The Economy: No more mega-corporations
With regard to "too big fail," one of the deficiencies of our economic system has been in allowing some corporations to metastasize. As we enter a new era of regulation, a goal must be to break up the mega-corporations so that we can never again be faced with a situation in which the fate of the entire economy is jeopardized by the fortunes of one company.
The Auto Bailout: Save Jobs and Benefits and Restructure the Auto Industry
The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism makes the following sensible proposals about the proposed bailout of the auto giants:
Visit the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism at http://www.cc-ds.org.
The unfolding crisis of capitalism is fraught with pain and suffering for working people. Job losses, declining wages, plant closings, shuttered small businesses, plummeting government resources for public services and physical infrastructure, all remind us of the Great Depression of the 1930s.Should it transpire that bankruptcy is to be the fate of the big three, it's worth keeping in mind that bankruptcy needn't be equal to shutting down the industry. The typical corporate bankruptcy is a structural reorganization that, in this instance, could include the imposition of government approved management and the suspension of certain financial obligations, such as dividends. If it is decided that the industry must receive public assistance, how about this?: the government takes over management of the companies' pension plans and guarantees the benefits -- if we're going bailout anyone, let's make it working people -- and offers former and current auto workers complete health care coverage until the time, supposedly near at hand, when health care is provided as a right to all Americans.
The first eight years of the 21st century have been marked with the "normal" economic crisis of capitalism: over-production and declining rates of profit. The crisis has been deepened by eight years of war and the largest military spending since World War II. Government polices of craven tax cuts and shrinkage of government services have led to a dramatic redistribution of wealth from the many to the few.
Key sectors of the US economy are in financial crisis. First, banking and investment houses, stock and bond markets, and various new financial networks designed to increase the riches of the wealthy began to collapse.
Now, CEOs from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler claim that their companies are near financial collapse. Congress voted a blanket $700 billion bailout to the financial sector in October. Auto executives have just completed the first round of their appeal to Congress for an additional $25 billion to save the auto industry from collapse.
The American people are faced with a contradiction. Capitalism which is based on the exploitation of the working class, demands that the working class bail it out. Yet, if the working class says "no bailout" to key sectors of the capitalist system, they will suffer the most.
Arguments from right wing circles are that UAW wages, claimed to be $75 an hour, are the problem. There is no truth in this assertion, as the UAW itself explains that huge concessions on wages and benefits have reduced the autoworkers" share of the value they create to the same level (or less) in comparison with the U.S. non-union auto worker sector (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.). This can only lead to further erosion of wages and benefits as workers in the non-union sector are forced to accept a new round of the downward wage spiral.
Anti-union company campaigns have defeated several UAW attempts to organize the non-union auto assembly plants. Outsourcing of jobs to non-union plants, increased productivity and moving production to other countries has reduced active UAW membership from 1.5 million in 1979 to 460,000 in 2007. The "jobs bank" that provided a measure of job security for laid off autoworkers was negotiated in the mid-1980s in lieu of wage increases and other benefits. Now the UAW is faced with mounting pressure to give it up.
It cannot be denied that if Congress refuses to act in support of some kind of bridge loan and allows the auto companies go bankrupt, there will be catastrophic pain and suffering far beyond the UAW membership. United Auto Worker (UAW) president, Ron Gettelfinger, estimates a loss of 3 million jobs, substantial cuts in pension and health benefits for 1 million UAW retirees and their dependents, and increased drains on public services at the same time as the tax base declines.
In testimony Nov. 19th before the House Committee on Financial Services, UAW President Gettelfinger called for a $25 billion loan "conditioned on stringent limits relating to executive compensation, as well as provisions granting the federal government an equity stake in the auto companies in order to protect the investment by taxpayers."
The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) agrees with the UAW, and adds the following for consideration:
The loan guarantees must be coupled with requirements that the industry immediatelya. Pursue the production of new energy efficient, environmentally friendly low-cost automobiles;Additionally, we call on Congress and the White House to move aggressively to take over idle auto production facilities and utilize them for an expanded public transportation authority for building high speed rail and other mass transit systems.
b. Promote the development of a single payer health care system (HR 676) to guarantee health care for all, regardless of employment;
c. End the outsourcing of production of new vehicles to non-union plants;
d. End the drive to cut UAW negotiated wages and benefits and support the drive for unionization and livable wages for all workers in the industry;
e. Guarantee current and retirement benefits;
f. Radically reconfigure CEO salaries to the levels of CEOs in other auto companies;
g. End the threat of bankruptcy proceedings, particularly as they might relate to breaking union contracts.
Lastly, but importantly, the workers who make the cars have poured their skills, their knowledge, their sweat and their hopes for the future into the auto industry. Their experiences make them best able to counter the greed and incompetence of the industry's owners and CEOs who have brought the auto business to its current disastrous condition. The auto industry should be restructured to give its workers controlling equity and a strong democratic voice in meeting the enormous challenges that it faces.
Visit the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism at http://www.cc-ds.org.
quote unquote: Huxley on Capitalism
“Armaments, universal debt,
and planned obsolescence–
those are the three pillars
of Western prosperity.”
—Aldous Huxley
and planned obsolescence–
those are the three pillars
of Western prosperity.”
—Aldous Huxley
quote unquote: The Federalist No. 51 on the necessity for government
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments -- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (The New York Packet 1788-02-08)
The most important politician in America?: It's not Barack Obama
It is the junior United States Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Obama presidency will be measured by the success or failure of the next congress in delivering universal health care. Not only will national health incalculably improve the lives of most Americans and rescue literally millions of retiring baby boomers from spending their declining years in poverty, but also it will change forever the nature of the debate over the proper role of government.
Republican balderdash about the dangers of "socialism" has traction only because Americans think they have no experience with it. If you want an idea of what it will be like when our medical system is "socialized," ask any die-hard Republicans over 65 two questions: First, what is their opinion of the proposal to establish national health coverage? In most cases, mention of national health will lead to railing about the predations of big government and the imminent arrival of Fidel Castro. Then, after the spittle stops flying, ask them what they think about Medicare? Socialist medicine, you will discover, is not so bad after all.
If the Obama administration indeed inaugurates a new progressive era, it will because real health care reform was delivered during its term. In the House of Representatives, health care is a done deal; all that needs to be worked out is whether it is single-payer or if some portion of overhead will be reserved to guarantee the profits of insurance companies. But the Senate is another matter. I am second to none in my admiration for Ted Kennedy; but in a lifetime in Congress, he has failed to deliver national health -- not without good cause, but there is little reason to think that the addition of a few moderate senators to the majority will be enough to make a difference.
As Kennedy is fully aware, the Senate needs someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, clout, expertise and ambition to make the passage of universal health care a certainty (see, Ted Kennedy asks Hillary Clinton to head Senate healthcare team). Once she wins the health care fight, who thinks she won't run for majority leader, and win.
It's hard to see that Clinton has any particular qualifications to be secretary of state, other than her travels. Please don't think I'm advocating this, but if Obama wants to appoint a strong woman with lots of foreign policy expertise, why not choose California senator Dianne Feinstein who has displayed keen interest in foreign affairs, trade, defense and security matters throughout her congressional career. There are thousands of others in government, politics, business and academia who also have more executive experience and far more knowledge about international affairs than Clinton.
On the other hand, there is no one in political life who has thought longer and harder about health care.
It isn't hard to figure out what Obama is up to. By choosing Clinton, he neutralizes a possible rival power center; offers a gesture of conciliation to those Hillary supporters still unreconciled to his victory; sidelines Bill Clinton; and makes an appointment that will be greeted with general approval (except, maybe, in New Mexico).
But what can Hillary be thinking? Politically, she will be much weakened -- cabinet members are not called secretaries for nothing. In the Senate, still hidebound by seniority, she is known to be frustrated by that junior business. But if she doesn't like standing a few steps behind Chuck Schumer, wait'll she has to take instructions from some junior aid in the west wing.
Getting something done in the Senate will require hard work. But she made a promise to the people of New York to work for them. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Some wags are saying she wants to complete the collection of visited countries she started as first lady, but come on. Was she so busy running for president that no one had time to fill her in on junkets? She could legitimately visit every country in the world that delivers national health, which, come to think of it, is pretty much all of them.
The rap against the Clintons is that they have always put their own interests ahead of People and Party. During her run for senator, she was charged with being motivated by no more than ego and ambition. Were those of us who favored her election as senator naive in believing that she truly wanted to serve? If she still does, she should stay in the Senate and fight for single-payer universal health care. She will make a difference in our lives in a way no one else can; she will give support to an administration every patriotic American hopes will bring real change; and she will alter the future forever.
Today she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York. Tomorrow, does she really want to be Madeleine Albright instead?
The Obama presidency will be measured by the success or failure of the next congress in delivering universal health care. Not only will national health incalculably improve the lives of most Americans and rescue literally millions of retiring baby boomers from spending their declining years in poverty, but also it will change forever the nature of the debate over the proper role of government.
Republican balderdash about the dangers of "socialism" has traction only because Americans think they have no experience with it. If you want an idea of what it will be like when our medical system is "socialized," ask any die-hard Republicans over 65 two questions: First, what is their opinion of the proposal to establish national health coverage? In most cases, mention of national health will lead to railing about the predations of big government and the imminent arrival of Fidel Castro. Then, after the spittle stops flying, ask them what they think about Medicare? Socialist medicine, you will discover, is not so bad after all.
If the Obama administration indeed inaugurates a new progressive era, it will because real health care reform was delivered during its term. In the House of Representatives, health care is a done deal; all that needs to be worked out is whether it is single-payer or if some portion of overhead will be reserved to guarantee the profits of insurance companies. But the Senate is another matter. I am second to none in my admiration for Ted Kennedy; but in a lifetime in Congress, he has failed to deliver national health -- not without good cause, but there is little reason to think that the addition of a few moderate senators to the majority will be enough to make a difference.
As Kennedy is fully aware, the Senate needs someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, clout, expertise and ambition to make the passage of universal health care a certainty (see, Ted Kennedy asks Hillary Clinton to head Senate healthcare team). Once she wins the health care fight, who thinks she won't run for majority leader, and win.
It's hard to see that Clinton has any particular qualifications to be secretary of state, other than her travels. Please don't think I'm advocating this, but if Obama wants to appoint a strong woman with lots of foreign policy expertise, why not choose California senator Dianne Feinstein who has displayed keen interest in foreign affairs, trade, defense and security matters throughout her congressional career. There are thousands of others in government, politics, business and academia who also have more executive experience and far more knowledge about international affairs than Clinton.
On the other hand, there is no one in political life who has thought longer and harder about health care.
It isn't hard to figure out what Obama is up to. By choosing Clinton, he neutralizes a possible rival power center; offers a gesture of conciliation to those Hillary supporters still unreconciled to his victory; sidelines Bill Clinton; and makes an appointment that will be greeted with general approval (except, maybe, in New Mexico).
But what can Hillary be thinking? Politically, she will be much weakened -- cabinet members are not called secretaries for nothing. In the Senate, still hidebound by seniority, she is known to be frustrated by that junior business. But if she doesn't like standing a few steps behind Chuck Schumer, wait'll she has to take instructions from some junior aid in the west wing.
Getting something done in the Senate will require hard work. But she made a promise to the people of New York to work for them. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Some wags are saying she wants to complete the collection of visited countries she started as first lady, but come on. Was she so busy running for president that no one had time to fill her in on junkets? She could legitimately visit every country in the world that delivers national health, which, come to think of it, is pretty much all of them.
