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.

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)

2008: Let the primary process play out

"Leahy says Clinton should withdraw" - AP Headline (2008-03-28).

Sen. Patrick Leahy, in an interview with Vermont Public Radio Thursday, urged Hillary Clinton to throw herself on her sword for the good of the party. Leahy, who just happens to favor Barack Obama for the nomination, said that, since the Obama team has decided there's no way that Clinton is going to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination, she should quit.

Another Obama partisan, Sen. Chris Dodd, expressed a similar sentiment the same day.

Reacting to polls showing that some Obama and Clinton faithful say they will vote for John McCain if their own candidate is not the Democratic nominee, Obama supporters argue that animosity from the primary fight could hurt Democratic chances in November.

Obama got another boost Thursday when party chairman Howard Dean called on the superdelegates to commit to one candidate or the other by June 1, he said in the hope of avoiding a divisive fight on the convention floor.

“You do not want to demoralize the base of the Democratic Party by having the Democrats attack each other....Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth. The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat,” Dean told the AP.

But it seems to me that Dean and the Obamanians are whining about a situation that actually works in their favor. The longer the race is undecided, the longer it will be before the Republicans and the corporate media have a clear idea whom they're supposed to bring down. If John McCain has gotten a free ride from the media in this campaign, as some media critics maintain, it's not because the Democratic contenders' internecine combat has impeded their ability to take on the putative Republican nominee (both Clinton and Obama did so Thursday, for example, when they attacked the Arizona senator's economic proposals, and they've been doing so for months).

Meanwhile the party of Roosevelt is free to pile on McCain. If they don't want to leave it to the candidates, the DNC could designate Bill Clinton a one man hit team to follow McCain around taking potshots at him, which would have the added benefit of keeping the Billster too busy to make further mischief within his own party. If that seems too undignified a task for a former president, even Bill Clinton, they could field an actual team of clever rhetoricians (Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich, come to mind) to do the job. Or Howard Dean's office could take a page from the GOP playbook and prepare a daily sheet of anti-McCain talking points to be distributed at the crack of dawn to every Democratic candidate, spokesperson, PAC and blogger in the universe.

In any case, McCain's free ride is likely to continue until the election is decided (David Brock has even written a book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, an expose of the press' coital relationship with the senator that every political junkie should read). It won't hurt McCain with the media that he is now the anointed candidate of the Right, but his greatest advantage is that reporters just like hanging out with the guy.

If the superdelegates settle it before the primaries are over, or if Hillary gives in to pressure to stand down, the effect will be to render the remaining tallies moot. You will recall that the party stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates after those states tried to jump to the head of the line of voters in violation of party rules. Now they want to do the same thing to the Democrats who haven't voted yet.

So let me see if I have this straight. The voters in Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised because their state parties didn't follow the rules. And now, if Dean and the Obama team have their ways, because the primaries in these states are coming later in the process, the voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and so on are to be disenfranchised because their parties did follow the rules.

Seem fair to you?

Desire for Health Care Reform So "Universal," It Even Includes Doctors

Opponents of national health always cite the supposed opposition of medical professionals as one of the reasons it can never work here. But according to researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine,

More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The rest of the story: Reuters.

Loyalty, as defined by Democrats

Jeff Norman writes: According to a new Gallup poll, 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters say they will vote for John McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee, and 19% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. These people are, of course, DEMOCRATS whom one might reasonably EXPECT to show some allegiance to the DEMOCRATIC nominee. By contrast, Ralph Nader is NOT a Democrat, yet he was crucified for his "failure" to show allegiance to an OPPOSITION party, while no such public condemnation has been heaped on all these wayward Democrats. Why not? What about the importance of Supreme Court appointments and the whole "progressive" agenda, blah blah blah? Why is there no uproar about these REAL traitors? Could it be that Ralph was/is right, and Democrats and their enablers are a huge part of the problem? Nah, that couldn't be!

As the saying goes, read it and weep: <http://www.gallup.com/>

Election Year Actions for Peace

United for Peace and Justice's Carl Davidson has outlined an eight-point program for the peace movement in this election year (A Memo on UFPJ’s Antiwar Intervention in the 2008 Election Campaigns) that includes education and action components.

If our peace movement wants to make some far-reaching gains in the 2008 election cycle, it doesn’t have much time to waste. Texas and Ohio are over, Pennsylvania is on the horizon, the remaining campaigns will end in November, the war issue needs to be focused and linked to the economy, and critical events are moving at a rapid pace.

