It's hard to believe that two black men raising their fists at an Olympics award event merited being suspended from the U.S. team and being banned from the Olympic "village". And death threats.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Pushing It
OK, even I'll admit I'm getting a bit tired of the wimpishness here.
And we can do without the MoveOn.org-sixties-counterculture lectures, too.
And we can do without the MoveOn.org-sixties-counterculture lectures, too.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Obama and Ideology
I agree, sadly, with much of what Krugman is saying here. The Democrat's ideological mushiness and timidity is in fact a major pet peeve of mine and I've written about it repeatedly in this space.
But there a few mitigating factors to consider.
One is that in most surveys, respondents are about twice as likely to identify as conservative as liberal (40% to 20% on average) and this self-identifying trend predates Reagan's campaign or presidency. So this is the lay of the land most Democrats face. I would argue that Democrats need to do a better job of rehabilitating the liberal label, but that's probably a post for another day.
Second is that the 1980 Reagan and 1992 Clinton comparisons are not equivalent. The economic and international environments were more severe in 1980 than 1992, leaving Reagan a better opportunity to rework the political landscape.
There's also the matter of the structure of American politics, which in both elections was shaped by a Democratic Party that still had a sizeable national presence in the South. The 1994 elections largely eradicated this feature of American politics. But again, as with the economic and international environments, Reagan was on a lot safer ground in many respects.
Finally, the 1994 election results came about largely on the basis of the Republican's depiction of Clinton as a radical liberal. Clinton's first two years were fairly bold ones--he attempted to allow gays to serve freely in the military; with Hillary he attempted an overhaul of the health care system to provide universal coverage; and he engineered the passage of the deficit reduction bill, which among other things, raised marginal tax rates. Similar to George W., Clinton stood accused of having run as a moderate New Democrat but as having governed as a crazed liberal wacko from San Fran.
The upshot of all of this is that there are reasons for doubting that, despite the country's apparent disapproval of a Republican president, we are on the cusp of a liberal revolution. The structure and geography of American politics makes such change, or at least the duration of such change, very difficult. Add to that the racial issues already affecting the campaign, and Obama's "triangulating" is somewhat understandable.
At the same time, mostly because he is an economist, Krugman overlooks many of the fields in which Obama has sounded pretty distinctly liberal tones, especially in regards to foreign policy in Cuba and the need to change, not just the tactics, but the underlying basis for American imperialistic policies around the globe and in the Middle East.
So, with Krugman, I share more than a little concern with any rhetoric that seems to give up the battle by trying to "transcend" ideology (remember Dukakis?). But Obama in many ways does represent a significant ideological departure from the norm. Maybe this will bear fruit in an Obama administration and maybe not. But it's pretty safe to say he's a better ticket to that kind of alteration than Hillary (or Biden or Bayh) would have been and certainly a better bet than John McCain.
But there a few mitigating factors to consider.
One is that in most surveys, respondents are about twice as likely to identify as conservative as liberal (40% to 20% on average) and this self-identifying trend predates Reagan's campaign or presidency. So this is the lay of the land most Democrats face. I would argue that Democrats need to do a better job of rehabilitating the liberal label, but that's probably a post for another day.
Second is that the 1980 Reagan and 1992 Clinton comparisons are not equivalent. The economic and international environments were more severe in 1980 than 1992, leaving Reagan a better opportunity to rework the political landscape.
There's also the matter of the structure of American politics, which in both elections was shaped by a Democratic Party that still had a sizeable national presence in the South. The 1994 elections largely eradicated this feature of American politics. But again, as with the economic and international environments, Reagan was on a lot safer ground in many respects.
Finally, the 1994 election results came about largely on the basis of the Republican's depiction of Clinton as a radical liberal. Clinton's first two years were fairly bold ones--he attempted to allow gays to serve freely in the military; with Hillary he attempted an overhaul of the health care system to provide universal coverage; and he engineered the passage of the deficit reduction bill, which among other things, raised marginal tax rates. Similar to George W., Clinton stood accused of having run as a moderate New Democrat but as having governed as a crazed liberal wacko from San Fran.
The upshot of all of this is that there are reasons for doubting that, despite the country's apparent disapproval of a Republican president, we are on the cusp of a liberal revolution. The structure and geography of American politics makes such change, or at least the duration of such change, very difficult. Add to that the racial issues already affecting the campaign, and Obama's "triangulating" is somewhat understandable.
At the same time, mostly because he is an economist, Krugman overlooks many of the fields in which Obama has sounded pretty distinctly liberal tones, especially in regards to foreign policy in Cuba and the need to change, not just the tactics, but the underlying basis for American imperialistic policies around the globe and in the Middle East.
So, with Krugman, I share more than a little concern with any rhetoric that seems to give up the battle by trying to "transcend" ideology (remember Dukakis?). But Obama in many ways does represent a significant ideological departure from the norm. Maybe this will bear fruit in an Obama administration and maybe not. But it's pretty safe to say he's a better ticket to that kind of alteration than Hillary (or Biden or Bayh) would have been and certainly a better bet than John McCain.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Slaughter 'em all
Not only is Hugh Hewitt terribly afraid of the Islams and Obamas, he's also terribly fond of the brutality of football and eager to watch his team "slaughter" another team in the sport.
But isn't Hewitt supposed to be a "Christian" kind of conservative? Is the kind of "Christian" society Hewitt wants to impose on us all one in which we go around "slaughtering" our enemies, literal and figurative, real and imagined (mostly imagined)?
