I was beginning to reconsider my continued support for Democrats to shut-out Fox News from hosting any of its debates. Why not brave the unfriendly audience, me was starting to think?
Ah. But then the Republican "news" channel reminds me yet again of why they are a disease on the American body politic:
----
The article contains one quote after the next from right-wing polemicists accusing Obama of being unpatriotic. Josh Marshall noted last night that the article prominently features disgraced GOP operative Roger Stone as one of the central accusers, but just as bad, if not worse, it then goes on to quote this repulsive dialogue from Fox News' Fox and Friends:
"First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems. Wait until you hear what the White House hopeful didn't do during the singing of the national anthem," said Steve Doocy, co-host of "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel.
"He felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is," former radio host Mark Williams said on Fox.
This is a "news article." And Pickler and AP wrote it by sitting in front of Fox News, writing down the most baseless and reckless accusations from the worst morons, and then turning it into a "news story" along the lines of: "Conservatives accuse Obama of X." That's how Drudge rules their world. He posts some completely irresponsible and scurrilous rumor; they then write a news story about how the rumors are circulating, and it then becomes mainstreamed.
Thus: some attention-seeking right-wing talk radio host on Fox News labels Obama a "domestic insurgent" and the Fox host suggests Obama is unpatriotic. Pickler writes it all down, gets some confirming quotes from GOP operatives, and then files a "news article" based on it. And now MSNBC, on its front page, is heralding the vital question: "Is he exposed?" For all the attention the dubious NYT story about McCain received, those tactics, and far worse, are par for the course in how "reporters" like Pickler demonize Democratic candidates in every national election. That a Democratic candidate is accused of being an unpatriotic subversive Terrorist by Fox News and the Roger Stones of the world isn't exactly "news."
---
This is what an anti-hope message looks like. While I'm glad that Obama is shaping up to be the nominee, you can bet that the type of stuff the right-wing blowhards throw at him will be this and much, much worse. One can only hope that voters will continue to dismiss this garbage.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Debate in Austin
Random thoughts--
I wonder what a debate without a crowd would sound like, how much more substantive and time-efficient it would be? I found the cheering interruptions distracting.
I only watched the first 90 minutes of it, so I missed what was apparently Hillary's best moment in the closing. Good for her, if Marc Ambinder's take is a reasonable proximity to her perspective and intentions.
The first half of the 90 minutes I thought Obama appeared somewhat tired, not aggressive, and his voice hoarse. I thought Hillary had a stronger first half here, but I am one who finds Obama's debate "pauses" as some observers refer to them, to be a strength. He comes off genuine, non-programmed, thoughtful. And while I hate to attach any meaning to facial expressions and other asthetic concerns, I much prefer Obama's "straight face" to Hillary's weird smirk or smile or whatever it is she presents. Obama has a great poker face, and comes across tough and knowledgeable without allowing himself to get unnecessarily provoked. I think he will handle McCain OK.
The second half got more testy, but Obama appeared to come back after the first break as if he had been injected with assertiveness juice, as he was much more engaged. Hillary's "xerox" line made her look small, as did the whole exchange on the plagiarism charge. And her reference to the Texas representative who got stumped by Chris Matthews as to Obama's accomplishments also seemed, as Obama referred to it as, another contribution to "silly season". It was beneath her.
The first question out of the box delt with Cuba, and here, while I thought there was much more Obama could have said, his response was far and away superior to that of Clinton's, which sounded like Leave No Exile Behind boilerplate. Obama could have also said something along the lines of "China and Saudia Arabia aren't democracies and we talk to them, irregardless of their human rights records; Cuba's really no different. Unless there is some very clear, very serious strategic concerns separating Cuba from other non-democratic countries (and I don't see how there would be), our approach to its leadership should be roughly consistent with how we deal with other countries who don't share all our values."
But Obama's response was, nonetheless, a meaningful "change" from what Clinton offers on this count, as is his recognition of the need to reorient America's approach to the world and the need to begin treating other countries more respectfully rather than as disobedient children or poor relations.
On the economy, I thought Hillary responded well here, particularly to what she would do differently from Obama "from day one". Her emphasis on the country's mortgage crisis was also skillfully played, as well as prescient given the headline story in today's NYT. She also did well to emphasize the connection between her own, fairly aggressive policy prescription for the mortgage crisis to what many in the financial world, and to a lesser extent within the administration itself, appear to be coming around to. Paul Krugman also raises an important point by emphasizing the economic straights that may confront the next president.
Obama comes off less impressive here. The line about ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs over seas sounds little better than the standard line about ending waste and abuse in government. I'm left wondering--how many jobs are at stake here? How meaningful would such a change in tax policy be?
I would have appreciated some more challenging follow up by the debate panel, particularly when Hillary stated that $5 billion spent on "green (environmental-like) jobs" would put "hundreds of thousands to work". I don't know what she meant here or how the money would translate into so many jobs, but the debate panel didn't respond to it.
I did appreciate that the debate panel didn't let Obama or Hillary off with generic comments about the need for "comprehensive" immigration reform. They made the two talk about what changes if any should be made in any border fence program or border security. I don't happen to care all that much about immigration "reform", but I know many do, and even with McCain as the GOP nominee, the issue will surface in some way and the Dem nominee will have to address it in ways that go beyond the need to find a path to citizenship for the 12 million, give or take, illegal immigrants in the country. And along that line, why does Obama think hefty fines for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship are a good idea? It would seem to put an added incentive for undocumented workers to stay underground, and would impose considerable hardships on those workers who did apply for citizenship, as they are likely to be among the more economically distressed.
The health care skirmish I thought came out to about a draw. Hillary responded competently to Obama's argument about the mandate.
Overall, I am more impressed by Obama's presentation and debating approach then some--even among his supporters--are. And where Hillary comes across as competent and "ready", I can see why she has a reputation for appearing "chilly" in her on stage persona. I don't know if she is over-compensating for some perceived defect, or if this is her natural way of being.
I wonder what a debate without a crowd would sound like, how much more substantive and time-efficient it would be? I found the cheering interruptions distracting.
I only watched the first 90 minutes of it, so I missed what was apparently Hillary's best moment in the closing. Good for her, if Marc Ambinder's take is a reasonable proximity to her perspective and intentions.
The first half of the 90 minutes I thought Obama appeared somewhat tired, not aggressive, and his voice hoarse. I thought Hillary had a stronger first half here, but I am one who finds Obama's debate "pauses" as some observers refer to them, to be a strength. He comes off genuine, non-programmed, thoughtful. And while I hate to attach any meaning to facial expressions and other asthetic concerns, I much prefer Obama's "straight face" to Hillary's weird smirk or smile or whatever it is she presents. Obama has a great poker face, and comes across tough and knowledgeable without allowing himself to get unnecessarily provoked. I think he will handle McCain OK.
The second half got more testy, but Obama appeared to come back after the first break as if he had been injected with assertiveness juice, as he was much more engaged. Hillary's "xerox" line made her look small, as did the whole exchange on the plagiarism charge. And her reference to the Texas representative who got stumped by Chris Matthews as to Obama's accomplishments also seemed, as Obama referred to it as, another contribution to "silly season". It was beneath her.
