I'm not sure which of these columns or posts is the most unsettling.
Wins in two more states that "won't count": Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday, would help, at least some.
The Powers flap is nearly as damaging as the Texas (popular vote) and Ohio losses as it puts him in a no win situation of how to do with controversial remarks from a valuable advisor (he stands by her he gets flack, he cuts her lose and he gets flack for appearing "weak"), and ultimately cuts him off from the services of that valuable advisor.
The shift in news reporting, based on the decline in violence across Iraq, has helped dilute a critical distinction in policy views and judgment between the candidates. Without anger over Iraq dominating the headlines, personality issues, and to a lesser extent, bread and butter economic issues, ascend in importance. But of course this has been true throughout the primary season, so it can't be the basis for the most recent downturn in Obama's prospects.
Brooks is certainly right that Hillary needs for this to be a "knife fight". How does Obama avoid or transcend this? I don't know. But he's the candidate of hope, of change, and of a different kind of politics. He obviously needs to get back to that. And I don't believe there's any virtue in either he, or his advisors, trying to gain mileage from the Clinton's tax returns or the Clinton library's donors. This isn't the kind of stuff that got Obama a place in the game's starting lineup. Deep six that stuff and get back to substantive policy distinctions and political change.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Rules: Border Wars, "Terrorists", and Latin America
Amidst our primary election drama, there has been some not so friendly skirmishes between Ecuador, Columbia, and Venezuela. Fred Hiatt's Wash Post editorial took on the subject this morning with all the thoughtfulness and nuance as usually accompanies the paper's foreign policy declarations.
I don't profess to know all that much about Columbia and FARC, but Glenn Greenwald notes how trite and simplistic the foreign policy "consensus" is regarding our entanglement around the globe and close to home:
(1) Any government or group that takes money from and is allied with the U.S. is inherently good. Anything they do -- including invasions, wars and other acts of violence -- is just and "bold."
(2) Any government or group that opposes the U.S. is inherently bad and anything they do is inherently unjust (even when it's exactly the same behavior as the praiseworthy behavior in category (1)). By definition, they're "Terrorists."
(3) Any government or group that takes money from and is allied with the U.S. is "democratic," regardless of whether they gained or seek power through elections. Such governments and groups are also devoted to "human rights," no matter how much arbitrary imprisonment, murdering of political opponents, torture and other due process they engage in.
(4) Any government or group that opposes the U.S. is "anti-democratic" -- "enemies of democracy," a Dictatorship -- even when they gained or seek power through elections.
(5) The U.S. has a vital interest in dictating who governs every other country. It's always our business to intervene in every conflict and pick the side we want to win, not just with our political support but with money and arms. Since we are morally good, our decisions will always be in service of Democracy and Human Rights.
(6) If you deny or contest any of these premises, then you are an America-hater, part of the Blame America First crowd, because it means that you think that America's role in the world is sometimes destructive and unjust (which no American patriot would ever believe about their own country).
I don't profess to know all that much about Columbia and FARC, but Glenn Greenwald notes how trite and simplistic the foreign policy "consensus" is regarding our entanglement around the globe and close to home:
(1) Any government or group that takes money from and is allied with the U.S. is inherently good. Anything they do -- including invasions, wars and other acts of violence -- is just and "bold."
(2) Any government or group that opposes the U.S. is inherently bad and anything they do is inherently unjust (even when it's exactly the same behavior as the praiseworthy behavior in category (1)). By definition, they're "Terrorists."
(3) Any government or group that takes money from and is allied with the U.S. is "democratic," regardless of whether they gained or seek power through elections. Such governments and groups are also devoted to "human rights," no matter how much arbitrary imprisonment, murdering of political opponents, torture and other due process they engage in.
(4) Any government or group that opposes the U.S. is "anti-democratic" -- "enemies of democracy," a Dictatorship -- even when they gained or seek power through elections.
(5) The U.S. has a vital interest in dictating who governs every other country. It's always our business to intervene in every conflict and pick the side we want to win, not just with our political support but with money and arms. Since we are morally good, our decisions will always be in service of Democracy and Human Rights.
