I'll admit I'm older now (41) and I have a federal job that pays pretty well and which provides health insurance coverage, so I'm not nearly as gung ho for universal health insurance as I once was, particularly since while there are many millions at any particular moment who lack coverage, it isn't clear how many of these could afford coverage on their own and seek not to purchase it, or what proportion of the uninsured is only uninsured on a temporary basis.
In any event, requiring employers to cover their employees (the 1993 Clinton plan as I understood it) and requiring individuals to do so (the current Edwards-Clinton plan as I understand it) even if subsidies are provided strikes me as just really bad politics*, and probably not all that good of policy either in terms of the share of the population that would be insured as a result of the extra billions spent.
At a time when Republicans in the White House and in Congress have made significant inroads towards coercive government activity on behalf of "national security" it seems a really terrible idea to add to that with a coercive economic policy initiative, particularly when, in terms of the share of the population to be affected, is not especially large.
*(h/t Andrew Sullivan)
Update: I've now read through some of the recent Krugman Obama-Clinton-Health Care columns that have apparently attracted so much attention. Part of the problem going on with this debate is, from what I can tell, that Krugman and his admirers on this issue aren't clear as to what the specific health care problem is they want the candidates to address. Is the problem availability/affordability? This is what I have always considered the main problem--people don't have and can't afford adequate health insurance and are left untreated or bankrupt in emergencies, or aren't getting the preventative care they need that might alleviate some of these emergencies. You might call this a sort of quality-of-life approach.
But this isn't apparently what drives Krugman's concern with health care reform. In yesterday's column he says this:
But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.
Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.
So, Krugman candidly admits that the issue is not affordability/availability. The problem is...well, I'm not sure. He does say that:
An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else.
This makes it seem as if Krugman, who is after all, an economist by training, is more properly concerned about fairness and equity issues and with the particular problem of having so-called "free riders" who are healthy and thus won't pay for coverage. This leaves the insurance pool to cover the sickest, most costly people. Krugman also notes that Clinton's current plan is only slightly more expensive than Obama's.
But the cost issue is pertinant only because of what Krugman notes is the gap in coverage offered by the two approaches--Clinton's plan is said to cover twice the number of uninsured as Obama's.
Maybe Krugman, being an economist, is singularly concerned about the relative efficiencies of the candidates' plans. And all else being equal, his support for Clinton's plan on this basis would be reasonable.
But if Krugman's real concern is health care finance-coverage efficiency, the efficiency with which the narrowing or elimination of the current gap in coverage between the insured and uninsured is accomplished would seem to be the least of the country's health care problems.
Having read, and usually agreed with, much of what Krugman has had to say in his columns through the years, I suspect that Krugman's real interest here is in under-cutting the current employer-private insurance-for-profit system. Whether he does so on the basis of some idea of rational economics or political ideology I don't know.
I did find this statement in another NYT article (not written by Krugman) interesting in this regard:
If the government is able to undercut private insurers on price — by forgoing profit, reducing overhead, and maximizing economies of scale — it theoretically could put the private system out of business and become the de facto insurer for the nation.
Maybe this is Krugman's wish, if not aim. But I don't think it's necessarily the best or only proper goal of a governmental role in health care. Either way, Krugman and those who echo his concerns should be more clear about what they see as the health insurance-care "crisis". Is the issue efficiency or affordability? If it is affordability, the implicit conclusion from Krugman's argument is that we are much of the way there already. If it is about overall economic efficiency of health care production and delivery, than any solution to the uninsured would amount to a band-aided stop-gap, mostly irrelevant to the issue. And if the real goal--economic or political--is a complete overhaul of the health care system, than they need to make the case why this should be pursued.
Update II: Well, I think Krugman lays it all out on the table here:
Now, if I had my way I’d just go to single-payer, Medicare for All. But that’s politically impossible, at least for now. What had me hopeful was that the Democratic candidates seemed to be offering a more feasible path that could work politically: regulation, subsidies, mandates, plus public-private competition that could eventually lead to single-payer.
This is pretty candid of him. He deserves credit for being this blunt about it. But he shouldn't be surprised to experience some push-back when he is.
Update III: This is an interesting twist (and also provides some context to David Brooks' column today).
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
Why People Hate Congress
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Progressive Case for Obama
As Ezra and Matt have already attested, this Chris Hayes column at The Nation makes the case for Obama while also accurately expressing the frustration many of us have had with Democratic campaigns and candidates these last few decades and the caution with which progressives have greeted Obama's calls for bipartisanship. I think Hayes draws the right conclusions here, or at least the ones I've been inclined to draw about Obama's campaign strategy.
I would also add that Obama's calls for unity have not been an empty shell; rather, they have included defenses of gay and lesbian equality, as Andrew Sullivan has noted.
I would also add that Obama's calls for unity have not been an empty shell; rather, they have included defenses of gay and lesbian equality, as Andrew Sullivan has noted.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Dean: Obama Abides
It's not often I read The Dean anymore, but I did this morning, and I found his conclusion about the Democratic nomination pretty interesting as well as counter-intuitive. It wasn't what I was expecting someone like The Dean to say:
On the Democratic side, the battle is closer, but the advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama -- thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president.
The New York senator could still emerge from the "Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to clinching the nomination. And the longer the race goes on, the better the chances Obama will prevail as more Democratic elected officials and candidates come to view him as the better bet to defeat McCain in November.
To begin reading the column is to sense that one is being led down the path of proclaiming Hillary's inevitability. He begins with the emerging sense that on the GOP side, it's McCain's nomination to lose, then on to the Democratic side where I imagined The Dean would salute Obama's galent and historic effort, but then say the one-term Senator from the Land of Lincoln oughta just hang 'em up. But he goes off in an entirely different direction. Maybe the Kennedy endorsements are having an influence.
On the Democratic side, the battle is closer, but the advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama -- thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president.
The New York senator could still emerge from the "Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to clinching the nomination. And the longer the race goes on, the better the chances Obama will prevail as more Democratic elected officials and candidates come to view him as the better bet to defeat McCain in November.
To begin reading the column is to sense that one is being led down the path of proclaiming Hillary's inevitability. He begins with the emerging sense that on the GOP side, it's McCain's nomination to lose, then on to the Democratic side where I imagined The Dean would salute Obama's galent and historic effort, but then say the one-term Senator from the Land of Lincoln oughta just hang 'em up. But he goes off in an entirely different direction. Maybe the Kennedy endorsements are having an influence.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Alan Keyes!
Matt Yglesias is in rare form today:
Whatever else happens in 2008, one thing that's certain is that Rudy Giuliani won't be elected president. That's something I'm thankful for. And, based on the results, I think it's something that virtually everyone in America can be thankful for -- something that can unite Americans across the cultural divide. From Red America to Blue America, everywhere but the Commentary office and the foreign policy wing of the American Enterprise Institute, we stand proud tonight as a nation that refuses to be governed by Rudy.
Josh Marshall, too:
I still believe in Mitt's dream. But man, that was one really dejected group of people standing behind him. They couldn't even manage to seem excited as Mitt talked aimlessly about all the conservative claptrap he doesn't really believe in.
And:
I think TPM Reader AF has it right. At this point, even with 35% of the precincts reporting, we can declare this one for Rudy. Rudy now has 16% of the vote. And Ron Paul has only 3%. So it's basically impossible for Ron Paul to come back and keep up his winning streak over Rudy Giuliani.
And not to be left undone, Andrew Sullivan briefs us on the campaign strategery of Alan Keyes.
Meanwhile, it was being widely reported last night, even before the networks finally called the Sunshine State for McCain, that Rudy would drop out and endorse the Arizona Senator by today.
But this morning's first surprise is that another big name is dropping out first--John Edwards.
Let the punditrywonkery as to who this benefits begin.
Whatever else happens in 2008, one thing that's certain is that Rudy Giuliani won't be elected president. That's something I'm thankful for. And, based on the results, I think it's something that virtually everyone in America can be thankful for -- something that can unite Americans across the cultural divide. From Red America to Blue America, everywhere but the Commentary office and the foreign policy wing of the American Enterprise Institute, we stand proud tonight as a nation that refuses to be governed by Rudy.
Josh Marshall, too:
I still believe in Mitt's dream. But man, that was one really dejected group of people standing behind him. They couldn't even manage to seem excited as Mitt talked aimlessly about all the conservative claptrap he doesn't really believe in.
And:
I think TPM Reader AF has it right. At this point, even with 35% of the precincts reporting, we can declare this one for Rudy. Rudy now has 16% of the vote. And Ron Paul has only 3%. So it's basically impossible for Ron Paul to come back and keep up his winning streak over Rudy Giuliani.
And not to be left undone, Andrew Sullivan briefs us on the campaign strategery of Alan Keyes.
Meanwhile, it was being widely reported last night, even before the networks finally called the Sunshine State for McCain, that Rudy would drop out and endorse the Arizona Senator by today.
But this morning's first surprise is that another big name is dropping out first--John Edwards.
Let the punditrywonkery as to who this benefits begin.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Kennedys' Endorsements
High profile endorsements are a little like vice-presidential picks. They attract attention, are much debated, and seem important at the moment, but after everything's over, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that either affected the election's results.
And that may end up being the case here, too, with the Kennedy family endorsements of Obama this week, beginning with Caroline's NYT op-ed on Sunday and wrapping up with Uncle Ted's appearance at American University on Monday.
But the one-two punch of Caroline's, and then the Senator's, endorsements, on the heels of Obama's landslide win in South Carolina, combined to create a powerful, moving image, simultaneously calling to mind the heroic liberalism of decades ago with that era's hopefulness for the future, together energetically reinforcing the mood of Obama's campaign and resurrecting it's momentum from its post-NH fall.
I don't know if the endorsements will change many minds, but if my own reaction is any indication of how others might respond, it has helped cement my support for Obama.
And that may end up being the case here, too, with the Kennedy family endorsements of Obama this week, beginning with Caroline's NYT op-ed on Sunday and wrapping up with Uncle Ted's appearance at American University on Monday.
But the one-two punch of Caroline's, and then the Senator's, endorsements, on the heels of Obama's landslide win in South Carolina, combined to create a powerful, moving image, simultaneously calling to mind the heroic liberalism of decades ago with that era's hopefulness for the future, together energetically reinforcing the mood of Obama's campaign and resurrecting it's momentum from its post-NH fall.
I don't know if the endorsements will change many minds, but if my own reaction is any indication of how others might respond, it has helped cement my support for Obama.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama in the Bubble
I have to say that I find this account troubling:
All traveling campaigns have a bubble-like quality, but Obama seems unusually insulated. One moment of absurdity came Tuesday, when reporters on the press bus were asked to dial into a conference call in which Obama announced a congressman's endorsement — even though the candidate was nearby and just as easily could have delivered the news in person to the bus captives. Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up.
....Obama often goes days without taking questions from national reporters, and when he does, the sessions can be slapdash affairs. In Nevada, for instance, correspondents were reduced to shouting queries at him during a photo op in the kitchen of the Mirage Hotel.
....Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa. To them, the absence of a senior official traveling with the press is a sign of benign neglect.