The rap against the Clintons is that they have always put their own interests ahead of People and Party. During her run for senator, she was charged with being motivated by no more than ego and ambition. Were those of us who favored her election as senator naive in believing that she truly wanted to serve? If she still does, she should stay in the Senate and fight for single-payer universal health care. She will make a difference in our lives in a way no one else can; she will give support to an administration every patriotic American hopes will bring real change; and she will alter the future forever.
Today she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York. Tomorrow, does she really want to be Madeleine Albright instead?
Politics: They're still the Democrats after all
"Lieberman keeps Senate chairmanship" - Reuters headline
Bet he learned his lesson.
See, Canards: Joe Lieberman is a "good Democrat" (Impractical Proposals)
Bet he learned his lesson.
See, Canards: Joe Lieberman is a "good Democrat" (Impractical Proposals)
The Franchise: Making every vote count
The long lines at the polls become even more puzzling when you consider this:
According to Curtis Gans,
Although a greater interest among voters concentrated in particular precincts -- areas with large populations of black voters or students, for example -- might have created enough congestion at those polls to satisfy the media's expectation of a big turnout, isn't it more likely that the impact of the electoral college, leading as it does to the disenfranchisement of minority party voters in non-competitive states and the focus of campaigns on a handful of constituencies, led to longer lines in those few locales where voters knew their vote would count. I know people in California and New York, for example, who stayed home because they felt their choice for president was moot.
Some of the advance voting problems can be attributed to the limited number of polling places in most jurisdictions. Nevada, an exception, allowed voting in some grocery stores -- it would be helpful to know how that worked out, but most states required early voters to travel to some remote county office or isolated post office to drop off ballots. If unprecedented numbers of people voted in advance, it must have eased the pressure on election day; and repeated warnings over many months of an impending deluge of ballots gave election officials plenty of opportunity to get ready; so it still seems odd that there were the number of problems there were on voting day.
Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to sign on to the theory that there was a plot to depress the tally. But it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what did happen this time. Even if it was only a matter of increased turnout in districts where voting mattered, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming elections.
In any event, if it is not going to continue to distort campaigns and alter outcomes of elections, we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally.
According to Curtis Gans,
Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004....The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party's share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980.Increased absentee voting. Increased early voting. The Democrats up a little. The Republicans down a little. But overall, only a marginal increase in the number of voters. So why the long lines?
Although a greater interest among voters concentrated in particular precincts -- areas with large populations of black voters or students, for example -- might have created enough congestion at those polls to satisfy the media's expectation of a big turnout, isn't it more likely that the impact of the electoral college, leading as it does to the disenfranchisement of minority party voters in non-competitive states and the focus of campaigns on a handful of constituencies, led to longer lines in those few locales where voters knew their vote would count. I know people in California and New York, for example, who stayed home because they felt their choice for president was moot.
Some of the advance voting problems can be attributed to the limited number of polling places in most jurisdictions. Nevada, an exception, allowed voting in some grocery stores -- it would be helpful to know how that worked out, but most states required early voters to travel to some remote county office or isolated post office to drop off ballots. If unprecedented numbers of people voted in advance, it must have eased the pressure on election day; and repeated warnings over many months of an impending deluge of ballots gave election officials plenty of opportunity to get ready; so it still seems odd that there were the number of problems there were on voting day.
Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to sign on to the theory that there was a plot to depress the tally. But it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what did happen this time. Even if it was only a matter of increased turnout in districts where voting mattered, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming elections.
In any event, if it is not going to continue to distort campaigns and alter outcomes of elections, we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally.
Dept. of No Comment: Factoid
Number of House members who voted against invading Iraq: 133
Number of senators who voted against invading Iraq: 23
Number of senators and representatives who voted against invading Iraq who are being considered for the Obama cabinet: 0
Number of senators who voted against invading Iraq: 23
Number of senators and representatives who voted against invading Iraq who are being considered for the Obama cabinet: 0
God must love the Clintonites...
...he made so many of them.
From the apparent intention to drag every Clinton administration veteran back to Washington from the lobbying company, law firm, brokerage house, or outpost of the academic gulag where eight years of exile were endured, to the perplexing consideration of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as secretary of state, President Change has become President StatusQuo more swiftly than you can say, Yes we can.
The absence of a strong set of political beliefs was part of candidate Obama's appeal. It allowed every supporter to project his own ambitions for the country on the blank face of "change." But now, that same absence of political agenda is enabling the center-right coalition that has run this country for its own benefit since Reagan to seize control of the next administration. Call it Clintonism with a new face.
The incoming White House chief of staff is Rahm Emmanuel, who was a staff assistant to President Clinton (and, not incidentally, as head of the last several Democratic House election efforts, the hatchet man who systematically undermined the candidacies of progressives in the Democratic primaries). Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is in overall charge of the transition team. Overseeing the selection of the foreign policy corps is former Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher. And staffing defense is up to former senator Sam Nunn, not a Clinton intimate, exactly, but as head of the Senate armed services committee in the Clinton years intimately involved in crafting the militarized foreign policy of that era. The first important picks after Biden and Emmanuel: Clinton's impeachment attorney Gregory Craig as White House counsel and Ronald Klain, a former lobbyist who was a lawyer on Al Gore's vice presidential staff, as the new veep's legal adviser.
Bowles, Ian; Mathews Burwell, Sylvia; Campbell, Kurt; Cunningham, Nelson; Danzig, Richard; Downey, Mortimer;
Garvey, Jane; Gensler, Gary; Hochberg, Fred; Johnson, James; Lake, Anthony; McGinty, Kathleen; Ness, Susan; Rice, Susan; Sperling, Gene; Steinberg, James; Talbot, Strobe; Thompson, Mozelle; Witt, James Lee; Zoellick, Robert...the nice thing about this return of the politically undead is that lobbyists won't be compelled to waste a lot of energy updating their speed dialers. If he didn't throw out his old business cards, Lawrence Summers is really set; treasury under secretary Clinton, and partly responsible for our current economic mess, he is likely to get the same job from Obama.
Then there are short-list names one prays are no more than the latest examples of the Obama crew's mastery of political symbolism. John Kerry or Hillary Clinton at the state department (and what happened to Bill Richardson, anyway?). Al Gore as secretary of interior. Bill freaking Clinton at the UN. Excuse me, but wasn't getting rid of the Clintons the whole point of the rush to endorse Obama on SuperTuesday?
It's not that many of these people are not admirable in their own right, it's just that in their massed numbers, and in conjunction
with other appointment rumors -- retaining defense secretary Robert "The Surge Is Working" Gates; bringing back former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as treasury secretary; putting GOP stalwarts Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar in charge, respectively, of defense and state (no, really, what did happen to Bill Richardson?); sending Jane Harman, the scary Democratic representative from Venice CA, to homeland security; giving education to Colin "Mea Culpa" Powell, as if he doesn't have enough to apologize for already -- they make it seem increasingly likely that the only change we're going to see is the kind that is confusingly difficult to distinguish from la même chose.
We thought we were throwing the bums out. Silly us.
From the apparent intention to drag every Clinton administration veteran back to Washington from the lobbying company, law firm, brokerage house, or outpost of the academic gulag where eight years of exile were endured, to the perplexing consideration of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as secretary of state, President Change has become President StatusQuo more swiftly than you can say, Yes we can.
The absence of a strong set of political beliefs was part of candidate Obama's appeal. It allowed every supporter to project his own ambitions for the country on the blank face of "change." But now, that same absence of political agenda is enabling the center-right coalition that has run this country for its own benefit since Reagan to seize control of the next administration. Call it Clintonism with a new face.
The incoming White House chief of staff is Rahm Emmanuel, who was a staff assistant to President Clinton (and, not incidentally, as head of the last several Democratic House election efforts, the hatchet man who systematically undermined the candidacies of progressives in the Democratic primaries). Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is in overall charge of the transition team. Overseeing the selection of the foreign policy corps is former Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher. And staffing defense is up to former senator Sam Nunn, not a Clinton intimate, exactly, but as head of the Senate armed services committee in the Clinton years intimately involved in crafting the militarized foreign policy of that era. The first important picks after Biden and Emmanuel: Clinton's impeachment attorney Gregory Craig as White House counsel and Ronald Klain, a former lobbyist who was a lawyer on Al Gore's vice presidential staff, as the new veep's legal adviser.
Bowles, Ian; Mathews Burwell, Sylvia; Campbell, Kurt; Cunningham, Nelson; Danzig, Richard; Downey, Mortimer;
Garvey, Jane; Gensler, Gary; Hochberg, Fred; Johnson, James; Lake, Anthony; McGinty, Kathleen; Ness, Susan; Rice, Susan; Sperling, Gene; Steinberg, James; Talbot, Strobe; Thompson, Mozelle; Witt, James Lee; Zoellick, Robert...the nice thing about this return of the politically undead is that lobbyists won't be compelled to waste a lot of energy updating their speed dialers. If he didn't throw out his old business cards, Lawrence Summers is really set; treasury under secretary Clinton, and partly responsible for our current economic mess, he is likely to get the same job from Obama.Then there are short-list names one prays are no more than the latest examples of the Obama crew's mastery of political symbolism. John Kerry or Hillary Clinton at the state department (and what happened to Bill Richardson, anyway?). Al Gore as secretary of interior. Bill freaking Clinton at the UN. Excuse me, but wasn't getting rid of the Clintons the whole point of the rush to endorse Obama on SuperTuesday?
It's not that many of these people are not admirable in their own right, it's just that in their massed numbers, and in conjunction
with other appointment rumors -- retaining defense secretary Robert "The Surge Is Working" Gates; bringing back former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as treasury secretary; putting GOP stalwarts Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar in charge, respectively, of defense and state (no, really, what did happen to Bill Richardson?); sending Jane Harman, the scary Democratic representative from Venice CA, to homeland security; giving education to Colin "Mea Culpa" Powell, as if he doesn't have enough to apologize for already -- they make it seem increasingly likely that the only change we're going to see is the kind that is confusingly difficult to distinguish from la même chose.We thought we were throwing the bums out. Silly us.
Democracy: It's still not one person, one vote
I'm taken to task for holding the electoral college in insufficient regard. I don't deny it. The mechanism of this political relic acts as a brake on democracy and, for that reason, has to to go.
Because of the distortions caused by the electoral college, campaigns focus attention on whichever states have electoral votes up for grabs, effectively disenfranchising almost the entire rest of the country. This time, the voters in New York, California, Texas and Illinois, along with those in a large majority of the 50 states, were unable to affect the outcome of the election because polls indicated that unbeatable majorities in those states favored one candidate over another. In reaction, voters who preferred the minority candidates in those locales could be forgiven if they chose to stay home on election day.
With the impediment of the electoral college removed, no one's vote will be irrelevant or diluted any longer. The ballot of the Republican in Massachusetts or California will have the same impact on the choice for president as the ballot of the Democrat in South Dakota or Texas. Everyone's vote will be equal. No one will be disenfranchised.
It is argued that the small states will be disadvantaged by direct election of the president; but at least since Appomattox, if not since Philadelphia, we have been Americans first and only incidentally Vermonters or Virginians. The president is the leader of all the people, and there is no reason the small states should have a thumb on the scale. It is unfair that any American who happens not to be a supporter of the local party in power -- again, the Rhode Island Republican and the Idaho Democrat, alike, should -- like the voters in all the states that under the present accounting are indelibly red or blue -- be unable to cast an impactful vote for president.