But isn't Hewitt supposed to be a "Christian" kind of conservative? Is the kind of "Christian" society Hewitt wants to impose on us all one in which we go around "slaughtering" our enemies, literal and figurative, real and imagined (mostly imagined)?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Bible Bamboozlement
Have you ever noticed that although conservative religious folk whine incessantly about how supposedly persecuted they are, how they aren't being allowed to practice their faith to the fullest extent in the public square, how somehow they and their faith are slighted by elites abroad in the land in academia, in the media, in Hollywood, etc, that when someone actually refers directly to what the Bible literally says, these same uptight, conservative fundies just blow their stacks, as if quoting from their holy book is intolerable?
After referring to the book of Leviticus's condoning and provision for slavery (the book of Exodus blesses it, too; take a read through chapter 21), for the buying and selling of human flesh, for created human beings, the Christianist brigade goes into overdrive complaining, bizarrely, that Obama is "deliberately distorting" the Bible and "dragging Biblical understanding through the mud."
But what is Obama distorting? He's merely quoting from the Bible, which they falsely claim to rever.
What the Dobsonites really mean is that it is unfair for Obama, or anyone, least of all the sheeples in the pews, to dare to interpret the Bible for themselves, to read it just as it is written. Rather, it is insinuated, there is a grand tradition of evangelical Christian thought that is the only proper intepreter and guardian of the scriptures, and that unless we are party to this elite consensus on the holy book, then our views, our readings, are invalid. Only religious elites like Dobson can explain the Bible for us. This is an old argument, at least as old as the Reformation when the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy first tried to prevent the widespread printing and distribution of the Bible and then when that became impossible, amped up its supposed prerogatives to infallibility, meaning that for the simple lay person, they could read the Bible, but couldn't decide for themselves what the texts meant or how to apply them. But as literacy and education have spread, and just as importantly, as people have become more healthy and prosperous, the would be dictators in the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Mormon church, and in Colorado Springs lose more of their hold on the public imagination. The same old tricks don't work any more.
Put simply, Dobson and his ilk believe only they are fit to interpret the Bible. The rest of us are supposed to follow mindlessly like the most rabid ignorant fanatics.
After referring to the book of Leviticus's condoning and provision for slavery (the book of Exodus blesses it, too; take a read through chapter 21), for the buying and selling of human flesh, for created human beings, the Christianist brigade goes into overdrive complaining, bizarrely, that Obama is "deliberately distorting" the Bible and "dragging Biblical understanding through the mud."
But what is Obama distorting? He's merely quoting from the Bible, which they falsely claim to rever.
What the Dobsonites really mean is that it is unfair for Obama, or anyone, least of all the sheeples in the pews, to dare to interpret the Bible for themselves, to read it just as it is written. Rather, it is insinuated, there is a grand tradition of evangelical Christian thought that is the only proper intepreter and guardian of the scriptures, and that unless we are party to this elite consensus on the holy book, then our views, our readings, are invalid. Only religious elites like Dobson can explain the Bible for us. This is an old argument, at least as old as the Reformation when the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy first tried to prevent the widespread printing and distribution of the Bible and then when that became impossible, amped up its supposed prerogatives to infallibility, meaning that for the simple lay person, they could read the Bible, but couldn't decide for themselves what the texts meant or how to apply them. But as literacy and education have spread, and just as importantly, as people have become more healthy and prosperous, the would be dictators in the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Mormon church, and in Colorado Springs lose more of their hold on the public imagination. The same old tricks don't work any more.
Put simply, Dobson and his ilk believe only they are fit to interpret the Bible. The rest of us are supposed to follow mindlessly like the most rabid ignorant fanatics.
Dobson and his FOTF are a Joke
This is amusing.
Speaking of faith matters, Obama said:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
In response, Dobson's camp issued this declaimer:
...Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Get that? The OT is just junk, according to Dobson. It's "antiquated" and "no longer relevant."
But then later, the FOTF chieftain through is PR minion issues this smarmy, contradictory statement:
"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.
Get that? "Evangelicals...take Bible interpretation very seriously." No, they don't. Just after throwing three quarters of the Christian holy book (i.e. The Old Testament) under the bus, Dobson's munchkin has the gall to claim that "Evangelicals....take Bible interpretation seriously."
But even if you allow Dobson and his crew to claim that when they want to impose Biblical morality on the country they really only mean the New Testament Bible, there's still that matter about the Sermon on the Mount and Obama's linking of those famous injunctions to the presence of the U.S. Department of War (er, Defense), which Dobson's mouthpiece didn't bother reflecting on.
So, when it really comes down to it, when you get through with Dobson's Christian Bible, what you have left is basically the covers.
Dobson and the Christianist, theocon community are a ridiculous joke.
Speaking of faith matters, Obama said:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."
In response, Dobson's camp issued this declaimer:
...Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
Get that? The OT is just junk, according to Dobson. It's "antiquated" and "no longer relevant."
But then later, the FOTF chieftain through is PR minion issues this smarmy, contradictory statement:
"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said.
Get that? "Evangelicals...take Bible interpretation very seriously." No, they don't. Just after throwing three quarters of the Christian holy book (i.e. The Old Testament) under the bus, Dobson's munchkin has the gall to claim that "Evangelicals....take Bible interpretation seriously."
