gracie Fields, Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole. Since 1983, the featured speaker has usually been a comedian, with the dinner taking on the form of a “roast” of the President and his administration.

The dinner has been criticized for its coziness between the White House press corps and the Administration. On the night, the press corps hobnobs with Administration officials, even those who are unpopular and are not regularly cooperative with the press. Recently, scrutiny by bloggers has contributed to added public focus on this friendliness.

After the 2007 dinner, New York Times columnist Frank Rich implied that The Times would not participate in future dinners. Rich said that the event is "a crystallization of the press's failures in the post-9/11 era" because it "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows." It strikes me that Mr. Rich was being a bit of a kill-joy. The Washington press corps seems to have no difficulty in holding the feet of the White House occupant and his advisers to the fire.

In recent years, the dinners have drawn increasing public attention, and part of the guest list can be described as "Hollywood". The attention given to the guest list and entertainers seems to overshadow the purpose of the dinner, namely to "acknowledge award-winners, present scholarships, and give the press and the President an evening of friendly appreciation."

In 2000, outgoing President Bill Clinton mocked himself and the press in the short film President Clinton: The Final Days, which depicted him as a lonely man closing down a nearly deserted White House, riding a bicycle, and learning about the Internet with the help of actor Mike Maronna.

Arguably the most famous roast took place in 2006, when Steven Colbert, soon to be of The Jon Stewart Show fame, performed his satire of a right-wing cable television pundit. Several of Bush's aides and supporters walked out during Colbert's speech, and one former aide said that the President had "that look that he's ready to blow." That was also the night when the Bush look-alike, Steve Bridges, performed a Bush impersonation, which was more Bush than Bush.

My favourite WHCA dinner story took place in 1990. David Broder, the political editor of The Washington Post, hosted a table which included Bob Dole, the then Senate minority leader. The top table guests entered and three former Presidents walked in. Richard Nixon was flanked by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Dole nudged Broder, pointed and said, “Speak no evil, see no evil….evil!”

It seems to me that the dinner is a harmless bit of fun, allowing the politicians and press to let their hair down for one night. Where is the problem with that?

Hillary for President: Will She Make It This Time?

Hillary on her way to Iowa

So, after eighteen months of newsprint sufficient to make a substantial dent in the Brazilian rainforest, not to mention the electricity used in Tweeting, Face-booking and the like, the worst- kept secret of American politics is finally out. Hillary Clinton has put her hat in the ring. She is running for president.

Traditionally, candidates for the presidential nomination go to a place meaningful to them, such as the local high school, the steps of the state congress, where, backed by their spouse and children, they talk of their childhoods, the importance of family, and their desire to serve the public. Habitually, the speech ends with the words, “and so today, I am announcing my candidacy for president of the United States of America.”

Hillary decided to do things differently. She announced her candidacy via social media. Twitter and Facebook may have become the birthplace of presidency. I would love to hear Harry Truman on the gambit. However, old Harry would have liked what Hillary did next. She announced a road trip, neither in a Battle Bus, nor a limousine but in a minibus. The trip would take her from DC all the way to Iowa where, in 2008, Barack Obama gave her the first of many bloody noses.

I do not know precisely how much money is in Mrs Clinton’s war chest but it is certain that she is well-funded through numerous PACS and SUPERPACS. I suspect she has hundreds of millions of dollars behind her, if not billions. Money will not be a problem for her through the primary season. Nor will Democratic opposition. There is only nine months until the Iowa caucus. It is difficult to envisage a Democratic candidate emerging now who would give Hillary a serious run for her money. Elizabeth Warren is quiescent right now.

The Republican opposition will probably stay quiet on Hillary. What is the point of their attacking Mrs Clinton now? Surely this should wait until she has become the Democratic nominee, at which time the Republican presidential field will have reduced from the current twenty or so hopefuls to less than a handful. None of the front runners for the Republican nomination - Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker - seem to have the Party base on high alert. Chris Christie might have been a formidable opponent for Hillary but the Bridgegate scandal seems to have wrecked his chances.

