Communicative Action

iProgress

2009-09-17T20:01:00.000-07:00

Communicative Action is now closed for business. For my current work, please head over to iProgress at wordpress. Thanks.

Rhetoric vs. Reality and The Disappearance of Childhood

2009-05-04T16:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a perfect example of how the public falls in love with novelty, especially when it comes to our politics. Ironically, the same Republican Party who likes to paint Obama as all talk...an empty suit...is in love with this 14-year old conservative.

Jonathan Krohn is a bright kid, who articulates his thoughts in an unusually mature fashion. In part, the intellectual training he undertook while in front of his radio, listening to conservative talk, is parroting, but it would be a mistake to attribute his ability to brainwashing alone. He's bright. At least in the technical sense. He wowed a crowd of loonies at the 2009 annual CPAC event by passionately speaking on the meaning of conservatism.

The problem I have with Krohn is that he's actually the type of "empty suit" that the Republicans called our president, a self made man, a product of Columbia and Harvard Law School, the President of the Harvard Law Review, and an extraordinarily gifted community organizer who was never afraid to get his hands dirty working to improve the lives of others. Krohn is an adolescent.

By what context should we judge Krohn's rhetoric? Is it possible for a 14-year old from Duluth to have built sufficient cognitive connections to the reality he's attempting to define with his words? Well...it's possible, but it's not the case in this instance. Someone would have to show me the hours and days and weeks and months that little Krohn has spent among the poor, the disenfranchised, and the underrepresented to begin to convince me that he has a shred of actual experience in the matters he purports to understand. Beyond that, it's impossible for me to accept that this child understands what it's like to wake up in the morning to go to work to support children of his own, to be accountable in a way that means life and death, or starvation, homelessness. He has no clue what it means to be so ultimately responsible not only for himself but for a family. He doesn't know what it's like to stare a parent in the eyes as they lie on a hospital bed unsure of whether they will ever get well, or if they might die. He has never faced the prospect of being unable to pay for food or medicine or rent or diapers or milk or anything of consequence.

The phenomenon of Jonathan Krohn reminds me of Neil Postman's "The Disappearance of Childhood" in that Postman argues that commercialization of mass media and its messages subjects children to ideas for which they are incapable of making rational transactions. It's argued that this is the point after all, that commercial messages are intended to be felt rather than rationalized, which is precisely the point of talk radio. The messages of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and their ilk are intended to be felt...in the gut...rather than rationalized. The fact that this child is able to articulate the messages in a way that simulates rationalization is merely an illusion for the lack of contextual definition available to him.

He's the perfect combination of a bright child, exposed to messages for which he is totally incapable of rationalizing, being sold on a commercial message. It's the product that is conservatism that he has internalized rather than the actual experience-based conclusion that the process of living affords us. Now they want to use him to be the pusher of their messages. Brilliant.

Our Political Map is not the Territory

2009-04-26T19:41:00.000-07:00

I was watching the video podcast of NBC's Meet the Press this morning, and a particular comment by host David Gregory caught my ear and prompted me to do some thinking (and blogging). It's a question of General Semantics and the relationship between our names for things (words as abstractions) and the meaning behind them.

Gregory posed this question to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

"MR. GREGORY: There are those who say this is a president who's playing politics. He is straddling this issue because he wants to appease his liberal activist base who very much wants accountability from the Bush years over this issue."

As a member of President Obama's "liberal activist base" I would support Mr. Gregory's assertion, but I don't think the issue he was attempting to explore is limited to a "liberal activist base" in the way he was framing the conversation about justice, torture, and political maneuvering. I could spend an entire post on the words "liberal" and "conservative" as descriptors of our national system of political beliefs, but I don't think that those words are the relevant concerns in this case. In fact, I think they're nearly irrelevant to my point.

The term "activist" is used in this example, and in many others like it in the institutional media, to frame a group of people who are engaged in the issues, particularly with respect to applying political pressure for desired outcomes. The higher levels of abstraction, I would argue, also contain a sense of radicalism, or a highly polarized position on the traditional right-left political line. I believe the attachment of the words "right" or "left", or their counterparts "liberal" or "conservative" enhance or solidify that sense. When a journalist or pundit describes "activists" it is generally in the context of a particular situation that is problematic for a political figure who is trying to sit on both sides of the fence. These people are the citizens likely to pick up a phone, mail a letter, send an e-mail, or walk a picket line in support of their own position on said issue. The visual reinforcement of the "activist" in the television medium is an aging hippie protestor, a grungy, pierced anti-globalization youth, or a Christian conservative soldier of the anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage wars. There are several symbolic reinforcers to the definition of activist in the institutional media, which are marginal in their representation of the more nuanced "reality" that persists in actual political claims.

Is one not an activist if they lose a child to toxic waste pollution in their local water system and sues the polluter for reparations and/or justice? Is one not an activist if a large corporation decides to build a 10-story building across the street from their house, engulfing their home in shadow for most of the day, and writes a letter to their Congressman for help? Is one not an activist for voting for the President of the United States? In the sense that one takes action, particularly in the form of a claim of some kind, we all are activists to some degree. Without acknowledging that fact, we resign the label of activist to the abstract and to the symbolic charicature of the institutional media.

The term "base" is also problematic for me. The intent of the journalist is to suggest that there are a group of people who must be won over for a political figure to gain election or stay in power. The so-called base are a collection of true believers on one side of the partisan divide or the other that drive the political bus in fund raising, policy making, and agenda setting. This collection of people is the alpha and omega of political support and must be appeased, as Gregory suggested in his comment. From a purely practical standpoint, I think this idea is generally false. Obama was elected by a broad coalition of people with varied interests, sensibilities, and claims. If he lost any one of those coalition members, John McCain might be President today. Certainly, the base determined the outcome of the Democratic Primary, but is it so easy to say that the base who voted in the neighborhood of 18 million for Hillary Clinton is somehow the same base that voted in the neighborhood of 19 million for Obama? If they were the same, they would have all gone one way or the other. The same can be said for John McCain. If the Republican base were the radical Right that serve as the symbol for the partisan divide in the institutional media, Mike Huckabee would have been the runaway nominee.