The first question out of the box delt with Cuba, and here, while I thought there was much more Obama could have said, his response was far and away superior to that of Clinton's, which sounded like Leave No Exile Behind boilerplate. Obama could have also said something along the lines of "China and Saudia Arabia aren't democracies and we talk to them, irregardless of their human rights records; Cuba's really no different. Unless there is some very clear, very serious strategic concerns separating Cuba from other non-democratic countries (and I don't see how there would be), our approach to its leadership should be roughly consistent with how we deal with other countries who don't share all our values."
But Obama's response was, nonetheless, a meaningful "change" from what Clinton offers on this count, as is his recognition of the need to reorient America's approach to the world and the need to begin treating other countries more respectfully rather than as disobedient children or poor relations.
On the economy, I thought Hillary responded well here, particularly to what she would do differently from Obama "from day one". Her emphasis on the country's mortgage crisis was also skillfully played, as well as prescient given the headline story in today's NYT. She also did well to emphasize the connection between her own, fairly aggressive policy prescription for the mortgage crisis to what many in the financial world, and to a lesser extent within the administration itself, appear to be coming around to. Paul Krugman also raises an important point by emphasizing the economic straights that may confront the next president.
Obama comes off less impressive here. The line about ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs over seas sounds little better than the standard line about ending waste and abuse in government. I'm left wondering--how many jobs are at stake here? How meaningful would such a change in tax policy be?
I would have appreciated some more challenging follow up by the debate panel, particularly when Hillary stated that $5 billion spent on "green (environmental-like) jobs" would put "hundreds of thousands to work". I don't know what she meant here or how the money would translate into so many jobs, but the debate panel didn't respond to it.
I did appreciate that the debate panel didn't let Obama or Hillary off with generic comments about the need for "comprehensive" immigration reform. They made the two talk about what changes if any should be made in any border fence program or border security. I don't happen to care all that much about immigration "reform", but I know many do, and even with McCain as the GOP nominee, the issue will surface in some way and the Dem nominee will have to address it in ways that go beyond the need to find a path to citizenship for the 12 million, give or take, illegal immigrants in the country. And along that line, why does Obama think hefty fines for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship are a good idea? It would seem to put an added incentive for undocumented workers to stay underground, and would impose considerable hardships on those workers who did apply for citizenship, as they are likely to be among the more economically distressed.
The health care skirmish I thought came out to about a draw. Hillary responded competently to Obama's argument about the mandate.
Overall, I am more impressed by Obama's presentation and debating approach then some--even among his supporters--are. And where Hillary comes across as competent and "ready", I can see why she has a reputation for appearing "chilly" in her on stage persona. I don't know if she is over-compensating for some perceived defect, or if this is her natural way of being.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Speeches vs. Solutions
I really don't understand the basis of this critique by Hillary:
Her candidacy on the line, Clinton signaled that her central "experience" argument would remain unchanged. "It is time that we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions"...
But as this is still the campaign, and not the governing stage, than, well, all we have to really go on is words. If Hillary really means that we shouldn't pay attention to the candidates' words, then we shouldn't pay much attention to her ads, debate performances, or non-concession concession speeches either.
If Hillary means to contrast her experience to his, than she has to point to any "good works" she can claim that Obama is lacking. But as I've said before, and as Ezra also suggests, neither Hillary's or Obama's U.S. Senate stays has been all that notable. Hillary has spent most of hers voting for a war against Iraq and a war-like resolution against Iran, while Obama has spent half of his Senate term campaigning for president.
Her candidacy on the line, Clinton signaled that her central "experience" argument would remain unchanged. "It is time that we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions"...
But as this is still the campaign, and not the governing stage, than, well, all we have to really go on is words. If Hillary really means that we shouldn't pay attention to the candidates' words, then we shouldn't pay much attention to her ads, debate performances, or non-concession concession speeches either.
If Hillary means to contrast her experience to his, than she has to point to any "good works" she can claim that Obama is lacking. But as I've said before, and as Ezra also suggests, neither Hillary's or Obama's U.S. Senate stays has been all that notable. Hillary has spent most of hers voting for a war against Iraq and a war-like resolution against Iran, while Obama has spent half of his Senate term campaigning for president.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Miscellaneous Election Thoughts
Maybe I'm among the campaign naive, but this website and message is pretty terrible and pathetic. I don't know if the HRC campaign has any direct link to this page or is in any way responsible for it, or even how recent it is, but its brazenly sad. After last night, it reaks of desperateness. (h/t Ezra Klein)
Also from Ezra's keyboard, I think he makes a possibly relevant point about Obama's breaking into Hillary's speech last night:
Obama just cut in on Clinton's speech. On the one hand, I sympathize with the intent. She wasn't giving a concession tonight -- she lost, but it didn't count, so no concession needed -- but instead using the tradition of the concession speech to offer a nationally televised "contrast" speech, in which she said things like "only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice." Obama, realizing he owned the airwaves, started right over her. And why not? Why give her airtime to bash him?
My first instinct when I watched it was to think Obama was being rude or churlish. But if this was in fact what precipitated Obama's move, the justification provided by Ezra seems reasonable.
The only excuse I could see Hillary making about Wisconsin was that Independent voters were able to participate, and that Obama apparently only won the Democratic vote by 51% to 48%.
But (a) Obama still won the Democratic-only vote and (b) Hillary's inability to appeal to Independents does not bode well for how she would do as the nominee in the general election in November.
Update: The delegatehub.com website I linked to above is (a) recent--today and (b) a creation of the Clinton campaign. (h/t John Cole)
Also from Ezra's keyboard, I think he makes a possibly relevant point about Obama's breaking into Hillary's speech last night:
Obama just cut in on Clinton's speech. On the one hand, I sympathize with the intent. She wasn't giving a concession tonight -- she lost, but it didn't count, so no concession needed -- but instead using the tradition of the concession speech to offer a nationally televised "contrast" speech, in which she said things like "only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice." Obama, realizing he owned the airwaves, started right over her. And why not? Why give her airtime to bash him?
My first instinct when I watched it was to think Obama was being rude or churlish. But if this was in fact what precipitated Obama's move, the justification provided by Ezra seems reasonable.
The only excuse I could see Hillary making about Wisconsin was that Independent voters were able to participate, and that Obama apparently only won the Democratic vote by 51% to 48%.
But (a) Obama still won the Democratic-only vote and (b) Hillary's inability to appeal to Independents does not bode well for how she would do as the nominee in the general election in November.
Update: The delegatehub.com website I linked to above is (a) recent--today and (b) a creation of the Clinton campaign. (h/t John Cole)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Another Post on Cuba
While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of Ezra, Steve Clemons, and many others, that U.S. policy towards Cuba is an irrational and immoral embarrasment and complete failure, I still have to take issue with how some on the Left approach the Castro-50-year-dictatorship, particularly those labeling themselves as wanting Democracy Now!