There are plenty of issues where Hillary might be vulnerable. Her poor choice of ambassador to Libya and the subsequent deaths in the diplomatic compound, the private e-mail server used by her as Secretary of State, making her appear as if she thinks she is above the law; allegedly questionable donations by the Clinton Foundation and untrue claims by her about putting herself in harm’s way when Secretary of State. Her record as Senator for New York State and voting the Bush ticket on military action may also hurt her. Even her record as First Lady might not stand too much scrutiny. It’s not her failure on healthcare that I’m considering, it’s the removal of White House furniture when her husband left office.

However, Mrs Clinton has a lot going for her. She enjoys considerable popularity at the moment, women voters are in the majority in America and they may feel it’s time for one of their gender to take top spot. Furthermore, she has a team of experienced and tested advisers and aids, headed by the man to whom she is married. No American politician can move a crowd like Bill Clinton.

Her age, at 67, might be an issue but she is a savvy politician and will, no doubt, learn from Ronald Reagan who said of his Democratic opponent, Fritz Mondale, “I will not criticize my opponent for his youth and inexperience.”

So, some eighteen months from now, what can defeat Mrs Clinton? In two words, Mrs Clinton. She has a vulnerability, a moral compass that seems to be disturbed by an adverse magnetic power that puts her off focus. She gives the impression she has a problem distinguishing right from wrong. In the political world, this issue is rarely simple. But in a contest which is all about character, Hillary will be portrayed as someone who has not stepped up to the plate in the past.

In addition to a test of character, the American presidential election process is a test of stamina. I have no doubt that Mrs Clinton is up for the challenge. Will she make it to the finishing line? Let me dust off my crystal ball…..in eighteen months.

The Iran Nuclear Deal. What Will the Senate Do?

Cartoon: The Economist

Last week, the America administration, together with the governments of China, Germany, France, Russia and Great Britain, agreed the framework of an agreement with the Iranian government regarding the latter’s nuclear capacity. In brief, the deal will lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for preventing Iran from quickly building a nuclear bomb, although Iran’s nuclear program remains in place.

Immediately, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the deal. The western world’s media is undecided as to whether the deal is beneficial and whether it will work. The parties have until June to produce the formal agreement. Once this is in place, the participating governments will be asked to approve it. In the case of America, those who negotiated the deal will not decide whether it becomes law. The American Constitution gives that power to the Senate under its “advise and consent” responsibility.

When a treaty is submitted for approval, the Senate has several options. It may approve or reject the treaty as it has been submitted or it may make its approval conditional by including amendments to the text of the treaty. The President and the other countries involved must then decide whether to accept the conditions and changes in the legislation, renegotiate the provisions, or abandon the treaty. Finally, the Senate may choose to take no definitive action, leaving the treaty pending in the Senate until withdrawn at the request of the President or, occasionally, at the initiative of the Senate.

Will the Senate approve the Iran deal? The Senate has a history of rejecting treaties. During the last quarter of the 19th century, numerous international agreements, mainly relating to trade, were rejected. In an effort to avoid the same fate for his 1898 peace treaty with Spain, President McKinley named three U.S. senators to negotiate the treaty. Senators from both parties roundly criticized his action, but the Senate ultimately ratified the agreement.

A generation later, senators criticized President Wilson for not including some of its members in the delegation that negotiated the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I and established the League of Nations. When the President hand-delivered the treaty to the Senate in July 1919, Democrats mostly supported it, but Republicans were divided. The “Reservationists” called for approval of the treaty only if certain reservations, or alterations, were adopted. The “Irreconcilables” opposed the treaty in any form. The disputes and disagreements resulted in the United States never ratifying the Treaty, nor did America join the League of Nations. Interestingly, President Truman involved the chairman and the ranking Republican of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the creation of the United Nations. This action helped to spare the U.N. the fate of the League of Nations.

It is possible to by-pass the Senate by classifying a deal as an executive agreement, not a treaty, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law. The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote in the Senate on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. For example, in 1952 the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. In recent years, the growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business conducted between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate.

It is difficult to envisage President Obama taking the Senate-avoidance route in the Iran case. The treaty is hugely important and several other nations are involved. Failure to involve the Senate would demonstrate the President’s weakness and a lack of confidence in the treaty itself. The problem for the President is twofold. First, the Republican senators may vote en-masse on political grounds to defeat their enemy in the White House. Second, many Democrat senators are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby and will be reluctant to approve a treaty which can be construed as a threat to Israel’s security. All of this leads to: “watch this space.”