But even if you allow Dobson and his crew to claim that when they want to impose Biblical morality on the country they really only mean the New Testament Bible, there's still that matter about the Sermon on the Mount and Obama's linking of those famous injunctions to the presence of the U.S. Department of War (er, Defense), which Dobson's mouthpiece didn't bother reflecting on.
So, when it really comes down to it, when you get through with Dobson's Christian Bible, what you have left is basically the covers.
Dobson and the Christianist, theocon community are a ridiculous joke.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Bite Me
Brooks doth protest too much.
I keep having this fantasy of Obama telling the Israeli Lobby, the Cuban Exiles, Faux News, the Wash Post editorial page, the Bush Dog Democrats, Joe Lieberman, and the other clowns ruining our Democracy to go screw themselves.
But in the absence of that, a reputation for ruthlessness won't hurt.
I keep having this fantasy of Obama telling the Israeli Lobby, the Cuban Exiles, Faux News, the Wash Post editorial page, the Bush Dog Democrats, Joe Lieberman, and the other clowns ruining our Democracy to go screw themselves.
But in the absence of that, a reputation for ruthlessness won't hurt.
Is the Speaker of the House still a Dem?
I'm assuming the Speaker can block bills like this from coming to the Floor. But what do I know.
Remind me again, how did Steny Hoyer get to be Majority Leader?
Remind me again, how did Steny Hoyer get to be Majority Leader?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Choose Liberal
Greenwald:
A few weeks ago, Andrew Sullivan had an Op-Ed in The Washington Post regarding the extraordinary fact that the U.S. is only one of 12 countries in the world to ban HIV-positive individuals from entering the country, and he described the heavy toll that ban exacts on people such as himself who are living with the virus (This week, the new ACLU blog is hosting a symposium on lesbian and gay issues that includes a discussion of these and related matters).
The HIV ban was the work of the Jesse Helms-led right-wing in 1993. Although Iran hasn't followed that policy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Saddam Hussein's Iraq did. It's really baffling why the American Right is so obsessed with waging war against radical Islam and flamboyantly condemning other oppressive systems when they replicate and embrace so many of their most defining attributes.
Yes, it is baffling.
Maybe our very serious media establishment could ponder this question. Our Democratic candidates might want to mention it around, too. Campaign speeches, debates, TV ads, those would be great places to start.
A few weeks ago, Andrew Sullivan had an Op-Ed in The Washington Post regarding the extraordinary fact that the U.S. is only one of 12 countries in the world to ban HIV-positive individuals from entering the country, and he described the heavy toll that ban exacts on people such as himself who are living with the virus (This week, the new ACLU blog is hosting a symposium on lesbian and gay issues that includes a discussion of these and related matters).
The HIV ban was the work of the Jesse Helms-led right-wing in 1993. Although Iran hasn't followed that policy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Saddam Hussein's Iraq did. It's really baffling why the American Right is so obsessed with waging war against radical Islam and flamboyantly condemning other oppressive systems when they replicate and embrace so many of their most defining attributes.
Yes, it is baffling.
Maybe our very serious media establishment could ponder this question. Our Democratic candidates might want to mention it around, too. Campaign speeches, debates, TV ads, those would be great places to start.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Gail Collins
Whut?
In the print edition of today's NYT, the op-ed by Gail Collins dealing with Obama and Jim Johnson includes one of those paragraph breaks intended to be suggestive of the column's theme. But this one seems particularly odd. The paragraph break says -- "Maybe Al Gore will change his mind."
Huh? What does this mean? Change his mind about what?
The op-ed itself doesn't mention Gore.
Is Collins or the NYT implying Gore should have, or might still, enter the 2008 nomination contest (after a long, expensive, and bruising primary/caucus contest has just concluded)? Or is Collins or the NYT suggesting that Gore has already turned down the chance to be Obama's VP or VP vetting person, but might still be persuaded to accept one or both? I don't get it.
Can someone enlighten me?
In the print edition of today's NYT, the op-ed by Gail Collins dealing with Obama and Jim Johnson includes one of those paragraph breaks intended to be suggestive of the column's theme. But this one seems particularly odd. The paragraph break says -- "Maybe Al Gore will change his mind."
Huh? What does this mean? Change his mind about what?
The op-ed itself doesn't mention Gore.
Is Collins or the NYT implying Gore should have, or might still, enter the 2008 nomination contest (after a long, expensive, and bruising primary/caucus contest has just concluded)? Or is Collins or the NYT suggesting that Gore has already turned down the chance to be Obama's VP or VP vetting person, but might still be persuaded to accept one or both? I don't get it.
Can someone enlighten me?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
They Ask Questions
Hunter, at the Great Orange Satan, has a question for Democratic OK Rep, Dan Boren:
So here's my gentle question for Rep. Boren[who is refraining from endorsing Obama, his party's presumptive nominee, because Boren represents a CD full of sensitive folk who would faint away were he to do so--Ed.]. Let's just suppose that he was right, and Obama really was "the most liberal senator" in the entire Democratic contingent -- a term magically conferred by conservatives on whatever figure wins the nomination, election after election, while hyper-mega-death-penalty-mocking-war-humping-salmon-punching-archconservative Republicans magically turn into "moderates", using those same conservatives' exact same terribly objective calculations for such things.
So let's just stipulate that someone might be "the most liberal" senator. My question for Rep. Boren, and for his Oklahoma constituents, is this: so what? So what if someone is a "liberal"?
What exactly are you afraid of?