The primary reason, say those who have observed Obama most closely, is that he's never had to court the press, even in Illinois. Obama rocketed to national prominence with his 2004 Democratic convention speech, had an easy Senate election, and has gotten largely upbeat coverage from the moment he got into the presidential contest. His tactics have sometimes been criticized but not, by and large, his character.
The result: He has never had to learn press relations as a survival skill, not when he can just trot out Oprah Winfrey and ride the resulting wave.
All traveling campaigns have a bubble-like quality, but Obama seems unusually insulated. One moment of absurdity came Tuesday, when reporters on the press bus were asked to dial into a conference call in which Obama announced a congressman's endorsement — even though the candidate was nearby and just as easily could have delivered the news in person to the bus captives. Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up.
....Obama often goes days without taking questions from national reporters, and when he does, the sessions can be slapdash affairs. In Nevada, for instance, correspondents were reduced to shouting queries at him during a photo op in the kitchen of the Mirage Hotel.
....Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa. To them, the absence of a senior official traveling with the press is a sign of benign neglect.
The primary reason, say those who have observed Obama most closely, is that he's never had to court the press, even in Illinois. Obama rocketed to national prominence with his 2004 Democratic convention speech, had an easy Senate election, and has gotten largely upbeat coverage from the moment he got into the presidential contest. His tactics have sometimes been criticized but not, by and large, his character.
The result: He has never had to learn press relations as a survival skill, not when he can just trot out Oprah Winfrey and ride the resulting wave.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Senate
The U.S. Senate was once home to some of the most eloquent speakers, finest political minds, articulate debaters, and renowned national leaders and opinion-makers in the country.
Today, the U.S. Senate is a laughingstock.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is predicting the Senate will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as Congress takes up reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). . .
"I think we will prevail," Rockefeller said on Wednesday, adding that he hoped the Senate will finish the bill by next week. The FISA legislation expires in February, and both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time.
"It's a pretty bad idea to appear cocky," Rockefeller noted. "I am not pessimistic."
So, even though the chamber is controlled by Democrats, the fact that "both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time" means that Rockefeller and his Democratic colleagues must hasten to satisfy these demands and surrender whatever principles or interests they were elected to represent in order to ensure the Republican meanies won't say bad things about them...for a few minutes.
Yes, as Tim Tagaris notes at Open Left, our U.S. Senate, and its Majority Leader, who is finally taking a stand against automatic filibusters, albeit against those from his own party, are "A never ending reservoir of inspiration.."
Today, the U.S. Senate is a laughingstock.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is predicting the Senate will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as Congress takes up reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). . .
"I think we will prevail," Rockefeller said on Wednesday, adding that he hoped the Senate will finish the bill by next week. The FISA legislation expires in February, and both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time.
"It's a pretty bad idea to appear cocky," Rockefeller noted. "I am not pessimistic."
So, even though the chamber is controlled by Democrats, the fact that "both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time" means that Rockefeller and his Democratic colleagues must hasten to satisfy these demands and surrender whatever principles or interests they were elected to represent in order to ensure the Republican meanies won't say bad things about them...for a few minutes.
Yes, as Tim Tagaris notes at Open Left, our U.S. Senate, and its Majority Leader, who is finally taking a stand against automatic filibusters, albeit against those from his own party, are "A never ending reservoir of inspiration.."
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
War is Peace
I think this passage from 1984 represents religious fundamentalism as much as it does any totalitarian government:
"Even the humblest [church] member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war [on Christmas, on the family, on marriage, on Christianity] is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."
"Even the humblest [church] member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war [on Christmas, on the family, on marriage, on Christianity] is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."
Where Obama Comes Up Short
While I believe there are sound policy, electability, and visionary rationales for preferring Obama over the other Democrats running, there's no mistaking that Obama has largely been a non-factor as a U.S. Senator.
For all practical purposes, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for two years, the last year being devoted to his presidential campaign. And while the typical rejoinder to the lack of experience argument is that such non-Washington credentials accents rather than diminishes his potential for real success (especially given the bad experience we've been acustomed to these last many years), it should still be said that the U.S. Senate is, or is meant to be, a place where national debates take place, and in which the public can be educated and be given access to the democratic process. The Senate represents America's premier forum for hashing out the differences, conflicts and aspirations of the national polity through the gathering and participation of America's finest political minds and most respected national leaders and spokesmen. But Obama's brief, and rather quiet, stay in the Senate has not been an example of the best the Senate has to offer (although neither have the presences of Edwards or Clinton for that matter).
For all practical purposes, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for two years, the last year being devoted to his presidential campaign. And while the typical rejoinder to the lack of experience argument is that such non-Washington credentials accents rather than diminishes his potential for real success (especially given the bad experience we've been acustomed to these last many years), it should still be said that the U.S. Senate is, or is meant to be, a place where national debates take place, and in which the public can be educated and be given access to the democratic process. The Senate represents America's premier forum for hashing out the differences, conflicts and aspirations of the national polity through the gathering and participation of America's finest political minds and most respected national leaders and spokesmen. But Obama's brief, and rather quiet, stay in the Senate has not been an example of the best the Senate has to offer (although neither have the presences of Edwards or Clinton for that matter).
Two Maddening Primary Myths
Two myths I frequently encounter in blogland are (1) that the policy positions of Obama and Clinton are not that different and that (2) Obama and Clinton are about equal in terms of their electability.
Hilzoy, Jonathan Chait, and the Anonymous Liberal do a pretty fair job of challenging the second position.
As to the first point, even my sparse attention to policy details during this campaign reveals some rather startling distinctions between them.
There's a flip side to this of course, as one could point out Obama's allowance of anti-gay ministers to officiate at his events, his favorable remarks regarding Ronald Reagan that sent much of the left blogosphere into a tizzy, his use of the term "crisis" to describe Social Security's financing, etc. So the slate isn't completely clean on Obama's side.
But Obama's stances seem to me to represent the biggest break with the past as well as the present state of policy discussions, both foreign and domestic.
Hilzoy, Jonathan Chait, and the Anonymous Liberal do a pretty fair job of challenging the second position.
As to the first point, even my sparse attention to policy details during this campaign reveals some rather startling distinctions between them.
There's a flip side to this of course, as one could point out Obama's allowance of anti-gay ministers to officiate at his events, his favorable remarks regarding Ronald Reagan that sent much of the left blogosphere into a tizzy, his use of the term "crisis" to describe Social Security's financing, etc. So the slate isn't completely clean on Obama's side.
But Obama's stances seem to me to represent the biggest break with the past as well as the present state of policy discussions, both foreign and domestic.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"There Will Be Blood"
*****SPOILER ALERT*********SPOILER ALERT******
Well, there's not a lot to spoil, really. Don't get me wrong, the movie had good acting, mostly from Daniel Day Lewis, and the story was somewhat interesting.
But the title of the movie is misleading and the slow, rising tension among the movie's characters and situation that I suspected was building to an oil-blood-gushing conclusion fails to materialize. There is a violent end to the flick, but it's rather anti-climatic.
One of the problem areas to the film is that it contains too many diversions and plotlines largely left hanging or left to end abruptly and unimportantly.
Many of the tensional relationships in the movie also fail to go anywhere. One point of conflict concerns the desire of Daniel Plainview (Lewis) to purchase, or to at least run an oil pipeline through the property bounds of a local, the only villager who hadn't sold out to Plainview when he began drilling in the fictional Little Boston (a geographic anachronism as the story is set in the deserts of California). It appears the hold out is not going to deal and that this relationship will end violently, perhaps setting spark to the movie's cataclysmic finale.
But the hold-out villager is more than willing to deal--provided Plainview gives his heart to Jesus Christ, is baptized, and joins the town's little church.
Ah, the church. The church is led by Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), his name no doubt an allusion to the famous preacher Billy Sunday. You might think Sunday would be a bit young to play the part of charismatic church leader(particularly since Dano was last seen as a rebellious, sullen youth in Little Miss Sunshine). Sunday's aims never seem quite clear. He's quite religious. And he has an obvious interest in the financial stakes involved in his town's oil claims.
But he also has a twin brother, maybe, by the name of Paul. And it was Paul who led Plainview to the town, but who afterwards apparently never reappears, leaving the viewer not sure whether Eli was Paul or what ever happened to Paul anyway. We get some idea of that later in the movie and in the life of Plainview when the aging, ailing oil tycoon refuses to come to Sunday's aid and reimburse him for the oil proceeds the preacher feels is due him in this now, his time of trial. When Dano's Sunday pays his final visit to Plainview 16 years after the movie's main events he doesn't appear to have aged a bit.
And there is a son, or an adopted son of Plainview's, who the oil man takes on when the child's father, a co-worker of Plainview's, is killed in a drilling accident. The boy, H.W., eventually loses his hearing in another oil blast, and after rehabilitating at a deaf-school, presumably in the East, H.W. returns home and later marries a sister of preacher-man Sunday.
In the mix is a Plainview "brother" who comes upon the scene and is taken in by Plainview as an aid-de-camp. But later in a drunken fit of rage, Plainview kills him upon finding out that the man is actually not a brother, or even half-brother, but a friend of a man who claimed to be a brother of Plainview. Too bad, the fake half-brother seemed like a decent, if down-on-his-luck, sort.
Along the way, in perhaps the movie's seminal self-explanatory passage, Plainview tells the fake brother that he doesn't like people much, that he's extremely competitive and only longs to be able to get away from the largest share of mankind.
Among the more interesting aspects of the movie are its first ten minutes or so that contain no talking, and most of which revolve around Plainview's early mining for silver adventures during which he labors mightily to retrieve from the earth the value that will someday provide a suitable return for the time and effort he has put forth to extract it.
That image is symbolic of the movie's viewers, who linger anticipating that the various angles and twists of the movie will lend themselves to a fullfilling return, after months and years of faithful application.
Well, there's not a lot to spoil, really. Don't get me wrong, the movie had good acting, mostly from Daniel Day Lewis, and the story was somewhat interesting.
But the title of the movie is misleading and the slow, rising tension among the movie's characters and situation that I suspected was building to an oil-blood-gushing conclusion fails to materialize. There is a violent end to the flick, but it's rather anti-climatic.
One of the problem areas to the film is that it contains too many diversions and plotlines largely left hanging or left to end abruptly and unimportantly.
Many of the tensional relationships in the movie also fail to go anywhere. One point of conflict concerns the desire of Daniel Plainview (Lewis) to purchase, or to at least run an oil pipeline through the property bounds of a local, the only villager who hadn't sold out to Plainview when he began drilling in the fictional Little Boston (a geographic anachronism as the story is set in the deserts of California). It appears the hold out is not going to deal and that this relationship will end violently, perhaps setting spark to the movie's cataclysmic finale.
But the hold-out villager is more than willing to deal--provided Plainview gives his heart to Jesus Christ, is baptized, and joins the town's little church.
Ah, the church. The church is led by Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), his name no doubt an allusion to the famous preacher Billy Sunday. You might think Sunday would be a bit young to play the part of charismatic church leader(particularly since Dano was last seen as a rebellious, sullen youth in Little Miss Sunshine). Sunday's aims never seem quite clear. He's quite religious. And he has an obvious interest in the financial stakes involved in his town's oil claims.