(6) If you deny or contest any of these premises, then you are an America-hater, part of the Blame America First crowd, because it means that you think that America's role in the world is sometimes destructive and unjust (which no American patriot would ever believe about their own country).
The Political Untouchables
Josh Marshall says:
Let's note that Sen. McCain has decided to hang tough with his embrace of anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic Pastor John Hagee. And the major papers and cable news outlets have decided to give him a pass.
Matt Yglesias says:
I've been Hagee-bashing since before it was cool, so this pisses me off, too. But realistically it's not the press and the cable networks that gave McCain a pass, it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They gave him a pass because, of course, they were arguing with each other.
----
Yeah, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either Clinton or Obama to bring up the Hagee endorsement or the screaming pastor's crazy Jews-be-damned apocalyptic rantings. Despite all the whining by religious conservatives about how everyone from Hollywood to the media, university elites, and various reality world social and physical scientists hate them, their own elites are virtually unassailable, shielded by the belief among many in the media that calling evangelicals on what they actually believe is somehow derogatory and by the belief among many Democratic politicians that to antagonize conservative evangelicals in any way, shape or form spells doom, no matter how crazy and nutjob the evangelicals are and despite the very serious implications for American politics and world harmony that the evangelicals' apocalyptic threats carry and Republican embrace of said rantings represent.
Let's note that Sen. McCain has decided to hang tough with his embrace of anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic Pastor John Hagee. And the major papers and cable news outlets have decided to give him a pass.
Matt Yglesias says:
I've been Hagee-bashing since before it was cool, so this pisses me off, too. But realistically it's not the press and the cable networks that gave McCain a pass, it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They gave him a pass because, of course, they were arguing with each other.
----
Yeah, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either Clinton or Obama to bring up the Hagee endorsement or the screaming pastor's crazy Jews-be-damned apocalyptic rantings. Despite all the whining by religious conservatives about how everyone from Hollywood to the media, university elites, and various reality world social and physical scientists hate them, their own elites are virtually unassailable, shielded by the belief among many in the media that calling evangelicals on what they actually believe is somehow derogatory and by the belief among many Democratic politicians that to antagonize conservative evangelicals in any way, shape or form spells doom, no matter how crazy and nutjob the evangelicals are and despite the very serious implications for American politics and world harmony that the evangelicals' apocalyptic threats carry and Republican embrace of said rantings represent.
Historical Election
Once interesting angle of this election that I haven't heard discussed much is that the three remaining contenders for the WH currently occupy U.S. Senate seats. The last time a sitting U.S. Senator was elected to the Presidency was 1960. Prior to that, the only other sitting U.S. Senator to ascend directly to the nation's highest office in the 20th century was Ohio's Warren G. Harding.
Back off the Math
I think Matt Cooper (h/t Andrew Sullivan) has a valid point here:
They (Obama's campaign) are now about arguing math instead of change. The tide is with them, still. But Clinton did a lot last night. Pennsylvania's demographics are like Ohio's and just as she had a popular governor in Ted Strickland helping her the past two weeks, she now has Ed Rendell, more bruised, but still well liked and a force of nature. If she wins there, she certainly has a moral claim on the nomination...
If I were Obama, I'd stop arguing it's over and say, "Okay, let's keep this discussion going." (It's gonna keep going anyway.) You're still the candidate of the past. You still supported NAFTA and voted for the war.
----
I don't agree with Cooper that Obama should deliberately seek out some opportunity over seas to be seen as "tough". Hillary's vote for the war and dependence on "experience" is enough of a target. But I do agree that while the math does favor Obama, falling back on it as a response to last night's losses is a losing strategy. And Pennsylvania both poses similar problems for Obama as Ohio and is a large enough state, late enough in the process that, whatever his delegate-math advantage, losing there will hurt him a lot. This is especially true because while Clinton cannot catch up to Obama's pledged delegate total during the primary season, neither can Obama win the election outright during the primary season. Last night guaranteed that Hillary will keep going all the way to the convention, and once there, all bets are off.
They (Obama's campaign) are now about arguing math instead of change. The tide is with them, still. But Clinton did a lot last night. Pennsylvania's demographics are like Ohio's and just as she had a popular governor in Ted Strickland helping her the past two weeks, she now has Ed Rendell, more bruised, but still well liked and a force of nature. If she wins there, she certainly has a moral claim on the nomination...