What, will he start some wars? Will the economy go to hell? Will gasoline suddenly cost four bucks a gallon, so that getting from one end of town to the other starts to be something you have to plan for in your family budget? Oh, wait, no -- that's what conservatism has wrought. So what big, scary menace will "liberalism" rain down upon us all?
The horror of free public education? The apocalypse of affordable healthcare for families and the elderly? An energy policy that consists of something other than "hell, let's just sit on our asses and see what happens"? My God, maybe we'll have a foreign policy that doesn't revolve around sucking thousands of dollars out of your constituents' pockets, lighting all that money on fire, and using the pyre to make super-special Democracy Smores in the middle of the Iraqi desert?
What, are we afraid less American soldiers will die? That our trade deficit will be, if not reversed, at least addressed? Are Oklahomans all huddled in their closets, lest some of the now-legions of outsourced jobs start reappearing in their towns? What? What is it that is so absolutely alarming about the word "liberal" that you'd rather stomach having everything that's happened to America for the past decade continue, rather than being seen as someone who might secretly have tolerance for, shudder, that word?
What a solid, principled, unflappable figure this Dan Boren is, eh?
So here's my gentle question for Rep. Boren[who is refraining from endorsing Obama, his party's presumptive nominee, because Boren represents a CD full of sensitive folk who would faint away were he to do so--Ed.]. Let's just suppose that he was right, and Obama really was "the most liberal senator" in the entire Democratic contingent -- a term magically conferred by conservatives on whatever figure wins the nomination, election after election, while hyper-mega-death-penalty-mocking-war-humping-salmon-punching-archconservative Republicans magically turn into "moderates", using those same conservatives' exact same terribly objective calculations for such things.
So let's just stipulate that someone might be "the most liberal" senator. My question for Rep. Boren, and for his Oklahoma constituents, is this: so what? So what if someone is a "liberal"?
What exactly are you afraid of?
What, will he start some wars? Will the economy go to hell? Will gasoline suddenly cost four bucks a gallon, so that getting from one end of town to the other starts to be something you have to plan for in your family budget? Oh, wait, no -- that's what conservatism has wrought. So what big, scary menace will "liberalism" rain down upon us all?
The horror of free public education? The apocalypse of affordable healthcare for families and the elderly? An energy policy that consists of something other than "hell, let's just sit on our asses and see what happens"? My God, maybe we'll have a foreign policy that doesn't revolve around sucking thousands of dollars out of your constituents' pockets, lighting all that money on fire, and using the pyre to make super-special Democracy Smores in the middle of the Iraqi desert?
What, are we afraid less American soldiers will die? That our trade deficit will be, if not reversed, at least addressed? Are Oklahomans all huddled in their closets, lest some of the now-legions of outsourced jobs start reappearing in their towns? What? What is it that is so absolutely alarming about the word "liberal" that you'd rather stomach having everything that's happened to America for the past decade continue, rather than being seen as someone who might secretly have tolerance for, shudder, that word?
What a solid, principled, unflappable figure this Dan Boren is, eh?
Narrowing the VP field
While I'm not offering my full throated endorsement yet, I do concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments of E.J. Dionne, and Ezra Klein on the positive attributes U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) would bring to the position.
Unlike some people, Biden doesn't just say he's a fighter, he's actually been one. And unlike some people, he's actually been a fighter against the other party. He can be, as Ezra notes, an obnoxious ass. But among other things, that is something this campaign will desperately need, since its leader can't afford to be one. Along with his pugnaciousness comes a willingness to say what he believes, come gaffe what may, lending an all-important "authenticity" quotient to the ticket. And the truth is he is about as knowledgeable a spokesperson on matters of law and justice, as well as foreign policy, as the party has.
If Biden can seem a bit unsufferable for all his media appearances, I think it's worthwhile to point out that U.S. Senators are not just voting automatons--they're also elected to inform, and hopefully lead, public opinion, not only in their state, but around the country. Or at least the best of them over the years have recognized the virtue in their playing that role. For this reason, you won't hear me gripe about all the times McCain shows up on Sunday talk shows and the like.
On the downside, Biden isn't exactly what could be called a fresh voice in the public debate. And to the extent that for Obama the promise of bringing in the new is a legitimately real aspiration--and I think it is, as it is for many of his voters and donors--then Biden as VP would not just be a potential mocking point for Republicans and late night TV hosts, but could actually represent a real digression from the campaign's goals.
So, although I have him in my top three or so, I'm not quite ready to annoint Biden. While the Party needs a tough and knowledgeable voice, it also needs a new voice, one that challenges the conventional wisdom on important issues.
Unlike some people, Biden doesn't just say he's a fighter, he's actually been one. And unlike some people, he's actually been a fighter against the other party. He can be, as Ezra notes, an obnoxious ass. But among other things, that is something this campaign will desperately need, since its leader can't afford to be one. Along with his pugnaciousness comes a willingness to say what he believes, come gaffe what may, lending an all-important "authenticity" quotient to the ticket. And the truth is he is about as knowledgeable a spokesperson on matters of law and justice, as well as foreign policy, as the party has.
If Biden can seem a bit unsufferable for all his media appearances, I think it's worthwhile to point out that U.S. Senators are not just voting automatons--they're also elected to inform, and hopefully lead, public opinion, not only in their state, but around the country. Or at least the best of them over the years have recognized the virtue in their playing that role. For this reason, you won't hear me gripe about all the times McCain shows up on Sunday talk shows and the like.