Most important, ending the war in Iraq, inside and outside the electoral arena, needs to be a greater part of everyone’s political decisions in 2008 than it is now.

You can read the document on the UFPG website.

Access: Earthlink and its ilk back out of the deal

The Times reports that the goal of city-sponsored free or low-cost universal internet access has turned out to be a pipe dream (Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out by Ian Urbina, NYTimes 2008-03-22).

Cities and towns from Philadelphia to San Francisco promised they would make access available to everyone. "But the excited momentum has sputtered to a standstill," the Times finds, "tripped up by unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches. The conclusion that such ventures would not be profitable led to sudden withdrawals by service providers like EarthLink, the Internet company that had effectively cornered the market on the efforts by the larger cities. Now, community organizations worry about their prospects for helping poor neighborhoods get online."

But wasn't this entire effort premised on the idea of the free lunch? Politicians may have salivated at the prospect of a popular and necessary municipal service that could be provided without having to attend to the tedious matter of raising revenues to pay for it, but the viability of a system that depended on advertising or low-cost fees was never more than dubious. The only sensible way to provide universal internet access is through a public utility or a publicly facilitated cooperative, as is done in cities in Europe and Asia (in one of those twists you can't make up, USAID money -- your money -- is being used to provide universal access in other places).

I've posted about the topic of universal internet access over the years because the city where I live, a geometrically compact, wealthy, technologically sophisticated, politically progressive, college town, seemed uniquely positioned to provide free universal access, but, though there are a handful of municipal hotspots around town, it hasn't happened here, either; and if it can't happen here, it's hard to imagine where it can happen.

As we wake up to the reality that for-profit companies are not going to pay for universal access, supporters of internet access as a utility will need to redouble their efforts to prod American city and county governments to step in. Otherwise, the internet will just be one more area where we can't keep up with the rest of the industrialized world.

It is distressing to see us tumble again into the gap between what public services cost and what we're willing to pay for them. Every election cycle for three decades, we have fallen for the candidates who offered us what could be called representation without taxation, as if somehow we can have schools and libraries and roads and bridges and parks and fire departments and police protection and sewer systems and clean air and drinkable water flowing from the tap and all our other needs and expectation met without paying for them.

Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, told the Times,

true municipal networks, the ones owned and operated by municipalities, are far more sustainable because they can take into account benefits that help cities beyond private profit, including property-value increases, education benefits and quality-of-life improvements that come with offering residents free wireless access.

Mr. Meinrath pointed to St. Cloud, Fla., which spent $3 million two years ago to build a free wireless network that is used by more than 70 percent of the households in the city.

So, the fight goes on, in this area as in so many others. Will John McCain, Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama sign on to a program that will address the ways we have fallen behind our friends and enemies in the industrialized world and, more revealingly, offer realistic ways to fund it? Or will we be forced to look outside business-as-usual for new leaders and new models of enlightened governance? Because we sure can't continue to let failed leadership turn us into a third-rate country.

The rest of the story: The New york Times.

The War: The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

Not only illegal and immoral, but stupid. -- J.

by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Washington Post, 2008-03-08)

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post

Vigils today commemorate the 5th anniversary of the tragic invasion of Iraq.

Ah, the war.

Or, far more accurately, the occupation.

Today is March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm. And so we will, each of us, do what we can to bring this particular Bush administration criminal enterprise to an end. Unfortunately, I'm on the road today, so my participation will be as spotty as it is heartfelt. More as the day progresses, I hope. In the meantime, a reminder:

MoveOn.Org is sponsoring candlelight vigils tonight to mark the fifth anniversary of the war's beginning on March 19, 2003. In my neighborhood, one is at 7 p.m. at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd.and Rose Ave in Venice.

Other west L.A. County vigils:
Santa Monica: 6 p.m., northeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd. & Lincoln Blvd.
Mar Vista: 7 p.m., corner of MacLaughlin Ave. and Palms Blvd.
Westwood: 6 p.m., northwest corner of Wilshire Blvd. & Veteran Ave.
Culver City: 5:30 p.m., Culver Hotel, Washington and Culver Blvds.

For more info and to find other events that are in your area, click here.

For links to other Iraq Blogswarm sites, from the highly political to the highly personal, click here.