It is said, also, that retiring the electoral college will merely skew the contests in a different way: campaigns will be motivated to focus exclusively on the big cities, because, as robber Willie Sutton said about banks and money, that's where the votes are. Leaving aside the antidemocratic assumption underlying that argument, as a practical matter it ignores the fact that all the states, including those that house large cities, are purple. Any campaign with a chance of winning will have to compete everywhere. Such a campaign of necessity will be more centrist than is true now, because it will focus on national issues, no longer be able to get by with satisfying parochial concerns in a handful of battleground states. Energy policy, say, will become a matter of what does the most good for the most people instead of being unduly influenced by a glut of corn in Iowa.
Will the electoral college be tough to get rid of? Sure. The power elites and special interests in the lightly populated states will be loathe to support a constitutional amendment that may cost them privileges. Some never will. But this is a fair country, and once the unfairness of the current system is widely understood, it will be difficult to argue that it isn't time to put this wretched antique out by the curb.
The Founding Fathers were talented politicians, advanced for their day. But their canonization makes it very hard to correct their mistakes. Wouldn't we honor their achievements more by moving closer to realizing the democracy they dreamed of than by setting in concrete the compromises they were forced to make along the way. Until our votes are equal, we don't have the democracy they fought to establish 250 years ago.
As another step along the road they set us on, the electoral college has to go.
Because of the distortions caused by the electoral college, campaigns focus attention on whichever states have electoral votes up for grabs, effectively disenfranchising almost the entire rest of the country. This time, the voters in New York, California, Texas and Illinois, along with those in a large majority of the 50 states, were unable to affect the outcome of the election because polls indicated that unbeatable majorities in those states favored one candidate over another. In reaction, voters who preferred the minority candidates in those locales could be forgiven if they chose to stay home on election day.
With the impediment of the electoral college removed, no one's vote will be irrelevant or diluted any longer. The ballot of the Republican in Massachusetts or California will have the same impact on the choice for president as the ballot of the Democrat in South Dakota or Texas. Everyone's vote will be equal. No one will be disenfranchised.
It is argued that the small states will be disadvantaged by direct election of the president; but at least since Appomattox, if not since Philadelphia, we have been Americans first and only incidentally Vermonters or Virginians. The president is the leader of all the people, and there is no reason the small states should have a thumb on the scale. It is unfair that any American who happens not to be a supporter of the local party in power -- again, the Rhode Island Republican and the Idaho Democrat, alike, should -- like the voters in all the states that under the present accounting are indelibly red or blue -- be unable to cast an impactful vote for president.
It is said, also, that retiring the electoral college will merely skew the contests in a different way: campaigns will be motivated to focus exclusively on the big cities, because, as robber Willie Sutton said about banks and money, that's where the votes are. Leaving aside the antidemocratic assumption underlying that argument, as a practical matter it ignores the fact that all the states, including those that house large cities, are purple. Any campaign with a chance of winning will have to compete everywhere. Such a campaign of necessity will be more centrist than is true now, because it will focus on national issues, no longer be able to get by with satisfying parochial concerns in a handful of battleground states. Energy policy, say, will become a matter of what does the most good for the most people instead of being unduly influenced by a glut of corn in Iowa.
Will the electoral college be tough to get rid of? Sure. The power elites and special interests in the lightly populated states will be loathe to support a constitutional amendment that may cost them privileges. Some never will. But this is a fair country, and once the unfairness of the current system is widely understood, it will be difficult to argue that it isn't time to put this wretched antique out by the curb.
The Founding Fathers were talented politicians, advanced for their day. But their canonization makes it very hard to correct their mistakes. Wouldn't we honor their achievements more by moving closer to realizing the democracy they dreamed of than by setting in concrete the compromises they were forced to make along the way. Until our votes are equal, we don't have the democracy they fought to establish 250 years ago.
As another step along the road they set us on, the electoral college has to go.
2008: Voting delayed is voting denied
Small thing, but the long lines at the polls, problem enough when we thought there had been substantial leaps in the numbers of citizens registering and voting, become even more puzzling when you consider this from Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate:
Possibly. It may be that, like the rest of our infrastructure, the mechanisms of voting are so creaky that the slightest stress overcomes them. But I doubt it. I think the problems are endemic. I blame the electoral college.
Our method of choosing presidents assures that the franchise is meaningful only for voters who reside in states where the outcome is in doubt right up to election day. In this year's contest, as in 2004, especially long lines were generated in those places where voters were told their votes would count. Some people in California, for example, have said that they skipped voting because they felt their choice for president was moot. Leaving aside districts with large African-American populations (who were doubly motivated to vote), because of the barrier of the electoral college it mattered whether you voted or not in only the few purple states.
Still, given the high numbers of people who cast ballots in advance -- which must have eased the pressure on election day -- and the repeated warnings over many months of an impending ballot deluge, it seems odd that election workers weren't better prepared. Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to conclude that the inconveniences were intended to depress the tally. Besides, most of the documented efforts at voter suppression were aimed at keeping voters away from polls with threats or frauds or purging them from voter rolls altogether. By comparison, exasperating them with long waits hardly seems worth the trouble.
Nonetheless, it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what happened. Even if the delays were nothing more than the result of increased turnout in particular districts, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming contests.
And, whatever is discovered about the causes of long lines this time, we have to get rid of the electoral college. In election after election, the continued use of this relic of two-hundred-year-old political compromises disenfranchises minority voters in electorally non-competitive states and focuses campaigns on a handful of constituencies. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally: Big thing.
Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.Increased absentee voting. Increased early voting. And, finally, only a marginal increase in the actual number of voters. So why the long lines? Could such a small overall bump be enough to jam the system on election day?
Possibly. It may be that, like the rest of our infrastructure, the mechanisms of voting are so creaky that the slightest stress overcomes them. But I doubt it. I think the problems are endemic. I blame the electoral college.
Our method of choosing presidents assures that the franchise is meaningful only for voters who reside in states where the outcome is in doubt right up to election day. In this year's contest, as in 2004, especially long lines were generated in those places where voters were told their votes would count. Some people in California, for example, have said that they skipped voting because they felt their choice for president was moot. Leaving aside districts with large African-American populations (who were doubly motivated to vote), because of the barrier of the electoral college it mattered whether you voted or not in only the few purple states.
Still, given the high numbers of people who cast ballots in advance -- which must have eased the pressure on election day -- and the repeated warnings over many months of an impending ballot deluge, it seems odd that election workers weren't better prepared. Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to conclude that the inconveniences were intended to depress the tally. Besides, most of the documented efforts at voter suppression were aimed at keeping voters away from polls with threats or frauds or purging them from voter rolls altogether. By comparison, exasperating them with long waits hardly seems worth the trouble.
Nonetheless, it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what happened. Even if the delays were nothing more than the result of increased turnout in particular districts, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming contests.
And, whatever is discovered about the causes of long lines this time, we have to get rid of the electoral college. In election after election, the continued use of this relic of two-hundred-year-old political compromises disenfranchises minority voters in electorally non-competitive states and focuses campaigns on a handful of constituencies. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally: Big thing.
Recovery: The New New Deal
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposes investing in infrastructure:
When the Senate reconvenes of November 17th, I intend to fight for an economic recovery program that is significant enough in size and scope to respond to the major economic crisis this country now faces. If we can commit more than $1 trillion to rescue bankers and insurance companies from their reckless and irresponsible behavior, we certainly should be investing in millions of good-paying jobs that rebuild our nation and improve its economy....The rest of the story: The Road to Economic Recovery by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Huffington Post, 2008-11-7)
This economic recovery package should first improve our crumbling infrastructure by improving our roads, bridges and public transportation. We need to bring our water and sewer systems into the 21st century. We need to make certain that high-quality Internet service is available in every community in America. Not only are these investments desperately needed, every billion dollars that we put into these initiatives will create up to 47,000 new jobs.
R.I.P.: Peter Camejo
Peter Camejo, an American patriot, who saw the need for economic and political reform in this republic and did not hesitate to enter the struggle for change, has died. The rest of the story: The San Fransisco Chronicle.
Song: "(I'm thinkin' 'bout nailin') Sarah Palin"
I'm of the mind that Democrats would do well not to over-react to the application of the Peter Principle to Sarah Palin. With her lack of experience and a litany of positions on most matters of policy that are horrific when they aren't nonsensical, the Veep-in-Waiting is a gift to the Obama team, should it decide to run on the issues. The party will have no difficulty building a convincing case against her. The campaign's advocates ought to leave her personal life, her family, her peck of pickled peccadillos out of the race. As Obama himself said, families should be off limits. So should personal attacks, especially by Democrats. Leave that to Republicans. They're oh, so much better at it.
What makes good sense for politicos, though, in no way applies to comedians. In fact, comics all over the country are energized at the prospect of a GOP win. Take, for example, the latest from Nashville-based songwriter and satirist Steve Goodie:
Click here for more fun with Steve Goodie.
In the same spirit, here are some other thoughts on Sarah Palin:
"John McCain's VP pick is the governor of Alaska, a unknown hockey mom named Sarah Palin that no one ever heard of. The only other job she had in politics was the mayor of a small town known as Wasilla, Alaska, and now she has the opportunity to be on a ticket opposite of Barack Obama, the first black man she's ever seen." – Bill Maher
"When they were vetting her for this job, she said, quote, 'What is it exactly that the VP does every day?' Let me field that for you, Sarah. They start wars, they enrich their friends, they subvert the Constitution, and they shoot people in the face. That's what the vice president does." – Bill Maher
"Not only is she young, they're saying she's the prettiest candidate for vice president since John Edwards." - Jimmy Kimmel
"Palin and McCain are a good pair. She's pro-life and he's clinging to life." – Jay Leno
"Today President Bush called Gov. Palin and congratulated her. Bush told Palin the job of vice president is very important because as vice president, you get to tell the president what to do." – Jay Leno
What makes good sense for politicos, though, in no way applies to comedians. In fact, comics all over the country are energized at the prospect of a GOP win. Take, for example, the latest from Nashville-based songwriter and satirist Steve Goodie:
Click here for more fun with Steve Goodie.
In the same spirit, here are some other thoughts on Sarah Palin:
"John McCain's VP pick is the governor of Alaska, a unknown hockey mom named Sarah Palin that no one ever heard of. The only other job she had in politics was the mayor of a small town known as Wasilla, Alaska, and now she has the opportunity to be on a ticket opposite of Barack Obama, the first black man she's ever seen." – Bill Maher
"When they were vetting her for this job, she said, quote, 'What is it exactly that the VP does every day?' Let me field that for you, Sarah. They start wars, they enrich their friends, they subvert the Constitution, and they shoot people in the face. That's what the vice president does." – Bill Maher
"Not only is she young, they're saying she's the prettiest candidate for vice president since John Edwards." - Jimmy Kimmel
"Palin and McCain are a good pair. She's pro-life and he's clinging to life." – Jay Leno
"Today President Bush called Gov. Palin and congratulated her. Bush told Palin the job of vice president is very important because as vice president, you get to tell the president what to do." – Jay Leno
Announcement: A Southern Region Solidarity School Sept. 18-21 (press release)
Solidarity Education Center & The Center for Labor Renewal announce:
A program for all workers and activists who want to win struggles in workplaces...in communities...on the political front...and in the global economy.
Education for Struggle: All of America's workers are under relentless attack. No region of the country has been more oppressed than the U. S. South. Today's labor movement is on the defensive and its historic failure to build power and worker solidarity in the South has continuing consequences today. We need new workplace and community strategies to build a sustaining movement for social and economic justice throughout our region.
In the past unconventional worker schools and training models have played an important role South, providing "education for struggle" for past generations of activists. A new generation of activists needs to be prepared to lead a great struggle and build solidarity today's South and beyond.
The Solidarity Education Center's regional weekend schools are designed to bring members and leaders of worker and community organizations together to explore strategies to do just that.