The notion that there is a "base" in the sense that Gregory and others suggest seems inaccurate. It connotes something solid or permanent, when we know that political claimants and their interests tend to shift over time, moving from one alliance to another. There may be some general trends in identifying the loyalties of these claimant groups, but it's a mistake to assume that they're fixed. A political base may trend to a particular set of issues and/or claims and the groups who identify with said issues and/or claims, but it requires a far more nuanced investigation to determine the make up of these coalitions and the interaction of their claims to determine an individual politician's base. In fact, I guarantee that within these coalitions there are more than a few contradictory claims that complicate the definition of specific membership characteristics in any accounting of support groups.

When Gregory, or his peers, simplify the notion of claimant groups and political support by drawing on the left-right, linear definition of political claimants, adding in a symbolic connection to our collective image of radical activism, rooted in a foundation of power identified as a base, they miss the point and actually end up misinforming the public in the process. The reason that it hit home in this particular example is that the issue of torture, and the morality of it as a national intelligence feature, is hardly an issue to be attributed to partisan activist bases. To whatever extent we define particular collections of claimants as activists and to whatever extent those people are members of a supporting coalition for our President, in this case, there is truth in Gregory's statement. The problem is, I don't believe that the outrage over the things we now know were conducted by the intelligence community at the discretion of the Bush Administration and their legal allies, is limited to a narrow group of activists in Obama's base.

There is outrage over the idea that the United States drowned people to the point that they were on death's doorstep as a way to elicit information. As the details have been spelled out more clearly in the institutional media, the public has become more familiar with methods that would be hard to characterize as anything other than torture. The only claimant group that appears to be arguing anything to the contrary are the roughly 25% of the country that indicated support for President Bush throughout his presidency, and the people they elected to Congress. It would seem that President Obama is going againt the wishes of roughly 75% of the American people that would like to see the rule of law upheld, rather than some "liberal activist base" lurking to pounce on the 1st opportunity to smack the President if he fails to do our bidding. I don't have the numbers handy, but I would bet that any poll conducted regarding the public's wishes for investigation and/or prosecutions in this case would at the very least hover at 50/50. To paint it as an issue for the "liberal activist base" is an oversimplification of the conditions on the ground in the United States, and demonstrates quite clearly how the Washington Press Corps is living in a very narrow set of definitions of the political environment set by self-fulfilling symbolism, abstractions, and "storylines." These "storylines" are the standard stories of the Washington insider crowd that help to define their position and interests with respect to the various claimant groups in the general American political system. For more on what I mean, I suggest reading up on Charles Tilly.

At any rate, it's important to challenge the accuracy of the language used to define the terms of our own engagement in our human environment. In this case, I think it's quite clear how inaccuracy in mapping territory with particular words can lead to a misinformation at best and outright propaganda at worst.

Digital Sinclair

2009-04-16T20:01:00.001-07:00

In 1906 Upton Sinclair penned his famous work "The Jungle," in hopes of highlighting the working conditions of laborers and immigrants in the meat packing plants of Chicago. Sinclair's vision was to inform and move the public to action on the behalf of the laborers suffering through unspeakable work conditions. His vision was to move the proletariat to action. In the end, what most people remember of "The Jungle" was it's graphic depictions of the meat industry and the conditions of our national food supply. Pools of blood, diseases carcasses, and all manner of contamination of our very sustenance came to light thanks to his undercover work. His work and subsequent correspondence even moved President Theodore Roosevelt to reform the industry and address at least some of labor's issues, although not to the extent Sinclair would have preferred.

Several years ago Eric Schlosser wrote a modern equivalent of "The Jungle" when he penned "Fast Food Nation." That work was later transformed into a feature film, perhaps as a reflection of our modern media evironmental sensibilities demand. Who reads anymore, right? Schlosser, like Sinclair, spent a great deal of time in his book dedicated to the plight of the immigrant worker and the terrible injuries and servitude that they are subjected to in the meat packing plants that serve our international fast food jones. Also, reflecting our expanded sensibilities, Schlosser described the terrible ecological impact of these factory farms and meat processing plants, both on the natural ecology and the man made ecology of local communities.

The message that Schlosser ended up communicating to his audience, however, was that our food is filthy and polluted. The worker and the immigrant and the ecology of our nation fell to the bottom rung of the ladder as footnotes to the most titilating theme of the book, our foodstuffs.

In a sign of the times, in recent days, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and all manner of other major and minor news outlets have featured the story of two Domino's Pizza employees who tampered with their product in some truly unsavory ways and then posted their shenanigans to YouTube. The video and it's subsequent fallout have cost the Domino's Pizza company both the money and the faith of their customers. After having witnessed the hideous display of kitchen hijinks and its mucus membrane detour, it appears as though people are thinking twice about eating Domino's. The company has done everything in its power to apologize and assure its customers that this is an isolated incident. It's used the same viral means to reach the consumer that initially highlighted the damaging behavior of the two food-handlers.

From the perspective of a media ecologist, the actual food-handling and inexcusable "tampering" are secondary to the communication of the story itself. Upon reading and watching the story on-line, it occurred to me that I was witnessing a kind of Digital Sinclair. The workers, themselves, had exposed the horrific treatment of our food albeit without fully considering the consequences. (They have been arrested on felony charges.) The exploitation of labor was lost on Sinclair's audience, and perhaps again with respect to Schlosser. Perhaps it was the very exploitation that each man sought to describe that drove the two Domino's employees to perform their raunchy acts, and also to show them to the world at large. Perhaps the unspoken, psychological impact of thankless and robotic work in the fast food factory environment pushed them to abuse our food supply and then pushed them to cathartically demonstrate it to us. I'm only an amateur psychologist, but in terms of the medium, it appears as though the Internet and it's many communication environments has taken the printed word, distilled it into the instinctive reactionary elements that touch us at some fundamental level, and eliminated the rest.

