warrior

IN THE EARLY returns among the young, computer-savvy social networkers on the MySpace website, Barack Obama is running laps around Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama’s MySpace page has attracted more than twice as many friends as Clinton’s unofficial page on the site.

But when the two leading contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination appeared earlier this month in Washington before a beefy, brush-cut audience at an International Assn. of Fire Fighters convention, the result was reversed. Obama received a tepid response while Clinton blew away the room when she followed him to the stage.

“If I was Barack Obama, I’d say that speech — that’s the one I wanted to deliver to the firefighters,” said Bob Markwood, an Orlando firefighter, a few minutes after Clinton concluded.

These contrasting responses signal the resurgence of a dynamic that has repeatedly shaped, and frequently decided, the contests for the Democratic presidential nomination over the last generation.

Obama’s early support is following a pattern familiar from the campaigns of other brainy liberals with cool, detached personas and messages of political reform, from Eugene McCarthy in 1968 to Gary Hart in 1984 to Bill Bradley in 2000. Like those predecessors, Obama is running strong with well-educated voters but demonstrating much less support among those without college degrees.

That trend may be exaggerated at the moment by the fact that Obama, a relative newcomer, is better known among better-educated voters, and it could be mitigated in the future by his potential appeal to African Americans. But it is not a pattern Obama can allow to harden. All of the candidates whose support fit that profile ultimately lost the nomination to rivals whose support was rooted in the blue-collar and minority communities where Clinton is strongest in early surveys.

“Obama has got to expand his base in order to be consistently competitive,” said Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic strategist not affiliated with any of the 2008 candidates.

Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.

It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the blue-collar Democrats tend to see elections as an arena for defending their interests, and the upscale voters see them as an opportunity to affirm their values. Each group finds candidates who reflect those priorities.

Democratic professionals often describe this sorting as a competition between upscale “wine track” candidates and blue-collar “beer track” contenders. Another way to express the difference is to borrow from historian John Milton Cooper Jr.’s telling comparison of the pugnacious Theodore Roosevelt and the idealistic Woodrow Wilson. Cooper described the long rivalry between Republican Roosevelt and Democrat Wilson as a contest between a warrior and a priest. In modern times, the Democratic presidential race has usually pitted a warrior against a priest.

Warrior candidates stress their ability to deliver on kitchen table concerns and revel in political combat. They tout their experience and flout their scars. Their greatest strength is usually persistence, not eloquence; they don’t so much inspire as reassure. Think of Harry Truman in 1948, Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and, in a somewhat more diluted fashion, Walter Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.

The priests, whose lineage runs back through McCarthy to Adlai Stevenson, present a very different face. They write books and sometimes verse. They observe the campaign’s hurly-burly through a filter of cool, witty detachment. Their campaigns become crusades, fueled as much by inchoate longing for a “new politics” as tangible demands for new policies. In the past quarter of a century, Hart, Bradley and the late neo-liberal Paul Tsongas in 1992 each embodied the priest in Democratic presidential politics.

Some candidates transcend these divisions. In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was a warrior who quoted Aeschylus. Bill Clinton blended a warrior’s resiliency with a priest’s promise of transformative (“third way”) politics. But most Democratic candidates fall clearly on one or the other side of this divide.

Hillary Clinton has firmly positioned herself as a warrior. She wowed the firefighters’ convention not through eloquence but passionate declarations of shared commitments. “You were there when we needed you, and I want you to know I will be there when you need me,” she insisted. Her campaign already views non-college voters, especially women, as the foundation of her coalition. Her stump speech, centered on a promise to represent “invisible” Americans, targets the economic anxieties of blue-collar families.

Obama’s aides resist the collar, but in the early stages, he looks more like a priest. He’s written two bestselling books. Like McCarthy, Hart and Howard Dean, he’s ignited a brush fire on college campuses. His initial message revolves heavily around eloquent but somewhat amorphous promises of reform and civic renewal. He laments “the smallness of our politics … where power is always trumping principle.”

Not only have priests — including Hart, Tsongas and Bradley — run better among voters with college degrees, they’ve tended to run well in the Northeast, the West Coast and portions of the upper Midwest where wine track voters congregate; the warriors usually thrive in interior states such as Ohio, Missouri or Tennessee, where college graduates constitute 40% or less of the Democratic electorate.

That picture is coming into focus again, with one twist. The priests typically have been flattened among black voters, but Obama’s African American heritage is helping him, already, to split the black vote fairly closely with Clinton in most surveys.

Among whites, Clinton so far is showing broader reach. She’s competitive upscale and dominating downscale, a combination that allows her to lead Obama in most early polls. In the latest nationwide Gallup survey, for instance, Obama led Clinton by 3 percentage points among white, college-educated Democrats, but she bested him by 23 points among whites without college degrees, and she led overall.

