One example of how the divergence squeezes candidates came in 2000, when most voters approved of President Bill Clinton’s work, but most had an “unfavorable” view of his post-impeachment character. That flummoxed Al Gore’s campaign when it thought about how to handle Clinton. According to Gore campaign vets like Bob Shrum, Clinton was toxic in states that he’d won twice and where the economy was booming, like Iowa.

Since Sarah Palin doesn’t have a job outside of her book tour, her “favorable” rating is all she has. Not only is it lower than Barack Obama’s favorable rating, it’s lower than a credible national candidate can really stand — Republicans argued that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be unelectable as a presidential candidate when her “unfavorable” rating was a good 10 points lower than Palin’s.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is holding out the possibility that Iraq’s national election could be delayed beyond January because of a dispute over the allocation of seats in parliament.

Clinton told reporters at the State Department Monday that U.S. officials are involved in trying to help Iraqi politicians sort out their differences over an elections law that must pass before the vote can be held.

The election is supposed to be conducted in January. Clinton mentioned no specific dates but said the election “might slip” as a result of the continuing dispute over the elections law. She expressed confidence that the voting eventually will be held.

Iraq’s upcoming election, the second since the 2005 passage of Iraq’s constitution, has no shortage of problems. Last week the Sunni vice president vetoed a cobbled-together election law intended to ensure the election could proceed on time. And today an amended law passed parliament — but only after Sunni lawmakers walked out in protest.

I suppose Clinton is saying that the United States will follow the Iraqi lead on this one. But it’s hard to shake the suspicion that if this were Afghanistan, the U.S. would possess a greater urgency about the election being held on schedule.

Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Earlier in the day, Obama will meet separately and privately with Biden and Clinton. Interesting omission in light of questions about how much the increase will cost: Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I asked Specter if he wanted to see the Obama administration embrace an exit strategy for the eight-year war. “I think there ought to be an exit strategy,” Specter said, which ought to be “geared toward our expectations as to what we’re looking to accomplish.” But he demurred on seeking a timeline for winding down the war. “I would want to see the administration’s proposals, and see what people on the ground over there think,” Specter said. “It’s hard to answer that with any specificity.” He added that he endorsed the Obama administration’s style of decisionmaking, defending the “very thoughtful” president against charges of “dithering” lodged by former Vice President Cheney.

Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy’s The Cable asked how a troop increase would go over in Congress. “If they talk about 40,000 troops, which the generals want, I think it’ll be pretty cold,” Specter said. He added that there would be a greater appetite in the Senate for a proposal issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to instead emphasize the training of Afghan soldiers and police.

Specter claimed that his opponent in the Pennsylvania Democratic senatorial primary, Rep. Joe Sestak, was calling for a “major measured increase” in troops — Sestak himself, however, has said he endorsed a “measured increase” in a recent Fox News interview — but when I asked if politics was playing any role in his position, he replied, “None. None.” When I asked why it seemed he was only speaking out lately despite years of deterioration in Afghanistan, Specter replied that he had expressed concern about the Afghanistan war “several months ago,” which I think is a reference to this September Senate floor statement that indeed raised questions about “the prospects for military success in Afghanistan against al-Qaida and the Taliban.” He continued to say that “as Afghanistan has become a hot topic over the course of the last several months” and has become “relevant for congressional response, I have made it.”

Update: After being contacted by Sen. Specter’s staff, I went back to my recording and indeed hear Specter describe Sestak’s position as a “measured” and not “major” increase, despite initially hearing it as “major.” My apologies to the senator.

Terrific. Well, first let me thank you all. I’m sorry that my schedule didn’t permit me to get to Bagram to actually have this meeting, but thanks for coming down. I really appreciate the opportunity to hear firsthand from all of you.

And I am very pleased that we’ve made progress. I know we still have a long way to go, but the story that needs to be told is the kind of committed service that is being shown in this integrated civilian-military effort. And I’m really grateful to each and every one of you. I want to hear from you. That’s what I’d like to spend time doing.

And that’s it! That’s the whole transcript!

This is now:

“He has some strengths, but he has some weaknesses,” Obama said of Karzai. “I’m less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people.”

It’s unknown whether this approach will be any more successful than the previous one. Reversing an old mistake is no guarantee of avoiding new ones. And it’s unknown whether the Afghan people will see a more distant U.S. relationship with Karzai as meaningful if Washington continues to backstop his government.

Iran’s foreign minister said in remarks reported Wednesday that he opposes sending the country’s enriched uranium abroad under a tentative deal negotiated with the United States and other big powers last month. The foreign minister’s remarks cast further doubt on the deal, which the Obama administration had hoped would defuse a standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told the student news agency ISNA that Iran would consider a simultaneous swap of its nuclear fuel for other uranium. But he told ISNA, “Definitely, Iran will not send its 3.5 percent-enriched fuel out.”

Don’t know how much enthusiasm would be there would be for such a substantial renegotiation of the deal. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has ruled it out. But the Obama administration also doesn’t seem particularly enthusiastic about sanctions, as Iran has been under U.S. sanctions for 30 years and multilateral sanctions will be extremely hard to enforce.

Hillary Clinton is hosting an all-day retreat for her senior staff Friday at Blair House. Deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries are due to attend. On the agenda: briefings on policy & budget, an urgent challenges panel on Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and North Korea; around the world priorities, including for USAID, a briefing on the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a lunch on the topic of 21st century statecraft, a transnational challenges (nonproliferation, climate change, global health, hunger and food security) panel. All followed by a 7:30pm dinner hosted by Clinton for senior staff and their spouses.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meantime, is the keynote speaker at the German Marshall Foundation Halifax International Security Forum Friday in Nova Scotia, Canada.

See, I figured President Obama would definitely announce it on a Friday so he could control all the Sunday shows with Afghanistan news. But maybe not. Will he really make the announcement Thanksgiving week? That seems, you know, in poor taste.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just released this statement:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda “bottled up” in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan.

“You could argue that even under the status quo, we don’t see Al Qaeda coming into Afghanistan,” said one official sympathetic to this view. “And so an additional commitment of forces isn’t going to apply more pressure on our main target.”

Divorce that, for a moment, from the troop-escalation question, and this quote throws into relief a conflation of endgames that the Obama administration has committed from the start. If al-Qaeda isn’t coming back into Afghanistan under these current favorable circumstances, then it’s fair to take this official’s point that the strategy being pursued is, at least, taking a rather indirect and circuitous route to dealing al-Qaeda a strategic failure. But what it is designed for is the stabilization of Afghanistan. (No guarantee that it’ll be achieved, but still.) Here’s Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on ‘Meet The Press’ yesterday:

We want to get Al Qaeda. We want to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us. And we want to be able to give the Afghans the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves. We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan.

As the anonymous official’s quote suggests, these are two different goals entirely. If the goal is to get al-Qaeda — well, it’ll be nice to give Afghanistan the tools to defend itself, but it’s besides the point. If, on the other hand, the goal is to give Afghanistan the tools to defend itself so that the United States can extract itself from Afghanistan, then it’s nice if we disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us, but it’s besides the point. Since the day Obama announced his strategy in March, I’ve been making this point. Obama’s currently reviewing that strategy to see if it makes sense. Perhaps he could disentangle this confusion about when the United States will be done in Afghanistan.