We still are given access to the horror, to revel in its raw power, but we are left without the depth of analysis and the contextual treatment that the literate-minded Sinclair, and his modern counterpart Schlosser, provided. The outcome is potentially the same. The sensational aspects of each story are what remain. The YouTube version of the story simply cuts out the wordiness of print and hits us where we react most instinctively. In the gut. If the outcome is oversight and reform, each of these examples spoke to the communication sensibilites of its public. If it's understanding of the issue in a more complex and interconnected sense, with respect to its impact on labor and the human condition, it most certainly will fail. The critic will shout from the rooftops that this new medium is failing in a very specific sense, but I wonder if that critic might be forgetting the lessons of Sinclair's experience.

In the end, as we might relate this to Meyrowitz' "No Sense of Place," the new YouTube medium allows us not only access to corners of the world previously mysterious and unknown, but also allows us the ability to show them to the global audience. Where we once cringed at the stories our high school buddies told us about the practices in the Burger King kitchen, we can now access them for ourselves in a truly visceral and impactful way. As a literate-minded person, I choose to seek out the level of information that only the printed word has given us until today. I want the context and the background and the details that help to inform me and guide me in an ecological sense. I want the message about labor. As a consumer of edible products of various kinds, I want the YouTube clip that makes me sick to my stomach. As a visually-oriented creature, the sight of food and muscus intermingling in an unholy way is more likely to get me on the phone with my Congressman or to start me on a path to an organic diet. No one is going to consider the reasons for these employees misbehavior in the end. No one is going to connect the dots to the psychological impact of fast food work environments and food abuse. That's something for books to deal with. The YouTube clip will move some to action (at least temporarily, until the next outrage comes along) and a few uncomfortable news cycles will pass for the executives at America's fast food giants. Some token reforms will be made. Still, until we understand the roots and context of this bad behavior, no one is going to convince me that the next wave of disposable fast food employees won't be messing with the special sauce. How will they stop it?

At least there's YouTube, our Digital Sinclair.

Media Ecology: A Brief YouTube Look

2009-03-15T23:51:00.000-07:00

I've been browsing the net for items related to the field of media ecology, to which I'm permanently and blissfully attached. One regular stop in this exploration is my mentor Lance Strate's blog "Time Passing." While examining the blog today, I discovered an excellent interview conducted by a Brazilian group with Dr. Strate on the Fordham campus.

If you ever listen to me prattle on about Media Ecology, or you are in search of the same things I am, this interview ought to help make some sense of the field. Enjoy.

When Last I Left You...

2009-02-25T16:11:00.000-08:00

It's been a long time since I've wandered into these parts. Blogging has taken a backseat in recent months, but I'm committed to getting back in the business again. A bullet-point recap of important things that have transpired since my last post, the 2008 Presidential Campaign Haiku...

* The Economy Collapsed
* Barack Obama Ran Away with the Presidential Election
* The Economy Got Worse
* George Bush Wasted Away into the Fog
* Dick Cheney was in a Wheelchair
* Barack Obama made 1000 Press Conferences during the Transition
* 2 Million People Attended the Inauguration in January
* The Economy Got Worse...More
* President Obama Closed Guantanamo, Effectively
* President Obama Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into Law
* President Obama used Web 2.0 Media to Communicate to America
* President Obama Passed an $800 Billion Stimulus Package without the GOP
* President Obama Passed a Homeowner Assistance Package without the GOP
* President Obama Made a Historical "Non-State of the Union Address"
* LA. Governor Bobby Jindal Made the GOP Rebuttal as 30 Rock's Kenneth the Page

There's a lot more in between the points, but that's off the top of my head. There's more about Afghanistan and Iraq as well as with respect to the Auto Industry and Transparency and a host of other crucial items on his agenda. He's the most ambitious and daring and optimistic president in my lifetime, to be sure, and I would wager that no one since JFK has put forth such a progressive vision for America's future. He's challenged with some of the most pressing and difficult problems in modern history, but those challenges offer the nation a chance at rebirth, evolution, and a re-focus on our collectivity. For Obama, it offers an opportunity at immortality in a way that even the ordinary president doesn't get.

In coming weeks I plan to blog about governance, democracy, politics, and media of various kinds. I plan to talk about specific items as well as more broad, philosophical concerns. It's just good to be back.

The Straw the Broke the Camel's Back

2008-10-16T00:29:00.000-07:00

First a visual haiku that represents this campaign better than anything I could possibly write here. Enjoy for a moment of zen.......

Did you let that image soak in? A cool, composed Obama walking away from a badly sputtering McCain...left in the dust of electoral history, choked and gasping for relevance. In reality, that's a screenshot from the end of the final debate. McCain, in his inimitable way, exited in the wrong direction, caught himself, and corrected. However, rather than correcting himself in a dignified and statesmanlike way he chose his preferred gaffe-correction strategy of calling much greater attention to his mistake by dancing a jig, sticking out his tongue, and bobbing his head like a chicken. That's not a mean-spirited jab at McCain. That's actually what he does in those awkward situations. It's very hard to imagine him staring into Putin's eyes and winning a contest of wills.

I've written on debates in the past, so I won't belabor the point, but the entire series of television events went the way of the medium. The cooler candidate won. In fact, speaking of electoral politics in the television age, my mentor Lance Strate once noted that no "hot" candidate has ever won a presidential election. McLuhan's "hot versus cool" comes in handy to understand this little side note.

One bit of common wisdom I've heard spoken among presidential politics scholars is that an election rarely shifts after October 15th. People's choices solidfy by that point, and if this election is now solid, McCain will lose a landslide and the Congress will shift even further to the Democratic side. As a fellow believer, I look forward to seeing what kind of chops a good Democratic government has, however I want to see a good Democratic government first. Obama's leadership will make or break that, and his historical position is met by historical circumstances. If ever we needed a leader of great character and brilliant mind, it is now. I believe we have that leader, and his campaign message of hope is now solidifying in my mind as more than a slogan. It's a promise and, yes, something to cling to in these hard times.

What Wins a Debate?