But he also has a twin brother, maybe, by the name of Paul. And it was Paul who led Plainview to the town, but who afterwards apparently never reappears, leaving the viewer not sure whether Eli was Paul or what ever happened to Paul anyway. We get some idea of that later in the movie and in the life of Plainview when the aging, ailing oil tycoon refuses to come to Sunday's aid and reimburse him for the oil proceeds the preacher feels is due him in this now, his time of trial. When Dano's Sunday pays his final visit to Plainview 16 years after the movie's main events he doesn't appear to have aged a bit.
And there is a son, or an adopted son of Plainview's, who the oil man takes on when the child's father, a co-worker of Plainview's, is killed in a drilling accident. The boy, H.W., eventually loses his hearing in another oil blast, and after rehabilitating at a deaf-school, presumably in the East, H.W. returns home and later marries a sister of preacher-man Sunday.
In the mix is a Plainview "brother" who comes upon the scene and is taken in by Plainview as an aid-de-camp. But later in a drunken fit of rage, Plainview kills him upon finding out that the man is actually not a brother, or even half-brother, but a friend of a man who claimed to be a brother of Plainview. Too bad, the fake half-brother seemed like a decent, if down-on-his-luck, sort.
Along the way, in perhaps the movie's seminal self-explanatory passage, Plainview tells the fake brother that he doesn't like people much, that he's extremely competitive and only longs to be able to get away from the largest share of mankind.
Among the more interesting aspects of the movie are its first ten minutes or so that contain no talking, and most of which revolve around Plainview's early mining for silver adventures during which he labors mightily to retrieve from the earth the value that will someday provide a suitable return for the time and effort he has put forth to extract it.
That image is symbolic of the movie's viewers, who linger anticipating that the various angles and twists of the movie will lend themselves to a fullfilling return, after months and years of faithful application.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Right To Vote
It's difficult to overstate how truly odious this challenge to the Nevada caucus law which was approved almost a year ago is. It's no secret that Republicans have yet to meet a voting restriction they didn't like. But for Democrats?
I'm half expecting the Clintonites to start calling for poll taxes if Obama wins another caucus/primary.
This is the kind of crap that makes conservative hate talk of the Clintons hard to refute.
I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention on the blogs, even from those who don't like the Clintons.
Thank God. Geesh.
I'm half expecting the Clintonites to start calling for poll taxes if Obama wins another caucus/primary.
This is the kind of crap that makes conservative hate talk of the Clintons hard to refute.
I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention on the blogs, even from those who don't like the Clintons.
Thank God. Geesh.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Republican Taliban
I guess by now you've heard of this story.
I'm wondering how long it will be before Faux News is identifying this former congresscritter as a Dem.
I'm wondering how long it will be before Faux News is identifying this former congresscritter as a Dem.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The LBJ Example
While I think Hillary's statement about MLK is being overly parsed, I tend to side with Steve Benen and Andrew Sullivan as to its implications.
But I think there's even something more too it than this, and which compares more favorably with Obama.
And that is that LBJ accomplished much of what he did, including the signing of the Voting Rights Act, the year after his massive landslide victory, which swept overwhelming Democratic majorities into congress on his coat-tails. And while the death of JFK and the extremist campaign of Barry Goldwater helped contribute to that victory, the fact is that LBJ needed those large majorities in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act and to pass Medicare and Medicaid, among other notable legislative achievements. Obama is campaigning with the recognition that large electoral change is necessary to accomplish significant political legislative and executive change. Hillary's campaign is based implicitly if not explicitly, on the idea that no such electoral change can or will occur and that political and policy change will happen only through the tough grit of experience.
But I think there's even something more too it than this, and which compares more favorably with Obama.
And that is that LBJ accomplished much of what he did, including the signing of the Voting Rights Act, the year after his massive landslide victory, which swept overwhelming Democratic majorities into congress on his coat-tails. And while the death of JFK and the extremist campaign of Barry Goldwater helped contribute to that victory, the fact is that LBJ needed those large majorities in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act and to pass Medicare and Medicaid, among other notable legislative achievements. Obama is campaigning with the recognition that large electoral change is necessary to accomplish significant political legislative and executive change. Hillary's campaign is based implicitly if not explicitly, on the idea that no such electoral change can or will occur and that political and policy change will happen only through the tough grit of experience.
Conservative Clinton
While Hillary's--and her various spokespersons'--statements on civil rights and race are drawing attention, other more-policy-focused remarks are also coming back to the surface.
At a forum in early December, Hillary came out against retroactivity in the reduction of crack-related offenses. Her pollster, Mark Penn, also made these revealing remarks:
In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.
Aside from the fear-based nature of this conservative pander, I was immediately struck by Penn's reference to a, the, Republican front-runner. Given the noted volatility in the Republican race today, I wondered who Penn had in mind then.
Ah:
“Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue,” Penn said. “He’s already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers.”
Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he “would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."
I wonder what Penn--and Hillary--think now that Guliani's no longer the front-runner? Should they change her position to fit with whoever they expect the GOP nominee to be? What if that prediction, too, needs to change in light of primary and caucus votes still to come? All this does is, besides illustrate policy-differences between herself and Obama, is reinforce the idea that Hillary lacks a central political core identity; something besides "experience".
Hillary's fears about how the GOP will smack us around on crime and other issues next fall has also led her to criticize Obama's more liberal--and I happen to think, wiser and more humane--stances on minimum sentencing guidelines and Cuba. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
For this liberal, it's just more, confirming evidence that the choice between Hillary and Obama is a real, ideology and policy-wise, substantive one.
At a forum in early December, Hillary came out against retroactivity in the reduction of crack-related offenses. Her pollster, Mark Penn, also made these revealing remarks:
In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.
Aside from the fear-based nature of this conservative pander, I was immediately struck by Penn's reference to a, the, Republican front-runner. Given the noted volatility in the Republican race today, I wondered who Penn had in mind then.
Ah:
“Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue,” Penn said. “He’s already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers.”
Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he “would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."
I wonder what Penn--and Hillary--think now that Guliani's no longer the front-runner? Should they change her position to fit with whoever they expect the GOP nominee to be? What if that prediction, too, needs to change in light of primary and caucus votes still to come? All this does is, besides illustrate policy-differences between herself and Obama, is reinforce the idea that Hillary lacks a central political core identity; something besides "experience".
Hillary's fears about how the GOP will smack us around on crime and other issues next fall has also led her to criticize Obama's more liberal--and I happen to think, wiser and more humane--stances on minimum sentencing guidelines and Cuba. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
For this liberal, it's just more, confirming evidence that the choice between Hillary and Obama is a real, ideology and policy-wise, substantive one.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I Thought Unity Was Their Issue
From Atrios, Unity08 is closing up shop on the way to being swallowed up by Michael Bloomberg's independent presidential candidacy. But I wonder why Unity08's board fails to see the irony of their statement below:
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
So despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that at least one of the leading party contenders "has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign", Unity08 is moving on to bigger and brighter things--like the "independent" presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg for which it was designed, whether many of its spokesmen were aware of it or not.
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
So despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that at least one of the leading party contenders "has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign", Unity08 is moving on to bigger and brighter things--like the "independent" presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg for which it was designed, whether many of its spokesmen were aware of it or not.
Post-NH Op-Ed Special
Washington Post edition.
Shorter E.J.Dionne: The media, including me, really blew it.
Shorter George Will: January, named for the Roman god Janus, is a godforsaken month.
Shorter David Broder: The NH results mean I can keep writing about the 2008 primary season for a long time.
Shorter Robert Novak: The Clintons are a ruthless, give no quarter, attack machine; Republicans, and their supporters, who have never attacked anyone, had better nominate John McCain.
Shorter Harold Meyerson: This election reminds me of 1968 and 1972.
Shorter E.J.Dionne: The media, including me, really blew it.
Shorter George Will: January, named for the Roman god Janus, is a godforsaken month.
Shorter David Broder: The NH results mean I can keep writing about the 2008 primary season for a long time.
Shorter Robert Novak: The Clintons are a ruthless, give no quarter, attack machine; Republicans, and their supporters, who have never attacked anyone, had better nominate John McCain.
Shorter Harold Meyerson: This election reminds me of 1968 and 1972.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
There They Go Again
Call me crazy, but I can't believe the new rush among the punditry to bury Mitt Romney. The Republican race still looks like anybody's ball game to me. I don't see any one Republican winning Michigan and South Carolina. And even were a candidate to do so, it's far from certain that with the super tuesday February primaries still looming that any final determinations for the major contenders wouldn't wait adjudication until then.
At the same time, it is true that having been in the lead, Romney is suffering the pangs of dashed expectations. And the competitiveness, or fragmentation, however you want to look at it, in the Republican field owes a great deal to Romney's having chosen to reinvent himself from moderate business man and governor to a whoeveryouwantmetobe conservative, depending on the audience. I can imagine Romney having been in a much better position had he chosen a more straightforward and honest campaign message.
At the same time, it is true that having been in the lead, Romney is suffering the pangs of dashed expectations. And the competitiveness, or fragmentation, however you want to look at it, in the Republican field owes a great deal to Romney's having chosen to reinvent himself from moderate business man and governor to a whoeveryouwantmetobe conservative, depending on the audience. I can imagine Romney having been in a much better position had he chosen a more straightforward and honest campaign message.
Democrats, New and Old
To build on my last post, one way of thinking about the dynamics of this race is as a contest between new and old Democrats.
In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned as a New Democrat. That Democrats, and political liberalism, had been hammered in three consecutive elections meant that the way was paved for a New Democrat to come calling and in whom even traditional Democratic voters might be willing to support if doing so would improve the party's electability.
In 2008, Obama is, obstensibly, the new Democrat and Hillary Clinton is the old Democrat. The question is, are Democratic voters ready to turn to a new brand? Have the developments of the last 8 years, or 16 years, created in the minds of most Democrats the need for another New Democrat? It certainly seemed as if many Democrats were in 2003 as Howard Dean made his mark at the California state Democratic conference when he famously asked where the Democratic Party had been when Bush was launching his unilateral invasion of Iraq (What I wanna know is...), chastizing the party's bipartisan acquiescence to Bush and ruling Republicanism.
By primary season of 2004, however, most Democrats had retreated to one of that year's old Democrats, John Kerry.
Now, four years removed from that episode, but with the country still mired in Iraq, what is the mood of Democratic voters?
These first two contests have put off an answer to that question as high numbers of Independents have voted in Iowa and NH. Upcoming contests will undoubtedly shed more light on this topic and the direction of the Party as presumably the influence of Independents in future contests dwindles as the number of closed primary states increase.
The paradox is, though, that while Obama is the New Democrat in the race, he isn't campaigning as an outsider, really. The language of bipartisanship, post-partisanship and unity he's invoked may be New Democrat but it is pretty much right up insider politics' alley. It is the pillar opposite of Howard Dean's 2003-2004 New Democrat campaign.
Conversely, Hillary--like Edwards--is campaigning as a more partisan alternative, New Democrat, at least as it was in the mold of Howard Dean. So, while Hillary is undoubtedly the most insider of Old Democrats, and has kowtowed to much of Bush's agenda, particularly the war and foreign policy, her campaign is largely usurping what a New Democrat would be expected to bring to this year's campaign.