2008: Barack Obama's 'More perfect union'

Sen. Barack Obama's talk this morning in Philadelphia on race (transcript, YouTube) showed why he has gone from nowhere to become the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. It was the best address by any candidate so far in this campaign. If all there was to being president was speechifying, he would be unbeatable.

Charles Murray: Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.
David Corn: ....a speech unlike any delivered by a major political figure in modern American history. While explaining--not excusing--Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks (which Obama had already criticized), he called on all Americans to recognize that even though the United States has experienced progress on the racial reconciliation front in recent decades (Exhibit A: Barack Obama), racial anger exists among both whites and blacks, and he said that this anger and its causes must be fully acknowledged before further progress can be achieved. Obama did this without displaying a trace of anger himself.
Peter S. Canellos: For perhaps the first time in the 2008 campaign, Obama presented a big problem as something to be confronted by average people -- the aggrieved white worker, the black person fuming about injustice -- who are part of his own political constituency. There was no corporation or lobbyist or rival politician in the picture.
James Fallows: It was a moment that Obama made great through the seriousness, intelligence, eloquence, and courage of what he said. I don't recall another speech about race with as little pandering or posturing or shying from awkward points, and as much honest attempt to explain and connect, as this one.
Andrew Sullivan: I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.
First Read: His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words.
Hillary Clinton: I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama’s speech, but I’m very glad that he gave it. It’s an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they have been complicated in this primary campaign. There have been detours and pitfalls along the way.
Marc Ambinder: How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly.
[And] I do think that Obama's speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there's been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured... all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.
Oliver Willis: One of my personal maxims has been that politicians will disappoint you. The ones you like will have personal failings, while the ones you detest will fail time and time again. With Senator Obama, for the first time in my life, I have watched a political leader who I don’t worry if he’ll be up to the task. It’s like you had Michael Jordan in his prime or Joe Montana with 2 minutes to go. It’s that feeling where you say to yourself: Ok, breathe, he’s got it. Chill, Barack’s got it.

The speech was especially interesting in the light of conservative polemicist Shelby Steele's analysis, published today before Obama's address, of the political advantages in being black. How do you turn race to your advantage?, Steele asks.

The answer is that one 'bargains.' Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by 'change' or 'hope' or 'the future.' And he has failed to say how he would actually be a 'unifier.' By the evidence of his slight political record (130 'present' votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

With his unique personal history, Obama understands the political role he is playing better than his opponents, which is why his candidacy has blind-sided them. Steele thinks that bargainers have an Achilles heel that in Obama's case may bring him down. "And yet, in the end," he says,

Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were 'challengers,' not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers... succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, 'I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .' And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a 'blank screen.'"

It is why the revelations of Rev. Wright are so dangerous to Obama, why this is the most important speech he will ever give. Wright is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America"); it would sink Obama's campaign if he came to be associated with Wright's views, however valid they might be, however unexceptional they may sound to members of the black community.

But to hold that Obama had to make this speech if his candidacy was to survive is not to give him credit for the brilliance and courage of his response to the biggest crisis of his campaign; whatever else you say about it, it's hard to imagine a better brief for the defense. This wasn't Mitt Romney trying to get around suspicions about his religion by denying that his faith means anything; Obama presents a nuanced outline of the bargainers case without pretending that the wages of race don't need to be paid. And of course he delivered it in at perfectly nuanced "quiet and thoughtful" pitch; to have used a "fiery tone" would have been like throwing on the house lights at a shadow play. It all may be calculated, but, unlike most political discourse to which we are subjected, at least it could never be called trivial.

Now can we get back to talking about the empire and the economy?

MoveOn continues to shill for Obama

So now MoveOn.Org wants you to "make a 30-second TV ad that tells the nation why Barack Obama should be our next President."

Not a spot that advances the cause of peace in the Middle East or takes on the military-industrial complex.

Not a circular setting out why we need single-payer, universal health care.

Not a plug for economic justice.

No.

You are invited to make a video that will "push Obama to victory," as if the triumph of the senator's DNC-lite politics is the best we can hope for from the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity provided by the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

You may see the need for profound, radical change if we are to recover from a half-century of failed leadership; what you are offered is a campaign whose ultimate success will do no more than validate the hypothesis that the only thing wrong with the John Kerry scenario was the casting.

With a deadline of April Fool's Day, MoveOn today launched an open call for online submissions to "Obama in 30 Seconds." The public will select a group of finalists from among the competing entries; a panel of "top artists, film professionals, and netroots heroes" will pick a winner from among the finalists.