Below is the transcript of Amy Goodman's interview of the National Security Archive's Peter Kornbluh. My starky comments and questions are interspliced throughout the interview in brackets:
AMY GOODMAN: We go to our top story today: Fidel Castro has announced he is resigning as Cuban president, ending forty-nine years in power. In defiance of the United States, Castro has led the island since the Cuban Revolution succeeded in 1959 [is this a good thing?]. In a letter published in the Cuban newspaper Granma online, the eighty-one-year-old Castro wrote, “It would betray my conscience to take up a responsibility that requires mobility and total devotion, that I am not in a physical condition to offer.”
Castro temporarily handed over power to his brother Raul nineteen months ago due to illness. He has not been seen in public since. In his letter to the Cuban people, Castro said he would remain involved in Cuban affairs. He wrote, “I am not saying goodbye to you. I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas.” [an odd comment given the limits on political dissent in Cuba--where does Castro plan to fight this battle of ideas and with who?]
President Bush was traveling in Rwanda when the news of Castro’s resignation broke early this morning. Bush told reporters, “The US will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”
Peter Kornbluh joins us now on the phone from Washington, D.C., senior analyst at the National Security Archive, where he directs the Cuba Documentation Project.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Peter. Did this announcement in the online edition of the Cuban newspaper Granma come as a surprise to you?
PETER KORNBLUH: It only came as a surprise in that it was announced today, Tuesday, rather than on Sunday, this coming Sunday, when the National Assembly was due to meet, and everybody widely expected that, although there were be some type of vote of support for Fidel, that he would at that point step aside and his brother would officially become president of Cuba and chief of the Cuban Communist Party. So Fidel has kind of gone out on his own terms at this point, [the desire of all dictators] making the announcement early and paving the way for the focus on Sunday to be on the future of Cuban leadership.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of Castro officially stepping down, resigning as president of Cuba?
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, I think it’s a momentous occasion, because rulers like Fidel Castro [i.e. dictators] somewhat traditionally leave office in a coffin or during a military coup, and here he has basically, I think, capped his legacy of revolutionary leadership by leaving under his own terms [without being voted out in a competitive election], by helping to usher in a very smooth transition, almost seamless transition, to his brother and to younger disciples of both Castros, who will, I think, emerge on Sunday and in the days thereafter to lead Cuba. So Castro has lived to not only see the institutionalization of his revolution, but the passage of power peacefully to another generation [again, without the nastiness of a competitive, democratic election].
AMY GOODMAN: There has been a new book, an autobiography, actually, of Castro just published called Fidel Castro: My Life—A Spoken Autobiography. It was written by Castro in conversation with Ignacio Ramonet.
PETER KORNBLUH: Yes, it’s a very, very interesting book. And in the book, which is described as a spoken autobiography, which is very appropriate for Fidel Castro, who, of course, is known for his loquaciousness and long speeches, but in this book, which contains the extraordinary history of his life and his involvement in the third world and his relations with the United States and the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution, the last chapter is titled “After Fidel, What?” And he describes—very similar to the letter that he wrote that was published today in Granma, he describes the need to step aside, let another generation take over, that he would not want to continue in office if he was incapacitated.
He also issues a warning to his enemies, that if he dies, his ideas might become more powerful than when he was alive. And, of course, he’s not dying now; he’s simply officially changing titles, from commander-in-chief to commentator-in-chief, where he’s going to be that kind of columnist for the Cuban Communist Party newspaper [that is, the government-run press, which Goodman and Democracy Now would oppose if it was occuring here] and continue to, as he puts it, you know, be a soldier in the battle of ideas. So he’s not leaving the scene, but certainly, I think officially now, turning over the reins of power.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, he’s also still secretary of the Communist Party. He did not leave that. Is there a significance in this?
PETER KORNBLUH: I believe that on—I believe that on Sunday, he will be replaced by his brother as secretary of the Communist Party, or by another younger Cuban party member, who obviously—not clear who that will be, but from every indication in his autobiography and what he’s been saying over the last six or seven weeks about making sure a new generation of leadership emerges, it is clear that the Communist Party is taking steps to start to move younger leaders into position very high up in the party for the future.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush is in Rwanda today, part of his five African country tour. When he learned of this announcement of the resignation of Fidel Castro, he said, “The US will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, there’s very little that the Bush administration can do that it hasn’t already tried to do. It actually had what was billed as a comprehensive plan to prevent Fidel Castro from turning over the reins of power to his brother Raul, and that plan has clearly and objectively failed.
There will be a tremendous opportunity for the next president of the United States to look at Cuba, see a change in leadership there and say, after fifty years it is time to change the perpetual antagonism and hostility in US policy towards the Cuban Revolution. At that point, the Cuban Revolution will have turned fifty years old at the end of this year. And US policy has failed in all of its objectives to roll back that revolution. And the next president, I think, pragmatically will have to look at the situation and say, we are more isolated in the world because of our policy of trying to isolate Cuba than Cuba is, and it’s time for us to change this policy, which has not worked and which is not in the US interest.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, what is the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba?
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, the United States, under the Bush administration, has allocated $80 million to send to dissident groups not only in Cuba, but around the world, who are pushing to organize opposition to communism in Cuba. Obviously, the United States has adopted a diplomatic effort with its allies in Europe and elsewhere to try and curtail economic ties to Cuba, but that has failed. George Bush gave a speech last fall in which he once again virtually begged his allies to join the United States to support what he sees as the march of freedom in Cuba. But by any objective standard, there is not an organized opposition to the Cuban Communist Party and no real hope that in the near future, at least, there will be. [I wonder why?]
What I think will happen is that if the next president of the United States steps back, adopts a dialogue and more normal relations with Cuba, the space in Cuba for the kind of national security state side of the Cuban Revolution to soften, I think, will grow broader. And Raul Castro is committed to some significant economic changes, which we’ll be hearing more about in the weeks to come, which also in the months to come will, I think, lead to more economic and social openings in Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: [very hestitantly and skeptically] What do you mean? [Yeah, isn't universal health care democracy enough for these people?]
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, he’s going to be certainly working on changing the kind of—Fidel’s kind of hard-line position on entrepreneurship, on small businesses, on farming, agricultural cooperatives and private farming to increase production of agriculture. As Cubans become more independent economic actors, there certainly will be a push for them to—for Cuban civil society to organize around economic units and broaden the social movement towards more freedom of expression, more organization of the society. Is that going to happen any time soon? No. [after a dutifully promising start, Kornbluh is in serious jeapardy of not getting invited back on this show] But I think that would be the progression of events.
And, of course, that is—those types of openings are the type of thing that Fidel feared [there he goes again. sigh.] and why Cuba really, under his leadership, really didn’t move significantly in that direction. But Raul is not a charismatic leader. He understands that Cubans, kind of in their daily lives, have significant needs and legitimate demands for economic change. [but, but, but, everybody in Cuba has health care!] And I think you’re going to be hearing more about that on Sunday, when the National Assembly officially, you know, positions Raul as the new leader and president of Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Peter Kornbluh, the presidential candidates’ positions on Cuba and the embargo—today, of course, the race in Wisconsin, but Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain.