Some of this strange turn-about is no doubt due to the Democrats having won control of Congress in 2006. This has served to disipate to some degree the Democratic anger that drove Howard Dean's campaign. That the "surge" in Iraq has served to alleviate some of the violence associated with our continued occupation of that country, and thus diverted media attention to the personalities and horse race aspect of the campaign, has also strengthened the cross-cutting New/Old Democrat juxtapositioning going on.
One implication of this is something I don't think has generated any consideration so far and that is that despite whatever affinity there might be between John Edwards and Obama, it seems to me that John Edwards' partisanly populist campaign probably has more connection with those inclined to support Hillary, who is dismissive of Obama's hope and optimism, warning that the only type of politics possible is that of partisan combat.
So, as the campaign moves on, it wouldn't surprise me that if this is a rough approximation of the mood of Democratic voters (and not of Independents) that a large portion of Democrats supporting Edwards could very well end up in the Hillary camp.
I think the challenge for Obama (much like the challenge that faced McCain in 2000) is to continue to win his party's primaries and his party's voters in those primaries. Despite McCain's 2000 uprising, he was unable to pull it off. It seems to me that as an opponent of the congressional Democratic approach the past eight years at least on the war, Obama is in a good position to make this outsider, New Democratic appeal. However, the irony is that the existing, old Democratic establishment has largely legislated in the very bipartisan manner that Obama has said he is seeking. So, continued bipartisan appeals during this partisan primary season may not work as well to his benefit. And would result, weirdly, in one our most bipartisan Democrats, Hillary, being rewarded for taking a more partisan approach during the campaign.
In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned as a New Democrat. That Democrats, and political liberalism, had been hammered in three consecutive elections meant that the way was paved for a New Democrat to come calling and in whom even traditional Democratic voters might be willing to support if doing so would improve the party's electability.
In 2008, Obama is, obstensibly, the new Democrat and Hillary Clinton is the old Democrat. The question is, are Democratic voters ready to turn to a new brand? Have the developments of the last 8 years, or 16 years, created in the minds of most Democrats the need for another New Democrat? It certainly seemed as if many Democrats were in 2003 as Howard Dean made his mark at the California state Democratic conference when he famously asked where the Democratic Party had been when Bush was launching his unilateral invasion of Iraq (What I wanna know is...), chastizing the party's bipartisan acquiescence to Bush and ruling Republicanism.
By primary season of 2004, however, most Democrats had retreated to one of that year's old Democrats, John Kerry.
Now, four years removed from that episode, but with the country still mired in Iraq, what is the mood of Democratic voters?
These first two contests have put off an answer to that question as high numbers of Independents have voted in Iowa and NH. Upcoming contests will undoubtedly shed more light on this topic and the direction of the Party as presumably the influence of Independents in future contests dwindles as the number of closed primary states increase.
The paradox is, though, that while Obama is the New Democrat in the race, he isn't campaigning as an outsider, really. The language of bipartisanship, post-partisanship and unity he's invoked may be New Democrat but it is pretty much right up insider politics' alley. It is the pillar opposite of Howard Dean's 2003-2004 New Democrat campaign.
Conversely, Hillary--like Edwards--is campaigning as a more partisan alternative, New Democrat, at least as it was in the mold of Howard Dean. So, while Hillary is undoubtedly the most insider of Old Democrats, and has kowtowed to much of Bush's agenda, particularly the war and foreign policy, her campaign is largely usurping what a New Democrat would be expected to bring to this year's campaign.
Some of this strange turn-about is no doubt due to the Democrats having won control of Congress in 2006. This has served to disipate to some degree the Democratic anger that drove Howard Dean's campaign. That the "surge" in Iraq has served to alleviate some of the violence associated with our continued occupation of that country, and thus diverted media attention to the personalities and horse race aspect of the campaign, has also strengthened the cross-cutting New/Old Democrat juxtapositioning going on.
One implication of this is something I don't think has generated any consideration so far and that is that despite whatever affinity there might be between John Edwards and Obama, it seems to me that John Edwards' partisanly populist campaign probably has more connection with those inclined to support Hillary, who is dismissive of Obama's hope and optimism, warning that the only type of politics possible is that of partisan combat.
So, as the campaign moves on, it wouldn't surprise me that if this is a rough approximation of the mood of Democratic voters (and not of Independents) that a large portion of Democrats supporting Edwards could very well end up in the Hillary camp.
I think the challenge for Obama (much like the challenge that faced McCain in 2000) is to continue to win his party's primaries and his party's voters in those primaries. Despite McCain's 2000 uprising, he was unable to pull it off. It seems to me that as an opponent of the congressional Democratic approach the past eight years at least on the war, Obama is in a good position to make this outsider, New Democratic appeal. However, the irony is that the existing, old Democratic establishment has largely legislated in the very bipartisan manner that Obama has said he is seeking. So, continued bipartisan appeals during this partisan primary season may not work as well to his benefit. And would result, weirdly, in one our most bipartisan Democrats, Hillary, being rewarded for taking a more partisan approach during the campaign.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Final NH Thoughts
At one point in the election analysis, CNN's William Schneider showed exit poll info that had Obama's vote share made up of 50% independents, while Clinton's showed a much higher share of Democratic partisans.
I would have expected this sort of thing to happen in Iowa rather than NH, but I wonder if Obama's frequent tacking to the center and appealing to Independents and Republicans, his cross-over, post-partisan appeal came back to bite him tonight. Despite the role of Independents generally, and in NH in particular, NH Democrats wanted to vote for a Democrat running as a Democrat. While this is undoubtedly one of many likely factors that influenced Hillary's narrow victory tonight, I have to think it could have been as significant a one as any other.
I would have expected this sort of thing to happen in Iowa rather than NH, but I wonder if Obama's frequent tacking to the center and appealing to Independents and Republicans, his cross-over, post-partisan appeal came back to bite him tonight. Despite the role of Independents generally, and in NH in particular, NH Democrats wanted to vote for a Democrat running as a Democrat. While this is undoubtedly one of many likely factors that influenced Hillary's narrow victory tonight, I have to think it could have been as significant a one as any other.
Yes We Can!
He started off slowly and didn't come out with his new signature line until near the end of his speech.
It was and is a great line, but unfortunately, he didn't get to speak last tonight.
Hillary to me still seems a candidate without a vision, reading off of Bill's script from the last decade. I lived through the 1990's. While the economy did well, the Democratic Party did not. Nor were there any major advances in public policy. Bill Clinton's presidency ended in incremental and symbolic policy maneuvers (remember school uniforms and bridges to the 21st century?) and with liberalism largely in ruins and on the run, in worse shape than the Clintons found it.
It's possible that something good will come of this. Maybe this quick setback will give the Obama campaign some experience in handling adversity and encourage the candidate to better refine his message. But for now, a Hillary victory has only prolonged the prospect of enduring more months of a politics of the same.
It was and is a great line, but unfortunately, he didn't get to speak last tonight.
Hillary to me still seems a candidate without a vision, reading off of Bill's script from the last decade. I lived through the 1990's. While the economy did well, the Democratic Party did not. Nor were there any major advances in public policy. Bill Clinton's presidency ended in incremental and symbolic policy maneuvers (remember school uniforms and bridges to the 21st century?) and with liberalism largely in ruins and on the run, in worse shape than the Clintons found it.
It's possible that something good will come of this. Maybe this quick setback will give the Obama campaign some experience in handling adversity and encourage the candidate to better refine his message. But for now, a Hillary victory has only prolonged the prospect of enduring more months of a politics of the same.
Hillary still winning...
When are the gamdung college towns going to report in?
And on top of that, the teevee writers are still on strike.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has some serious balls to post this reader's dissent.
And on top of that, the teevee writers are still on strike.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has some serious balls to post this reader's dissent.
CNN Pundit Jeffrey Toobin
"You know, maybe people out there in the real world actually like Bill Clinton."
I suppose this is true
Ezra Klein:
And this is how it should be. It's a good thing that Iowa and New Hampshire don't simply decree the winner of the presidential race. It's a good thing that more states will participate, and the various candidates will have more time to hone their pitches, broaden their appeals, demonstrate their resonance in different regions and with different demographics. The campaign's been long, but the election remains young.
And this is how it should be. It's a good thing that Iowa and New Hampshire don't simply decree the winner of the presidential race. It's a good thing that more states will participate, and the various candidates will have more time to hone their pitches, broaden their appeals, demonstrate their resonance in different regions and with different demographics. The campaign's been long, but the election remains young.
Ugh
19% of the vote in: Hillary 40%; Obama 36%
This night is proving as dispiriting as last week's was uplifting.
This night is proving as dispiriting as last week's was uplifting.
Now They Tell Us
From DHinMI's DailyKos post:
So, Boren and the other losers waited until now to start preaching bipartisanship?
Yeah. I don't recall any of these folks demanding a bipartisan cabinet when W was elected or re-elected.
[Boren's] correct that during the Cold War the parties worked much more closely and cooperatively on national security issues. But after the Cold War, Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich unleashed a scorched-earth politics, and Karl Rove refined it to the point that former Georgia Democrat Max Cleland's support of union rights for federal employees to be brought under the umbrella of the new Department of Homeland Security was used by the Republican party to run ads linking Cleland with Osama bin Laden. The Republican party no longer accepts opposition as American; for them, domestic opponents can and are demonized as anti-American.
(snip)
To accomplish anything, the next Democratic administration and Congress won't have to work with the Republicans, they will have to prevail over them. To prevail will require people with backbone. We need people who recognize that it was Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol and the Republican party that purposively blocked any attempt at health care reform in 1993 and 1994. It was the Republican party that unanimously opposed Bill Clinton's 1993 budget, which led to the balanced budgets of the late 1990's. It was the Republican party that attacked the foundations of the New Deal and precipitated the government shutdown in 1995. It was the Republican party that in 1998 impeached Bill Clinton, ostensibly because of a blowjob.
I don't recall hearing anything from this crowd when the Project for a New American Century was busy penning its screeds and especially in the lead up to the Iraq war and occupation when anything less than full-throated "support" for "liberating" Iraq was grounds for purging American universities from all dissenters and herding all us liberals into concentration camps. The difference now, obviously, is the Old Guard is spooked that the failed regime is about to be repudiated.
So, Boren and the other losers waited until now to start preaching bipartisanship?
Yeah. I don't recall any of these folks demanding a bipartisan cabinet when W was elected or re-elected.
[Boren's] correct that during the Cold War the parties worked much more closely and cooperatively on national security issues. But after the Cold War, Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich unleashed a scorched-earth politics, and Karl Rove refined it to the point that former Georgia Democrat Max Cleland's support of union rights for federal employees to be brought under the umbrella of the new Department of Homeland Security was used by the Republican party to run ads linking Cleland with Osama bin Laden. The Republican party no longer accepts opposition as American; for them, domestic opponents can and are demonized as anti-American.