On the downside, Biden isn't exactly what could be called a fresh voice in the public debate. And to the extent that for Obama the promise of bringing in the new is a legitimately real aspiration--and I think it is, as it is for many of his voters and donors--then Biden as VP would not just be a potential mocking point for Republicans and late night TV hosts, but could actually represent a real digression from the campaign's goals.
So, although I have him in my top three or so, I'm not quite ready to annoint Biden. While the Party needs a tough and knowledgeable voice, it also needs a new voice, one that challenges the conventional wisdom on important issues.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Debt Conflict
That well-known Communist and Socialist Utopian, David Brooks, has an op-ed today asserting, among other things, that our greedy, can't delay gratification debt culture is worse than whatever sexual immorality might be being promoted by Hollywood. This is an interesting conservative twist, certain to leave Christianist scolds and prosperity gospel preachers flummoxed.
And while I agree with Jesse Taylor that Brooks tilts his analysis towards the problems presented by debtors and their insatiable consumer appetites at the expense of, say, the behavior of lenders, I actually think the behavior of consumers and lenders are only tangentially the real threat here.
The real problem I think is that, consumer me-too-ism and unscrupulous lending behavior aside, the economy largely depends on people spending money they don't have. This is the real conundrum, the real conflict our public policies to deal with the debt problem will probably only exacerbate. If the spicot gets turned off in some way, credit tightened any which way, the economy will likely slow. At the same time, unless the debt spiral is lessened, the whole system will ultimately end up crashing anyway.
And while I agree with Jesse Taylor that Brooks tilts his analysis towards the problems presented by debtors and their insatiable consumer appetites at the expense of, say, the behavior of lenders, I actually think the behavior of consumers and lenders are only tangentially the real threat here.
The real problem I think is that, consumer me-too-ism and unscrupulous lending behavior aside, the economy largely depends on people spending money they don't have. This is the real conundrum, the real conflict our public policies to deal with the debt problem will probably only exacerbate. If the spicot gets turned off in some way, credit tightened any which way, the economy will likely slow. At the same time, unless the debt spiral is lessened, the whole system will ultimately end up crashing anyway.
Monday, June 09, 2008
A Failure of Moral Leadership
I've been meaning to comment on this (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
This time out, as Duncan Black keeps pointing out, the elephant in the room is the Iraq war. If Hillary hadn’t decided to play it safe and let the rumpus room warriors have their way, she would be the nominee and everyone would be saying “Barack who?” She thought she was being shrewd, and it blew up in her face. That vote lost her the nomination, and yet the “analysts” and pundits are scrupulously avoiding talking about it. The war decided this primary, and it will decide the vote in November as well.
In her essay about self-respect (it’s in Slouching Towards Bethlehem), Joan Didion writes that without integrity, ”one runs away to find oneself, and finds no one at home.” I’m not a Hillary hater, but I think that sentence sums up this turning point in her political career. The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing.
That about sums it up. But it was more than the Iraq vote. It's clear that for the Clinton's, the era of Bill's two terms (won with less than 50% majorities both times, BTW) is to be remembered with deep longing and gratitude. But neither Clinton seems to recall that the Democratic Party in general, and liberalism in particular, were essentially forced into exile after 1994.
Not all of that was Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, despite its failure, the Clinton's attempt to provide universal health insurance was admirable and risky. President Bill was also pretty solid on abortion rights and allowing gays in the military. Again, for all the flack "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has received, it's easy to forget that Clinton at least raised the issue and attempted to find a solution.
Nevertheless, the nineties are not grand memories for many of us. Things only got worse after the 2000 election, although for the Clinton's the carpetbagger election of Hillary to a U.S. Senate seat in NY probably allayed some of the disappointment felt by Democrats that year.
Then of course there was the very difficult period between 9/11 and the March 2003 Iraq invasion when Democrats were either cowed into sanctioning the neocon's war or risk finding themselves the targets of the Republican Noise Machine, accused of aiding and abetting terrorist enemies, being a fifth column of opposition to Amerika, and so forth.
As I said, these were very difficult times and Hillary was as good as absent from this country and from the liberal world for all the little she did. I don't recall her ever being a "fighter" during this period or through the 2006 elections, when the only attention she received or encouraged was that related to her inevitable presidential run.
"The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing. "
This time out, as Duncan Black keeps pointing out, the elephant in the room is the Iraq war. If Hillary hadn’t decided to play it safe and let the rumpus room warriors have their way, she would be the nominee and everyone would be saying “Barack who?” She thought she was being shrewd, and it blew up in her face. That vote lost her the nomination, and yet the “analysts” and pundits are scrupulously avoiding talking about it. The war decided this primary, and it will decide the vote in November as well.
In her essay about self-respect (it’s in Slouching Towards Bethlehem), Joan Didion writes that without integrity, ”one runs away to find oneself, and finds no one at home.” I’m not a Hillary hater, but I think that sentence sums up this turning point in her political career. The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing.
That about sums it up. But it was more than the Iraq vote. It's clear that for the Clinton's, the era of Bill's two terms (won with less than 50% majorities both times, BTW) is to be remembered with deep longing and gratitude. But neither Clinton seems to recall that the Democratic Party in general, and liberalism in particular, were essentially forced into exile after 1994.
Not all of that was Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, despite its failure, the Clinton's attempt to provide universal health insurance was admirable and risky. President Bill was also pretty solid on abortion rights and allowing gays in the military. Again, for all the flack "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has received, it's easy to forget that Clinton at least raised the issue and attempted to find a solution.