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, Barack Obama, of the three, has taken the most progressive position, although it’s still a very timid position. He’s only called for opening up Cuban American travel, not broad US travel to Cuba, but only Cuban American families being able to travel to Cuba to see their loved ones and their relatives. And—but he’s also said that he is willing to enter into a dialogue with leaders such as Raul Castro and others. And that, I think, portends a significant change in US policy, if Barack Obama was to become president.
Hillary Clinton’s position has been a politically calculating one, where she doesn’t want to give up a single exile vote in Florida, [No Exile Left Behind] so therefore she’s basically adopted the same position as George Bush has on Cuba, that US policy will not change until there’s fundamental changes in Cuba. I would assume her campaign is going to reevaluate that, now that Fidel has officially resigned, but I don’t think you’ll hear any change in her rhetorical position while she continues to try and run for the nomination.
And, of course, John McCain went to Miami recently, sat down at the exile restaurant Versailles and basically bellicosely threatened, you know, US aggression towards Cuba and a hard line towards Cuba, if he is president. So I wouldn’t expect too much change from a Republican president, at least in the beginning.
But I think any president will confront a new leadership in Cuba, the fait accompli of the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, and I think the pressure from our own allies to adopt a more reasonable position on our policy towards Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, I want to thank you very much for being with us, senior analyst at the National Security Archive, public-interest documentation center in Washington, D.C. Peter Kornbluh directs the Cuba and Chile Documentation Projects.
Below is the transcript of Amy Goodman's interview of the National Security Archive's Peter Kornbluh. My starky comments and questions are interspliced throughout the interview in brackets:
AMY GOODMAN: We go to our top story today: Fidel Castro has announced he is resigning as Cuban president, ending forty-nine years in power. In defiance of the United States, Castro has led the island since the Cuban Revolution succeeded in 1959 [is this a good thing?]. In a letter published in the Cuban newspaper Granma online, the eighty-one-year-old Castro wrote, “It would betray my conscience to take up a responsibility that requires mobility and total devotion, that I am not in a physical condition to offer.”
Castro temporarily handed over power to his brother Raul nineteen months ago due to illness. He has not been seen in public since. In his letter to the Cuban people, Castro said he would remain involved in Cuban affairs. He wrote, “I am not saying goodbye to you. I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas.” [an odd comment given the limits on political dissent in Cuba--where does Castro plan to fight this battle of ideas and with who?]
President Bush was traveling in Rwanda when the news of Castro’s resignation broke early this morning. Bush told reporters, “The US will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”
Peter Kornbluh joins us now on the phone from Washington, D.C., senior analyst at the National Security Archive, where he directs the Cuba Documentation Project.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Peter. Did this announcement in the online edition of the Cuban newspaper Granma come as a surprise to you?
PETER KORNBLUH: It only came as a surprise in that it was announced today, Tuesday, rather than on Sunday, this coming Sunday, when the National Assembly was due to meet, and everybody widely expected that, although there were be some type of vote of support for Fidel, that he would at that point step aside and his brother would officially become president of Cuba and chief of the Cuban Communist Party. So Fidel has kind of gone out on his own terms at this point, [the desire of all dictators] making the announcement early and paving the way for the focus on Sunday to be on the future of Cuban leadership.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of Castro officially stepping down, resigning as president of Cuba?
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, I think it’s a momentous occasion, because rulers like Fidel Castro [i.e. dictators] somewhat traditionally leave office in a coffin or during a military coup, and here he has basically, I think, capped his legacy of revolutionary leadership by leaving under his own terms [without being voted out in a competitive election], by helping to usher in a very smooth transition, almost seamless transition, to his brother and to younger disciples of both Castros, who will, I think, emerge on Sunday and in the days thereafter to lead Cuba. So Castro has lived to not only see the institutionalization of his revolution, but the passage of power peacefully to another generation [again, without the nastiness of a competitive, democratic election].
AMY GOODMAN: There has been a new book, an autobiography, actually, of Castro just published called Fidel Castro: My Life—A Spoken Autobiography. It was written by Castro in conversation with Ignacio Ramonet.
PETER KORNBLUH: Yes, it’s a very, very interesting book. And in the book, which is described as a spoken autobiography, which is very appropriate for Fidel Castro, who, of course, is known for his loquaciousness and long speeches, but in this book, which contains the extraordinary history of his life and his involvement in the third world and his relations with the United States and the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution, the last chapter is titled “After Fidel, What?” And he describes—very similar to the letter that he wrote that was published today in Granma, he describes the need to step aside, let another generation take over, that he would not want to continue in office if he was incapacitated.
He also issues a warning to his enemies, that if he dies, his ideas might become more powerful than when he was alive. And, of course, he’s not dying now; he’s simply officially changing titles, from commander-in-chief to commentator-in-chief, where he’s going to be that kind of columnist for the Cuban Communist Party newspaper [that is, the government-run press, which Goodman and Democracy Now would oppose if it was occuring here] and continue to, as he puts it, you know, be a soldier in the battle of ideas. So he’s not leaving the scene, but certainly, I think officially now, turning over the reins of power.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, he’s also still secretary of the Communist Party. He did not leave that. Is there a significance in this?
PETER KORNBLUH: I believe that on—I believe that on Sunday, he will be replaced by his brother as secretary of the Communist Party, or by another younger Cuban party member, who obviously—not clear who that will be, but from every indication in his autobiography and what he’s been saying over the last six or seven weeks about making sure a new generation of leadership emerges, it is clear that the Communist Party is taking steps to start to move younger leaders into position very high up in the party for the future.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush is in Rwanda today, part of his five African country tour. When he learned of this announcement of the resignation of Fidel Castro, he said, “The US will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, there’s very little that the Bush administration can do that it hasn’t already tried to do. It actually had what was billed as a comprehensive plan to prevent Fidel Castro from turning over the reins of power to his brother Raul, and that plan has clearly and objectively failed.
There will be a tremendous opportunity for the next president of the United States to look at Cuba, see a change in leadership there and say, after fifty years it is time to change the perpetual antagonism and hostility in US policy towards the Cuban Revolution. At that point, the Cuban Revolution will have turned fifty years old at the end of this year. And US policy has failed in all of its objectives to roll back that revolution. And the next president, I think, pragmatically will have to look at the situation and say, we are more isolated in the world because of our policy of trying to isolate Cuba than Cuba is, and it’s time for us to change this policy, which has not worked and which is not in the US interest.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, what is the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba?
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, the United States, under the Bush administration, has allocated $80 million to send to dissident groups not only in Cuba, but around the world, who are pushing to organize opposition to communism in Cuba. Obviously, the United States has adopted a diplomatic effort with its allies in Europe and elsewhere to try and curtail economic ties to Cuba, but that has failed. George Bush gave a speech last fall in which he once again virtually begged his allies to join the United States to support what he sees as the march of freedom in Cuba. But by any objective standard, there is not an organized opposition to the Cuban Communist Party and no real hope that in the near future, at least, there will be. [I wonder why?]