(snip)
To accomplish anything, the next Democratic administration and Congress won't have to work with the Republicans, they will have to prevail over them. To prevail will require people with backbone. We need people who recognize that it was Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol and the Republican party that purposively blocked any attempt at health care reform in 1993 and 1994. It was the Republican party that unanimously opposed Bill Clinton's 1993 budget, which led to the balanced budgets of the late 1990's. It was the Republican party that attacked the foundations of the New Deal and precipitated the government shutdown in 1995. It was the Republican party that in 1998 impeached Bill Clinton, ostensibly because of a blowjob.
I don't recall hearing anything from this crowd when the Project for a New American Century was busy penning its screeds and especially in the lead up to the Iraq war and occupation when anything less than full-throated "support" for "liberating" Iraq was grounds for purging American universities from all dissenters and herding all us liberals into concentration camps. The difference now, obviously, is the Old Guard is spooked that the failed regime is about to be repudiated.
Obama and Progressive Politics
Today in Concord, NH:
Obama's speech underwent another subtle shift, too. There was much more emphasis placed on the word "progressive," a much more explicit recognition of Obama's potential meaning to a particular ideological movement. He spoke of "Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," chided the observers who said there was no way all these diverse individuals would turn out "for a progressive Democrat." I've not heard that word so oft-repeated at his rallies before. Indeed, the whole speech seemed the product of Obama's thinking about how he could use his political potency to shift the center in America to the left. "We will send a message," he said, "that we will not only end the war in Iraq, not only bring our troops home, but we will change the mindset that got us into that war in the first place." In some ways, it's that grandeur of ambition that separates Obama from Clinton Even before he said so explicitly, many progressives I know spoke of his ability not to change policies, but to change minds -- to do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism. Clinton, they agreed, was competent and well-meaning, but lacked that potential.
This is what I have been waiting for, Hoping for.
Obama's speech underwent another subtle shift, too. There was much more emphasis placed on the word "progressive," a much more explicit recognition of Obama's potential meaning to a particular ideological movement. He spoke of "Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," chided the observers who said there was no way all these diverse individuals would turn out "for a progressive Democrat." I've not heard that word so oft-repeated at his rallies before. Indeed, the whole speech seemed the product of Obama's thinking about how he could use his political potency to shift the center in America to the left. "We will send a message," he said, "that we will not only end the war in Iraq, not only bring our troops home, but we will change the mindset that got us into that war in the first place." In some ways, it's that grandeur of ambition that separates Obama from Clinton Even before he said so explicitly, many progressives I know spoke of his ability not to change policies, but to change minds -- to do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism. Clinton, they agreed, was competent and well-meaning, but lacked that potential.
This is what I have been waiting for, Hoping for.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Problem with Edwards and Hillary
First I read Ezra Klein's post about the emotive Edwards.
Edwards is more likely to tour with the sort of guests you'd see on daytime talk: Ordinary people who have undergone extraordinary hardship. Where the other candidates closed their Iowa campaigns with sincere speeches laying out the arguments for their candidacies, Edwards ran a commercial where a burly Iowan spoke emotionally of the moment when Edwards leaned down, stared his seven-year-old son in the eyes, and promised to fight for his father's job.
This irritates the Press Corps. It's schmaltzy and raw. As Mark Halperin put it in his summary of Edwards' most recent debate performance, "His habit of recounting moving stories about anonymous (and, sorry, random) people sometimes makes him sound like a mayoral candidate in a small Southern hamlet."
Yeah, no kiddin'.
While it's obviously desirable that our candidates at all levels of government have a concern with people "who have undergone extraordinary hardship", should a future president pledge to "fight for his father's job"? I don't know all the context here, but there are some 150 million workers in the U.S. Is a president supposed to "fight" for everyone's job?
Similarly, the cases of the liver patient and the person with a 50-year cleft palate are tragic. But are these individual cases--and the probable millions around the country like them-- these specific cases, the sorts of things that presidents should be pledging to eradicate? Can we be sure that a universal, government financed and managed health care system (which I assume is Edwards' focal point here) would have solved either of these two individual cases--or again the millions around the country like them?
One problem with Edwards' campaign is it has sounded at times very close to a one-issue campaign (health care). That would not necessarily be bad, except Edwards has been regarded as among the top tier of candidates, which should presumably signify that he is devoting somewhat equal time to issues for which the president--and no one else in the country--would be answerable to once in office.
All of this is to suggest--at the risk of sounding cold and indifferent to the very real problems he has been highlighting--that Edwards is campaigning as if he doesn't have a strong grasp of the various responsibilities of the president or that he would be able to prioritize very well. His type of campaign also begs the question of how, after having implied that he would solve every individual citizen's problems, he would deal with the fact that such would not be possible, and that other levels of government and sections of society might be better equiped to handle them.
In the case of the liver transplant and cleft palate patients, is it unreasonable to ask what alternatives were available? If that's my gut reaction--and I'm pretty liberal about these things from a policy perspective--you can be pretty sure that many other people with more conservative political instincts than me might also wonder the same thing? Is it a sure thing that in the case of the liver patient that the insurance company is fully at fault? Could the liver transplant have been performed by the doctors/hospital with an eye towards settling the finances of it later on, after the person's life had been spared? Of course most doctors and hospitals are not in the profession completely from altruism. But neither are the insurance companies. They all want to make money. And again, would a universal health care system of the kind Edwards favors be guaranteed to have worked in this case?
Klein implies that he favors Edward's emotive appeals and sense of purpose.
Maybe. But his very next post examines Hillary Clinton's town hall strategy and finds it lacking:
If every voter in New Hampshire could ask Hillary their special snowflake of a question, she'd win the state. No matter what the query, she gives a long, detailed, comprehensive response. But it is a response specific to the question, to that voter and the six others interested in a disquisition on that issue. The rest of the crowd sort of stares at their feet. Then a new question comes up, and a new set of nine voters are engaged, and the rest of the crowd gets a soup-to-nuts explanation of No Child Left Behind.
Unlike Obama and Edwards, who step before a crowd and try to convert them all at once with a rousing speech, Hillary is trying to convert them all one at a time, with a demonstration of mastery over their issues. As a wonk, I love this tendency to speak in policy. Her answer on NCLB was the best explanation of the policy that I've ever heard. But I also watched voters begin to trickle out after 45 minutes, even as Hillary continued to talk, to answer, to convince. It's too much detail, too overwhelming, too disconnected from themes.
But these individually-focused approaches by Edwards and Clinton are both problematic, no? They sound very similar to me. One candidate appears to show that he would respond to every individual citizen's unique problems and the other candidate appears to show that she would respond to every....you get the idea?
Both Edwards and Hillary seem too lost in specifics, the nuts and bolts of policy or the peculiarities of any individual's situation. I don't think this is necessarily healthy for a presidential candidate. Like Mark Halpern, I can see why some observers are made uneasy by such campaigns.
Edwards is more likely to tour with the sort of guests you'd see on daytime talk: Ordinary people who have undergone extraordinary hardship. Where the other candidates closed their Iowa campaigns with sincere speeches laying out the arguments for their candidacies, Edwards ran a commercial where a burly Iowan spoke emotionally of the moment when Edwards leaned down, stared his seven-year-old son in the eyes, and promised to fight for his father's job.
This irritates the Press Corps. It's schmaltzy and raw. As Mark Halperin put it in his summary of Edwards' most recent debate performance, "His habit of recounting moving stories about anonymous (and, sorry, random) people sometimes makes him sound like a mayoral candidate in a small Southern hamlet."
Yeah, no kiddin'.
While it's obviously desirable that our candidates at all levels of government have a concern with people "who have undergone extraordinary hardship", should a future president pledge to "fight for his father's job"? I don't know all the context here, but there are some 150 million workers in the U.S. Is a president supposed to "fight" for everyone's job?
Similarly, the cases of the liver patient and the person with a 50-year cleft palate are tragic. But are these individual cases--and the probable millions around the country like them-- these specific cases, the sorts of things that presidents should be pledging to eradicate? Can we be sure that a universal, government financed and managed health care system (which I assume is Edwards' focal point here) would have solved either of these two individual cases--or again the millions around the country like them?
One problem with Edwards' campaign is it has sounded at times very close to a one-issue campaign (health care). That would not necessarily be bad, except Edwards has been regarded as among the top tier of candidates, which should presumably signify that he is devoting somewhat equal time to issues for which the president--and no one else in the country--would be answerable to once in office.
All of this is to suggest--at the risk of sounding cold and indifferent to the very real problems he has been highlighting--that Edwards is campaigning as if he doesn't have a strong grasp of the various responsibilities of the president or that he would be able to prioritize very well. His type of campaign also begs the question of how, after having implied that he would solve every individual citizen's problems, he would deal with the fact that such would not be possible, and that other levels of government and sections of society might be better equiped to handle them.
In the case of the liver transplant and cleft palate patients, is it unreasonable to ask what alternatives were available? If that's my gut reaction--and I'm pretty liberal about these things from a policy perspective--you can be pretty sure that many other people with more conservative political instincts than me might also wonder the same thing? Is it a sure thing that in the case of the liver patient that the insurance company is fully at fault? Could the liver transplant have been performed by the doctors/hospital with an eye towards settling the finances of it later on, after the person's life had been spared? Of course most doctors and hospitals are not in the profession completely from altruism. But neither are the insurance companies. They all want to make money. And again, would a universal health care system of the kind Edwards favors be guaranteed to have worked in this case?
Klein implies that he favors Edward's emotive appeals and sense of purpose.
Maybe. But his very next post examines Hillary Clinton's town hall strategy and finds it lacking:
If every voter in New Hampshire could ask Hillary their special snowflake of a question, she'd win the state. No matter what the query, she gives a long, detailed, comprehensive response. But it is a response specific to the question, to that voter and the six others interested in a disquisition on that issue. The rest of the crowd sort of stares at their feet. Then a new question comes up, and a new set of nine voters are engaged, and the rest of the crowd gets a soup-to-nuts explanation of No Child Left Behind.
Unlike Obama and Edwards, who step before a crowd and try to convert them all at once with a rousing speech, Hillary is trying to convert them all one at a time, with a demonstration of mastery over their issues. As a wonk, I love this tendency to speak in policy. Her answer on NCLB was the best explanation of the policy that I've ever heard. But I also watched voters begin to trickle out after 45 minutes, even as Hillary continued to talk, to answer, to convince. It's too much detail, too overwhelming, too disconnected from themes.
But these individually-focused approaches by Edwards and Clinton are both problematic, no? They sound very similar to me. One candidate appears to show that he would respond to every individual citizen's unique problems and the other candidate appears to show that she would respond to every....you get the idea?
Both Edwards and Hillary seem too lost in specifics, the nuts and bolts of policy or the peculiarities of any individual's situation. I don't think this is necessarily healthy for a presidential candidate. Like Mark Halpern, I can see why some observers are made uneasy by such campaigns.
Deep Campaign Thought of the Day
For about the second time in as many days, there's a totally smoking hot picture of Chelsea Clinton in the newspaper. This one's on the front of the Washington Post's print edition (pic not on the paper's website for whatever reason).*
Anyway, Chelsea has blossomed.
So, Rush Limbo...suck. on. that.