In a Detroit News survey released last week, Obama led Clinton by an impressive 14 percentage points among Michigan whites with college degrees, but she led him by more than twice as much among whites without advanced education and held a double-digit lead in the state overall.

Recent Quinnipiac University surveys in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania similarly showed Clinton leading Obama by at least 2 to 1 among non-college whites, enough to put her comfortably ahead even though the two ran more closely among college-educated white voters. The latest University of New Hampshire poll shows a similar trend.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, dismisses these numbers as artifacts of his candidate’s lower name recognition with non-college voters, who aren’t yet as tuned in to the race. Axelrod said that Obama, through his campaigns for the Illinois state Senate and the U.S. Senate and his experience as a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, has demonstrated that he can bond with white working-class voters.

“This is a guy who began as a community organizer banging on the doors of government to … get some attention for people who were living in the shadow of a closed steel mill,” Axelrod said. “So his profile is not the typical effete reformer profile.”

But familiarity alone may not solve Obama’s blue-collar challenge. Rick Gale, the president of the firefighters’ Wisconsin affiliate, was shaking his head after Obama’s reform-heavy message to the union convention. “In my view, that’s really not a message for our guys,” Gale said. “They’re really not afraid of politics.”

Besides his inroads among blacks and his pedigree in community organizing, Obama has other potential advantages over earlier reform candidates. The share of college graduates in the Democratic coalition is rising. And Obama would benefit if John Edwards, who is running as a blue-collar warrior and reaffirmed his commitment to the campaign Thursday, cuts into Clinton’s downscale support (just as Edwards will benefit if Obama draws more upscale voters from Clinton).

But, with all those caveats, no candidate in decades has won the Democratic nomination relying primarily on upscale voters. Obama isn’t likely to break that pattern, especially because Clinton appears to be an acceptable, if not always riveting, choice for so much of the party.

Since Obama entered the campaign, the question he’s faced most often is whether he is “black enough” to win votes from African Americans. But the more relevant issue may be whether Obama is “blue enough” to increase his support among blue-collar whites.

Take all the time you want, LeBron. It’s your life.

Yes, it’s annoying to have to hear about it every day, but it’s your decision when to tell us where you’re going to play your 24th season of pro ball.

So, go ahead, keep NBA schedule-makers on pins and needles. Savor having workers at my local Trader Joe’s discussing your future on a Monday in the middle of July. Enjoy your twilight limelight.

But don’t tell us, on podcasts and in public appearances, that the factors you’re prioritizing are A) whether a team is built to win now; B) the proximity to your home in L.A.; and C) not money, but overall happiness — and then signal it might be the Golden State Warriors.

The Cleveland Cavaliers? They check all the boxes. That’s “home” for real. And the Cavs are ready to win with a veteran difference-maker such as LeBron. Absolutely, it would be a happily-ever-after conclusion to the LeBron epic.

The Miami Heat and Philadelphia 76ers? Nowhere close to home, but they check a box too: They’re both set up to win — and in the Eastern Conference, where they won’t have to go through the San Antonio Spurs or Oklahoma City Thunder to reach an NBA Finals.

The Warriors, though?

They check no boxes. Not a one. Not in 2026.

That would be a … choice. But let no one act like this would be LeBron leaving the Lakers for a more competitive situation. It wouldn’t be LeBron landing in a more desirable locale.

Line up Cleveland, Philadelphia, Miami and Golden State and it’s like seeing three diamonds and a square on “Sesame Street.” A 3-year-old could tell that one of those is not like the others. But that’s the third-most likely destination, as of Tuesday morning, according to the DraftKings Sportsbook.

Sure, once upon a time, a starting lineup of Stephen Curry, Jimmy Butler, LeBron James, Draymond Green and Kristaps Porzingis would have beaten almost anybody. But even those guys — besides 30-year-old Porzingis, they’re all in their late-30s or early 40s, with a ton of NBA mileage — aren’t beating Father Time.

Remember when the Lakers put together a roster awash in washed-up stars in 2021, and how disastrous that was? Turns out pairing Carmelo Anthony, Trevor Ariza, Dwight Howard, Rajon Rondo, DeAndre Jordan and, yes, Russell Westbrook was a recipe for a truly awful 33-win team.

And the Warriors? They couldn’t get out of the play-in tournament last season, when Curry played only 43 games and Butler played only 38. Also, remember, for the first time in LeBron’s career, the now 41-year-old wasn’t available to start the season. He missed the first 14 games with sciatica.

Maybe Golden State could conjure up some magic in a playoff series — but over an 82-game regular-season marathon? No way, LBJ.