What I think will happen is that if the next president of the United States steps back, adopts a dialogue and more normal relations with Cuba, the space in Cuba for the kind of national security state side of the Cuban Revolution to soften, I think, will grow broader. And Raul Castro is committed to some significant economic changes, which we’ll be hearing more about in the weeks to come, which also in the months to come will, I think, lead to more economic and social openings in Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: [very hestitantly and skeptically] What do you mean? [Yeah, isn't universal health care democracy enough for these people?]
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, he’s going to be certainly working on changing the kind of—Fidel’s kind of hard-line position on entrepreneurship, on small businesses, on farming, agricultural cooperatives and private farming to increase production of agriculture. As Cubans become more independent economic actors, there certainly will be a push for them to—for Cuban civil society to organize around economic units and broaden the social movement towards more freedom of expression, more organization of the society. Is that going to happen any time soon? No. [after a dutifully promising start, Kornbluh is in serious jeapardy of not getting invited back on this show] But I think that would be the progression of events.
And, of course, that is—those types of openings are the type of thing that Fidel feared [there he goes again. sigh.] and why Cuba really, under his leadership, really didn’t move significantly in that direction. But Raul is not a charismatic leader. He understands that Cubans, kind of in their daily lives, have significant needs and legitimate demands for economic change. [but, but, but, everybody in Cuba has health care!] And I think you’re going to be hearing more about that on Sunday, when the National Assembly officially, you know, positions Raul as the new leader and president of Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Peter Kornbluh, the presidential candidates’ positions on Cuba and the embargo—today, of course, the race in Wisconsin, but Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain.
PETER KORNBLUH: Well, Barack Obama, of the three, has taken the most progressive position, although it’s still a very timid position. He’s only called for opening up Cuban American travel, not broad US travel to Cuba, but only Cuban American families being able to travel to Cuba to see their loved ones and their relatives. And—but he’s also said that he is willing to enter into a dialogue with leaders such as Raul Castro and others. And that, I think, portends a significant change in US policy, if Barack Obama was to become president.
Hillary Clinton’s position has been a politically calculating one, where she doesn’t want to give up a single exile vote in Florida, [No Exile Left Behind] so therefore she’s basically adopted the same position as George Bush has on Cuba, that US policy will not change until there’s fundamental changes in Cuba. I would assume her campaign is going to reevaluate that, now that Fidel has officially resigned, but I don’t think you’ll hear any change in her rhetorical position while she continues to try and run for the nomination.
And, of course, John McCain went to Miami recently, sat down at the exile restaurant Versailles and basically bellicosely threatened, you know, US aggression towards Cuba and a hard line towards Cuba, if he is president. So I wouldn’t expect too much change from a Republican president, at least in the beginning.
But I think any president will confront a new leadership in Cuba, the fait accompli of the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, and I think the pressure from our own allies to adopt a more reasonable position on our policy towards Cuba.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kornbluh, I want to thank you very much for being with us, senior analyst at the National Security Archive, public-interest documentation center in Washington, D.C. Peter Kornbluh directs the Cuba and Chile Documentation Projects.
That Heritage Clock (updated below)
I wish Glenn Greenwald and others would stop being so mean about that Heritage.org doomsday clock.
After some initial confusion, it now appears clear that the clock is measuring time in business days, which is, after all, how the really bad terrorists who want to kill us all are measuring time.
Update 1:38 pm EST: Uh oh. The clock is gone. Does that mean we're all dead now?
After some initial confusion, it now appears clear that the clock is measuring time in business days, which is, after all, how the really bad terrorists who want to kill us all are measuring time.
Update 1:38 pm EST: Uh oh. The clock is gone. Does that mean we're all dead now?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Not Ready on Day One
From the Washington Post, via Hilzoy, guesting at Andrew Sullivan's pad:
"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem.""
"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem.""
Friday, February 15, 2008
Remind me again...Why do I read the Washington Post?
Matt reads Peter Slevin's and Shailagh Murray's piece, obstensibly on Obama's economic plan, entitled Obama's Economic Plan is a Pitch to the Working Class.
Sen. Barack Obama offered a detailed prescription for the ailing U.S. economy Wednesday, answering skeptics who contend he has not matched his inspirational talk with a mastery of policy and targeting voters in crucial primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas.
Up until the comma, we're doing well here. We learn that Obama offered a detailed plan. But after the comma, we don't learn any of the details. The next six grafs are all about the political context -- Obama's momentum, the looming primaries, Obama's need to expand his appeal to working class voters. In graf eight, John McCain accuses Obama of offering "platitudes." In grafs nine and ten, Obama fires back accusing McCain of flip-flopping on taxes. In graf eleven, Clinton echoes McCain's attacks. In graf twelve, the fact that Obama delivered a speech on the economy gets re-iterated. In graf thirteen, we learn that Obama says he'll pay for the plan by ending the war in Iraq and rolling back tax cuts. In graf fourteen, the Clinton campaign quotes a McCain advisor as calling the plan "plagiarism." Finally, in the fifteenth graf of an article about Obama's economic plan we get something resembling a description of the content of the plan.
Sigh.
Sen. Barack Obama offered a detailed prescription for the ailing U.S. economy Wednesday, answering skeptics who contend he has not matched his inspirational talk with a mastery of policy and targeting voters in crucial primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas.
Up until the comma, we're doing well here. We learn that Obama offered a detailed plan. But after the comma, we don't learn any of the details. The next six grafs are all about the political context -- Obama's momentum, the looming primaries, Obama's need to expand his appeal to working class voters. In graf eight, John McCain accuses Obama of offering "platitudes." In grafs nine and ten, Obama fires back accusing McCain of flip-flopping on taxes. In graf eleven, Clinton echoes McCain's attacks. In graf twelve, the fact that Obama delivered a speech on the economy gets re-iterated. In graf thirteen, we learn that Obama says he'll pay for the plan by ending the war in Iraq and rolling back tax cuts. In graf fourteen, the Clinton campaign quotes a McCain advisor as calling the plan "plagiarism." Finally, in the fifteenth graf of an article about Obama's economic plan we get something resembling a description of the content of the plan.
Sigh.
David Broder's "Bipartisanship"
I pointed this out yesterday in comments at No More Mister Nice Blog, but it bears highlighting here again for the simple fact of how Broder both categorized the urgency of approving the recently passed economic stimulus bill with how unsightfully The Dean depicted the bill's obstacles in the U.S. Senate.
After depicting the stimulus legislation as desperately needed to relieve the "staggering economy", Broder pens this 'graph:
Bypassing the usual committee process, she [Pelosi] and Boehner negotiated the legislation with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and quickly got it passed on the floor. The Senate Finance Committee wrote its own version and, when that failed by one vote to win the 60 needed for passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly accepted the suggestion of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that the most vital parts of the revised plan be added to the House bill by amendment. That was done 91 to 6.
I wish Broder had given some explanation as to why the Senate legislation "needed" 60 votes to pass, before the wonderful, full of love gift of bipartisanship was bestowed on the process, particularly since as Broder noted, the economy is simply "staggering" and desperately needs relief. I have in fact emailed Broder that very question.
In case Broder writes back, and for you dear reader, here is such an explanation for the 60 vote requirement:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly blocked a Democratic-backed economic stimulus plan valued at about $157 billion that would have provided benefits for the long-term unemployed and expanded proposed tax rebates to include retirees and disabled veterans.