Why celebrities -- the judges include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Naomi Wolf, Oliver Stone, John Legend, Donna Edwards, and Markos Moulitsas -- are better qualified than the organization's own members to choose among ads that are supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not explained.

MoveOn will sponsor airings of the winning commercial nationally, and the winner will receive a gift certificate for $20,000 in video equipment.

That members of the elite find Obama's pro-status quo campaign captivating should occasion no surprise. But on November 4, if he gets that far, middle- and working-class Democrats and independents will be invited to express their opinions about the senator's vaporous politicking.

And what they say then shouldn't come as a surprise, either.

Documentary: The War on Democracy

The War on Democracy is John Pilger's first film for theatrical release - in a career that has produced more than 55 television documentaries. Set in Latin America and the US, it explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with such countries as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. "The film tells a universal story," says Pilger, "analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called war on terror." Indeed it does. <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/>

2008: What's a poor progressive to do?

For me, Barack Obama's singular achievement has been to make Hillary Clinton look good. Say what you will about Hillary, as a lifetime wonkette, at least she has some politics.

That said, I want to pass along these off-the-cuff notes to portside from D.C. Statehood Green Party activist David Schwartzman (he's responding to a pro-Obama brief that I won't burden you with), that make a couple of points in favor of voting for Obama, at least in states that might otherwise go to John McCain:

Obama "progressive" ?!!! To argue that Obama is the best choice out of the three offered by the two war parties is well supported, but lets be clear why. It is not because he is "progressive," unless in some Bizzaro World being progressive includes support for expanding the military-industrial complex, the death penalty, the US/Israeli axis of human rights violation, voting for funding the war and the Patriot Act, opposing a universal single payer health plan, pretending clean energy includes nuclear power and corn ethanol, i.e., having a platform almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Rather, Obama is preferable because:

1) He is a Democrat, so with a Democratic President and Congress there will be no more excuses that it is all the Republicans' fault that the Iraq War/Occupation continues, urgent domestic needs are unmet, etc.

Actually, I disagree with this part of Schwartsman's argument: because, when he was their president, Bill Clinton was able to neuter Democratic progressives in Congress; there is no reason to believe this would not happen in a triangulating Obama administration actively pursuing a consensus with the GOP.

2) He is more likely to beat McCain, according to most polls.

Not to be argumentative, but Obama has enjoyed a free ride up to now: there is no telling what his standing in the polls will be after the Right's slime machine is through with him.

3) Expectations are higher that he will end the Iraq war/occupation, hence a case can be made that the millions inspired by Obama's campaign will hold him accountable after his election with the help of the real progressives and thereby avoid more imperialist interventions.

Okay. By now you're wondering why I'm sending you this piece at all. It's because I think Schwartzman does make the best case there is for supporting Obama. However:

The peace movement has already given up whatever leverage it might have had over the very junior senator from Illinois by prematurely -- is that the word? -- embracing BHO in order to stop Clinton. What possible reason does he have to meet their expectations now? Far more important to address the needs and wishes of the conservative congressional majority and the DNC who will be in a much better position than the peace movement to make his life miserable for the next four years.

4) And last but by far not least, the election of an African-American as US President will be an historic blow to racism despite his colorblind campaign.

True enough, except the exact same argument can be made about Clinton and gender bias. But, and here's the real point,

preferring Obama should also mean voting strategically, so that the only really progressive party on the US scene, the Green Party, can grow and challenge the corporate duopoly. Hopefully many voters especially in safe states will make that choice by voting for the Cynthia McKinney for President, assuming she will be chosen by the Green Party Convention, and putting more Greens into local office.

Hear, hear.

With this caveat: Schwartzman is thinking nationally and as a Green Party activist; but it's true that, although its commitment to economic justice is essentially untested, for now the Green Party is the only potentially viable national party of the Left. In California, however, it may also be worth casting a vote to keep the Peace and Freedom Party alive. And in some states the Socialist Party USA is on the ballot. So if the Dream Team is not your dream ticket and you decide to look elsewhere for someone to support, consider all the options.

Democrat Wins Hastert's District in Illinois

It's not worth more than any other seat in the House, but still, it was satisfying to watch Saturday as Illinois 14, the roost of former House speaker Denny_Hastert, fell to the Democrats. Despite gerrymandering in the 90s designed to protect the seat for the conservatives, wealthy Democratic scientist and businessman Bill Foster captured 53% of the vote to beat wealthy Republican businessman Jim Oberweis, a richer-than-smart perennial political wannabe who has previously lost two primaries for senator and one for governor.