*The picture can be seen at gettyimages.com.
Anyway, Chelsea has blossomed.
So, Rush Limbo...suck. on. that.
*The picture can be seen at gettyimages.com.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Going Public
It's possible to read too much into any particular speech, campaign rally or debating point, but I think the contrast between what Obama is saying here and what Hillary is saying here is significant.
What I think Obama is saying here is basically that the kind of change the country needs and is capable of, and which Obama believes he can help deliver, is a comprehensive change built on the back of a new coalition, and built through a process of the nation's leaders appealing over the heads of lobbyists and entrenched interests in Congress to that of the nation's. It is a form of this argument.
Hillary's argument is a more of an insider's being able to game the system.
These arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive, particularly as it may concern any one policy area (like health care). But this a sense where I think Obama and Hillary are talking past one another. Obama's theory of change is more far-reaching, more comprehensive, and in some ways, perhaps not fully fleshed out, yet open to the future (i.e. more visionary), where Hillary's is more of the policy white paper variety of change, mechanical, not inspirational, rhetorical or worldview encompassing. That I think is the crux of the difference between them and why, at least in the case of Iowa, Obama was able to expand the caucus turnout and win the state.
What I think Obama is saying here is basically that the kind of change the country needs and is capable of, and which Obama believes he can help deliver, is a comprehensive change built on the back of a new coalition, and built through a process of the nation's leaders appealing over the heads of lobbyists and entrenched interests in Congress to that of the nation's. It is a form of this argument.
Hillary's argument is a more of an insider's being able to game the system.
These arguments are not necessarily mutually exclusive, particularly as it may concern any one policy area (like health care). But this a sense where I think Obama and Hillary are talking past one another. Obama's theory of change is more far-reaching, more comprehensive, and in some ways, perhaps not fully fleshed out, yet open to the future (i.e. more visionary), where Hillary's is more of the policy white paper variety of change, mechanical, not inspirational, rhetorical or worldview encompassing. That I think is the crux of the difference between them and why, at least in the case of Iowa, Obama was able to expand the caucus turnout and win the state.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Don't Worry
Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Instapundit Reynolds, and Michelle Malkin, among others, are already worried about all the rioting in the streets by a certain demographic that will occur if the country's racists don't elect the black candidate, Obama.
Well, I don't think they need to worry. Obama won't lose. He's already up by 10 points in NH, according to Rasmussen.
Well, I don't think they need to worry. Obama won't lose. He's already up by 10 points in NH, according to Rasmussen.
Friday, January 04, 2008
About Last Night
Last night was about as inspired as I can recall ever being about American politics, maybe since 1992. The magnitude of Obama's victory, the record caucus turnout and his speech afterwards in particular, made a believer out of me again. Even more than in 1992, it feels like there's something different, possibly transformative, in the political atmosphere. It's not something I can really articulate, but Ezra Klein comes pretty close to capturing my own experience and response:
I've been blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to principle. I have heard Bill Clinton speak of a place called Hope, and listened to John Edwards bravely channel the populism that American politics so often suppresses. Some of those politicians mirrored my beliefs better than Obama does. Some of their speeches were more declarative and immediate in their passion. But none achieve quite what Obama, at his best, creates.
Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
I continue to have reservations. As E.J. Dionne noted this morning about the campaign:
The Republican race has highlighted ideological divisions within the party -- particularly on taxes, immigration and, to some extent, abortion. By contrast, the Democratic argument has been remarkably free of ideology. Democrats have battled more about how to get things done than about what to do, more about style than content.
I suspect Dionne thinks being "remarkably free of ideology" is good for Obama and the Democrats. I'm not so sure. While I've no doubt Obama's calls for bipartisanship are genuine, when you have a candidate from the other party saying things like this, you can be sure that partisanship, and the ideology that underlies many of our political disputes, is still hanging around, demanding an ideologically valid response. Furthermore, while Huckabee's victory last night seemed less impactful than Obama's, the people who drove his vote totals are people with a cohesive, if frightening, world view. Can Democrats with more of a free-floating, post-modern, post-partisan, non-ideological world view win the war, much less the short term battle, against an opposition more passionate about its ideas than its candidates and their oratory?
Some of my caution is driven by the thought that we've been here before. "Here" as in offering up a candidate pledging to rise above the old partisan strife, to put a competent, new energy into governance, and to create a new coalition to solve America's various problems. Jimmy Carter, in 1976, was such a candidate; a young governor from the New South, the unknown, non-establishment Carter came on the stage after the fall of a corrupt Republican administration and a triumphal Democratic Party victory in Congress two years before. Carter, too, got points for authenticity (even if his style was far inferior to Obama's), and his upstart victory, first in the Iowa caucuses (he actually finished second behind "non-committed"), then ultimately over incumbent President Ford in the general election, seemed a promise of a new era being born with a strong majority party to support him in Congress. As with today, Carter promised a new start in international affairs, making America's foreign policy more driven by human rights concerns than real politik; and ridding America's political life of the corruption and lies that had beset its predecessors.
But obviously all of this came to naught. The seeming crash of the Republican Party in the off-year, post-Watergate elections of 1974, proved the New Deal coalition's last hurrah. The true harbinger of things to come was the Reagan insurgency against Ford in the Republican primaries. 1978 brought the anti-tax revolt in California in Proposition 13, and further economic ills, driven in part by rising fuel prices, inflation, and slow economic growth, helping to pave the way for the anti-tax, anti-domestic spending, anti-government regulation, and anti-Democratic and anti-human rights based foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. Instead of a Democratic rebirth, a new conservative Republican coalition was just beginning.
In 1992, after 12 years of Republican presidential rule, the election of another young governor of the New South again appeared to offer a liberal renewal dressed in the garb of a New Democratic Party, less ideological than that of its much maligned liberal forefathers (see McGovern, George and Mondale, Walter), which instead of raising taxes would cut them for the "middle class", and instead of increasing the size of government, would "end welfare as we know it". The anti-incumbent blowing of the wind was further enhanced by the emergence of Ross Perot's independent campaign for president, which seemed to further augment the fact that a New Age of Reform was upon us.
But this was not to be either, as a conservative Republican tidal wave swept away 40 years of Democratic House rule in 1994 and launched a new era of still more regressive politics, bearing its ultimate fruit in 2000 when the Bush restoration was accomplished. And again, after years of corruption and incompetence, Democrats returned to Congressional power in the off-year elections of 2006.
So you'll understand if by these similarities I am a bit skeptical that another post-ideological Democrat is going to inaugurate a new era that dramatically reshapes American politics.
Having said all this, it should be noted that some things about this year, about this candidate, are remarkably different.
Unlike 1976 and 1992, the Republican opposition Obama faces is nearing the end of a generation of control. And unlike either of those years, Obama's election promises to transcend perhaps the deepest divide of all in American politics--race. Also, unlike Carter, Obama is charismatic; unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't carry a range of generational and moral baggage.
As for Obama's lack of apparent ideological purpose, there is a sense in which Obama should be considered the most progressive candidate in the race. Obama is the most progressive candidate, in the most literal and far-reaching sense of that word, among the offerings Democrats or Republicans will have to consider at least this year. By that I mean Obama is the candidate who least appeals to a better age of yesteryear. Even Edwards--who delivered a great speech last night as well--seems to be appealing in his standard stump speeches to an America of yesteryear when workers were treated better and income and opportunity was more equal. Hillary, naturally, is appealing to a more recent past and name, attempting as George W. Bush before her, to draw capital from and restore another president's legacy. The Republican candidates, meanwhile, are also clearly speaking to old scripts, trying to resurrect the images and coalitions of yester-decades's conservative party.
For these reasons, Obama makes me feel like there really is something genuinely new in the air; that American politics is at an important pivotal time in its history afterwhich an Obama election and administration would forever alter the nation's character and outlook.
I've been blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to principle. I have heard Bill Clinton speak of a place called Hope, and listened to John Edwards bravely channel the populism that American politics so often suppresses. Some of those politicians mirrored my beliefs better than Obama does. Some of their speeches were more declarative and immediate in their passion. But none achieve quite what Obama, at his best, creates.
Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
I continue to have reservations. As E.J. Dionne noted this morning about the campaign:
The Republican race has highlighted ideological divisions within the party -- particularly on taxes, immigration and, to some extent, abortion. By contrast, the Democratic argument has been remarkably free of ideology. Democrats have battled more about how to get things done than about what to do, more about style than content.
I suspect Dionne thinks being "remarkably free of ideology" is good for Obama and the Democrats. I'm not so sure. While I've no doubt Obama's calls for bipartisanship are genuine, when you have a candidate from the other party saying things like this, you can be sure that partisanship, and the ideology that underlies many of our political disputes, is still hanging around, demanding an ideologically valid response. Furthermore, while Huckabee's victory last night seemed less impactful than Obama's, the people who drove his vote totals are people with a cohesive, if frightening, world view. Can Democrats with more of a free-floating, post-modern, post-partisan, non-ideological world view win the war, much less the short term battle, against an opposition more passionate about its ideas than its candidates and their oratory?
Some of my caution is driven by the thought that we've been here before. "Here" as in offering up a candidate pledging to rise above the old partisan strife, to put a competent, new energy into governance, and to create a new coalition to solve America's various problems. Jimmy Carter, in 1976, was such a candidate; a young governor from the New South, the unknown, non-establishment Carter came on the stage after the fall of a corrupt Republican administration and a triumphal Democratic Party victory in Congress two years before. Carter, too, got points for authenticity (even if his style was far inferior to Obama's), and his upstart victory, first in the Iowa caucuses (he actually finished second behind "non-committed"), then ultimately over incumbent President Ford in the general election, seemed a promise of a new era being born with a strong majority party to support him in Congress. As with today, Carter promised a new start in international affairs, making America's foreign policy more driven by human rights concerns than real politik; and ridding America's political life of the corruption and lies that had beset its predecessors.
But obviously all of this came to naught. The seeming crash of the Republican Party in the off-year, post-Watergate elections of 1974, proved the New Deal coalition's last hurrah. The true harbinger of things to come was the Reagan insurgency against Ford in the Republican primaries. 1978 brought the anti-tax revolt in California in Proposition 13, and further economic ills, driven in part by rising fuel prices, inflation, and slow economic growth, helping to pave the way for the anti-tax, anti-domestic spending, anti-government regulation, and anti-Democratic and anti-human rights based foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. Instead of a Democratic rebirth, a new conservative Republican coalition was just beginning.
In 1992, after 12 years of Republican presidential rule, the election of another young governor of the New South again appeared to offer a liberal renewal dressed in the garb of a New Democratic Party, less ideological than that of its much maligned liberal forefathers (see McGovern, George and Mondale, Walter), which instead of raising taxes would cut them for the "middle class", and instead of increasing the size of government, would "end welfare as we know it". The anti-incumbent blowing of the wind was further enhanced by the emergence of Ross Perot's independent campaign for president, which seemed to further augment the fact that a New Age of Reform was upon us.
But this was not to be either, as a conservative Republican tidal wave swept away 40 years of Democratic House rule in 1994 and launched a new era of still more regressive politics, bearing its ultimate fruit in 2000 when the Bush restoration was accomplished. And again, after years of corruption and incompetence, Democrats returned to Congressional power in the off-year elections of 2006.