The legislation, aimed at averting a U.S. recession, was offered as an alternative to a bill backed by President George W. Bush that passed the House of Representatives last week. The $146 billion House measure would give individuals a one-time $600 payment and couples $1,200 plus $300 per child.
Backers fell one short of the needed 60 in the 100-member chamber, although the final count was 58-41 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched to no in a procedural move that allows him to bring up the bill again.
It was not immediately clear what the sharply divided Senate would do next. It could vote on the House-passed bill or other amendments to expand the economic stimulus legislation.
Most Senate Republicans opposed the expansion of jobless benefits, although many favor adding to the House package cash payments to senior citizens and disabled veterans.
So, the Senate bill actually passed by a pretty large margin, 58-41, but Senate Republicans "blocked" the legislation by keeping the "yes" votes below 60. Which again brings us to the question of why 60 votes are "needed" in the 100-member chamber. Well, while the article helpfully points out that it was in fact Senate Republicans who "blocked" passage of the bill--something Broder failed to note--this act of blocking has historically been referred to as "filibustering", a procedure that has been invoked a record number of times this Congressional session but which has gone strangely unremarked upon by our village media, which in prior Congressional sessions, when Republican executives have occupied the White House and Republicans controlled Congress, did do all in their power to point out that if anything the President wanted didn't get rubber-stamped by the House of People's Deputies, Democratic "obstructionists" relying on that very bad and anitiquidated procedure known as the really evil filibuster were to blame. Since Democrats have controlled Congress, however, the terms "filibuster" and "obstructionist" have dropped from the village media lexicon.
After depicting the stimulus legislation as desperately needed to relieve the "staggering economy", Broder pens this 'graph:
Bypassing the usual committee process, she [Pelosi] and Boehner negotiated the legislation with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and quickly got it passed on the floor. The Senate Finance Committee wrote its own version and, when that failed by one vote to win the 60 needed for passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly accepted the suggestion of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that the most vital parts of the revised plan be added to the House bill by amendment. That was done 91 to 6.
I wish Broder had given some explanation as to why the Senate legislation "needed" 60 votes to pass, before the wonderful, full of love gift of bipartisanship was bestowed on the process, particularly since as Broder noted, the economy is simply "staggering" and desperately needs relief. I have in fact emailed Broder that very question.
In case Broder writes back, and for you dear reader, here is such an explanation for the 60 vote requirement:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly blocked a Democratic-backed economic stimulus plan valued at about $157 billion that would have provided benefits for the long-term unemployed and expanded proposed tax rebates to include retirees and disabled veterans.
The legislation, aimed at averting a U.S. recession, was offered as an alternative to a bill backed by President George W. Bush that passed the House of Representatives last week. The $146 billion House measure would give individuals a one-time $600 payment and couples $1,200 plus $300 per child.
Backers fell one short of the needed 60 in the 100-member chamber, although the final count was 58-41 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched to no in a procedural move that allows him to bring up the bill again.
It was not immediately clear what the sharply divided Senate would do next. It could vote on the House-passed bill or other amendments to expand the economic stimulus legislation.
Most Senate Republicans opposed the expansion of jobless benefits, although many favor adding to the House package cash payments to senior citizens and disabled veterans.
So, the Senate bill actually passed by a pretty large margin, 58-41, but Senate Republicans "blocked" the legislation by keeping the "yes" votes below 60. Which again brings us to the question of why 60 votes are "needed" in the 100-member chamber. Well, while the article helpfully points out that it was in fact Senate Republicans who "blocked" passage of the bill--something Broder failed to note--this act of blocking has historically been referred to as "filibustering", a procedure that has been invoked a record number of times this Congressional session but which has gone strangely unremarked upon by our village media, which in prior Congressional sessions, when Republican executives have occupied the White House and Republicans controlled Congress, did do all in their power to point out that if anything the President wanted didn't get rubber-stamped by the House of People's Deputies, Democratic "obstructionists" relying on that very bad and anitiquidated procedure known as the really evil filibuster were to blame. Since Democrats have controlled Congress, however, the terms "filibuster" and "obstructionist" have dropped from the village media lexicon.
Clinton and Obama Both Solid on Bankruptcy "Reform"
In today's NYT, I read this:
Mrs. Clinton has been also criticizing Mr. Obama with populist language, saying she would “take on” insurers and credit card companies and “go after” drug companies. She portrayed Mr. Obama as untested on the battlefield against special interests.
This made me wonder what Clinton's position had been on the infamous bankruptcy "reform" legislation that passed the Senate in 2005. My recollection was that she had voted the wrong way on at least one of the many important amendments or crucial procedural votes that led to the bill's passing, mostly intact and without safeguards for vulnerable populations (those bankrupted by medical emergencies, for example).
But in reviewing the votes on Senate bill 256, it looks like Clinton was pretty solid on bankruptcy "reform"; She wasn't present on March 10 when the bill passed 74-25 (Obama voted Nay), but she did vote against cloture on the bill, the cloture vote being a vote to discontinue debate and break the filibuster, and she voted in favor of the various Democratic amendments offered by Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, and others that would have mitigated the bill's harshness on certain categories of debtors. Obama voted favorably on all counts.
A review of the bill's voting history also reveals how different things were three years ago. I have a hard time imagining bankruptcy "reform" would have passed at all given the housing crash and mortgage crisis today, never mind the ridiculously high vote margin the bill achieved three years ago.
Update: Barbara Ehrenreich writes that Hillary Clinton voted for bankruptcy "reform" in 2001. I'd have to look it up to know what sort of bill it was, but it must not have been adequate enough to suit MBNA and the other credit card overlords who ordered their Congressional munchskins to come back and do it again four years later.
Mrs. Clinton has been also criticizing Mr. Obama with populist language, saying she would “take on” insurers and credit card companies and “go after” drug companies. She portrayed Mr. Obama as untested on the battlefield against special interests.
This made me wonder what Clinton's position had been on the infamous bankruptcy "reform" legislation that passed the Senate in 2005. My recollection was that she had voted the wrong way on at least one of the many important amendments or crucial procedural votes that led to the bill's passing, mostly intact and without safeguards for vulnerable populations (those bankrupted by medical emergencies, for example).
But in reviewing the votes on Senate bill 256, it looks like Clinton was pretty solid on bankruptcy "reform"; She wasn't present on March 10 when the bill passed 74-25 (Obama voted Nay), but she did vote against cloture on the bill, the cloture vote being a vote to discontinue debate and break the filibuster, and she voted in favor of the various Democratic amendments offered by Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, and others that would have mitigated the bill's harshness on certain categories of debtors. Obama voted favorably on all counts.
A review of the bill's voting history also reveals how different things were three years ago. I have a hard time imagining bankruptcy "reform" would have passed at all given the housing crash and mortgage crisis today, never mind the ridiculously high vote margin the bill achieved three years ago.