According to the AP, "Republicans had been hoping to hold on to the district that President Bush easily carried in 2004 with 55 percent of the vote."

Although enjoyable, the victory could be short-lived. The special election was held now because Hastert abandoned the position early in order to avoid new lobbying regulations that would have limited his ability to cash in on his Service to the People. Both candidates are already back on the trail in what promises to be a hard-fought rematch in November.

Even if he wins, though, Foster won't threaten the conservative majority in Congress. In a repeat of 2006, Democratic kingmaker Rep. Rahm Emanuel is working overtime to assure that the Democrats who are added to the majority in the fall are reliable supporters of the status quo. For the GOP, on the other hand, Foster's win isn't good news. If they can't hold a "safe" district that has been receiving millions of dollars in pork and earmarks for decades from the longest serving Republican speaker in history, what can they hang on to?

Karl Rove was right that he and George Bush would leave behind a permanent political majority in Washington. He just got the party wrong.

The Best Man?

"If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election." - Craig Crawford

On her victory lap around the talk show circuit this morning, a reborn Hillary Clinton allowed "the possibility of sharing the Democratic presidential ticket with Barack Obama, but says voters still have to decide the party nominee," according to reports by the New York Times and others.

"That may be where this is headed," Clinton said, "but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket," adding that the voters in Ohio, at least, have decided that it should be she.

It may be true that Clinton's comeback on Super Tuesday, The Sequel makes a joint ticket "the easiest way out," but here's a better idea. At the convention, after neither senator has achieved a majority on the first ballot, the candidate with the fewer votes, presumably Clinton, makes a dramatic move.

Howard Dean has taken the chair as the second ballot begins.

"Mr. Chairman, Alabama yields to New York."

Hillary Clinton steps up to the floor mic in the New York delegation, to ululations from all around Pepsi Center.

"Mr. Chairman," the senator begins. "This has been a long and hard-fought campaign. All of the candidates for this party's nomination have made us proud to be Democrats. It was an honor to stand with them -- Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, ..."

Swelling applause.

"...Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barack Obama..."

The delegates rise to their feet, cheering.

"...All of them, myself included, are ready to take back the White House for the American people."

Wild cheering.

"And on November 4th, we will! We will win a secure majority of the Senate. We will win an even bigger majority of the House of Representatives. AND WE WILL ELECT THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

Pandemonium.

After Dean finally restores order, Clinton continues:

"It has been a great campaign, but it is time to bring it to an end. It is time for us to pick a nominee who will unify the party, to choose the candidate who will lead us to victory. Mr.Chairman, the New York delegation proudly casts its 232 votes for the next president of the United States, JOHN EDWARDS."

As if out of nowhere, Edwards signs sprout all over the hall.

Chants of "John Edwards, John Edwards" shake the rafters of Denver's convention center.

Once again, Dean restores order and the count continues. The Edwards' tally increases as the Clinton delegates switch, until the chairman calls "Illinois."

Barack Obama is at the microphone.

"Mr. Chairman, America is at a turning point. We have made history in this campaign. We have shown that we are a people united. We have shown that it is not a person's gender that matters; we have shown that it is not a person's race that is important; we have shown that we Democrats judge a person only on the soundness of his or her ideas, on the quality of his or her character, on whether or not she or he is a leader who will bring about much-needed change. Hillary Clinton would make a great president..."

"Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton..." chant the delegates.

"I would make a great president..."

"Yes we can, Yes we can, Yes we can..." the delegates yell.

"...But it is time to bring the debate to an end. It is time to come together as Democrats. It is time to bring the troops home. It is time to put an end the corruption and incompetence in the Oval Office. It is time to restore honor to the White House. It is time to send to Washington a great leader and a great American. Mr. Chairman, Illinois is proud to cast 153 votes for THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, JOHN EDWARDS."

After the delegates quiet down again, Indiana yields to North Carolina whose chair moves to make the nomination unanimous.

In November, John Edwards wins, bringing a, um, new deal to the White House. The Democrats retain the senate seats in New York and Illinois, thus protecting their control of the upper body. Hillary Clinton goes on to a long and distinguished career as a United States Senator. Barack Obama begins planning for 2016. We are spared John McCain.

I know, I know. But, hey, it could happen.