Nevertheless, the nineties are not grand memories for many of us. Things only got worse after the 2000 election, although for the Clinton's the carpetbagger election of Hillary to a U.S. Senate seat in NY probably allayed some of the disappointment felt by Democrats that year.
Then of course there was the very difficult period between 9/11 and the March 2003 Iraq invasion when Democrats were either cowed into sanctioning the neocon's war or risk finding themselves the targets of the Republican Noise Machine, accused of aiding and abetting terrorist enemies, being a fifth column of opposition to Amerika, and so forth.
As I said, these were very difficult times and Hillary was as good as absent from this country and from the liberal world for all the little she did. I don't recall her ever being a "fighter" during this period or through the 2006 elections, when the only attention she received or encouraged was that related to her inevitable presidential run.
"The country needed more from her than what she was ready to give, and now she gets nothing. "
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Yes She Did
I thought the speech was mostly pretty good. She sounded genuine and not overly self-absorbed to my hearing. There were also some welcome and surprisingly good lines affirming gay rights (where the hell has this been all campaign??), and some nice allusions to civil rights and those on the margins of American society.
But in terms of how difficult all this is so supposed to be for her and her supporters, it seems to me there's one very easy was of dealing with that--try ripping the Republicans a few new ones. She claims to be a fighter. Whether she gets the VP nod or not--and I'm feeling more charitable today than I was earlier this week--let her turn some of her supposed fighting-ness against John McBush and the Republicrat Party that would turn back the causes of African Americans, women, and others relegated to the fringes of American society.
She made some contributions to this end today, but in much milder forms than I hope she can generate later, the sooner the better. If she or her supporters want her to be the VP, she and they can get an early start doing what VP candidates typically do. Don't wait for an invitation.
I also thought she could have done more towards addressing the racial healing this campaign--and her campaign in particular--has generated the need for. While there were a few allusions to Obama's similarly historical campaign and the civil rights struggles of yesteryear, there's still another big elephant or bull left standing in the china shop in addition to the War--race. Regular, white, hard working white Americans and all that. The speech crowd was overwhelmingly White. If she wants to go further, in this year or some future year, she has some damage to repair in this area.
Meanwhile, one of the oddities of this campaign, and HRC's in particular, is what seems to me to have been a shocking deficit of attention being paid to so-called women's issues, like abortion, access to birth control, equal pay, paid leave, etc. Hillary has stuck mostly to generic, middle class pabulum. Her references today to labor rights, the need for greater unionization, gay rights, and civil rights are a welcome change from what has been a dirth of attention paid to these issues so far.
Maybe there's an understandable, if still not a good reason, for this; these issues tend to be controversial. But as she is supposed to be a fighter and all, she will go a long way to making me feel all warm and fuzzy about her in the future if she, you know, actually does fight for something and on behalf of those issues and people most in need of it.
But in terms of how difficult all this is so supposed to be for her and her supporters, it seems to me there's one very easy was of dealing with that--try ripping the Republicans a few new ones. She claims to be a fighter. Whether she gets the VP nod or not--and I'm feeling more charitable today than I was earlier this week--let her turn some of her supposed fighting-ness against John McBush and the Republicrat Party that would turn back the causes of African Americans, women, and others relegated to the fringes of American society.
She made some contributions to this end today, but in much milder forms than I hope she can generate later, the sooner the better. If she or her supporters want her to be the VP, she and they can get an early start doing what VP candidates typically do. Don't wait for an invitation.
I also thought she could have done more towards addressing the racial healing this campaign--and her campaign in particular--has generated the need for. While there were a few allusions to Obama's similarly historical campaign and the civil rights struggles of yesteryear, there's still another big elephant or bull left standing in the china shop in addition to the War--race. Regular, white, hard working white Americans and all that. The speech crowd was overwhelmingly White. If she wants to go further, in this year or some future year, she has some damage to repair in this area.
Meanwhile, one of the oddities of this campaign, and HRC's in particular, is what seems to me to have been a shocking deficit of attention being paid to so-called women's issues, like abortion, access to birth control, equal pay, paid leave, etc. Hillary has stuck mostly to generic, middle class pabulum. Her references today to labor rights, the need for greater unionization, gay rights, and civil rights are a welcome change from what has been a dirth of attention paid to these issues so far.
Maybe there's an understandable, if still not a good reason, for this; these issues tend to be controversial. But as she is supposed to be a fighter and all, she will go a long way to making me feel all warm and fuzzy about her in the future if she, you know, actually does fight for something and on behalf of those issues and people most in need of it.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Politics of Banality
One of the things that struck me about Hillary's non-concession speech was, beyond its seeming spitefulness and intractability, the essential banality of its content. As in past speeches there were multiple examples of people she met and how her campaign was all about them and how she was all about fighting for them, for their health care, for their jobs, for their education, etc, all things that the federal government has little control over. What's particularly weird about our politics is how contentious it is over what is basically nothing. There wasn't anything meaningful in Hillary's speech. She complained, as Democratic candidates are wont to do, about the individuals who don't have health insurance and can't get it; but in the case of Hillary--wasn't your husband President for eight years? And haven't you been in the U.S. Senate for eight years? If there are still people who don't have health insurance, aren't you and your vaunted experience part of the problem, or at least not the solution?