If I were Obama, I'd stop arguing it's over and say, "Okay, let's keep this discussion going." (It's gonna keep going anyway.) You're still the candidate of the past. You still supported NAFTA and voted for the war.
----
I don't agree with Cooper that Obama should deliberately seek out some opportunity over seas to be seen as "tough". Hillary's vote for the war and dependence on "experience" is enough of a target. But I do agree that while the math does favor Obama, falling back on it as a response to last night's losses is a losing strategy. And Pennsylvania both poses similar problems for Obama as Ohio and is a large enough state, late enough in the process that, whatever his delegate-math advantage, losing there will hurt him a lot. This is especially true because while Clinton cannot catch up to Obama's pledged delegate total during the primary season, neither can Obama win the election outright during the primary season. Last night guaranteed that Hillary will keep going all the way to the convention, and once there, all bets are off.
Hangover
I haven't been this disappointed since NH.
As far as what Obama needs to do to "hit back" at Hillary, he should lead with his strength--wait for it--change.
Specifically, he should highlight, in some more controversial, attention getting way (like the red phone ad) that Hillary's foreign policy is nearly similar to that of Bush's. Such an approach would damage Hillary should she become the nominee. But it would help change the new-strategery-same-as-the-old-strategery meme that Obama is somehow less experienced than Hillary, and that the election itself is about experience as opposed to change. Obama should emphasize, again, his challenge to the political system itself, in contrast to Hillary's focus on herself.
As far as what Obama needs to do to "hit back" at Hillary, he should lead with his strength--wait for it--change.
Specifically, he should highlight, in some more controversial, attention getting way (like the red phone ad) that Hillary's foreign policy is nearly similar to that of Bush's. Such an approach would damage Hillary should she become the nominee. But it would help change the new-strategery-same-as-the-old-strategery meme that Obama is somehow less experienced than Hillary, and that the election itself is about experience as opposed to change. Obama should emphasize, again, his challenge to the political system itself, in contrast to Hillary's focus on herself.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Mother of all Primary Wars Tomorrow
Until, of course, the Pennsylvania primary in April.
I'll confess to being a bit wearied at this point with the whole thing.
I'll confess to being a bit wearied at this point with the whole thing.
What I Learned About Hamas
From reading the NYT and the Washington Post this morning:
First, the Times:
Ever since the militant Islamist organization Hamas took over Gaza eight months ago, President Bush’s peace plan for the Middle East has been to prop up the more moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hopes that Palestinians would rally behind him as man who could bring them statehood and make Hamas irrelevant...
As long as Hamas controls Gaza, it can subvert negotiations between Israelis and moderate Palestinians whenever it sees fit...
And
Hamas, the militant Islamic group, took control of the Gaza Strip last June after routing the pro-Abbas forces there...
While the Post says
The Palestinian territories have been deeply divided since June, with the radical Islamic movement Hamas taking over in Gaza and the secular, Fatah-led Palestinian Authority remaining in the West Bank...
Gaza has suffered for months under a strict Israeli-imposed economic embargo, and residents said the latest violence further strained infrastructure that is already near the breaking point...
Israel has said its operations are designed to protect the nation from Hamas, which Israeli officials say has lately been receiving higher quality weapons from Iran.
"We have to destroy the Iranian enclave," said Yuval Steinitz, a leader in the Likud Party who advocates a full-scale invasion of Gaza. "We have to level a heavy blow to the terrorist infrastructure."
Reading these articles, one would never know that Hamas was elected by the Palestinians in Gaza. The election bringing Hamas to power in Gaza was, ironically, encouraged by the United States, who hoped or assumed that the more "secular" and "reasonable" Fatah (another Palestinian organization that the U.S. and Israel once labeled as "terrorist" being as it was the establishment of the late Yasir Arafat) would win. But after Hamas won the American-Israeli-led election process, neither would recognize the results or talk to Hamas.
But the American press at least seems to have forgotten all of this.