So you'll understand if by these similarities I am a bit skeptical that another post-ideological Democrat is going to inaugurate a new era that dramatically reshapes American politics.
Having said all this, it should be noted that some things about this year, about this candidate, are remarkably different.
Unlike 1976 and 1992, the Republican opposition Obama faces is nearing the end of a generation of control. And unlike either of those years, Obama's election promises to transcend perhaps the deepest divide of all in American politics--race. Also, unlike Carter, Obama is charismatic; unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't carry a range of generational and moral baggage.
As for Obama's lack of apparent ideological purpose, there is a sense in which Obama should be considered the most progressive candidate in the race. Obama is the most progressive candidate, in the most literal and far-reaching sense of that word, among the offerings Democrats or Republicans will have to consider at least this year. By that I mean Obama is the candidate who least appeals to a better age of yesteryear. Even Edwards--who delivered a great speech last night as well--seems to be appealing in his standard stump speeches to an America of yesteryear when workers were treated better and income and opportunity was more equal. Hillary, naturally, is appealing to a more recent past and name, attempting as George W. Bush before her, to draw capital from and restore another president's legacy. The Republican candidates, meanwhile, are also clearly speaking to old scripts, trying to resurrect the images and coalitions of yester-decades's conservative party.
For these reasons, Obama makes me feel like there really is something genuinely new in the air; that American politics is at an important pivotal time in its history afterwhich an Obama election and administration would forever alter the nation's character and outlook.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Caucus Update II
With 50% of precincts reporting, CNN is projecting that the University of Kansas will beat the Virginia Tech Hockie's in this year's Orange Bowl college football extravaganza. At the half, KU 17, VT 7.
Oh yeah, Obama winning Iowa by 7%, Edwards and Clinton tied for second with 30% of the vote. And on the GOP side, Pastor Huckabee trounces Mitt Romney 34% to 25%.
I thought David Gergen on CNN made the poignant, if not already well known, point when he noted that Obama won in a state that is 95% White. Bill Bennett later corrected Gergen in saying the state is actually 97% White.
Younger voters, age 17-24, broke over-whelmingly for Obama, but I look forward to seeing (a) what the distribution of participants was by age and (b) how Obama did among older voters, although he apparently did well enough.
With only five days to go before NH, Obama has an excellent chance of adding more delegates to his column.
With Huckabee trouncing Romney, I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain, and maybe even Thompson, pull even or ahead of Romney in NH. McCain is already tied from the last polls I've seen. With a modest third place finish in Iowa, Thompson might live to fight another day.
Oh yeah, Obama winning Iowa by 7%, Edwards and Clinton tied for second with 30% of the vote. And on the GOP side, Pastor Huckabee trounces Mitt Romney 34% to 25%.
I thought David Gergen on CNN made the poignant, if not already well known, point when he noted that Obama won in a state that is 95% White. Bill Bennett later corrected Gergen in saying the state is actually 97% White.
Younger voters, age 17-24, broke over-whelmingly for Obama, but I look forward to seeing (a) what the distribution of participants was by age and (b) how Obama did among older voters, although he apparently did well enough.
With only five days to go before NH, Obama has an excellent chance of adding more delegates to his column.
With Huckabee trouncing Romney, I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain, and maybe even Thompson, pull even or ahead of Romney in NH. McCain is already tied from the last polls I've seen. With a modest third place finish in Iowa, Thompson might live to fight another day.
Caucus Update
I hadn't watched Hardball in quite a while. It hasn't aged well. Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan and Howard Fineman are even more of a Gong Show than I remembered.
Neglected Issues, Neglected Candidates
Dana Goldstein from the American Prospect has a column highlighting some issues and candidates who haven't gotten much attention from the Village Press.
I was particularly pleased to see this item on criminal justice and The War on Drugs:
-----------------
Criminal Justice, Prison Reform, and the Drug War
Mention these issues and you risk sounding more like a stoner college activist than a reasoned progressive adult. But a look at the numbers of our criminal justice system is sobering: Our prisons suck up $40 billion annually and the U.S. drug war costs approximately $20 billion each year. Over half of American inmates are incarcerated on non-violent drug charges. A young black man is more likely to have been in prison than to have graduated from college. And lest you believe our harsh system is stamping out crime, two-thirds of prisoners are eventually re-arrested. All of this is not to mention the inhumane conditions behind bars, including the high incidence of sexual assault and other violent crimes.
Dennis Kucinich is undoubtedly the only member of Congress to devote a section of his website to the "link between animal cruelty and violence against humans." But if you can stop snickering at his earnestness, big ears, and funny voice, you'll find he's right on target when it comes to reforming criminal justice. Kucinich loudly opposes a death penalty that isolates the United States from its developed-world peers and disproportionately targets the poor and the non-white. He tackles police brutality head on and opposes prison terms for nonviolence drug offenders, preferring rehabilitative treatment. He writes on his website:
Only the best and brightest should wear badges and carry guns. There are many, many great law enforcement officers, but low pay and terrible working conditions allow some to slip into the long blue line that should not be there. For example, the 'War on Drugs' has made many in the black community feel as though they live in an occupied territory. Greater minority representation on police forces would help, but a new national policy on nonviolent drug users would also help tremendously.
Progressive crime reform is a tough sell for mainstream candidates. Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty, and although large majorities of Americans would like to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, being "tough on crime" and "tough on drugs" are perennially winning stances in American elections. Just look at Rudy Giuliani.
A good place to start moving in a more reasoned direction could be for at least one brave front-runner to note the absurdity that, under our current federal laws, one minor drug offense can cost a student federal financial aid forever. And of course, such restrictions are biased against less privileged college students with fewer legal recourses. Discussion of substance abuse should also move out from under the crime umbrella and into our robust debate on universal health care. The amount of money we're spending incarcerating non-violent criminals with drug problems speaks for itself. All Americans deserve medical and psychological support in kicking an addiction.
------------
I ventured over to Dennis Kucinich's website and found this further statement about the Drug War:
-------------
Drug War
My position on this issue is to face it directly, though other politicians run away from it.
I agree with the many law enforcement officials and experts in the field that we must find a new way of dealing with illegal drugs.
I have studied the issue for decades and recognize that our "War on Drugs" has failed.
In fact, because our War on Drugs drives up the price, it encourages violence.
Prohibition simply doesn't work. It only creates thousands and thousands of Al Capones.
Prison should be for people who hurt other people, not themselves. We don't jail people for merely drinking. We jail people when they drink and drive or hurt another human.
Drug use can and should be reduced. But a continuation of our current War on Drugs will not do it. Instead, the current policies have only helped increase drug use and foster violence across the country. California was able to cut teenage tobacco use in half with a straightforward ad campaign that was financed by a tax on cigarettes. Not a shot was fired.
The supporters of the drug war have only one solution to this debacle -- more money for law enforcement, more people, more power, more prisons -- with no end in sight. Of course, these happy drug warriors who justify their living hunting down drug users come on TV and promise us that they see light at the end of the tunnel. They promised us a drug-free America by 1995, and instead we see new and more exotic drugs constantly being added to the mix.
I know that proponents of the Drug War will say that I am pro-drugs. I am not. As mayor of Cleveland, I saw first-hand the damage done by addiction to drugs, including alcohol. I also witnessed that the wasted resources and collateral damage did not promote a safe society. It is unconscionable that only one bed exists for every ten people that apply for drug treatment. Our priorities and our resources are being put in the wrong place. The primary job of law enforcement should be protecting our country and its citizens -- not protecting people from themselves.
The shredding of our rights to privacy and property promoted by the Drug War is inconsistent with a free society. Criminalization of private or self-destructive behavior is not acceptable in a free nation.
The racism evident in the Drug War, and the clearly preferential treatment for offenders with connections, undermine our concept of a just society. Draconian prison sentences that dwarf those for violent crimes, like murder and rape, destroy respect for our laws.
The rampant corruption of the criminal justice system spawned by the $400 billion-a-year black market could be ended with the stroke of a pen. So also would be the wholesale devastation we have brought to other countries. Countries like Colombia, where we send billions of dollars of military aid and spray hundreds of thousands of acres of populated land with dangerous herbicides in a country with nearly a million displaced people. And each military campaign or spraying is like squeezing a balloon; production merely shifts to another site or goes into a temporary hiatus.
Drug addiction is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system. Setting up a national commission of medical professionals to develop an intelligent program, based on the experience of drug experts from around the world, would be a first step. Allowing doctors to treat drug addiction humanely and intelligently, including the prescription of maintenance doses, would allow us to quickly eliminate most of the black market and much of the damage to a safe, free, and just America.
It is time for an honest dialogue on this issue.
Time to stop the documented lies, halftruths, and propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to face the facts.
------------
I was particularly pleased to see this item on criminal justice and The War on Drugs:
-----------------
Criminal Justice, Prison Reform, and the Drug War
Mention these issues and you risk sounding more like a stoner college activist than a reasoned progressive adult. But a look at the numbers of our criminal justice system is sobering: Our prisons suck up $40 billion annually and the U.S. drug war costs approximately $20 billion each year. Over half of American inmates are incarcerated on non-violent drug charges. A young black man is more likely to have been in prison than to have graduated from college. And lest you believe our harsh system is stamping out crime, two-thirds of prisoners are eventually re-arrested. All of this is not to mention the inhumane conditions behind bars, including the high incidence of sexual assault and other violent crimes.
Dennis Kucinich is undoubtedly the only member of Congress to devote a section of his website to the "link between animal cruelty and violence against humans." But if you can stop snickering at his earnestness, big ears, and funny voice, you'll find he's right on target when it comes to reforming criminal justice. Kucinich loudly opposes a death penalty that isolates the United States from its developed-world peers and disproportionately targets the poor and the non-white. He tackles police brutality head on and opposes prison terms for nonviolence drug offenders, preferring rehabilitative treatment. He writes on his website:
Only the best and brightest should wear badges and carry guns. There are many, many great law enforcement officers, but low pay and terrible working conditions allow some to slip into the long blue line that should not be there. For example, the 'War on Drugs' has made many in the black community feel as though they live in an occupied territory. Greater minority representation on police forces would help, but a new national policy on nonviolent drug users would also help tremendously.
Progressive crime reform is a tough sell for mainstream candidates. Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty, and although large majorities of Americans would like to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, being "tough on crime" and "tough on drugs" are perennially winning stances in American elections. Just look at Rudy Giuliani.
A good place to start moving in a more reasoned direction could be for at least one brave front-runner to note the absurdity that, under our current federal laws, one minor drug offense can cost a student federal financial aid forever. And of course, such restrictions are biased against less privileged college students with fewer legal recourses. Discussion of substance abuse should also move out from under the crime umbrella and into our robust debate on universal health care. The amount of money we're spending incarcerating non-violent criminals with drug problems speaks for itself. All Americans deserve medical and psychological support in kicking an addiction.
------------
I ventured over to Dennis Kucinich's website and found this further statement about the Drug War:
-------------
Drug War
My position on this issue is to face it directly, though other politicians run away from it.