Topics to be covered: History of Working Class Struggle in the South Challenges to Organizing the South - Jim Crow past, etc.; Immigration & New Working Class Realities; Building Solidarity out of Diversity War & Imperialism: The Price for Workers and Communities; Healthcare for All: A Fight We Can Win!; Politics for People: Building at the Base for Real Power; Strengthening Our Fightback in Workplaces & Communities; International Labor & Global Capital: An Injury to All.
Discussion leaders include regional labor educators, strategists, and social activists.
Thursday-Sunday September 18-21, 2008, The Penn Center, St. Helena Island, SC 29920; 843-838-2432. Housing & meals included in $210 registration fee. For transportation & travel info, call 734-242-7936 or go to www.solidarityeducationcenter.org or www.centerforlaborrenewal.org.
For more information, e-mail jtuckernd@sbcglobal.net or call 314-968-5534.
A program for all workers and activists who want to win struggles in workplaces...in communities...on the political front...and in the global economy.
Education for Struggle: All of America's workers are under relentless attack. No region of the country has been more oppressed than the U. S. South. Today's labor movement is on the defensive and its historic failure to build power and worker solidarity in the South has continuing consequences today. We need new workplace and community strategies to build a sustaining movement for social and economic justice throughout our region.
In the past unconventional worker schools and training models have played an important role South, providing "education for struggle" for past generations of activists. A new generation of activists needs to be prepared to lead a great struggle and build solidarity today's South and beyond.
The Solidarity Education Center's regional weekend schools are designed to bring members and leaders of worker and community organizations together to explore strategies to do just that.
Topics to be covered: History of Working Class Struggle in the South Challenges to Organizing the South - Jim Crow past, etc.; Immigration & New Working Class Realities; Building Solidarity out of Diversity War & Imperialism: The Price for Workers and Communities; Healthcare for All: A Fight We Can Win!; Politics for People: Building at the Base for Real Power; Strengthening Our Fightback in Workplaces & Communities; International Labor & Global Capital: An Injury to All.
Discussion leaders include regional labor educators, strategists, and social activists.
Thursday-Sunday September 18-21, 2008, The Penn Center, St. Helena Island, SC 29920; 843-838-2432. Housing & meals included in $210 registration fee. For transportation & travel info, call 734-242-7936 or go to www.solidarityeducationcenter.org or www.centerforlaborrenewal.org.
For more information, e-mail jtuckernd@sbcglobal.net or call 314-968-5534.
Action: A Million Doors for Peace
On Saturday, September 20, thousands of volunteers across the U.S. will knock on a Million Doors for Peace. Hopefully, they will be attacked by police only in Minneapolis.
United for Peace and Justice is partnering with US Action/True Majority, Win Without War, and other organizations to make it the biggest peace action of 2008 so far.
Volunteer doorknockers will ask people to sign an antiwar petition directed to Congress. The message: End this immoral war, bring our troops home, and invest in America's future. In addition, people will be encouraged to engage in voter education work and to become active in the organized antiwar movement in their area.
In order to reach a million people in all 50 states in a single day, 25,000 volunteers are needed. Peace groups have never implemented such an elaborate communication and organizing plan before now, but as MoveOn.Org, recent political campaigns and other efforts have shown, it is a new day in political organizing. September 20 is intended as the kick off of a more organized grassroots movement for peace and social and economic justice than has existed up to know.
One way you can get involved in the 2008 elections is by joining UFPJ's national campaign to organize nonpartisan voter engagement in Congressional races. Intensive and creative bird-dogging of candidates, distribution of Congressional voter guides and report cards are some of the activities underway.
UFPJ is maintaining a daily schedule of Senators Obama and McCain's activities to ensure that the issues of war, nuclear disarmament, and the domestic costs of the war are discussed at their events.
The rest of the story and information about how to get involved is at United for Peace.
United for Peace and Justice is partnering with US Action/True Majority, Win Without War, and other organizations to make it the biggest peace action of 2008 so far.
Volunteer doorknockers will ask people to sign an antiwar petition directed to Congress. The message: End this immoral war, bring our troops home, and invest in America's future. In addition, people will be encouraged to engage in voter education work and to become active in the organized antiwar movement in their area.
In order to reach a million people in all 50 states in a single day, 25,000 volunteers are needed. Peace groups have never implemented such an elaborate communication and organizing plan before now, but as MoveOn.Org, recent political campaigns and other efforts have shown, it is a new day in political organizing. September 20 is intended as the kick off of a more organized grassroots movement for peace and social and economic justice than has existed up to know.
One way you can get involved in the 2008 elections is by joining UFPJ's national campaign to organize nonpartisan voter engagement in Congressional races. Intensive and creative bird-dogging of candidates, distribution of Congressional voter guides and report cards are some of the activities underway.
UFPJ is maintaining a daily schedule of Senators Obama and McCain's activities to ensure that the issues of war, nuclear disarmament, and the domestic costs of the war are discussed at their events.
The rest of the story and information about how to get involved is at United for Peace.
Clip File: Welcome Home, Soldier -- Now shut up.
"There are two kinds of courage in war - physical courage and moral courage. Physical courage is very common on the battlefield. Men and women on both sides risk their lives, place their own bodies in harm’s way. Moral courage, however, is quite rare. According to Chris Hedges, the brilliant New York Times war correspondent who survived wars in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, 'I rarely saw moral courage. Moral courage is harder. It requires the bearer to walk away from the warm embrace of comradeship and denounce the myth of war as a fraud, to name it as an enterprise of death and immorality, to condemn himself, and those around him, as killers. It requires the bearer to become an outcast. There are times when taking a moral stance, perhaps the highest form of patriotism, means facing down the community, even the nation.'"
The rest of the story: Welcome Home, Soldier: Now shut up by Paul Rockwell (Black Commentator 2008-06-226)
The rest of the story: Welcome Home, Soldier: Now shut up by Paul Rockwell (Black Commentator 2008-06-226)
Impractical Proposals: John Edwards still wants economic justice in America
The former Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate is leading an ambitious campaign to cut poverty in America by half in 10 years -- completely in 30: <PBS' Now>.
Politics: Lincoln Steffens on citizenship
We are a free and sovereign people, we govern ourselves and the government is ours. But that is the point. We are responsible, not our leaders, since we follow them. We let them divert our loyalty from the United States to some 'party'; we let them boss the party and turn our municipal democracies into autocracies and our republican nation into a plutocracy. We cheat our government, we let our leaders loot it, and we let them wheedle and bribe our sovereignty from us. Lincoln Steffens in The Shame of the Cities.
Politics: The best Congress money can buy
"MAPLight.org brings together campaign contributions and how legislators vote, providing an unprecedented window into the connections between money and politics. We currently cover the California Legislature and U.S. Congress." -- from the website. <http://maplight.org/>
More "New and Not Improved"
Okay. I was wrong. There was a lot more anger building up on the left than was evident when I wrote the piece below (see, Obama's Online Muscle Flexes Against Him, Chicago Tribune 2008-07-08). The problem, of course, is that the senator's progressive supporters can whine and pule all they want but it won't change anything. They already gave away the store when they threw their support to him without getting anything in return. Without the availability of an alternative (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards come to mind), they have nothing to hold over him. John McCain? I don't think so. The only shocking thing is that anybody's shocked. You can only be surprised if you haven't been paying attention. BHO has been saying most of this stuff all along (well, okay, not the campaign financing stuff). This may be why Ralph Nader is doing so well in the polls, a steady 5% -- certainly enough to make the difference in a close race -- at a time when the tide is most favorable to Obama. The question remains, as it has throughout this race, what it will take to get the Democrats to end the war, establish single-payer national health, rein in the military, restore progressive taxation, and start the long, slow, costly job of rebuilding the nation's tattered infrastructure. If Obama isn't the answer, what's Plan B?
"New and Not Improved" (New York Times headline -- July 4, 2008)
The Times is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that Barack Obama is a conventional, middle-of-the-road politician, not the second coming of Abe Lincoln and Bobby Kennedy. You may not think it's any surprise that, having safely disposed of the evil Clintons in the primaries, the Democrats' candidate has tacked right on a few issues for the general election, but the Times is deeply disappointed in the junior legislator from Illinois.
"Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes," the paper lamented in an Independence Day editorial, "promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics....Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings....Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking, because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
If the paper's editorial writers really took seriously Obama's posturing about change, they are more naive even than the senator's converts on the left. Progressive idealists have an excuse in falling for his pitch. After all, if the nation doesn't find salvation by anointing the Chicago pol in November, they will be forced to fall back on the tougher job of electing a progressive majority to Congress and organizing an apparently terminally apathetic citizenry.
You have to wonder what campaign the Times has been following, though. Obama has never made a secret of who he is. Beyond the rhetoric of change and his campaign's grasp of the Internet's organizing and fund-raising capacities, he has presented himself throughout the primaries as dependably moderate -- pro-military, pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, ready to reach across the aisle -- when he has shown any interest in policy at all.
It is certainly true, as the Times says, that Obama stirred his legions of supporters by promising to change the old order of things. But this was almost entirely a matter of speechifying. In fact (and ironically, when you consider the passion with which the anti-Clinton forces hugged him to their bosoms), throughout the campaign Obama has sounded remarkably like the Bill Clinton of 1996. He did indeed speak "with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders," but like Bill Clinton's, the likeliest outcome of Barack Obama's brand of bipartisanship will be the adoption of the conservative agenda.
Obama, the Times adds, "promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution" -- as who didn't? -- "and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics." It's true that Hillary Clinton couldn't find it in herself to bite the hands that fed her, but -- not to beat a dead horse -- if the Times really wanted to enlist in the fight for economic justice they wouldn't have joined the media pack in minimizing John Edwards' insurgency. In any case, about the "new" Obama the Times continues, "First,
That raises a question, however: Doesn't your willingness to kill someone in order to become president automatically disqualify you from the job? In the U.S., there are on average around 30,000 deaths annually from firearms and over 200,000 non-fatal injuries. If, as Obama wishes, handguns are easier to acquire, there will be more fatalities and more injuries . If additional crimes are made capital offenses, there will be more executions. But no one will be able to say Barack Obama is soft on crime. There will be no Willie Horton for him, if he can help it.
In any case, I hold Barack Obama in higher regard than many of his supporters. To me, his campaign makes more sense if you take him at his word that he is an ambitious moderate with little interest in policy, that he is another Democratic presidential candidate whose most attractive attribute is that he is not the other guy. There is no question that there are reasons to prefer Barack Obama to John McCain, those pesky Supreme Court appointments among them. But keeping in mind the outcome of the Clinton years, whether this makes his election the more desirable remains to be seen.
"Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes," the paper lamented in an Independence Day editorial, "promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics....Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings....Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking, because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
If the paper's editorial writers really took seriously Obama's posturing about change, they are more naive even than the senator's converts on the left. Progressive idealists have an excuse in falling for his pitch. After all, if the nation doesn't find salvation by anointing the Chicago pol in November, they will be forced to fall back on the tougher job of electing a progressive majority to Congress and organizing an apparently terminally apathetic citizenry.
You have to wonder what campaign the Times has been following, though. Obama has never made a secret of who he is. Beyond the rhetoric of change and his campaign's grasp of the Internet's organizing and fund-raising capacities, he has presented himself throughout the primaries as dependably moderate -- pro-military, pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, ready to reach across the aisle -- when he has shown any interest in policy at all.