2008-09-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

I'm writing this in the wake of the 1st presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, and after a rather long absence from posting. I'd like to hit one general election point before I get into the meat of this debate post. The economy.

There have been two elections so far. The first was a test of popularity, media-friendliness, and style. McCain won the opening salvo of that election by dropping Palin into our laps with a rush of mythological gobbledy-gook about a moose-hunting, reformer, hockey mom from Alaska who killed the "Bridge to Nowhere." He won by hitting Obama in the media early and often with nonsense about lipstick and Paris Hilton and so on. The long, and I mean looooooong, election campaign had lulled the American people into a daze of sorts, where the Clinton/Obama sparring had set a particular tone. That was the primary, and it seems the McCain people learned some lessons from the late primary season, when Clinton began to make up some ground on Barack with distractions and little things.

The problem with that thinking is that this is not the primary. This decides who the next president and vice president will be in the wake of a disastrous Bush administration. This is the final plunge into the deep end. The Palin pick began to unravel before our eyes as she stepped into the spotlight and Obama began to punch back hard. The meme switched. It changed to a focus on McCain's lies, distortions, and poor management/judgment. That seemed to stick just in time for part two of the election to begin. The economic crisis.

The bailout talks couldn't have come at a worse time for McCain. His trajectory was already on a downward path and the public saw Palin for what she is, a moron, and got back to the issues. The issues had Obama surging just in time for the issues to smack us all in the face with the fall of Wall Street. The seriousness of this choice hit home harder than ever and the primary tactics that had worked for a short time began to make McCain look amateurish and insubstantial on most important matters in the news. The debate seems to have been a push by all common wisdom, although some polls seem to suggest Obama came out ahead. This is the end of the beginning of the end for John Sidney McCain's bid. The end will come when Palin has to sit across from Biden and talk about the country.

Now to the debate. For the record, I think this was one of the highest quality debates in recent memory. It still wasn't a debate, but it was more substantial that any of the events we've witnessed in this election cycle and in the more recent history of the presidential elections. Lehrer did a fantastic job, although having the two men sit next to each other would have had them interacting directly rather than the podium set up that they employed. There was no incentive to confrontation standing 3 meters apart at lecterns. The major problem that I have with any debate analysis is that it covers what happened just after the broadcast. The test of the presidential debates is what people will remember 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, and a generation later. The impression matters more than the substance. The human memory maps out the events it witnesses in such a way that landmarks often dictate the territory more than precise accounts. This is an issue of General Semantics and Alfred Korzybski if anyone cares to look it up.

The map of these debates brings us the Reagan moment against Mondale, where the former Hollywood star defends the issue of age by flipping it on Mondale, saying that he won't hold his youth and inexperience against him. It's the Quayle/Bentsen moment..."You are no Jack Kennedy."

These moments are the long term mapping that ultimately decides who won. At this early juncture, thanks to YouTube and the progressive blogosphere the following moment seems to be the lone map moment in the debate tonight.

If that moment sticks, and the polls in the morning papers say Obama won, guess what? He won. As a keen political observer, I'd say that it was largely a tie on substance. Obama's overarching vision is more attractive and future-reaching than McCain's, but McCain articulated his adherence to the Reagan doctrine very well and made a good case for that wing of political thought. The substance was fairly clear, unambiguous, and the voters could choose based on their particular sense of what direction is best for the country. These debates, however, are not about substance, but mapping, and it's safe to say that Obama won.

More soon....

Bombs Bursting in Air

2008-08-29T17:11:00.001-07:00

Things have been quiet here at Communicative Action recently. The fact is, I've been a spectator more than a commentator for a while, limiting my conversations on the net to microblogging via Twitter and comments on other people's work. I'm back and ready to talk about two things that are important in the current news cycle.

1. The Democratic National Convention

Several things stick out to me about the convention. First, the media coverage was built on the Clinton-Obama rift, party unity, and hitting McCain. Narratives that are pre-determined are the stuff of modern, institutional media coverage but fail the public in a fundamental way. Like the Downing Street Memos and the Bush administration's case for war, the media narrative is a way to fix the coverage around the story. The story is determined by pundits and insiders and everything that unfolds is fit to that story. Barney Frank sneezes during Hillary Clinton's speech and suddenly there's a story up somewhere about a fractured Democratic Party on the issue of gay marriage.

The story that comes out of the convention from my perspective, based on what happened rather than what happened in relation to pre-determined narratives, is a story of legacy. It's a story of leadership. The convention was most effective in driving a line between the Kennedys, Clintons, and now the Obamas. I felt that the party would almost be better served including the Roosevelts in the mix, but I think that must be ancient history for too many viewers and likely they couldn't find anyone to take the stage with that mantle. The Democratic Party brand has suffered through long periods of leadership void. The charismatic qualities that provide enduring legacies of leadership in American history books are difficult to find and almost impossible to fake. The GOP has done a very good job of building a late-20th century Reagan legacy that was supposed to run through the Bush's and now McCain. The problem is, that legacy is basically lost. Both Bush presidencies were pale in comparison to the large shadow of Reagan and McCain just can't stack up. The GOP will need to reinvent itself in the same way the Dems did with Clinton if they hope to start any kind of lengthy tenure at the head of the nation again.

Obama capped off a forceful, and vibrant convention with a masterpiece. The Ted Kennedy speech, the Clintons dueling speeches, Governor Schweitzer, and the Kerry/Biden 1-2 punch provided lasting memories and excellent branding opportunities for the party. They were reminders of past success, links to the legacies of successful Democratic leadership, and forceful defenses and projections of our ideals. Obama had a tough task to live up to the building momentum, but he delivered his most impactful speech, if not his best. It is a moment of historical significance for America on so many levels, but the immediate importance was the ability of the nominee to take the torch for its final leg and make his case as a logical successor to the Democratic leadership. He did so and more, and I think he gave America a reason to trust him and support him, and yes, to follow him.