Meanwhile, I thought that last bit about Iran was pretty charming. Expect to see that connection made a lot more as the U.S. election proceeds and demands are made to "liberate" Iran/eliminate the terrorism-sponsorship from Tehran.
First, the Times:
Ever since the militant Islamist organization Hamas took over Gaza eight months ago, President Bush’s peace plan for the Middle East has been to prop up the more moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hopes that Palestinians would rally behind him as man who could bring them statehood and make Hamas irrelevant...
As long as Hamas controls Gaza, it can subvert negotiations between Israelis and moderate Palestinians whenever it sees fit...
And
Hamas, the militant Islamic group, took control of the Gaza Strip last June after routing the pro-Abbas forces there...
While the Post says
The Palestinian territories have been deeply divided since June, with the radical Islamic movement Hamas taking over in Gaza and the secular, Fatah-led Palestinian Authority remaining in the West Bank...
Gaza has suffered for months under a strict Israeli-imposed economic embargo, and residents said the latest violence further strained infrastructure that is already near the breaking point...
Israel has said its operations are designed to protect the nation from Hamas, which Israeli officials say has lately been receiving higher quality weapons from Iran.
"We have to destroy the Iranian enclave," said Yuval Steinitz, a leader in the Likud Party who advocates a full-scale invasion of Gaza. "We have to level a heavy blow to the terrorist infrastructure."
Reading these articles, one would never know that Hamas was elected by the Palestinians in Gaza. The election bringing Hamas to power in Gaza was, ironically, encouraged by the United States, who hoped or assumed that the more "secular" and "reasonable" Fatah (another Palestinian organization that the U.S. and Israel once labeled as "terrorist" being as it was the establishment of the late Yasir Arafat) would win. But after Hamas won the American-Israeli-led election process, neither would recognize the results or talk to Hamas.
But the American press at least seems to have forgotten all of this.
Meanwhile, I thought that last bit about Iran was pretty charming. Expect to see that connection made a lot more as the U.S. election proceeds and demands are made to "liberate" Iran/eliminate the terrorism-sponsorship from Tehran.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Flag Pin Fascists and Confederate "Rebel" Flag
The latest, and rather hillarious, addition in flag pin fascism has gotten me to wondering about how all these super nationalist uber patriots flimflamming about the flag pin choices of our representatives and presidential candidates feel about that other symbol of flagnuttery, the infamous "state's rights", "rebel" Confederate flag? In a normal universe, one might imagine that those most adamant in their demand that political officials sport the American flag pin would also be the most hostile to states or individuals who wave around the flag of the anti-unionist, anti-nationalist, totally unpatriotic, pro-slavery secessionists of yesteryear?
But for many reasons, I highly doubt that this is the case.
I see where the blogger Scarabus has picked up on this, too:
Wearing a lapel pin, putting a flag decal on one’s vehicle, etc. is a complicated issue. Up front, I acknowledge that honest, even sophisticated folks express their nuanced patriotism that way. But, though I hope I’m wrong, I’d bet that the majority of folks “showing the flag” in such a manner are either confused or just haven’t thought it through (like those who have a mutually-exclusive American flag decal on the left side of the rear window, and a Confederate flag on the right side)! You have a right to your own values, folks, but you can’t have it both ways.
But for many reasons, I highly doubt that this is the case.
I see where the blogger Scarabus has picked up on this, too:
Wearing a lapel pin, putting a flag decal on one’s vehicle, etc. is a complicated issue. Up front, I acknowledge that honest, even sophisticated folks express their nuanced patriotism that way. But, though I hope I’m wrong, I’d bet that the majority of folks “showing the flag” in such a manner are either confused or just haven’t thought it through (like those who have a mutually-exclusive American flag decal on the left side of the rear window, and a Confederate flag on the right side)! You have a right to your own values, folks, but you can’t have it both ways.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Playing the Victim Card
I couldn't stomach watching this "final" debate, but based on some of the clips from it, I found Hillary's "how come I always get the first question" whine and her "why don't we ask Barack if he needs a pillow" equally strange and unbecoming, childish almost. Much like in the previous debate where she attempted the "xerox" zinger and tried to achieve some lift-off from a much discussed blooper by one of Obama's Texas surrogates, these tactics undermined a lot of her experience/substance argument, and helped cement Obama's basic point about "politics as usual". However mismanaged Clinton's campaign has been by her handlers and financiers, the fact is that if Hillary goes on to lose the nomination, the candidate herself will be the most to blame. She's earned it.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Flag Pin Fascists, Book 2
First, they came for those not wearing the regulation flag pin, and then...