Update: Barbara Ehrenreich writes that Hillary Clinton voted for bankruptcy "reform" in 2001. I'd have to look it up to know what sort of bill it was, but it must not have been adequate enough to suit MBNA and the other credit card overlords who ordered their Congressional munchskins to come back and do it again four years later.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What John Cole Said
Turned the the tv back on, and CNN is now broadcasting the post-Clemens interrogation interview with the lawyers. I simply am stunned that our Congress, who has rolled over and played dead and abdicated every opportunity for meaningful oversight of this administration, actually is making a stink about Roger Clemons and steroid use and the NFL tapes.
Stunned. I really don’t know what else to say. The day after rolling over and giving the administration precisely what they wanted, congressmen come out with puffed up chests, red-faced, screaming at a pitcher about whether or not someone shot him in the ass with steroids.
This has been another edition of What John Cole Said.
Stunned. I really don’t know what else to say. The day after rolling over and giving the administration precisely what they wanted, congressmen come out with puffed up chests, red-faced, screaming at a pitcher about whether or not someone shot him in the ass with steroids.
This has been another edition of What John Cole Said.
It's Still Only February
While it's been a lot of fun listening to all the pundits wax profusely over the fact that at least one political party has not for certain chosen its presumptive nominee, it's also worth pointing out that, even with all the elections we've had and the states that have voted, it's still only February. February 14, in fact.
For the historically challenged, these primary thingies used to go on for many months. And that ingenius invention known as Super Tuesday? It was born on March 9, 1988.
And as recently as the last presidential election cycle in 2004, I voted in the Maryland primary on March 2. This year I cast my Maryland vote on February 12.
So while the participation and competitiveness has been great and all, all the handwringing about when the nomination will be decided and whether the Democrats risk a civil war within their ranks if they don't confirm a choice soon is a bit ridiculous.
For the historically challenged, these primary thingies used to go on for many months. And that ingenius invention known as Super Tuesday? It was born on March 9, 1988.
And as recently as the last presidential election cycle in 2004, I voted in the Maryland primary on March 2. This year I cast my Maryland vote on February 12.
So while the participation and competitiveness has been great and all, all the handwringing about when the nomination will be decided and whether the Democrats risk a civil war within their ranks if they don't confirm a choice soon is a bit ridiculous.
We Used To Do This, Too
That someone could be executed for this is obviously deeply troubling and capable of stirring the deepest sense of outrage and injustice, it is also true that our Puritan ancestors did this stuff, too; you know, back when America was really a "Christian nation". And we should recognize that there are those among us who want to return to those days.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Democracy in Action
Chris Bowers has provided a valuable service here by tallying up the range of possible primary/caucus votes and delegate counts (collectively=votes) for Obama and Clinton.
Obama leads in all five, with the spread being about 800,000 votes (the most favorable Obama count) to 100,000 votes (the most favorable Clinton count).
In a nutshell, this has obviously been a very competitive and very closely fought contest.
The media villagers have gotten used to one or two state virtual primary/caucus coronations; but there is not anything necessarily unusual or undesirable about the process so far this year. Let the debate continue and let the people vote.
Obama leads in all five, with the spread being about 800,000 votes (the most favorable Obama count) to 100,000 votes (the most favorable Clinton count).
In a nutshell, this has obviously been a very competitive and very closely fought contest.
The media villagers have gotten used to one or two state virtual primary/caucus coronations; but there is not anything necessarily unusual or undesirable about the process so far this year. Let the debate continue and let the people vote.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Downers for America
Kos had about the same reaction to McCain's speech as I did:
So they cut from Obama to McCain talking about scary boogeymen under our beds.
Ouch for McCain.
Update: And look at all the people behind McCain -- old white dour people.
But look over there! Scary terrorists! Aaaaargh! Run for your lives!
That's what passes for "maverick" these days, huh?
Update II: Nice choice of words. "Cruel". "Harsh". His whole speech is a downer. Seriously, the contrast between Obama and McCain couldn't be starker.
So they cut from Obama to McCain talking about scary boogeymen under our beds.
Ouch for McCain.
Update: And look at all the people behind McCain -- old white dour people.
But look over there! Scary terrorists! Aaaaargh! Run for your lives!
That's what passes for "maverick" these days, huh?
Update II: Nice choice of words. "Cruel". "Harsh". His whole speech is a downer. Seriously, the contrast between Obama and McCain couldn't be starker.
250,000 / 226,000
In Virginia.
Obama margin over Hillary Clinton 250,000 votes
McCain total vote statewide 226,000 votes
This is with 94% of the vote in.
In. Virginia.
Obama beats Clinton by 250,000 votes, a vote margin larger than John McCain's total vote count in the whole friggin Commonwealth.
In. Virginia.
Obama margin over Hillary Clinton 250,000 votes
McCain total vote statewide 226,000 votes
This is with 94% of the vote in.
In. Virginia.
Obama beats Clinton by 250,000 votes, a vote margin larger than John McCain's total vote count in the whole friggin Commonwealth.
In. Virginia.
Town Halls and Media Bus Aisles -- Bantering with the people and the press
As I've noted previously, I think this is a pretty valid critique of the Obama campaign.
However, I don't think it is completely true that Obama has not taken questions from voters at particular events. Being on the campaign's email list, I received a video clip of Obama appearing to participate in just such a forum and answering a question--this one in particular being one in which the candidate was asked to justify his candidacy relative to Hillary Clinton's.
I can't say how regular this is. And I can't verify the degree to which this forum or question was staged or not.
Nonetheless, it would seem Obama would need to develop more of an accessible campaign if he gets the nomination.
However, I don't think it is completely true that Obama has not taken questions from voters at particular events. Being on the campaign's email list, I received a video clip of Obama appearing to participate in just such a forum and answering a question--this one in particular being one in which the candidate was asked to justify his candidacy relative to Hillary Clinton's.
I can't say how regular this is. And I can't verify the degree to which this forum or question was staged or not.
Nonetheless, it would seem Obama would need to develop more of an accessible campaign if he gets the nomination.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Obama's best night
Lopsided wins in Nebraska, Washington State, and to a lesser degree, in Louisiana gave Obama the hat-trick tonight. And his speech--bearing the confidence and assertiveness of a convention nomination acceptance speech--was I think his best of the season, being relatively policy-specific, gracious of his opponents to a degree, while also being confrontational and challenging of them, all but throwing down the gauntlet to McCain regarding the war, foreign policy, and taxes. But his most welcome (and for the Democrats throughout this campaign the most weirdly neglected) remarks tonight were his rhetorical, we-need-to-get-rid-of "Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence, and Karl Rove politics" punches. Where has this rhetoric been all primary season? It's long past time Democrats made the country remember the failures of Katrina, the calculated partisanship of Karl Rove, and the name of Scooter Libby. Even if the media villagers would prefer that we did not.
Huckabee!
Republican voters in Washington State, Kansas, and Louisiana must not have teevee or get the Internets, or else they would know this race is supposed to be over and that John McCain will be their nominee.
And how much sense does it make for James Dobson to NOW back Huckabee? I suppose the continued presence, up till Thursday, of Mitt Romney might have had some influence on Dobson's delay or hesitancy. But for the sake of the theocon crowd, Dobson's endorsement is probably much too little, much too late.