Former Lakers star LeBron James (23) and former Warriors forward Draymond Green, who opted out of his contract this summer, could team up with Golden State. Or maybe not.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

It could be that winning isn’t everything for LeBron. The man’s legacy is locked. He’s won four NBA titles, three Olympic gold medals, 1,229 NBA games and counting. And he’s winning this summer’s engagement game too.

Perhaps it’s come to a point that he just wants to play with his friends, and after earning $53 million with the Lakers last season, he’s willing to sign a deal with Golden State for between $3.9 and $6 million — which is what the Warriors could pay him, according to ESPN cap expert Bobby Marks — to do that.

That’s lovely, but it doesn’t change the fact that LeBron wouldn’t be happy losing.

And losing when he’s the addition to Steph’s team — and make no mistake, the Warriors are Steph’s team — really wouldn’t be fun.

The superstar wars that will be fought between both players’ infamously, uh, passionate fandoms wouldn’t be fun.

The daily drumbeat of criticism from talking heads who tuned into all of those televised games — not fun.

But the commute! It’s only 380 miles or so from Brentwood to Chase Center, and that’s much closer than Cleveland or Philly or Miami.

That makes sense — if you forget there are two NBA teams in the very city where LeBron’s family lives. And on paper, they’re both better than the Warriors. And his son plays for one of them!

But one of those teams is the Clippers and the other has moved on from LeBron.

Oh, the irony.

The Lakers, if they weren’t the ex-team, would check all the boxes. They’re going to be competitive. They’re a group LeBron enjoyed playing with. They are home. And LeBron would check a pretty big box for them too, if money really isn’t a deciding factor.

But the Lakers have replaced LeBron with Walker Kessler, the 24-year-old defensive center who is the perfect complement to Luka Doncic. They’ve put in place the pillars for their future, though they do still happen to have a LeBron-sized hole at forward that isn’t going to be filled by LeBron.

And that’s OK. The next chapter will start eventually, and likely it will be set in a location where LeBron can compete and have a good time, and that he and his family can feel good about.

Or in San Francisco.

The Lakers announced their preseason schedule Tuesday with the five-game slate beginning Oct. 5 against the Kings at Sacramento and highlighted by a game in Las Vegas against the Golden State Warriors.

Starting with consecutive road games in Sacramento and San Francisco (Oct. 6), the Lakers play the Sacramento Kings and the Warriors twice each before a final preseason game against the Denver Nuggets at Crypto.com Arena on Oct. 16. The Lakers’ first home preseason game is Oct. 8 against the Kings before playing the Warriors in Las Vegas’ T-Mobile Arena on Oct. 13.

All Lakers preseason games will be broadcast on Spectrum SportsNet.

Teams can play up to six preseason games. The Lakers reached the maximum number of tune-up games last year and could use any additional reps to prepare for this season with nine new players.

Following the departure of LeBron James, who has yet to reveal his next destination, the Lakers retooled the roster in an offseason transaction flurry. Center Walker Kessler figures to slot right into the starting lineup next to the returning Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves.

Free agent additions Sandro Mamukelashvili, Quentin Grimes and Collin Sexton will fill immediately roles after the Lakers lost six rotation players from last season’s team that went to the Western Conference semifinals. The Lakers also acquired guard Jaden Hardy in a trade with the Washington Wizards, added rookie guard Cameron Carr and signed free agents Kevon Looney and Ziaire Williams.

By agreeing to a one-year deal with free agent forward Matisse Thybulle on Monday, the Lakers brought their roster up to 16 guaranteed contracts. The team must trade or waive a player before opening day to reach the roster maximum of 15.

Preseason schedule

Oct. 5 at Sacramento Kings

Oct. 6 at Golden State Warriors

Oct. 8 vs. Sacramento Kings

Oct. 13 vs. Golden State Warriors (T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas)

Oct. 16 vs. Denver Nuggets

Israel’s balancing act that allowed it to reap America’s unconditional and, often, blind support, while slowly benefiting from China’s growing economic influence and political prestige, is already floundering.

Thanks to the heated cold war between the US and Chinese economic superpowers, the Israeli strategy of playing both sides is unlikely to pay dividends in the long run.

Soon enough, Tel Aviv might find itself having to make a stark choice between Washington and Beijing.  When US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, visited Israel on May 13, two items topped his agenda: Israel’s imminent illegal annexation of Palestinian land and the growing Israeli-Chinese economic ties.

Pompeo communicated his country’s stand on both issues, reflecting Washington’s long-standing policies regarding Palestine and China. In the case of Palestine, as with the rest of the Middle East, Washington seems to adhere to Tel Aviv’s agenda, often to the letter.  China is a different story.