It is certainly true, as the Times says, that Obama stirred his legions of supporters by promising to change the old order of things. But this was almost entirely a matter of speechifying. In fact (and ironically, when you consider the passion with which the anti-Clinton forces hugged him to their bosoms), throughout the campaign Obama has sounded remarkably like the Bill Clinton of 1996. He did indeed speak "with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders," but like Bill Clinton's, the likeliest outcome of Barack Obama's brand of bipartisanship will be the adoption of the conservative agenda.
Obama, the Times adds, "promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution" -- as who didn't? -- "and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics." It's true that Hillary Clinton couldn't find it in herself to bite the hands that fed her, but -- not to beat a dead horse -- if the Times really wanted to enlist in the fight for economic justice they wouldn't have joined the media pack in minimizing John Edwards' insurgency. In any case, about the "new" Obama the Times continues, "First,
he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.Hard not to agree that this is a switcheroo worthy of a three-card monte hustler in Times Square. But the biggest surprise is how easily he is getting away with it. The Times deserves credit for taking him to task for what is a major sellout of reform politics; imagine the howls that would be emanating from progressive circles if John McCain or Hillary Clinton pulled a stunt like this.
Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.Again, Obama has consistently backed the Patriot Act and military spending, on occasion has gone so far as to advocate missile attacks on Iran and military action in Pakistan, and has made it clear that he is no threat to the entitlements of the military state. It's more likely he was pandering in January than July.
In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.If you think back to the Clinton presidency, you will remember that he, too, succeeded a failed Republican administration. If George Bush had been reelected would the Congress have funded expansion of the military? Would we have had NAFTA and trade reform, welfare reform, banking reform, telecom reform? (You are permitted to assume there are quotation marks around any appearance of the word reform on these pages.) Would the Democratic Party have abandoned its four-decade-old commitment to achieving single-payer health insurance? It requires no stretch of imagination to recognize that an Obama administration will be equally inclined to bridle any liberal excesses of the next Congress.
He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.Me, too. But it's a little after the fact to bring it up now.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”In 1996, Bill Clinton suspended his presidential campaign to return to Arkansas to preside as governor over the execution of a retarded man. When someone like George Bush or John McCain favors the death penalty, you think they know not what they do. But Bill Clinton is a policy wonk. He has read the same studies you have about the negative effects of the death penalty on public policy. He knows it has no deterrent effect. He knows it is wrongly applied much of the time. He knows that innocent people die. But he had seen Mike Dukakis get Willie Hortoned, and he wasn't going to let it happen to him.
What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?
We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
That raises a question, however: Doesn't your willingness to kill someone in order to become president automatically disqualify you from the job? In the U.S., there are on average around 30,000 deaths annually from firearms and over 200,000 non-fatal injuries. If, as Obama wishes, handguns are easier to acquire, there will be more fatalities and more injuries . If additional crimes are made capital offenses, there will be more executions. But no one will be able to say Barack Obama is soft on crime. There will be no Willie Horton for him, if he can help it.
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.Obama partisans who are bothered by any of this offer the reassurance that he doesn't mean what he says. He is just saying what he must to get elected. Aside from the questionable wisdom of this as practical politics (viz., the candidacies of Al Gore and John Kerry), it is a little disheartening to be asked to trust that a candidate is lying.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
In any case, I hold Barack Obama in higher regard than many of his supporters. To me, his campaign makes more sense if you take him at his word that he is an ambitious moderate with little interest in policy, that he is another Democratic presidential candidate whose most attractive attribute is that he is not the other guy. There is no question that there are reasons to prefer Barack Obama to John McCain, those pesky Supreme Court appointments among them. But keeping in mind the outcome of the Clinton years, whether this makes his election the more desirable remains to be seen.
Media Watch: Non-Profit Investigative News Effort
ProPublica, whose slogan is "Journalism in the public interest," is a non-profit undertaking focusing on investigative reporting. The organization has 24 full time reporters and editors, the largest staff in American media devoted solely to investigative journalism. Its activities are supported entirely by philanthropy and the articles it produces are provided, free of charge, both through its own website and via leading news outlets selected with an eye toward maximizing the impact of its work.
Commenting on the new organization last December, editor in chief Paul E. Steiger, formerly managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that
Commenting on the new organization last December, editor in chief Paul E. Steiger, formerly managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that
"ProPublica will focus exclusively on journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. We will be non-partisan and non-ideological, adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness. We will look hard at the critical functions of business and of government, the two biggest centers of power. But we will also focus on such institutions as unions, universities, hospitals, foundations and the media when they appear to be exploiting or oppressing those weaker than they, or when there is evidence that they are abusing the public trust."The organization's website includes a "scandal watch" of top stories about corruption and abuse of power. Numerous rss feeds keep a timely eye on breaking stories in such areas as Business & Money, Justice & Law, Energy & Environment, Government & Politics, Health & Science, Media & Technology, and National Security. A little more than a half year old, the Manhattan-based news organization says it is needed now because investigative journalism increasingly is being crowded out by the media's obsessive focus on trivia (press release).
2008: Why West Virginia is more important than you think
Lost in the coverage of the West Virginia primary is the fact that John Edwards received 7% of the vote, suggesting a growing dissatisfaction with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Not that Obama's campaign will go off the rails before the convention, but for the party's front runner to be clobbered in the final days of the nominating process is one more piece of evidence that the outcome in November is not a lock.
The Democrats have a real problem, one with a long history. There is a certain type of candidate -- brainy, nuanced in policy discussions, aloof, often impatient with the blood, sweat and tears of retail politics, who is beloved of academics and Hollywood liberals -- think Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry, but who fails to connect with the average voter with an intensity sufficient to carry the day.
The Obama team can blame racism and Hillary's negative campaigning for the outcome in West Virginia if they want to, but they'd be better to take heed: it repeats a pattern that has been apparent throughout the campaign -- many white working class voters are not warming to Barack Obama.
And that's not all, as the late night cable ads like to say. More than half the voters in WVa said they'd be less than happy if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright (as, no doubt, in general, he does), and more than half think he does not share their values (expect to hear a lot more about lapel pins between now and November). Just under half of Clinton's supporters said they would not support the very junior senator from Illinois in the fall. Plus, more than half also hold the opinion, and this is huge, that he is not honest and trustworthy. Obama may have kicked off his extraordinary run for the roses with that out-of-nowhere win in 94%-white Iowa, but he is winding it up in 94%-white WVa with a potentially going-nowhere trouncing.
The Obama people should be thanking Clinton whose victory in West Virginia is an early-warning signal of what might happen in the fall. This is information to be addressed, not argued with or dismissed; if it is not addressed, soon and forthrightly, before it becomes set in stone that he is dishonest and untrustworthy, Obama stands a better than average chance of losing the general election.
If the public is suffering Obama-Clinton burnout, then nominating Clinton for vice, even if it is achievable over Michelle Obama's objections, may not be the smartest move. Writing for Political Insider, Taegan Goddard makes the case for John Edwards as the Democratic vice presidential candidate.
6. The choice of Edwards would reassure the Democrats' left-leaning activists, who have been worried that the party's core tenets are about to be sacrificed -- again -- to the ambitions of an administration -- whether led by Obama or Clinton matters not -- bent on portraying itself as a Third Way.
Party activists have been bemused by the Clinton-Obama domination of the debate. Clinton was never acceptable to the Left -- some progressives are so repelled by the Clintons that they rushed into Obama's arms, although Barack's relentless gassification of the issues has made Hillary's working class hero act nearly palatable. Progressives who are not sitting on their hands while they figure out what to do next have embraced Obama hoping they can get some cred with the young voters he's turned on; all are crossing their fingers that he is not the corporatist shill he appears to be.
Edwards selection as Obama's running mate would be a step toward mollifying the doubters, at least more so than adding any of the others on the short list to the ticket as veep. Apparently, Edwards will endorse Obama tonight. Too soon, John, unless the deal is already done.
(See, Edwards Endorsement Boosts Obama's Campaign, CQPolitics, 2008-05-14).
The Democrats have a real problem, one with a long history. There is a certain type of candidate -- brainy, nuanced in policy discussions, aloof, often impatient with the blood, sweat and tears of retail politics, who is beloved of academics and Hollywood liberals -- think Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry, but who fails to connect with the average voter with an intensity sufficient to carry the day.
The Obama team can blame racism and Hillary's negative campaigning for the outcome in West Virginia if they want to, but they'd be better to take heed: it repeats a pattern that has been apparent throughout the campaign -- many white working class voters are not warming to Barack Obama.
The West Virginia exit polls, TalkLeft reports, indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.Nor did Obama lose only among those sectors of the population -- older voters, white women -- unusually resistant to his charm. In West Virginia, he was also edged out in blocs that are normally in his corner -- the 18-30s, the educated and the affluent. The West Virginia outcome is not an anomaly: Obama’s white working class problem isn't limited to Appalachia; it's in the entire half of the country east of the Mississippi.
Obama has won the white vote in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc. West of the Mississippi all of them EXCEPT Wisconsin and VA.
And that's not all, as the late night cable ads like to say. More than half the voters in WVa said they'd be less than happy if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright (as, no doubt, in general, he does), and more than half think he does not share their values (expect to hear a lot more about lapel pins between now and November). Just under half of Clinton's supporters said they would not support the very junior senator from Illinois in the fall. Plus, more than half also hold the opinion, and this is huge, that he is not honest and trustworthy. Obama may have kicked off his extraordinary run for the roses with that out-of-nowhere win in 94%-white Iowa, but he is winding it up in 94%-white WVa with a potentially going-nowhere trouncing.
The Obama people should be thanking Clinton whose victory in West Virginia is an early-warning signal of what might happen in the fall. This is information to be addressed, not argued with or dismissed; if it is not addressed, soon and forthrightly, before it becomes set in stone that he is dishonest and untrustworthy, Obama stands a better than average chance of losing the general election.
If the public is suffering Obama-Clinton burnout, then nominating Clinton for vice, even if it is achievable over Michelle Obama's objections, may not be the smartest move. Writing for Political Insider, Taegan Goddard makes the case for John Edwards as the Democratic vice presidential candidate.
Ironically, by not choosing between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton in their tough primary battle, Edwards stands as a potential healer of the Democratic party. And by remaining neutral in the race, he's also best positioned to be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.Except for number 4 (does Edwards really have a "southern" identity?), this is a fairly compelling case, to which I would add one additional point:
Here's the case for picking Edwards:1. He's already been tested on the national stage and not likely to cause a distracting scandal.
2. He appeals to the same working class white voters that back Clinton.
3. He favors Obama's new brand of politics.
4. He could put North Carolina and possibly other Southern states in play.
5. Sen. Hillary Clinton would probably support him. With more than 1,700 delegates in Clinton's pocket, Obama needs to at least get her tacit approval if he wants to have a unified party.
6. The choice of Edwards would reassure the Democrats' left-leaning activists, who have been worried that the party's core tenets are about to be sacrificed -- again -- to the ambitions of an administration -- whether led by Obama or Clinton matters not -- bent on portraying itself as a Third Way.
Party activists have been bemused by the Clinton-Obama domination of the debate. Clinton was never acceptable to the Left -- some progressives are so repelled by the Clintons that they rushed into Obama's arms, although Barack's relentless gassification of the issues has made Hillary's working class hero act nearly palatable. Progressives who are not sitting on their hands while they figure out what to do next have embraced Obama hoping they can get some cred with the young voters he's turned on; all are crossing their fingers that he is not the corporatist shill he appears to be.
Edwards selection as Obama's running mate would be a step toward mollifying the doubters, at least more so than adding any of the others on the short list to the ticket as veep. Apparently, Edwards will endorse Obama tonight. Too soon, John, unless the deal is already done.
(See, Edwards Endorsement Boosts Obama's Campaign, CQPolitics, 2008-05-14).