And how much sense does it make for James Dobson to NOW back Huckabee? I suppose the continued presence, up till Thursday, of Mitt Romney might have had some influence on Dobson's delay or hesitancy. But for the sake of the theocon crowd, Dobson's endorsement is probably much too little, much too late.
Mittless Nation
This op-ed from Gail Collins in today's NYT is pretty special:
Other than repeatedly offering to give up any civil liberty the Bush administration felt it might need, Romney never talked all that much about the war on terror as a candidate. He was more interested in denouncing illegal immigration. Until he got to Michigan, where he became Friend of the Workers Mitt. If that primary had gone on any longer, he’d have been picketing with the writers’ union.
John McCain was the happy beneficiary of Romney’s sudden retreat on Thursday, yet he could barely bring himself to mumble something about his former opponent’s “energetic and dedicated campaign” which is a polite way of saying the guy would toss an old lady in front of a tractor-trailer to get what he wanted.
Congrats, Mitt. You didn't win many votes, but you won a degree of contempt that, while difficult to fathom, is nonetheless well-earned.
Other than repeatedly offering to give up any civil liberty the Bush administration felt it might need, Romney never talked all that much about the war on terror as a candidate. He was more interested in denouncing illegal immigration. Until he got to Michigan, where he became Friend of the Workers Mitt. If that primary had gone on any longer, he’d have been picketing with the writers’ union.
John McCain was the happy beneficiary of Romney’s sudden retreat on Thursday, yet he could barely bring himself to mumble something about his former opponent’s “energetic and dedicated campaign” which is a polite way of saying the guy would toss an old lady in front of a tractor-trailer to get what he wanted.
Congrats, Mitt. You didn't win many votes, but you won a degree of contempt that, while difficult to fathom, is nonetheless well-earned.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
No More Mittens For You
Mitt bows out, ungracefully.
We won't have the Mittster to kick around anymore.
Wonder whether this will pressure Huckleberry to drop out as well?
We won't have the Mittster to kick around anymore.
Wonder whether this will pressure Huckleberry to drop out as well?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Expectations
As the first results began coming in last night, I concluded that Obama was basically done. With the exception of Georgia, which was called for him early, I was surprised to see Hillary, rather quickly, win in Oklahoma. As the second wave of primary results started to come in, it was evident that Hillary was racking up large leads in NY, NJ, Massachusetts (again, surprisingly, given the Obama's endorsements), Tennessee, and Missouri. All over but the shoutin', it appeared. Obama would need a surprise come from behind win in California, at least, to maintain any sense of momentum.
But as the third wave of results came up, it showed Obama balancing Hillary's earlier double digit wins with similarly styled margins in albeit smaller states like North Dakota, Idaho, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and Kansas.
Finally, as the first results for California and Arizona were arriving, one of Hillary's big margin states--Missouri--was tightening. What earlier had been a Hillary margin of almost twenty points had shrunk to one, with Obama favored precincts still out. But then the one point margin widened again to three, and after Obama's speech, I finally turned in to bed.
Only this morning did I learn that Obama had pulled out the narrow win in Missouri, ending Super Tuesday with more states won than Hillary. Now it also appears that Obama took more delegates to go along with those states. And there are rumors that Hillary is coming up short on cash with Obama comfortably in the black (no pun intended). Even more surprisingly, despite Hillary's popular vote blow-out margins in NY, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, Obama managed to nearly tie her popular vote totals.
Now the campaign returns to a more spread out schedule, which should be favorable to Obama's apparent organizational prowess and overall likeability.
This means that this race will continue to be the most competitive we have seen in some time. While I believe this is overall a positive occurence, I also must admit it introduces a much greater level of uncertainty and unpredictability into the process. For all practical purposes, in modern times, we simply haven't been here before. And should Obama win the nomination, the fall campaign would be another trip through unchartered waters. Obama will bring change whether he seeks it or not.
But as the third wave of results came up, it showed Obama balancing Hillary's earlier double digit wins with similarly styled margins in albeit smaller states like North Dakota, Idaho, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and Kansas.
Finally, as the first results for California and Arizona were arriving, one of Hillary's big margin states--Missouri--was tightening. What earlier had been a Hillary margin of almost twenty points had shrunk to one, with Obama favored precincts still out. But then the one point margin widened again to three, and after Obama's speech, I finally turned in to bed.
Only this morning did I learn that Obama had pulled out the narrow win in Missouri, ending Super Tuesday with more states won than Hillary. Now it also appears that Obama took more delegates to go along with those states. And there are rumors that Hillary is coming up short on cash with Obama comfortably in the black (no pun intended). Even more surprisingly, despite Hillary's popular vote blow-out margins in NY, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, Obama managed to nearly tie her popular vote totals.
Now the campaign returns to a more spread out schedule, which should be favorable to Obama's apparent organizational prowess and overall likeability.
This means that this race will continue to be the most competitive we have seen in some time. While I believe this is overall a positive occurence, I also must admit it introduces a much greater level of uncertainty and unpredictability into the process. For all practical purposes, in modern times, we simply haven't been here before. And should Obama win the nomination, the fall campaign would be another trip through unchartered waters. Obama will bring change whether he seeks it or not.
Onward
Count me among those who think that a prolonged primary/caucus nomination battle is good for Democrats and good for democracy.
Across the country people are voting. And many of them are voting for Democrats. This could be good practice for the fall. If nothing else, contested primaries provide a means of comparing voter interest across and within elections.
While it's possible to read too much into these results, let's look at Missouri, a state frequently identified as a "bellweather".
In the Show Me State, a little over 800,000 people voted for the two leading Democrats; about 550,000 voted for the three leading Republicans. In a state George W. Bush carried twice, this can't be a bad sign.
Next week brings Virginia and Maryland to the chase. The week after adds Wisconsin. March and April bring the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, respectively. Democratic turnout there, particularly in the former state which has also gone GOP the last two cycles, could be an indicator of how the nominee will fair in the Buckeye State come November.
Across the country people are voting. And many of them are voting for Democrats. This could be good practice for the fall. If nothing else, contested primaries provide a means of comparing voter interest across and within elections.
While it's possible to read too much into these results, let's look at Missouri, a state frequently identified as a "bellweather".
In the Show Me State, a little over 800,000 people voted for the two leading Democrats; about 550,000 voted for the three leading Republicans. In a state George W. Bush carried twice, this can't be a bad sign.
Next week brings Virginia and Maryland to the chase. The week after adds Wisconsin. March and April bring the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, respectively. Democratic turnout there, particularly in the former state which has also gone GOP the last two cycles, could be an indicator of how the nominee will fair in the Buckeye State come November.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Actually, It's More Like Our Not Talking To Cuba/North Korea/Iran Policy
Via Andrew Sullivan:
"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda." - Roger Ailes, the Fox News CEO.
And debating on Faux would be appeasement.
"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda." - Roger Ailes, the Fox News CEO.
And debating on Faux would be appeasement.
I Think Health Care Mandates Are A Really Bad Idea (updated below)
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).
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).
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)