I would be remiss in failing to mention the gracious and powerful moment that Hillary Clinton provided in ending the roll call to the nomination. In the primary campaign she hit Obama hard. Yes, there are probably some hard feelings and some bitterness, but she put her nation and her party ahead of herself. She stands to gain respect, power, and future opportunities for her selfless act, but historically that moment will be remembered for its symbolic importance. It will be remembered as one of the great moments in party history. That brings me to the second issue in the news cycle.

2. Sarah Palin

Others are already saying it for me, but this pick for McCain VP is an unmitigated disaster. There are a few sparkles of potential brilliance behind the pick, but I'm tempted to stand firmly in my assessment of this pick as a huge political blunder. This was a desperation pick. It was a pick aimed at attracting disenfranchised Clinton supporters, but actually demonstrates why the GOP is all about appearances rather than substance. They don't get that the Clinton support wasn't a gender-based support alone. It was the notion that a woman of her qualifications, and 35-years of hard work in a male dominated society could crack the glass ceiling and take what is rightfully and deservedly hers. Obama proved to overcome that by offering something a bit different. His story was equally compelling and came at a time when a fresh start is on the minds of the American people. Clinton, otherwise, would have been crowned in Denver.

Palin is an outsider and an interesting character. She could help to rebrand the GOP in a way that is desperately needed. They are the party of the old white hawk now, with ties to big oil, big business, and Minneapolis men's rooms. Palin is a person with an interesting back story and the label of reformer. She's sufficiently weak a political character that neither of those points would actually get in the way of the good old boys network that runs the GOP, but appearances are everything in branding. The Clinton network, however, understand that Palin has done nothing to deserve the VP spot. She has no qualifications for the office, or for potentially being president when a 72-year old former POW with skin cancer is in the top spot. She hasn't earned it. She is everything the anti-Affirmative Action naysayers criticize in condemning the practice. She is taking a position that she has no business occupying simply for the purpose of advancing the image of the GOP with women.

Time will tell if McCain can sell this choice as a part of his mavericky-goodness, but I think the stakes in this election are too high, and the American people know it. I have a theory about the vice presidency for what it's worth. It's called the "close your eyes test" and it helps to easily determine whether the choice was good or not. Let's face it the VP is really only important to people because they're a heartbeat away. Otherwise, the person is a figurehead or a sidekick or a foil. That's the perception.

The "close your eyes test" asks you to close your eyes (surprise) and picture a situation where the president has died, become incapacitated, or is unavailable in some way. A crisis has emerged of dire proportions. A Cuban Missile Crisis type event that is turned over to the VP and the Cabinet. The VP is in the Oval Office delivering an address to the American public in an attempt to inform and project confidence in the government. If you can picture the person in question handling this effectively, they pass the most basic test of the VP position. If there are doubts about their capacity to deliver that address believably, they are a negative in the position. Biden clearly passes that test. He might not be the guy we choose to run the country on a daily basis in a generic situation, but the "close your eyes test" is a no-brainer with him. He can handle it, inspire some level of confidence, and project presidential qualities in sufficient measure to hold down the fort. For the GOP, Romney would be the same kind of character, as would Tom Ridge or even Condi Rice for that matter. I would be upset and I'd have my doubts, but they would be ideological rather than practical.

Those GOP types may even be incompetent and screw everything up, but the projection of authority and leadership are important to maintaining order in the nation. Chaos is bad. Pawlenty doesn't pass the test. Bayh didn't either. Kaine really didn't. Bill Richardson might. Clinton clearly does. Huckabee....eh...I guess. But, Palin? Not in a million years. Ask the American people, Democrat, Republican, or Independent if they would feel comfortable with her as president in a time of crisis. The answer is brutally obvious, and that's what makes this choice a disaster for McCain. The short term purpose of this pick is a huge failure, I believe, even if the long term success is a perceived inclusion in the GOP brand. I just think he shot himself in the foot. Time will tell.

Vote From Abroad

2008-08-04T19:40:00.001-07:00

Just a quick note today about people like me, living abroad and voting in the 2008 election. Watch.

GOP Hypocrisy on Obama Worship

2008-07-23T22:18:00.000-07:00

Cross posted at Daily Kos:

The last few days have seen former RNC eCampaign director, webmaster for Bush-Cheney '04, and former Giuliani '08 advisor Patrick Ruffini hitting Barack Obama hard on his campaigning initiatives overseas, particularly with regard to the Germany event and the flyers printed By Obama for America.

In a recent post on the subject, Ruffini calls out Obama as arrogant, saying:

The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn't trying to pretend otherwise. That's breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama.

Ruffini's been hitting it hard via Twitter as well. A few of his more select comments (top to bottom, most recent to older):

The Obama for America Graphics Team really messed this up.

We still expect our politicians to act like statesmen when abroad, not candidates drumming up crowds at rallies. Jarring.

Anyone who thinks that the issue is a German flyer in Germany is a nitwit. The issue is electioneering on foreign soil and personality cult

Covering Flyergate by 9am: Politico, Instapundit, NRO, Hot Air... more to come

Obama for President of Earth: http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/022030.php

Senators' trips abroad should be above this kind of electioneering

Obama German flyer story has legs... pickup by @benpolitico and @LaiStirland.

You see that I particularly highlighted the notion that Obama is a product of a personality cult. This is the official GOP meme to explain why their rotten, old, bitter, washed up, absent-minded, liar of a candidate is being throttled to death by an energized nation looking to a inspiring leader for something...anything. Hope is the keyword, but it's about vision.

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Yes, Obama might border on arrogant, looking ahead to the presidency, if you choose to view it from that perspective. I don't even care about that too much. He went to listen. Arrogance manifested in this way is okay with me. Arrogance manifested in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld model is not okay. Remember when Cheney replied, "So?" when asked about American's overwhelming opposition to the war. And they dare to frame Obama as arrogant? In fact, Ruffini tags his blog entry on the Obama flyer as 'arrogance.'

The cult of personality is really sensational to me. I'm getting more entertainment from the "Party of Reagan" accusing Democrats of being wrapped up in a cult of personality than at any other political angle out there. It's classic. Remember, this is the party that held a primary debate at the Reagan National Library in front of his airplance, with his wife in the front row. In order to be nominated by the GOP you have to douse your head in the bottled sweat of Ronald Reagan as a baptismal of prairie goodness.