I agree with the many law enforcement officials and experts in the field that we must find a new way of dealing with illegal drugs.
I have studied the issue for decades and recognize that our "War on Drugs" has failed.
In fact, because our War on Drugs drives up the price, it encourages violence.
Prohibition simply doesn't work. It only creates thousands and thousands of Al Capones.
Prison should be for people who hurt other people, not themselves. We don't jail people for merely drinking. We jail people when they drink and drive or hurt another human.
Drug use can and should be reduced. But a continuation of our current War on Drugs will not do it. Instead, the current policies have only helped increase drug use and foster violence across the country. California was able to cut teenage tobacco use in half with a straightforward ad campaign that was financed by a tax on cigarettes. Not a shot was fired.
The supporters of the drug war have only one solution to this debacle -- more money for law enforcement, more people, more power, more prisons -- with no end in sight. Of course, these happy drug warriors who justify their living hunting down drug users come on TV and promise us that they see light at the end of the tunnel. They promised us a drug-free America by 1995, and instead we see new and more exotic drugs constantly being added to the mix.
I know that proponents of the Drug War will say that I am pro-drugs. I am not. As mayor of Cleveland, I saw first-hand the damage done by addiction to drugs, including alcohol. I also witnessed that the wasted resources and collateral damage did not promote a safe society. It is unconscionable that only one bed exists for every ten people that apply for drug treatment. Our priorities and our resources are being put in the wrong place. The primary job of law enforcement should be protecting our country and its citizens -- not protecting people from themselves.
The shredding of our rights to privacy and property promoted by the Drug War is inconsistent with a free society. Criminalization of private or self-destructive behavior is not acceptable in a free nation.
The racism evident in the Drug War, and the clearly preferential treatment for offenders with connections, undermine our concept of a just society. Draconian prison sentences that dwarf those for violent crimes, like murder and rape, destroy respect for our laws.
The rampant corruption of the criminal justice system spawned by the $400 billion-a-year black market could be ended with the stroke of a pen. So also would be the wholesale devastation we have brought to other countries. Countries like Colombia, where we send billions of dollars of military aid and spray hundreds of thousands of acres of populated land with dangerous herbicides in a country with nearly a million displaced people. And each military campaign or spraying is like squeezing a balloon; production merely shifts to another site or goes into a temporary hiatus.
Drug addiction is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system. Setting up a national commission of medical professionals to develop an intelligent program, based on the experience of drug experts from around the world, would be a first step. Allowing doctors to treat drug addiction humanely and intelligently, including the prescription of maintenance doses, would allow us to quickly eliminate most of the black market and much of the damage to a safe, free, and just America.
It is time for an honest dialogue on this issue.
Time to stop the documented lies, halftruths, and propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to face the facts.
------------
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Reconsidering
I've seen this Obama statement about the '00 and '04 elections bandied about on various blogs with the assertion that Obama is "slamming" Gore and Kerry for alienating half the country and for being divisive.
But I don't necessarily get that from this one statement that's been the object of so much attention. Little context for the statement is provided, much too little to infer that Obama is "slamming" Gore and Kerry for being "divisive" or "polarizing".
Truth is, I'm not sure what Obama is referring to here at all, beyond his evident perception that in some polls Gore and Kerry were opposed by up to half of the sample population at any given moment. And given the little context that's provided, it isn't immediately clear who Obama is blaming for that situation, if anyone.
That being said, as the election season draws near, I am having second thoughts about who I'd like to see win this thing. Maybe my new hesitation stems from ideas about what the media narrative would be after an Obama (or Clinton) win in Iowa. While there's a certain opportunism and superficiality about the importance such a concern should have in a presidential race, particularly at the nominating stage, the fact that it has surfaced for at least some of us is an indication, however rough, that too little genuinely bold and unorthodox things are being said in this campaign.
This isn't to say that Edwards or anyone else running is a suitable alternative. And I still think that, despite the narrative that is being played out in the media, Obama would be (among the Democrats at least) the most dramatic break with the past on the issues that matter most; but my reasons for believing that are dwindling.
But I don't necessarily get that from this one statement that's been the object of so much attention. Little context for the statement is provided, much too little to infer that Obama is "slamming" Gore and Kerry for being "divisive" or "polarizing".
Truth is, I'm not sure what Obama is referring to here at all, beyond his evident perception that in some polls Gore and Kerry were opposed by up to half of the sample population at any given moment. And given the little context that's provided, it isn't immediately clear who Obama is blaming for that situation, if anyone.
That being said, as the election season draws near, I am having second thoughts about who I'd like to see win this thing. Maybe my new hesitation stems from ideas about what the media narrative would be after an Obama (or Clinton) win in Iowa. While there's a certain opportunism and superficiality about the importance such a concern should have in a presidential race, particularly at the nominating stage, the fact that it has surfaced for at least some of us is an indication, however rough, that too little genuinely bold and unorthodox things are being said in this campaign.
This isn't to say that Edwards or anyone else running is a suitable alternative. And I still think that, despite the narrative that is being played out in the media, Obama would be (among the Democrats at least) the most dramatic break with the past on the issues that matter most; but my reasons for believing that are dwindling.
Their Mothers Must Be So Proud
As the Iowa vote looms the leading Democratic contenders are emphasizing Iraq, health care, and the economy.
Meanwhile, the leading candidates of the Know-Nothing Party in Iowa are united in carrying the banner of anti-Hispanic nativism:
-----------------
The imagery of the mailings is designed to pack a wallop: a Mexican flag fluttering above the Stars and Stripes, the Statue of Liberty presiding over a "Welcome Illegal Aliens" doormat, a Social Security card emblazoned with the name "Juan Doe," a U.S. passport proclaiming, "Only one candidate has a plan to STAMP out illegal immigration."
As Republican presidential candidates troll for votes, they have flooded mailboxes in Iowa and New Hampshire with such loaded images. Their campaigns have filled the airwaves, packed their Web sites and taunted their adversaries, proclaiming their concern over porous borders and accusing opponents of insufficient vigilance.
(snip)
Huckabee's "Secure America" plan twins a similar crackdown with a proposal to give all illegal immigrants 120 days to register with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and to leave the country. Those who register would face no penalty if they later applied to immigrate or visit. Those who do not "will be, when caught, barred from future reentry" for a decade, Huckabee's plan states.
Huckabee proved so mindful of the issue that he used last week's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto to argue for stronger border controls, "to make sure if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."
Romney would cut federal funds to any city that refuses to comply with federal immigration laws or to cooperate with a crackdown. Giuliani would issue all noncitizen workers and students a single, tamper-proof biometric identity card and create a single database to track all noncitizens in the country.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), who joined the presidential campaign solely to pursue his hard-line agenda on illegal immigration, was so comfortable with the direction that his fellow GOP candidates were taking that he dropped out of the race last month and pronounced the field "Tancredo-ized."
(snip)
Latino and other minority groups see racial codes in many of the words the Republican candidates have used -- for instance, "illegals" rather than "illegal immigrants." And hovering around the campaigns are far more strident figures and organizations. Immigration groups were taken aback when Huckabee accepted the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the border-security Minuteman Project, calling it "providential."
Mothers Against Illegal Aliens recently posted a plea for people to bring their own sheets and utensils to hotels and restaurants because "the person who cooked your meal or made your bed may very well be the one who picked your fruit and vegetables," suggesting that immigrants are spreading disease.
------------------------
Just kinda warms your heart, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, the leading candidates of the Know-Nothing Party in Iowa are united in carrying the banner of anti-Hispanic nativism:
-----------------
The imagery of the mailings is designed to pack a wallop: a Mexican flag fluttering above the Stars and Stripes, the Statue of Liberty presiding over a "Welcome Illegal Aliens" doormat, a Social Security card emblazoned with the name "Juan Doe," a U.S. passport proclaiming, "Only one candidate has a plan to STAMP out illegal immigration."
As Republican presidential candidates troll for votes, they have flooded mailboxes in Iowa and New Hampshire with such loaded images. Their campaigns have filled the airwaves, packed their Web sites and taunted their adversaries, proclaiming their concern over porous borders and accusing opponents of insufficient vigilance.
(snip)
Huckabee's "Secure America" plan twins a similar crackdown with a proposal to give all illegal immigrants 120 days to register with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and to leave the country. Those who register would face no penalty if they later applied to immigrate or visit. Those who do not "will be, when caught, barred from future reentry" for a decade, Huckabee's plan states.
Huckabee proved so mindful of the issue that he used last week's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto to argue for stronger border controls, "to make sure if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country."
Romney would cut federal funds to any city that refuses to comply with federal immigration laws or to cooperate with a crackdown. Giuliani would issue all noncitizen workers and students a single, tamper-proof biometric identity card and create a single database to track all noncitizens in the country.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), who joined the presidential campaign solely to pursue his hard-line agenda on illegal immigration, was so comfortable with the direction that his fellow GOP candidates were taking that he dropped out of the race last month and pronounced the field "Tancredo-ized."
(snip)
Latino and other minority groups see racial codes in many of the words the Republican candidates have used -- for instance, "illegals" rather than "illegal immigrants." And hovering around the campaigns are far more strident figures and organizations. Immigration groups were taken aback when Huckabee accepted the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the border-security Minuteman Project, calling it "providential."
Mothers Against Illegal Aliens recently posted a plea for people to bring their own sheets and utensils to hotels and restaurants because "the person who cooked your meal or made your bed may very well be the one who picked your fruit and vegetables," suggesting that immigrants are spreading disease.
------------------------
Just kinda warms your heart, doesn't it?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
New Year
I've been following politics for 20 years and I can't remember a time when anyone in the Republican orbit talked like this:
---------------
But [Romney's] biggest problem is a failure of imagination. Market research is a snapshot of the past. With his data-set mentality, Romney has chosen to model himself on a version of Republicanism that is receding into memory. As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition.
That coalition had its day, but it is shrinking now. The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government.
If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
------------------------
Some Republicans were pretty dispirited in the waning days of the 1992 election as it was becoming clear that George H.W. Bush would lose; even a lot of the press during that summer and fall seemed to be calling for a new script. There was random talk of the problems the social conservative wing of the GOP posed for the Party, etc.
But this seems different.
---------------
But [Romney's] biggest problem is a failure of imagination. Market research is a snapshot of the past. With his data-set mentality, Romney has chosen to model himself on a version of Republicanism that is receding into memory. As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition.
That coalition had its day, but it is shrinking now. The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government.
If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
------------------------
Some Republicans were pretty dispirited in the waning days of the 1992 election as it was becoming clear that George H.W. Bush would lose; even a lot of the press during that summer and fall seemed to be calling for a new script. There was random talk of the problems the social conservative wing of the GOP posed for the Party, etc.
But this seems different.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Away
Dear Bulworth readers:
I'll be hanging out over at No More Mister Nice Blog's pad until about New Year's. Come over for some fine reading and get your New Year's off to a good blogging start.
Senator Jay Billington Bulworth
I'll be hanging out over at No More Mister Nice Blog's pad until about New Year's. Come over for some fine reading and get your New Year's off to a good blogging start.
Senator Jay Billington Bulworth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)