A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy's demeanour, that it was not altogether a game.
'You're a traitor!' yelled the boy. 'You're a thought-criminal! You're a Eurasian spy! I'll shoot you, I'll vaporize you, I'll send you to the salt mines!'
Suddenly they were both leaping round him, shouting 'Traitor!' and 'Thought-criminal!' the little girl imitating her brother in every movement. It was somehow slightly frightening, like the gambolling of tiger cubs which will soon grow up into man-eaters. There was a sort of calculating ferocity in the boy's eye, a quite evident desire to hit or kick Winston and a consciousness of being very nearly big enough to do so. It was a good job it was not a real pistol he was holding, Winston thought.
....
Something in the tone of his voice seemed to add, 'that bloody fool'. Parsons, Winston's fellow-tenant at Victory Mansions, was in fact threading his way across the room -- a tubby, middle-sized man with fair hair and a froglike face. At thirty-five he was already putting on rolls of fat at neck and waistline, but his movements were brisk and boyish. His whole appearance was that of a little boy grown large, so much so that although he was wearing the regulation overalls, it was almost impossible not to think of him as being dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirt, and red neckerchief of the Spies. In visualizing him one saw always a picture of dimpled knees and sleeves rolled back from pudgy forearms. Parsons did, indeed, invariably revert to shorts when a community hike or any other physical activity gave him an excuse for doing so.
....
He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy's demeanour, that it was not altogether a game.
'You're a traitor!' yelled the boy. 'You're a thought-criminal! You're a Eurasian spy! I'll shoot you, I'll vaporize you, I'll send you to the salt mines!'
Suddenly they were both leaping round him, shouting 'Traitor!' and 'Thought-criminal!' the little girl imitating her brother in every movement. It was somehow slightly frightening, like the gambolling of tiger cubs which will soon grow up into man-eaters. There was a sort of calculating ferocity in the boy's eye, a quite evident desire to hit or kick Winston and a consciousness of being very nearly big enough to do so. It was a good job it was not a real pistol he was holding, Winston thought.
....
Something in the tone of his voice seemed to add, 'that bloody fool'. Parsons, Winston's fellow-tenant at Victory Mansions, was in fact threading his way across the room -- a tubby, middle-sized man with fair hair and a froglike face. At thirty-five he was already putting on rolls of fat at neck and waistline, but his movements were brisk and boyish. His whole appearance was that of a little boy grown large, so much so that although he was wearing the regulation overalls, it was almost impossible not to think of him as being dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirt, and red neckerchief of the Spies. In visualizing him one saw always a picture of dimpled knees and sleeves rolled back from pudgy forearms. Parsons did, indeed, invariably revert to shorts when a community hike or any other physical activity gave him an excuse for doing so.
....
He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.
Flag Pin Fascists
KRAMER (to organizer at desk): Uh, Cosmo Kramer?
ORGANIZER: Uh...o.k., you're checked in. Here's your AIDS ribbon.
KRAMER: Uh, no thanks.
ORGANIZER: You don't want to wear an AIDS ribbon?
KRAMER: No.
ORGANIZER: But you have to wear an AIDS ribbon.
KRAMER: I have to?
ORGANIZER: Yes.
KRAMER: See, that's why I don't want to.
ORGANIZER: But everyone wears the ribbon. You must wear the ribbon!
KRAMER: You know what you are? You're a ribbon bully.
ORGANIZER: Hey you! Come back here! Come back here and put this on!
WALKER #1: Hey, where's your ribbon?
KRAMER: Oh, I don't wear the ribbon.
WALKER #2: Oh, you don't wear the ribbon? Aren't you against AIDS?
KRAMER: Yeah, I'm against AIDS. I mean, I'm walking, aren't I? I just don't wear the ribbon.
WALKER #3: Who do you think you are?