Of course this political banality isn't restricted to Hillary. She pretty much copied--xeroxed if you will--her campaign material and slogans from her husband's campaigns a decade and a half ago (although, thankfully, she didn't promise to build any bridges to the next century or generation or whatever). John Edwards ran much the same kind of campaign and Obama has taken, or been pushed by the media, to adopt much of the same vague platitudes and laments about American life with the equally dubious promises to solve them all.
Today, fresh off his elevation to presumptive nominee, Obama goes before the Likud super-cult, AIPAC. Here's hoping he takes the opportunity to engage in some much-needed "straight talk". But I'm not optimistic. Candidates' prostrating themselves before the god AIPAC is becoming a deeply regrettable campaign must-do. With all the banalities and propaganda that entails.
Of course this political banality isn't restricted to Hillary. She pretty much copied--xeroxed if you will--her campaign material and slogans from her husband's campaigns a decade and a half ago (although, thankfully, she didn't promise to build any bridges to the next century or generation or whatever). John Edwards ran much the same kind of campaign and Obama has taken, or been pushed by the media, to adopt much of the same vague platitudes and laments about American life with the equally dubious promises to solve them all.
Today, fresh off his elevation to presumptive nominee, Obama goes before the Likud super-cult, AIPAC. Here's hoping he takes the opportunity to engage in some much-needed "straight talk". But I'm not optimistic. Candidates' prostrating themselves before the god AIPAC is becoming a deeply regrettable campaign must-do. With all the banalities and propaganda that entails.
Chris Matthews Attributes Hillary's Loss to Her War Vote
Atrios:
MSNBC just ran yet another "What Clinton Did Wrong" piece which... didn't mention the war.
Arguably there were two major substantive policy differences between Clinton and Obama. The first one is their health plans, and the second one is Iraq. Perhaps absent more differences it's inevitable that the horse race/identity politics/silly season/"gaffe" stuff gets elevated even more than it usually is, but at the very least they could mention the real, if small, differences in their policy positions.
And it is Iraq. No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton.
------
I was watching MSNBC during most of the coverage last night and I do recall Chris Matthews, of all people, at one point quite explicitly point out that a key distinction between Obama and Clinton was the latter's vote to authorize the Iraq war and that that decision was the key cause of Obama's ultimate victory. Matthews referred to Obama's opposition to the war as "surendipitous".
I did, however, find all the banter about Hillary as VP a bit much to deal with. Both CNN and MSNBC were playing up this angle all night.
I even watched all of Hillary's speech, with one towards the little clock in the bottom left hand corner of the screen indicating when the Montana polls would close, hoping that the land of Big Sky would give Obama a symbolic victory to paper over the disappointment of losing South Dakota by double digits.
Despite the thousands filling the arena in St. Paul, it certainly feels like Obama limped across the finish line. Maybe stumbled is the right word.
So in some ways I'm not surprised by the mostly defiant tone Hillary struck last night. But her egging on her supporters to log onto her website and offer suggestions as to what she should do now was pretty weird.
Meanwhile, I got a kick out of the reception to John McCain's 8:30 address. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN ridiculed it, causing the normally congenial David Gergen to shift uneasily in his seat next to him.
From Pandagon commenter Incertus:
Man, Toobin just kicked McCain in the junk for that speech.
MSNBC just ran yet another "What Clinton Did Wrong" piece which... didn't mention the war.
Arguably there were two major substantive policy differences between Clinton and Obama. The first one is their health plans, and the second one is Iraq. Perhaps absent more differences it's inevitable that the horse race/identity politics/silly season/"gaffe" stuff gets elevated even more than it usually is, but at the very least they could mention the real, if small, differences in their policy positions.
And it is Iraq. No Iraq, no way to challenge Clinton.
------
I was watching MSNBC during most of the coverage last night and I do recall Chris Matthews, of all people, at one point quite explicitly point out that a key distinction between Obama and Clinton was the latter's vote to authorize the Iraq war and that that decision was the key cause of Obama's ultimate victory. Matthews referred to Obama's opposition to the war as "surendipitous".
I did, however, find all the banter about Hillary as VP a bit much to deal with. Both CNN and MSNBC were playing up this angle all night.
I even watched all of Hillary's speech, with one towards the little clock in the bottom left hand corner of the screen indicating when the Montana polls would close, hoping that the land of Big Sky would give Obama a symbolic victory to paper over the disappointment of losing South Dakota by double digits.
Despite the thousands filling the arena in St. Paul, it certainly feels like Obama limped across the finish line. Maybe stumbled is the right word.
So in some ways I'm not surprised by the mostly defiant tone Hillary struck last night. But her egging on her supporters to log onto her website and offer suggestions as to what she should do now was pretty weird.
Meanwhile, I got a kick out of the reception to John McCain's 8:30 address. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN ridiculed it, causing the normally congenial David Gergen to shift uneasily in his seat next to him.
From Pandagon commenter Incertus:
Man, Toobin just kicked McCain in the junk for that speech.
Monday, June 02, 2008
2012 and Beyond
If, heaven forbid, the Democrats lose in '08, or face a quasi-open primary in '16, we might do well to remember crap like this--
You guys have seen the latest Clinton craziness, right? The freaking out over the "four delegates" that were supposedly wrenched from their hands by the DNC's RBC committee this past Saturday. To hear them say it, Obama is evvvviiiilllll because he denied Clinton four delegates she "won" in Michigan's potemkin one-candidate "primary". Why couldn't have Obama been magnanimous and just given Clinton those extra four delegates? He's going to win anyway, right? Would the four delegates have made a difference?