To illustrate the hypocrisy and hilarity of this framing, I decided to go back and pull a few telling snippets from a 2004 WaPo piece by George Will on the legacy of Reagan.

In the uninterrupted flatness of the Midwest, where Reagan matured, the horizon beckons to those who would be travelers. He traveled far, had a grand time all the way, and his cheerfulness was contagious. It was said of Dwight Eisenhower -- another much-loved son of the prairie -- that his smile was his philosophy. That was true of Reagan, in this sense: He understood that when Americans have a happy stance toward life, confidence flows and good things happen. They raise families, crops, living standards and cultural values; they settle the land, make deserts bloom, destroy tyrannies.

Good actors, including political actors, do not deal in unrealities. Rather, they create realities that matter -- perceptions, aspirations, allegiances. Reagan in his presidential role made vivid the values, particularly hopefulness and friendliness, that give cohesion and dynamism to this continental nation.

...Reagan understood that rhetoric is central to democratic governance. It can fuse passion and persuasion, moving free people to freely choose what is noble.

He understood the axiom that people, especially Americans, with their Founders' creed and vast reservoirs of decency, more often need to be reminded than informed. And he understood the economy of leadership -- the need to husband the perishable claim a leader has on the attention of this big, boisterous country.

Typically, Will tries to will (no pun intended) his subject into the realm of epic heroism. He is eulogizing Reagan in an effort to make him Homer (not Simpson, that's GWB). The key points to illustrate are in bold. The notion that rhetoric fuses passion and persuasion to move free people to freely choose what is noble. Just words? Kind of throws the criticism about Obama's speech making back in their faces, huh?

The creation of realities that matter, including perceptions, aspirations, and allegiances borders closely on propaganda, but much of political rhetoric is propaganda. All speech is designed to construct. Quality speech can construct quality characteristics in a people, if done effectively. The worship of Reagan is a product of his mythical self, as much as anything else, since he really engaged in some wicked and diabolical things while he was in office. Whatever Obama does with his power, the worship that has begun now is a product of the same inspiration and leadership that the GOP felt for their hero. If they want to pile on Obama, they ought to look at themselves in the mirror a bit more.

Rheingold Sprouts

2008-07-11T19:07:00.000-07:00

I've been following various fascinating micro-bloggers via Twitter recently and really sneaking in the backdoor on some "conversations" around the web related to new/social media, journalism, and politics.

One of the great debates going on (thanks Jay Rosen) is the battle of newsroom traditionalists to save their profession in the face of almost certain extinction. Newspapers, and to some extent television organizations, are now forced to compete with interactive media which can be generated and disseminated from anyone's laptop. This isn't to say that the skills, wisdom, and resourcefulness of journalism are on the way out. On the contrary. They'll be in greater demand than ever, but the paradigm has shifted and public communication doesn't look the same as only a few short years ago. The gap will surely grow exponentially in the coming few years.

Another fascinating collection of material comes from technology/communication guru Howard Rheingold of Smart Mobs fame (among many other things). Thanks to following his tweets I managed to discover a new widget generator from Sprout(beta) that has many, many potential applications. I created a personal promotion widget in about 20 minutes, which you can find if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of this blog, just above my sitemeter. (I would have it in the sidebar at the top if it fit, but Blogger isn't very module friendly. I'll work on it.) Howard's widget features a teaching application with an RSS feed and a presentation video. I'm embedding it here:

The potential for mass communication of various kinds is interesting, given the opportunity to share this widget with others. The idea that one could build an entire community of widgets to generate content and promote communication is very interesting. "Gluing" these widgets together could build a mosaic of content that would certainly resemble a quilt or mosaic of individual content. I'm going to keep up on this and see where it goes. I think, technically speaking, there's a lot of room for improvement, but the concept is good.

I've Soured on Obama

2008-07-10T04:56:00.000-07:00

Cross posted at DailyKos:

Yes. That's right. I've soured on Barack Obama. Sour. Lemony sour. The thing is, souring on Obama is like eating a bag of Sour Patch Kids. Something about it just makes you feel off, but you can't stop eating until they're gone. At some point you wonder if you should keep eating and if it's going to make you feel sick, but you don't.

Sour Patch Kids test you. They make you question whether candy has to be sweet to keep you coming back. For sure they're not for everyone and the traditional lollipop crowd may not go in for them, but they are candy and they do call to you when you see them in the candy aisle. You bought them once and you'll keep on buying them because despite the fact that you have misgivings about them, they satisfy some unspoken desire that lives deep down inside for a different candy. A candy that breaks the mold of the everyday sugar fix. There's a built in mechanism with Sour Patch Kids that forces you to stop. You can't eat two bags. They're just too sour. Your stomach will turn. They are the politician class of American candy. The candy that you shouldn't count on to do everything, but that work when asked.

I'm being funny here (I hope), but I have a point. I was an Edwards supporter and gradually latched on to Obama as his star rose and the promise of his 2004 convention speech came to fruition in his 2008 campaign. Yes, I was sucked in, but I'm no dummy and I'm no cult member. I'm far too smart and far too cynical about politics to fall for the glitz of hope on its own. For me, Obama represented a model of modern politics that promised to match the 21st century paradigm that most weathered old veterans of the game just don't get.

He knows how to communicate in the mode by which the country is proceeding, by and large. He knows how to stand in front of the masses and ask us to follow him. He admits that he'll make mistakes, but that we'll collectively find the best path to restore America. Obama is complex. Thankfully, he's complex. We've had enough of this simplicity:

In a television feed of the event, Bush at one point can be seen putting his arm around Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua.

"You're a good man, you're a good man," says the president. Bush then wipes his finger below his nose and calls for the attention of Harper.

"Yo Harper. The president of Nigeria."