WALKER #1: Put the ribbon on!
WALKER #2: Hey, Cedric! Bob! This guy won't wear a ribbon!
BOB: Who? Who does not want to wear the ribbon?
BOB: So! What's it going to be? Are you going to wear the ribbon?
KRAMER (nervously): No! Never.
BOB: But I am wearing the ribbon. He is wearing the ribbon. We are all wearing the ribbon! So why aren't you going to wear the ribbon!?
KRAMER: This is America! I don't have to wear anything I don't want to wear!
CEDRIC: What are we gonna do with him?
BOB: I guess we are just going to have to teach him to wear the ribbon!
ORGANIZER: Uh...o.k., you're checked in. Here's your AIDS ribbon.
KRAMER: Uh, no thanks.
ORGANIZER: You don't want to wear an AIDS ribbon?
KRAMER: No.
ORGANIZER: But you have to wear an AIDS ribbon.
KRAMER: I have to?
ORGANIZER: Yes.
KRAMER: See, that's why I don't want to.
ORGANIZER: But everyone wears the ribbon. You must wear the ribbon!
KRAMER: You know what you are? You're a ribbon bully.
ORGANIZER: Hey you! Come back here! Come back here and put this on!
WALKER #1: Hey, where's your ribbon?
KRAMER: Oh, I don't wear the ribbon.
WALKER #2: Oh, you don't wear the ribbon? Aren't you against AIDS?
KRAMER: Yeah, I'm against AIDS. I mean, I'm walking, aren't I? I just don't wear the ribbon.
WALKER #3: Who do you think you are?
WALKER #1: Put the ribbon on!
WALKER #2: Hey, Cedric! Bob! This guy won't wear a ribbon!
BOB: Who? Who does not want to wear the ribbon?
BOB: So! What's it going to be? Are you going to wear the ribbon?
KRAMER (nervously): No! Never.
BOB: But I am wearing the ribbon. He is wearing the ribbon. We are all wearing the ribbon! So why aren't you going to wear the ribbon!?
KRAMER: This is America! I don't have to wear anything I don't want to wear!
CEDRIC: What are we gonna do with him?
BOB: I guess we are just going to have to teach him to wear the ribbon!
Confidence
Obama has it.
A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
Among other reasons, this is why Obama would make a far superior nominee than Hillary Clinton.
I agree with Ezra that "this will be an ugly election."
But with Obama as the nominee there will be one important difference from past elections. The difference is, as I see it, that Obama really would be a very different president. To get a stronger sense of that, I highly recommend reading over Samatha Power's interview with Democracy Now. This difference would particularly be true regarding foreign policy, where the president's policy control is greatest. At least with Clinton, Republicans would have campaigned with some assurance that, while hating her desperately, at the end of the day, her policies would not be that significantly different from McCain's or any other Republican's. This won't be true with Obama. The smear campaign against him will at least have some fear-driven, rational basis of the challenge Obama represents for their various sacred ideological cows (i.e. Cuba) and their control over the national political discourse.
And I have no doubt that Obama's crowds genuinely scare Republican pundits like Kristol. Again, with Hillary as the nominee, this would not have been a concern on the Republican side. But the idea that Obama may actually be able to command a mass popular following is not what conservatives want to have to face. Expect a lot of concern trolling about the "threat" posed by high participation, turnout, populism, and all the rest of it.
This will be very bitter, but it will be bitter for the right reasons.
A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
Among other reasons, this is why Obama would make a far superior nominee than Hillary Clinton.
I agree with Ezra that "this will be an ugly election."
But with Obama as the nominee there will be one important difference from past elections. The difference is, as I see it, that Obama really would be a very different president. To get a stronger sense of that, I highly recommend reading over Samatha Power's interview with Democracy Now. This difference would particularly be true regarding foreign policy, where the president's policy control is greatest. At least with Clinton, Republicans would have campaigned with some assurance that, while hating her desperately, at the end of the day, her policies would not be that significantly different from McCain's or any other Republican's. This won't be true with Obama. The smear campaign against him will at least have some fear-driven, rational basis of the challenge Obama represents for their various sacred ideological cows (i.e. Cuba) and their control over the national political discourse.