Of course, the issue isn't the four delegates. The Clinton campaign made clear a long time ago that they don't view this as a delegate fight. Not since she lost the lead in delegates. Now, they view it as a popular vote fight.
Had the DNC handed out delegates based on January's sham vote, it would've ratified the election as a legitimate one (as ended up happening with Florida, by the way). Hillary and her acolytes would've then had a greater claim to her Michigan "victory" of 328,309 votes to zero for Obama. As is, at the Michigan Democratic Party's insistence, the DNC threw out the election and invented a new split out of thin air. Obama had the vote for a 50-50 split, but threw Clinton a few extra delegates to try and ease bruised feelings.
But again, Clinton doesn't give a damn about those extra delegates. She wanted to ratify the Michigan election and claim that 328,309-vote advantage for her tally.
So when you see Clinton surrogates in a rage about those "four delegates", understand that their rage has nothing to do with four delegates. It has to do with the blow it dealt to their propaganda efforts.
And crap like this.
If the Clintons think they can bleed Obama to death between now and November and expect to show up in '12 or '16 and cash in their presidency-entitlement ticket (like they tried to do this year), they shouldn't act surprised if their reception is a little less than gracious. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
You guys have seen the latest Clinton craziness, right? The freaking out over the "four delegates" that were supposedly wrenched from their hands by the DNC's RBC committee this past Saturday. To hear them say it, Obama is evvvviiiilllll because he denied Clinton four delegates she "won" in Michigan's potemkin one-candidate "primary". Why couldn't have Obama been magnanimous and just given Clinton those extra four delegates? He's going to win anyway, right? Would the four delegates have made a difference?
Of course, the issue isn't the four delegates. The Clinton campaign made clear a long time ago that they don't view this as a delegate fight. Not since she lost the lead in delegates. Now, they view it as a popular vote fight.
Had the DNC handed out delegates based on January's sham vote, it would've ratified the election as a legitimate one (as ended up happening with Florida, by the way). Hillary and her acolytes would've then had a greater claim to her Michigan "victory" of 328,309 votes to zero for Obama. As is, at the Michigan Democratic Party's insistence, the DNC threw out the election and invented a new split out of thin air. Obama had the vote for a 50-50 split, but threw Clinton a few extra delegates to try and ease bruised feelings.
But again, Clinton doesn't give a damn about those extra delegates. She wanted to ratify the Michigan election and claim that 328,309-vote advantage for her tally.
So when you see Clinton surrogates in a rage about those "four delegates", understand that their rage has nothing to do with four delegates. It has to do with the blow it dealt to their propaganda efforts.
And crap like this.
If the Clintons think they can bleed Obama to death between now and November and expect to show up in '12 or '16 and cash in their presidency-entitlement ticket (like they tried to do this year), they shouldn't act surprised if their reception is a little less than gracious. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
Jesse Taylor Back At Pandagon
And boy is he laying the smacketh down:
All I want is a nominee who’ll pick smart fights. Clinton hasn’t shown herself to be that candidate...
Experience is only worth something if you learn from it. From what I’ve been able to tell, the main lesson Clinton’s learned thus far is that you always hold the line, no matter how ridiculously out of touch with reality it may be...
Of all the bad decisions the Clinton campaign made, deciding that Obama was more The Enemy than John McCain was likely the worst...
For all the snide talk of “Obamabots” and the alleged cult-like behavior of Obama supporters (which was almost entirely overplayed), the increasing legitimacy of the Bible of Clinton (with the Gospels of Michigan and Florida and the Acts of the Superdelegates I and II) is far more disturbing than any reports of fainting at rallies or the overexuberance of young supporters...
Hillary Clinton is going to lose. She will likely lose Wednesday. Everything that I’ve talked about, everything that has happened during this race, makes me very wary about her ability to bring her supporters back into the fold - a responsibility, incidentally, that does fall largely on her. And if they do wander away, if they do vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it will be her greatest failure as a candidate and as a leader...
Damn, that's some good shit.
All I want is a nominee who’ll pick smart fights. Clinton hasn’t shown herself to be that candidate...
Experience is only worth something if you learn from it. From what I’ve been able to tell, the main lesson Clinton’s learned thus far is that you always hold the line, no matter how ridiculously out of touch with reality it may be...
Of all the bad decisions the Clinton campaign made, deciding that Obama was more The Enemy than John McCain was likely the worst...
For all the snide talk of “Obamabots” and the alleged cult-like behavior of Obama supporters (which was almost entirely overplayed), the increasing legitimacy of the Bible of Clinton (with the Gospels of Michigan and Florida and the Acts of the Superdelegates I and II) is far more disturbing than any reports of fainting at rallies or the overexuberance of young supporters...
Hillary Clinton is going to lose. She will likely lose Wednesday. Everything that I’ve talked about, everything that has happened during this race, makes me very wary about her ability to bring her supporters back into the fold - a responsibility, incidentally, that does fall largely on her. And if they do wander away, if they do vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, it will be her greatest failure as a candidate and as a leader...
Damn, that's some good shit.
Fair and Balanced
While I won't do the dis-service of linking to them, I will point out that the Washington Post graced us with TWO snarling, anti-Scott McClellan op-eds this morning, plus a Howie Kurtz column in Style that basically adopts Karl Rove's talking points on McClellan's book.
Your liberal media at work.
Your liberal media at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)