I can go on and on about what I like about Obama, but we all know what got us here. We also know what's shaking the confidence he built in us. FISA was wrong. Bending to meet the Republican framing of various issues is also stupid. Not being clear and definitive in the populist portions of his platform is also troubling. In essence, the candidate that we "hoped" to have has been replaced by the candidate that we'll somewhat optimistically settle for, at least at this point.

Undoubtedly, a rousing speech in Denver will revive some of the enthusiasm. Until that point, the dynamism of Obama is missing. The Obama of the general election lacks a polarizing figure on the other side between which sparks and lighting bolts fly. The unintentional brilliance of John McCain is his damning lack of charisma. He's so mind-bogglingly uncharismatic in fact that it's hard to imagine why anyone would pay attention with more than half their focus. I call this unintentional brilliance because it turns off the electorate to a certain extent. It dampens enthusiasm and it forces Obama to shadow box with his primary campaign identity. It's a fight that he can't win, but it's also not going to help McCain beat Obama either.

What we're seeing is Obamafebruary vs. Obamajuly in the media. That's the narrative. McCain is so inept and uninteresting that the only compelling story remaining for the media to tell is the Star Trek TOS "Mirror, Mirror" version of the 2008 presidential campaign. You know what I'm talking about. The one where Kirk finds himself in the mirror universe where Spock has a goatee and therefore is evil. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous are looking for a fake goatee and some glue in anticipation of an ABC debate.

The reason I posted this diary is because I think a lot of people are missing the identity of Barack Obama, at least as far as the presidency is concerned. I expect certain things of Obama after his inauguration and I think he'll deliver.

1. I believe he'll do something about slowing the Iraq Occupation to a minimal crawl and that he'll eventually get us to the point where there is a small US military footprint in Iraq to protect our diplomatic interests.

2. I expect he'll try to pass healthcare reform, but I don't hold out any big hope that it will get done satisfactorily. That's not a knock on him, but a cynical belief that roadblocks in the system will prevent him from achieving more than a bland, compromised version of his platform.

3. I believe he'll invest in green energy. I believe he'll do it in a semi-free market manner that opens the door for Wall Street to reap huge profits, while appealing to the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans ready to take on the challenge of shifting our infrastructure. I think there will be some capitulation to big business in his program, and I think there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from some labor unions about his fluidity with respect to championing their cause.

4. I think Obama is going to put people on the Supreme Court that balance things out, but I don't think his choices will appeal to the left. I think his appointees will be heavily centrist politically and that he will appoint at least one, if not more, woman to the Court. Abortion will be safe, but I don't expect a liberal Justice from Obama.

5. I bet at least once that Obama is going to have a FISA moment as president where he capitulates with the right wing and pisses off the progressive base of the Democratic Party. He's not through upsetting us, yet. It may be on drilling in ANWAR or in some neoliberal economic decision, but something will burst the bubble that he's a pure left thinking politician, if there are any of us still holding that belief after FISA. I can't say what it is yet, but at least once he's going to set the NetRoots on fire.

6. Obama is going to do stupid, wasteful things to appease the immigration-crazed Lou Dobbs crowd. He'll spend a billion dollars on another electronic fence or something and we'll throw up our arms saying, "WTF?" This particular example is meant to illustrate how the complexity of Obama's position as "President of the whole United States" which is going to get him in trouble with some kind of expensive, senseless pander.

I could go on, but you get the point. Obama is a progressive in the sense that he sees places that need to be fixed and he is going to fight to fix them. He wants a fairer government and a more balanced opportunity for the entire population of the country. He wants to assure strong diplomacy and a commitment to sensible, pragmatic governance. He also represents the interests of business and speaks optimistically about market economics. He isn't all that clear on gay rights and parrots the tired old, "I support civil unions" compromise that falls short of recognizing the issue as one of human rights and equality. He's often too diplomatic in his rhetoric and fails to take clear and firm stands against propagandists like Fox. We may not see a huge shift in the way the FCC operates, for example, and deregulation will likely go untouched.

I'm convinced that Barack Obama will be a good president. I'm convinced that he's the best person for the job right now. I'm convinced to vote for him and support him and work to see his vision of America through. I'm also convinced to challenge him. I'm convinced that he's going to piss me off. I'm convinced that the promise of a grassroots paradigm for American politics is still far enough away that we have untold battles ahead of us, and that some of those battles will put us in direct opposition to President Obama.

So, the next time you feel like I do when watching Obama speak, that his rhetoric is getting thin and drips with questions, remind yourself of Sour Patch Kids. Remind yourself that you're not going to be able to consume a bag of Obama everyday and that sometimes you're going to have to opt for what you know is better. Remind yourself that more often than not you're going to be satisfied by the experience, knowing what it is when you get into it. The truth is, Sour Patch Kids and Obama are both excellent choices on any given day and deserve a premium position in their respective categories. Just don't think they're something that they're not.

Twitter and Tweet

2008-07-08T19:57:00.001-07:00

I've been lax about posting here in recent weeks due to my inordinately busy schedule. Thesis writing, countdown to baby#2, and moving house have all been on the agenda and I've had little time to devote to blogging. In a way, it's been a very good thing. I've accumulated information, participated in some discoveries about new media use, and social networks. I'll do my best to share these things with you over the coming summer months. Going forward, Communicative Action will be undergoing a transformation of sorts in order to account for the sensibilities I hope to project via this forum.

Several years ago, I ran a website called Ital Stew, dedicated to US Politics and such. It was a heavy duty project, owing mainly to the use of FrontPage to build and update. The advent of Blogger and the ease with which we can all communicate via the web eliminated the need for such cumbersome tools and I've found a nice niche doing various things via blog. Politics at Ital Stew was presented in a pseudo-newspaper form with a front page and several dedicated sections. I enjoyed running that site although no one ever looked at it, and there were few means by which to promote it broadly.