And I have no doubt that Obama's crowds genuinely scare Republican pundits like Kristol. Again, with Hillary as the nominee, this would not have been a concern on the Republican side. But the idea that Obama may actually be able to command a mass popular following is not what conservatives want to have to face. Expect a lot of concern trolling about the "threat" posed by high participation, turnout, populism, and all the rest of it.
This will be very bitter, but it will be bitter for the right reasons.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Democratic Leisure Class checks in
Just when you thought it was safe to hope again, to be inspired again, the DLC boss emerges to serve up the same old soup. I'd almost forgotten about Al From and his astroturf gang of stooges. But here he is, like one of those zombies from 28 months later who won't die:
---
[Al] From would clearly like you to believe that the combination of increased margin and higher turnout among self-identified Democrats in 2006 relative to 2004 was a smaller factor in the Democratic Party's superior election outcome than was the even larger increase in margin combined with lower turnout among self-identified independents. If you check the math, though, you'll see that this isn't true.
In 2004, 37 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and Kerry got 89 percent of their votes. Thus 32.9 percent of the electorate was Dems voting Dem. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate and 49 percent of them voted for Kerry, so 12.7 percent of the electorate was indies voting Dem. In 2006, 38 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and 93 percent of them voted Democratic. Thus 35.3 percent of the electorate was Democrats voting Democratic, an improved performance of 2.4 percentage points. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate, and 57 percent of them voted Democratic, making 14.8 percent of the electorate indies voting Democratic, an improved performance of 1.1 percentage points.
In short, contrary to From's chart, it's simply false to say that "the difference" between 2004 was that "centrist voters with loose party attachments voted Democratic in much higher numbers." The Democrats improved their performance among both groups, but the combination of turnout and vote-share factors clearly indicates that improved performance among self-IDed Dems was a more important factor than was improved performance among self-IDed Republicans. What's more, note that the numbers I used were identical to the exit polls From is using in his chart. But he presents the numbers in a such a way (using the change in margin of victory rather than showing actual vote shares) as to make it difficult to do a quick calculation of the change in performance.
---
Thanks a lot, Al. Your hero and Democrat Extraordinaire, the now "Independent" Senator from Connecticut is crossing the aisle yet again to endorse, campaign and defend his Republican buddy. My only question is, Al, have you purchased your ticket to accompany JoeMentum to the Republican National Convention yet?
---
[Al] From would clearly like you to believe that the combination of increased margin and higher turnout among self-identified Democrats in 2006 relative to 2004 was a smaller factor in the Democratic Party's superior election outcome than was the even larger increase in margin combined with lower turnout among self-identified independents. If you check the math, though, you'll see that this isn't true.
In 2004, 37 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and Kerry got 89 percent of their votes. Thus 32.9 percent of the electorate was Dems voting Dem. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate and 49 percent of them voted for Kerry, so 12.7 percent of the electorate was indies voting Dem. In 2006, 38 percent of the electorate were Democrats, and 93 percent of them voted Democratic. Thus 35.3 percent of the electorate was Democrats voting Democratic, an improved performance of 2.4 percentage points. Independents were 26 percent of the electorate, and 57 percent of them voted Democratic, making 14.8 percent of the electorate indies voting Democratic, an improved performance of 1.1 percentage points.
In short, contrary to From's chart, it's simply false to say that "the difference" between 2004 was that "centrist voters with loose party attachments voted Democratic in much higher numbers." The Democrats improved their performance among both groups, but the combination of turnout and vote-share factors clearly indicates that improved performance among self-IDed Dems was a more important factor than was improved performance among self-IDed Republicans. What's more, note that the numbers I used were identical to the exit polls From is using in his chart. But he presents the numbers in a such a way (using the change in margin of victory rather than showing actual vote shares) as to make it difficult to do a quick calculation of the change in performance.
---
Thanks a lot, Al. Your hero and Democrat Extraordinaire, the now "Independent" Senator from Connecticut is crossing the aisle yet again to endorse, campaign and defend his Republican buddy. My only question is, Al, have you purchased your ticket to accompany JoeMentum to the Republican National Convention yet?
No Debates for you
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)