The Law: Are drunk driving regulations rational?
Push a bike on your own property - get 4 days in jail
At the expense of sounding like a Libertarian, it seems to me that we allow our freedoms to be eaten away in small ways as much as large, by ignorance and laziness as much as by fear and intimidation. Here's a thoughtful video by a gentleman whose run-in with a contemporary manifestation of prohibition admirably focused his attention on one example, out of far too many, of the ways in which we have acquiesced in having the boundaries of our liberty proscribed to save ourselves from dangers exaggerated and unexamined.
At the expense of sounding like a Libertarian, it seems to me that we allow our freedoms to be eaten away in small ways as much as large, by ignorance and laziness as much as by fear and intimidation. Here's a thoughtful video by a gentleman whose run-in with a contemporary manifestation of prohibition admirably focused his attention on one example, out of far too many, of the ways in which we have acquiesced in having the boundaries of our liberty proscribed to save ourselves from dangers exaggerated and unexamined.
Stand-up Comity: Chuck Hagel vs Lambchop for Vice-President
It is rumored that Chuck Hagel, the departing senator from Nebraska, one of the only Republicans to oppose strenuously George W. Bush's illegal, immoral and counter-productive occupation of Iraq and his authorization of the use of torture in interrogations, 
is under consideration for vice president by Barack Obama as well as, more predictably despite their differences over Iraq, John McCain.
If picked by Obama, Hagel would bring to the Democratic ticket the experience of a seasoned Washington insider (he has served on senate committees overseeing banking, foreign relations and intelligence) and the requisite record of service in Vietnam. As a bonus, his vigorous opposition to the Iraq war would
reassure Democrats worried about how seriously Obama will pursue withdrawal. The very junior senator from Illinois plans to pack his cabinet with Republicans anyway, so why not start at the top?
McCain, on the other hand, who agrees with the conservative Cornhusker on virtually every other issue, can, by choosing a running mate anathematic to the White House, further distance himself from the most unpopular president in history without otherwise alienating his base.
While unorthodox, the best outcome might be for Hagel to be nominated for vice president by both parties simultaneously. Not only would McCain and Obama get to underscore their commitment to bringing a new era of comity to the nation's politics, but the rest of us would get to enjoy the spectacle of a debate between a U.S Senator and his sock puppet.
See, And Obama's Veep is...a Republican? by Mike Madden (Salon) and
Hagel would ‘consider’ joining Democratic ticket by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagge Report, 2008-06-21)
is under consideration for vice president by Barack Obama as well as, more predictably despite their differences over Iraq, John McCain.If picked by Obama, Hagel would bring to the Democratic ticket the experience of a seasoned Washington insider (he has served on senate committees overseeing banking, foreign relations and intelligence) and the requisite record of service in Vietnam. As a bonus, his vigorous opposition to the Iraq war would
reassure Democrats worried about how seriously Obama will pursue withdrawal. The very junior senator from Illinois plans to pack his cabinet with Republicans anyway, so why not start at the top?McCain, on the other hand, who agrees with the conservative Cornhusker on virtually every other issue, can, by choosing a running mate anathematic to the White House, further distance himself from the most unpopular president in history without otherwise alienating his base.
While unorthodox, the best outcome might be for Hagel to be nominated for vice president by both parties simultaneously. Not only would McCain and Obama get to underscore their commitment to bringing a new era of comity to the nation's politics, but the rest of us would get to enjoy the spectacle of a debate between a U.S Senator and his sock puppet.
See, And Obama's Veep is...a Republican? by Mike Madden (Salon) and
Hagel would ‘consider’ joining Democratic ticket by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagge Report, 2008-06-21)
Jefferson and the rise of corporations
"I hope we shall...
crush in its birth
the aristocracy
of our moneyed corporations,
which dare already
to challenge our government
to a trial of strength and
to bid defiance
to the laws of their country."
-- Thomas Jefferson,
letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.
crush in its birth
the aristocracy
of our moneyed corporations,
which dare already
to challenge our government
to a trial of strength and
to bid defiance
to the laws of their country."
-- Thomas Jefferson,
letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.
Canards: Joe Lieberman is "a good Democrat"
It has been clear, at the least since his traitorous run for Senate in the 2006 general election against his party's nominee, that letting Joe Lieberman pass as an independent "Democrat" is deeply corrupting of the party's integrity and reputation. Just how far the senator's values deviate from his nominal consort can be seen in the chronicle of important votes taken since the Democrats took over Congress. It does progressivism no favor to have it tarred by a legislative record that is reflective not of a Democratic majority but of conservative dominance. If John McCain taps Jiltin' Joe for veep, the Democrats will have invited the GOP to present itself as the party of unity and comity. There's no hope of dumping the Connecticut conman now, but after November he will no longer be needed to reserve the bigger offices and inflated staffs for Harry Reid and company. If he's not the Republican vice president by then, Lieberman should be blocked from playacting the role of Democrat when the Congress begins a new run in January.
See also: Harry Reid Still Providing Cover for Joe Lieberman by Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake). In a recent interview, the Senate Majority Leader white-washes Joe Lieberman's voting record. The rest of the story.Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world
by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 2008-05-06)
Harry Reid was on The Daily Show last night (to promote his book, ironically entitled The Good Fight) and said that Joe Lieberman "supports us on virtually everything except the war." This is exactly what Reid has said repeatedly about Lieberman ("Joe Lieberman is my friend, and he is a good Democrat, votes with us on everything, except the war. So Joe Lieberman is easy to work with"). Two weeks ago, a NYT article on Lieberman quoted Reid praising him and then immediately added:A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: "The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain't happening." He added: "We need every vote. He's with us on everything but the war."Leave aside the insulting absurdity of talking about "the war" as though it's just one garden-variety political issue out of many. And also leave aside that Lieberman happens also not to be "voting with the Democrats" on the small matter of the presidential election. Beyond that, this claim that Lieberman votes with Democrats "on everything but the war" -- made repeatedly by Reid [and two weeks ago in the NYT by "a member of the Senate Democratic leadership" too scared to be quoted (if it's not Reid)] -- is a total falsehood, but nonetheless quite revealing about how the Senate Democratic leadership thinks.
Here are some non-war votes from Lieberman since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006:
Bill to ban the CIA from using waterboarding:
Democrats -- 45-1
Republicans - 5-46
Lieberman- NAY
Cloture vote on bill to restore habeas corpus (which Lieberman voted to abolish in 2006):
Democrats - 50-0
Republicans - 5-42
Lieberman - NAY
Vote to strip retroactive amnesty for telecoms out of the FISA bill (h/t Matt Browner-Hamlin):
Democrats -- 31-16
Republicans - 0-48
Lieberman - NAY
Vote to specify that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the President can spy on telephone and email communications:
Democrats -- 49-1
Republicans - 9-40
Lieberman - NAY
Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
Democrats -- 6-40
Republicans - 47-0
Lieberman - YEA
Cloture vote to proceed to consideration of No-Confidence Resolution for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:
Democrats -- 47-0
Republicans - 6-37
Lieberman - NAY
Obviously, Reid's repeated claim that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" is demonstrably false. But when he repeatedly makes that claim, I don't think Reid is consciously lying. It's just that, in Harry Reid's world (and in the world of the Democratic leadership generally), things like warrantless eavesdropping, the abolition of habeas corpus, telecom amnesty, the corrupt politicization of the Justice Department, chronic lying under oath, and the legalization of torture just don't exist. They don't matter. They're non-issues. And that is precisely why those radical, destructive measures are continuously permitted -- approved and endorsed -- by the Reid-led, Democratic-controlled Senate.
UPDATE: Several commenters and emailers, including Paul Dirks, argue that Reid views all of the above-listed issues as being part of "the war," broadly defined. Maybe. But if Reid and his comrades actually embrace the rhetorical deceit that things like the abolition of habeas corpus, warrantless eavesdropping, telecom amnesty, torture and Alberto Gonzales' behavior are all part of "the war" -- whatever that might mean -- then (a) that's even worse than the explanations I offered and (b) it makes the statement that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" all the more misleading and/or meaningless, since "the war" defined that way encompasses most matters of significance. -- Glenn Greenwald
Must to See: Robert Newman's History of Oil
British comedian Robert Newman has put together a frequently hilarious 45-minute documentary/performance piece on the history of oil over the last 100 years or so. Much of the story is familiar, but as a Brit he is able to offer historically based insights, such as when he argues that the planning and construction of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway -- to provide Germany direct access to middle east oil -- was one of the primary causes of World War I. Available on Google Video.
OpEd: Dwayne Booth
Probably because he doesn't hold down a chair on the editorial page of a major metropolitan newspaper, Los Angeles-based political cartoonist Dwayne Booth, a.k.a. Mr.Fish, isn't as renowned as he deserves, but his work, appearing regularly in the LA Weekly and the Los Angeles Times, and on Catch of the Day, a daily cartoon blog for the Weekly's website, as weekly cartoonist on Harpers.org, on Bob Scheer's Truthdig, and as a featured cartoonist on Daryl Cagle's exhaustive cartoon archive at MSNBC.com, is worth chasing down. His dry, ironic drawings appear in three of Cagle's print collections: The BIG Book of Bush Cartoons, The Best Political Cartoons of the Year 2006, and The Best Political Cartoons of the Year 2007. Search him out.
I'm just sayin'...: Dems and Reps wired differently
Conservatives and liberals have different patterns of neuronal impulses when confronted with unexpected circumstances, reports Harper's. Scientist have found that self-described conservatives pressed the wrong button in response to a new stimulus 47 % of the time, whereas avowed liberals had a 37 % error rate; liberals have double the activity of conservatives in the anterior cingulate cortex, a deep region in the brain that helps people recognize a "no-go" situation.
Like invading Iran, perhaps.
Like invading Iran, perhaps.
The Corporate Media: Unfair and, in every sense of the word, Unbalanced
For a measure of the media bias against the Democrats, consider this from Shoddy! Tawdry! A Televised Train Wreck! (New York Times, 2008-04-20), Frank Rich's meditation on ABC's trivialization of the issues during this week's debate:
At an Associated Press luncheon for newspaper editors in Washington last week, Mr. McCain was given a standing ovation.(The other candidate who appeared, Mr. Obama, was not.)The editors can't rouse themselves to be polite, let alone fair.
Action: Move on, MoveOn -- Activist/Troubador James McMurtry has his own video contest
Singer-songwriter and reluctant activist James McMurtry (see, Impractical Proposals, 2007-08-05), and Lightning Rod Records are having a contest so fans can create their own music videos to the protest song, “Cheney’s Toy.” From the entries, McMurtry will choose the best videos and post them on his MySpace page and website. If needed, fans can create videos using slideshow applications at RockYou.com. Creators of each of the top five videos will receive t-shirts and autographed copies of McMurtry’s new album, Just Us Kids, and the best video will also receive an 8 Gb Apple iPod Nano with video capabilities. Here's an entry in the contest:
And another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKUE0RTuw24
Contest info:
http://jamesmcmurtry.com/4contest.html
And another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Contest info:
http://jamesmcmurtry.com
Nightlife: Main Street, Santa Monica.
No. Really.
If you say nothing happens on Main Street in Santa Monica, nobody's going to argue with you, but it's not really true. The World Cafe has returned to its roots midweek evenings in the no-cover front lounge, with "Hump Day Comedy" stand-up Wednesdays at 9 and live acoustic music Tuesdays at (I think) 8 (I chanced on a terrific singer-songwriter there a couple of weeks ago). Meanwhile, starting in May, Enterprise Fish Co. introduces "The Lounge," with live DJs, wine and cocktails, and tapas that, if up to the FishCo's usual standards, will be terrific.