READ: China rejects Israel’s planned annexation of West Bank

Two significant historical examples come to mind: one, is Israel’s attempt to sell China Israeli-made Phalcon airborne radar system, which relied heavily on American technology in the 1990s; a similar event transpired in 2005, this time concerning Israel’s Harpy anti-radar missile. On both occasions, Israel succumbed to American pressure and canceled both deals.

For the Chinese, Israel matters for two different reasons. One, Israel is a strategic stop in China’s Belt and Road initiative, China’s most significant economic project to date, ultimately aimed at turning Beijing into a center of global trade and financial activities. Two, China is hoping to fight the US on its own political turf in the Middle East – partly in response to the American ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy, which was initiated by the Barack Obama administration.

But the world – in terms of political and economic balances of power – after the coronavirus pandemic is likely to prove a different one when compared with previous years. China’s rise has been in the making for many years and the US political retreat and declining global outreach has been quite evident for some time. The isolationist policies of the Donald Trump Administration, coupled with Washington’s many China-related tantrums in recent years, are all indicators of the vastly changing political realities of a once-unipolar world.

“I will not miss the opportunity to annex the West Bank”- Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

A few years ago, Beijing had the time, patience, and resources to play a long-drawn geopolitical game in order for it to challenge the US’s global influence, whether in South America, Africa, or Israel.

The visit by China’s Vice President, Wang Qishan, to Israel in 2018, to “boost business ties”, was part of this Chinese strategy. That visit followed the signing, one year earlier, of the China-Israel Innovative Comprehensive Partnership. As of 2018, China-Israel trade has jumped to $14 billion and has grown exponentially ever since.

China would have been happy to carry on with that strategy for many years to come. Israel, too, would have played along, considering the lucrative financial returns from its China partnership.

READ: Israel ties to China may risk our ability to work with Tel Aviv

Indeed, despite Washington’s warnings against and, at times, explicit demands on Israel to refrain from giving Chinese companies access to fifth-generation infrastructure (5G) projects in the country, Israel labored to make China feel welcomed.

However, the global response to the coronavirus pandemic is likely to change this, as it has already accelerated the cold war between the US and China, pushing the latter to adopt a more aggressive form of diplomacy and pour massive sums into other countries’ economies to help them in their desperate fight against the COVID-19 disease.

The Chinese strategy is predicated on two main pillars: fortifying existing ties and solidarity with China’s allies or potential allies anywhere in the world, while pushing back against China’s foes, especially those who are participating in Washington’s anti-Beijing campaign.

The latter phenomenon is known as ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’. The ‘wolf warriors’ are Chinese diplomats who have, for months, pushed back with unprecedented ferocity against what they perceive to be US and Western propaganda.

READ: China’s ambassador to Israel found dead in Tel Aviv home

“We never pick a fight or bully others,” China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, told reporters in Beijing on May 24, while explaining China’s novel approach to diplomacy. “We will push back against any deliberate insult, resolutely defend our national honor and dignity, and we will refute all groundless slander with facts,” the top Chinese official said firmly.

China’s new aggressive diplomacy, especially if it continues to define the country’s approach to foreign policy in the coming years, is unlikely to permit Israel to maintain its balancing act for much longer.

China’s ambassador to Israel, Du Wei, who was entrusted with implementing Beijing’s soft-diplomacy with Tel Aviv, died in his home only a few days following Pompeo’s visit to the country. Although Wei’s death was not – at least publicly – perceived to be the result of foul play, his absence, especially in the age of coronavirus and ‘wolf warriors’, might signal a shift in China’s approach to its economic and political interests in Israel.

On May 26, under American pressure, the Israeli Finance Ministry denied China a massive $1.5 billion desalination plant contract, awarding it to an Israeli company, instead.

This is the first time that the US has used its political and economic sway over Israel to curb Chinese influence in the country. China must be anxiously watching events unfold,   to see if US pressure on Israel will continue to undermine Beijing’s long-term strategy.

Deal of the century, embassy relocation, and the Golan Heights – Israel surely can’t believe their luck? – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

The world’s quickly shifting balance of power and the US-Chinese unmistakable fight for dominance is likely to, eventually, force countries like Israel to make a choice, of wholly joining the American or the Chinese sphere of influence. It is all reminiscent of the American-Soviet Cold War, where much of the globe was divided into zones of influence operated by proxy from Washington or Moscow.

Balancing acts in politics only work if all parties are willing to play or, at least, tolerate the game. While this form of politics suited Israel’s interests in the past and was played, quite successfully for years by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s balancing act is, possibly, over.

Between Washington’s precise demands to Israel to keep Beijing at bay, and the latter’s aggressive ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy, Israel is facing a stark choice: remaining loyal to a fading superpower or diving into the uncharted waters of an emerging one.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.