In the shorter run, at Powerhouse Theater on Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. and Sundays at 4 p.m. until May 10, Hal Ackerman takes a frank look at his own mortality in his "poignant and often humorous" play, Testosterone: How Prostate Cancer Made a Man of Me, joined by supporting cast members Dennis Lee Kelly and Lisa Robins. Co-chair of the screenwriting program at the U.C.L.A. School of Theater, Film and Television where he has been on the faculty for 22 years, Ackerman completed treatment for prostrate cancer in 2001.
Powerhouse Theater, 3116 2nd, 310-396-3680.
Enterprise Fish Co., 174 Kinney, 310-392-8366.
The World Cafe, 2820 Main, 310-392-1661; carldegreg@yahoo.com
If you say nothing happens on Main Street in Santa Monica, nobody's going to argue with you, but it's not really true. The World Cafe has returned to its roots midweek evenings in the no-cover front lounge, with "Hump Day Comedy" stand-up Wednesdays at 9 and live acoustic music Tuesdays at (I think) 8 (I chanced on a terrific singer-songwriter there a couple of weeks ago). Meanwhile, starting in May, Enterprise Fish Co. introduces "The Lounge," with live DJs, wine and cocktails, and tapas that, if up to the FishCo's usual standards, will be terrific.
In the shorter run, at Powerhouse Theater on Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. and Sundays at 4 p.m. until May 10, Hal Ackerman takes a frank look at his own mortality in his "poignant and often humorous" play, Testosterone: How Prostate Cancer Made a Man of Me, joined by supporting cast members Dennis Lee Kelly and Lisa Robins. Co-chair of the screenwriting program at the U.C.L.A. School of Theater, Film and Television where he has been on the faculty for 22 years, Ackerman completed treatment for prostrate cancer in 2001.
Powerhouse Theater, 3116 2nd, 310-396-3680.
Enterprise Fish Co., 174 Kinney, 310-392-8366.
The World Cafe, 2820 Main, 310-392-1661; carldegreg@yahoo.com
Gun Control: Candidates continue to muddy the issue
During the late great debate, in another feint to the right, Barack Obama endorsed the National Rifle Association's purposeful misreading of the Constitution, saying that he believes "as a general principle" that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
He also has favored some controls on guns; his position on firearms, like Hillary Clinton's, may be so "nuanced" as to be meaningless.
Obama's reading of the Second Amendment is contrary to that of most Democrats; contrary to the Supremes, who when they last ruled on the question in 1939 held that the wording ensures a collective right that applies to the states; contrary to public safety officials in most urban areas; contrary to the plain English of the document; and contrary to common sense.
It is, however, a strongly held position in the parts of rural Pennsylvania where he isn't doing very well. I guess we'll have to hope he's just pandering again (i.e., lying to get elected). Otherwise, we'll be forced to start taking seriously what he says -- about this and health care and militarism and Middle East politics and nuclear energy and ethanol and the death penalty and the Patriot Act and a host of other topics -- and that could leave an awful lot of us without a horse in this race.
He also has favored some controls on guns; his position on firearms, like Hillary Clinton's, may be so "nuanced" as to be meaningless.
Obama's reading of the Second Amendment is contrary to that of most Democrats; contrary to the Supremes, who when they last ruled on the question in 1939 held that the wording ensures a collective right that applies to the states; contrary to public safety officials in most urban areas; contrary to the plain English of the document; and contrary to common sense.
It is, however, a strongly held position in the parts of rural Pennsylvania where he isn't doing very well. I guess we'll have to hope he's just pandering again (i.e., lying to get elected). Otherwise, we'll be forced to start taking seriously what he says -- about this and health care and militarism and Middle East politics and nuclear energy and ethanol and the death penalty and the Patriot Act and a host of other topics -- and that could leave an awful lot of us without a horse in this race.
A particularly egregious example of corporate media's trivialization of our politics
What's the big news this weekend? I dunno, how about Bush sanctioned torture? What does CNN want to talk about? Barack Obama's verbal "slip" that some of the residents of impoverished parts of Pennsylvania, having been abandoned by the political system, are "bitter." Here's what Crooks and Liars has to say about it: CNN Thinks Obama’s Words Are More Important Than Bush’s Torturing. If this is how the media covers Bush at this point in his sorry career, imagine the free ride John McCain is going to get as we head toward November.
See also, Clinton's "Bitter" Exploitation (DavidCorn.com, 2008-04-14)
See also, Clinton's "Bitter" Exploitation (DavidCorn.com, 2008-04-14)
Music: My latest Slacker station
Slacker is an online music service that allows you to program your own stations for listening online for free or for downloading to an iPod-like device of their devising. My latest channel, The Golden Pals (I started building the line up from the Golden Palominos), is a pretty mixed bag of mostly outsiders, including the likes of Frank Zappa, Nico, Mike Oldfield, Bill Frisell, Björk, The Deviants, Steely Dan, John Cale, Brian Eno, Bryan Ferry, Captain Beefheart, Colosseum, David Bowie, Pearls Before Swine, Bill Laswell, Eugene Chadbourne, The Fugs, The Godz, Sun Ra, Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce, Soft Machine, The Holy Modal Rounders, etc., to which, now that I think of it, I'll add Alex Chilton and Scott Walker. The Golden Pals on Slacker.
More:
Alvin and the Hip Monks: Dave Alvin, Beat Farmers, Carrie Rodriguez, Chip Taylor, Chris Whitley, Freedy Johnston, Greg Brown, John Doe, John Hiatt...
Angel's Band: Al Green, Curtis Mayfield, Candi Staton, Eric Benet, James Carr, Latimore, Jill Scott, Will Downing, Johnny Adams, The Dells...
Bob's Mob: Bob Dorough, Bill Henderson, Helen Merrill, Jon Hendricks, Lee Wiley, Dave Frishberg, Betty Carter, Andy Bey, King Pleasure, Bobby Troup, Ernie Andrews, Little Jimmy Scott, Johnny Mercer, Johnny Hartman, Nat King Cole, Mose Allison...
Charted Territory: Larger jazz aggregations from Fletcher Henderson and Don Redman to 8 Bold Souls and Alexander von Schlippenbach...
Fats' Cats: Building from Fats Waller, an eclectic mix extending from Tiny Grimes and Leroy Carr to Big Joe Williams and Jay McShann...
The Harmoniacs: Doo Wop and related styles, from the Ink Spots to the Impalas, Robert & Johnny, The Orioles, The Dubs, The Harptones, The Jive Five, and Lee Andrews and the Hearts...
More:
Alvin and the Hip Monks: Dave Alvin, Beat Farmers, Carrie Rodriguez, Chip Taylor, Chris Whitley, Freedy Johnston, Greg Brown, John Doe, John Hiatt...
Angel's Band: Al Green, Curtis Mayfield, Candi Staton, Eric Benet, James Carr, Latimore, Jill Scott, Will Downing, Johnny Adams, The Dells...
Bob's Mob: Bob Dorough, Bill Henderson, Helen Merrill, Jon Hendricks, Lee Wiley, Dave Frishberg, Betty Carter, Andy Bey, King Pleasure, Bobby Troup, Ernie Andrews, Little Jimmy Scott, Johnny Mercer, Johnny Hartman, Nat King Cole, Mose Allison...
Charted Territory: Larger jazz aggregations from Fletcher Henderson and Don Redman to 8 Bold Souls and Alexander von Schlippenbach...
Fats' Cats: Building from Fats Waller, an eclectic mix extending from Tiny Grimes and Leroy Carr to Big Joe Williams and Jay McShann...
The Harmoniacs: Doo Wop and related styles, from the Ink Spots to the Impalas, Robert & Johnny, The Orioles, The Dubs, The Harptones, The Jive Five, and Lee Andrews and the Hearts...
Action: Join L.A.'s Workers April 15, 16 and 17th
March from Hollywood to the Docks
This comes from L.A.Union, the AFL-CIO's Los Angeles County umbrella:
Actors, longshore workers, janitors and other working Californians will be embarking on a three-day, 28-mile march from Hollywood to the docks of San Pedro. These union members and community allies will symbolize more than 350,000 workers who will be fighting for new contracts this year to stay in the middle class or move themselves out of poverty.
Many marchers will be camping out for the entire march, but several events and rallies will be held over the course of the march, so even those who cannot make the full commitment will be able to participate. You can find a full schedule of events at
http://www.hollywoodtothedocks.org/events.asp.
The march will kick off with a rally on Tuesday morning, and will conclude on Thursday with a massive demonstration at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. Everyone is encouraged to show their support for the marchers at these and other events throughout the three-day march.
Kick Off Rally - March to follow Tuesday, April 15th at 9:00 am Hancock Park at the La Brea Tar Pits, 5801 Wilshire Boulevard in L.A.
Rally at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro Thursday, April 17th at 6:00 pm Berth 87, W 1st St & S Harbor Blvd in San Pedro.
This comes from L.A.Union, the AFL-CIO's Los Angeles County umbrella:
Actors, longshore workers, janitors and other working Californians will be embarking on a three-day, 28-mile march from Hollywood to the docks of San Pedro. These union members and community allies will symbolize more than 350,000 workers who will be fighting for new contracts this year to stay in the middle class or move themselves out of poverty.
Many marchers will be camping out for the entire march, but several events and rallies will be held over the course of the march, so even those who cannot make the full commitment will be able to participate. You can find a full schedule of events at
http://www.hollywoodtothedocks.org/events.asp.
The march will kick off with a rally on Tuesday morning, and will conclude on Thursday with a massive demonstration at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. Everyone is encouraged to show their support for the marchers at these and other events throughout the three-day march.
Kick Off Rally - March to follow Tuesday, April 15th at 9:00 am Hancock Park at the La Brea Tar Pits, 5801 Wilshire Boulevard in L.A.
Rally at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro Thursday, April 17th at 6:00 pm Berth 87, W 1st St & S Harbor Blvd in San Pedro.
2008: Wishful Thinking on the Left
Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, has this to say about Leftists who have adopted Obama as their Savior:
See also: MoveOn.org continues to shill for Obama (Impractical Proposals, 2008-03-13) and MoveOn, move back to the issues (Impractical Proposals, 2008-02-17)
...Is anyone prepared to challenge the Rightists in Obama's organization?Justifiable distaste for the Clintons led many on the left lend their support to Obama on SuperTuesday without getting anything in return. The idea that they are in a position to demand anything from the candidate now is delusional. Even if he had made promises, there'd be no way to collect on them; "leftists" these days earn the title by adopting opinions, not by leading organizations that can hold politicians accountable.
Hell no. Nobody on the Left has any leverage on the Obama campaign, which has always been a corporate machine. The only option open to the Left is to pretend that they are standing like sentinels to ensure Obama doesn't capitulate to the people who already own him. The most pitiful communication on this subject comes from Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover - the last of whom I consider an honest and decent fellow.
The self-styled "progressives" attempt to upend history and fool everybody, including themselves. The four claim that current conditions can be compared to the 1930s, when "centrist leaders" were compelled by activists "to embrace visionary solutions." There's a huge problem with that reasoning, however. In the 1930s, there were already strong movements existent before Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 and 1936 runs for the presidency. It was the movements - many of them communist-led - that shaped the Roosevelt campaigns and the New Deal, that in fact changed history. Today's four wishful signers insist that "even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined."
Really? Believe that hogwash when any of the loyal Lefties demand Obama discard his plans to add 92,000 addition soldiers and Marines to the total U.S. military ranks, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and bringing with it the certainty of more wars. Never happen. The signers have already claimed the political campaign is a movement. Would they expose themselves as poseurs and fakers by making futile demands on the campaign, which is, after all, supposed to be one with the "movement?" Would they risk being told to shut up? No, it's too late for Hayden, Fletcher, Ehrenreich, and Glover to strut around as if they have options; they pissed all that away in the initial glow of Obamamania, and from now on will have to accept their status as hangers on.
In the greatest irony of all, Black voters have convinced themselves that they are in a stronger position than ever in history, when the exact opposite is true. Having asked for nothing but Obama's autograph, they will get nothing from him for the next four years. No doubt, this will be a period of deep humiliation - as it should be. We'll call it "The Years of Living Vicariously."
There is no substitute for a real movement. The Obama stage handlers have proven that, in the absence of a movement, they know how to construct something that looks much like the real thing - at least to those who are eager to believe. This election season, we had millions of eager believers, but very few real leaders and not enough movement builders. We will have four years to correct the mistakes of 2007-'08.
See also: MoveOn.org continues to shill for Obama (Impractical Proposals, 2008-03-13) and MoveOn, move back to the issues (Impractical Proposals, 2008-02-17)
Polls: 76 % say U.S. ready for black president
According to a poll reported by CNN, 76 percent of Americans believe the country is ready to elect a black president, up 14 percent since December 2006. The tally also indicates that more whites than blacks think the country is ready to follow an African-American. "Of the white Americans surveyed, 78 percent said the country is ready, as opposed to 69 percent of African-Americans polled."
The polltakers did not ask how many respondents think there already has been a black president, but given the
pervasive influence of television and the movies, it would be no surprise if many Americans think they've already lived through the administrations of two great black presidents, Tom Beck and David Palmer.
Played respectively by masterful Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact and charismatic Dennis Haysbert on 24, black chief executives have displayed magnitudes of courage, intelligence, idealism, resilience and competence far in excess of what's been offered by anyone seen puttering around the Oval Office lately.
What sensible voter wouldn't favor more of a good thing?
The polltakers did not ask how many respondents think there already has been a black president, but given the
pervasive influence of television and the movies, it would be no surprise if many Americans think they've already lived through the administrations of two great black presidents, Tom Beck and David Palmer.Played respectively by masterful Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact and charismatic Dennis Haysbert on 24, black chief executives have displayed magnitudes of courage, intelligence, idealism, resilience and competence far in excess of what's been offered by anyone seen puttering around the Oval Office lately.
What sensible voter wouldn't favor more of a good thing?
National Health: Insurance Industry Superheroes (YouTube)
An animated cartoon about the health insurance industry by Troy Campbell of Austin, Texas, brought to you by a Connecticut advocacy organization, HealthCare4Every1.org (the group has other excellent videos, including Poor Coverage). YouTube
Hang On, Hillary
The extended campaign isn't hurting the Democrats
It should come as no surprise that John Edwards is reluctant to make an endorsement in the presidential race. It must be difficult in the extreme for the populist Edwards to imagine either one of these business-as-usual pols in the White House at this troubled juncture in our history.
While he was still in the race, Edwards had to drag them kicking and screaming toward anything that vaguely resembled an original idea. Hillary Clinton is recycling DLC proposals going back to the Reagan era. Barack Obama's approach to making policy, apparently, is to position himself just to Clinton's right, no matter how off-center that may be. Edwards may be as disheartened as many of his followers are by the outcome this year, whichever way it finally turns out.
When Edwards bowed out just before Super Tuesday I, a lot of people assumed that he favored Obama. To me it appeared obvious that it was a tactical move specifically intended to stop Clinton. With Edwards out of the way, the anti-Clinton vote could coalesce around Obama enough to deny the New York senator the win conventional wisdom said she was headed for.
Unfortunately for Edwards, "Stop Hillary" succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Any hope that he could come back into the race or that the party would turn to him as the un-Hillary-who-can-win evaporated when Obama surged into the lead.
When the endorsement of Obama didn't come after Super Tuesday I, a rumor floated around the blogosphere that Edwards was withholding because his feelings were hurt that the very junior senator from Illinois had continued to make fun of him -- gratuitously -- after he dropped out of the race. The story made both of them sound petty.
It made sense that Edwards, like Al Gore, would hang back until the convention to see how the primaries turned out. There is no point in having a convention -- or superdelegates -- unless it is to express the collective judgment of the party after the candidates have been heard, the rank and file have entered their opinions, and the delegates and superdelegates have had an opportunity to weigh all the factors that might affect the outcome in November.
For many Democrats, it will be important whom Gore and Edwards decide to support. Obviously Edwards is not held in the same degree of affection by Democrats as Gore (or Teddy Kennedy, for that matter), but he is widely respected, and he's more than that among those of us who thought 2008 could mark a turning back toward that moment when the United States stopped evolving into a social democracy.
(When was that moment, anyway? If I had to choose, I'd say April 12, 1945, the day FDR left us to fend for ourselves. In his 1944 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt laid out an "economic bill of rights" that all the current candidates, Edwards included, should read with shame. We've had our progressive moments since then -- Truman kept us from becoming South Africa, at least, and Johnson almost got us back on track -- would have, too, if the siren call of empire hadn't distracted him -- but, over all, our political life has been dominated for the last 60 years by a long, steady, rust-never-sleeps war of attrition against the New Deal.)
I continue to hope Edwards won't make an endorsement soon, at least not without getting concrete assurances that the issues that fired his supporters, especially a program that seriously addresses chronic poverty and a genuinely universal health care plan, will be given high priority early in any Democratic administration. I think it is telling that so many Edwards people have gravitated toward Clinton, because, whatever her limitations, she is clearly serious about matters of policy. The jury is still out on whether Obama has thought about anything beyond his carefully crafted public persona.
All this is by way of pointing you in the direction of an article in New York magazine (Who'll Stop the Pain by John Heilemann, New York 2008-03-28) speculating on whether anyone, including Gore and Edwards, has the clout to bring down the curtain on the Clinton-Obama show. It is the first couple of paragraphs that concern us here; to me, they have the ring of truth.
This campaign is keeping the opposition off balance. The Right is unsure whom to target, while the Democrats are free to pile on John McCain. Until there is a single Democratic contender, it is difficult for the corporate media to return single-mindedly to the horse race metaphor -- too many Democrats have the regrettable tendency to muddy the waters by bringing up issues and talking about ideas.
Plus, the longer it goes on, the more the candidates will feel pressure from policy-oriented primary and caucus voters and superdelegates to offer concrete proposals about ending the war and pursuing economic reforms. And, maybe, if it's allowed to go to its conclusion, the nominating process will result yet in a consensus satisfactory to most nominal Democrats.
Heilemann ends his entertaining piece with a depressing conclusion, an Obama-Clinton ticket that loses to John McCain in November, but I commend it to you anyway for his insight into the factors that might yet rescue the Democrats from their apparent division, even if he can't quite conjure up a happy ending.
Also: Don't Stop Campaigning (The Washington Post, 2008-03-29)
It should come as no surprise that John Edwards is reluctant to make an endorsement in the presidential race. It must be difficult in the extreme for the populist Edwards to imagine either one of these business-as-usual pols in the White House at this troubled juncture in our history.
While he was still in the race, Edwards had to drag them kicking and screaming toward anything that vaguely resembled an original idea. Hillary Clinton is recycling DLC proposals going back to the Reagan era. Barack Obama's approach to making policy, apparently, is to position himself just to Clinton's right, no matter how off-center that may be. Edwards may be as disheartened as many of his followers are by the outcome this year, whichever way it finally turns out.
When Edwards bowed out just before Super Tuesday I, a lot of people assumed that he favored Obama. To me it appeared obvious that it was a tactical move specifically intended to stop Clinton. With Edwards out of the way, the anti-Clinton vote could coalesce around Obama enough to deny the New York senator the win conventional wisdom said she was headed for.
Unfortunately for Edwards, "Stop Hillary" succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Any hope that he could come back into the race or that the party would turn to him as the un-Hillary-who-can-win evaporated when Obama surged into the lead.
When the endorsement of Obama didn't come after Super Tuesday I, a rumor floated around the blogosphere that Edwards was withholding because his feelings were hurt that the very junior senator from Illinois had continued to make fun of him -- gratuitously -- after he dropped out of the race. The story made both of them sound petty.
It made sense that Edwards, like Al Gore, would hang back until the convention to see how the primaries turned out. There is no point in having a convention -- or superdelegates -- unless it is to express the collective judgment of the party after the candidates have been heard, the rank and file have entered their opinions, and the delegates and superdelegates have had an opportunity to weigh all the factors that might affect the outcome in November.
For many Democrats, it will be important whom Gore and Edwards decide to support. Obviously Edwards is not held in the same degree of affection by Democrats as Gore (or Teddy Kennedy, for that matter), but he is widely respected, and he's more than that among those of us who thought 2008 could mark a turning back toward that moment when the United States stopped evolving into a social democracy.
(When was that moment, anyway? If I had to choose, I'd say April 12, 1945, the day FDR left us to fend for ourselves. In his 1944 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt laid out an "economic bill of rights" that all the current candidates, Edwards included, should read with shame. We've had our progressive moments since then -- Truman kept us from becoming South Africa, at least, and Johnson almost got us back on track -- would have, too, if the siren call of empire hadn't distracted him -- but, over all, our political life has been dominated for the last 60 years by a long, steady, rust-never-sleeps war of attrition against the New Deal.)
I continue to hope Edwards won't make an endorsement soon, at least not without getting concrete assurances that the issues that fired his supporters, especially a program that seriously addresses chronic poverty and a genuinely universal health care plan, will be given high priority early in any Democratic administration. I think it is telling that so many Edwards people have gravitated toward Clinton, because, whatever her limitations, she is clearly serious about matters of policy. The jury is still out on whether Obama has thought about anything beyond his carefully crafted public persona.
All this is by way of pointing you in the direction of an article in New York magazine (Who'll Stop the Pain by John Heilemann, New York 2008-03-28) speculating on whether anyone, including Gore and Edwards, has the clout to bring down the curtain on the Clinton-Obama show. It is the first couple of paragraphs that concern us here; to me, they have the ring of truth.
In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of "big change" they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. "Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton" is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, "Elizabeth hates her guts."This part, from general knowledge and personal contacts, I know to be true. Here's where it gets interesting:
But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers [rightly - jg] a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.The striking thing about this story is how perfectly in character everyone is. I've said before that, of all of Obama's achievements so far, one has impressed me most (because I thought it just shy of impossible): making Hillary Clinton look good. Here she is again, wonkish to be sure, but earnest, serious, prepared. And here is Obama as we've seen him before, too: glib, shallow and not serious enough about the game to make the big play when it's needed.
This campaign is keeping the opposition off balance. The Right is unsure whom to target, while the Democrats are free to pile on John McCain. Until there is a single Democratic contender, it is difficult for the corporate media to return single-mindedly to the horse race metaphor -- too many Democrats have the regrettable tendency to muddy the waters by bringing up issues and talking about ideas.
Plus, the longer it goes on, the more the candidates will feel pressure from policy-oriented primary and caucus voters and superdelegates to offer concrete proposals about ending the war and pursuing economic reforms. And, maybe, if it's allowed to go to its conclusion, the nominating process will result yet in a consensus satisfactory to most nominal Democrats.
Heilemann ends his entertaining piece with a depressing conclusion, an Obama-Clinton ticket that loses to John McCain in November, but I commend it to you anyway for his insight into the factors that might yet rescue the Democrats from their apparent division, even if he can't quite conjure up a happy ending.
Also: Don't Stop Campaigning (The Washington Post, 2008-03-29)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