How things have changed in 3 or 4 short years. Politics and new media are a marriage made in heaven in some respects. The ability to operate and transmit across the web to millions of people is facilitated by various means in 2008, and the capacity to build networks of people invested in communication grows by the day. Over the course of those same 3 or 4 years, my interest in media environments has grown to equal or surpass my interest in politics and democracy. As a result, I find myself engaged in writing a thesis on that very subject. This blog, as an evolution of my own interest, will branch out officially to include discussion of media, communication, democracy, politics, and related matters. Truth be told, I've already dabbled in that variety of work here over the last 6 months or so, but the mix will become more balanced, and the variety of work will become broader and more inclusive of the thematic nuances that exist across the spectrum of my interest.

Anyone who's been here before will notice several things immediately. In the right margin (toolbar) I've added a FeedBurner RSS feed to replace the standard Blogger Atom feed. Clicking there will allow you to subscribe to Communicative Action. Below the RSS button is a Share This rotating icon, which allows you to share Communicative Action with your network of friends and associates via e-mail, social networking sites, and blogs. One of these days, I'll figure out how to embed that in each post. Continuing down, you'll see the search widget for Lijit, which allows you to travel across the internet to my various social media pages, including Facebook, MySpace, Digg, Reddit, Flickr, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Twitter. It also allows you to search the entire body of sites for whatever you're interested in. Give it a whirl. There's a Technorati widget in the mix here, which allows you to share my blog via Technorati's service, and there's currently a fundraising widget that I made at Change.org, a progressive social network site, for Human Rights Watch. As usual, you'll find various links below all that mess.

During my transition, the site will undergo some construction periodically to make it a well oiled machine. In the meantime, I suggest you subscribe via FeedBurner and jump on Twitter to follow my micro-blogging adventures. Twitter is a preferred medium for quick updates on whatever I'm putting together at the moment. It's also a fascinating form of communication that will be getting bigger by the day. The title of this post is "Twitter and Tweet" to promote this facet of my new media arsenal. There's a Twitter feed in the right margin (toolbar) that updates whenever I do. As a final bit of promotion for this concept, I direct you to 10 Downing Street's micro-blog of the current G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's people are blogging, tweeting, and flickring from Japan and it can all be followed here. The micro-blog that 10 Downing Street is employing for the G8 Summit will be an important model for Communicative Action going forward and I hope to eventually incorporate a flickr feed, YouTube feed, and other means of communication readily available to build a personal media empire. Keep on the lookout.

1992 vs. 2008

2008-06-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

It's easy to forget in this fast paced media environment how political elections were once covered. In fact, leaving out the election meme, it's easy to forget how television looked, period.

This YouTube clip features the 1992 Presidential Election coverage of CBS, featuring Dan Rather at the anchor desk. The things that stand out to me are:

* the simplicity of the set
* the calm tone
* the lack of slick graphic packages
* the reliance on journalists, rather than pundits
* the lack of music
* the lack of commercial interruption
* the amount of face time Rather gets

I consider all of these things a preferable style of coverage than we get today. That's not to say that the current style of coverage isn't improved in some respects. Appropriate set changes are great, especially when they involve a break from the studio, for example. Hits from the campaign trail are valuable ways to take the pulse of the electorate. The urgency and hyperactive presentation of modern political coverage may be a way to duplicate the immediacy of the internet. Just a theory, but when you really want to know something you often click between several sites, or hit refresh on your browser. TV drama may be a way to duplicate that sense, or it may simply be a technique for scaring viewers out of changing the channel.

The overproduced opens, bumps, and closes are hokey and John Stewart/Stephen Colbert do a fine job of mocking them. The good graphic additions have been those dedicated to data or to electoral maps. There are, however, too many flying pie charts and bar graphs of minutia that need to be cut.

The use of journalists for the primary coverage of events is something long since passed away. Pundits rule the airwaves now, so much so that anchors are often pundits themselves. The art of journalism is such a thing of the past that far too many Washington Correspondents are actually op-ed types who have an agenda. A lot of these people get cushy TV jobs and don't want to give them up. Who wants to do all the hard work behind the scenes without a by-line? Better yet, who wants to do all the heavy lifting in the field and have some hairsprayed goon get all the credit, especially when I can be a hairsprayed goon.

The point about music goes hand in hand with the graphic packages. The news used to avoid any music whatsoever to remove any subliminal, psychological tone that might skew perception in one way or the other. Now, music is integrated just for that purpose. Thanks Fox.

The commercials in the 1992 clip are simply 5 second taglines accompanying a corporate logo. Would that fly in 2008? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!! Right. The news are corporate logos already. They are brands in and of themselves. They spend more time promoting their own coverage than actually practicing any journalism. The advertisers rule the airwaves now. That cat's out of the bag. Remember that next time you're watching CNN cover environmental issues (you'll have to watch very carefully for the 2 minutes a day they want to promote "Planet in Peril") and the logo and tag for "Clean Coal" comes up.

Rather is one of those "last of the good ol' boys" anchors, who actually paid his dues in the field prior to becoming a talking head. Now we're so specialized that the anchor is little more than a traffic director who spins you around between pundit one, pundit two, graphic mashups, ads, and pundit three. Think Wolf Blitzer.

I'm including a clip from the 2008 Primary coverage to give a little contrast. See if what I wrote isn't accurate, and also think about how political news (elections in this case) are best presented. TV is an entertainment medium, so the answer is unquestionably 2008, but for the purpose of an informed democracy, I'd have to go against the ecological grain to say that it fails on too many levels. My reasoning? The points made above show how the information value of political coverage has been drowned in the entertainment value. That's the nature of the medium. The problem with leaving it at that is that drowning information for the sake of entertainment may work for the bottom line, and it may work according to the logic of television, but there is still room for journalism in entertainment. There is room for entertainment and information to work together successfully. One would argue that television can never be the most effective means of acquiring and integrating political information, but it can be better than it is now without sacrificing its own nature to the doldrums of 1992.

The internet has changed the way we cover news, and politics, just as it's changed the coverage of sports. They are all one and the same. The horse race wins out over the wonkish policy issues. Wonkishness on the internet works by integrating media forms. The long form text of the internet allows for detailed information to be communicated, while hyperlinks and video embeds give a more dynamic and entertaining vibe. The embedded YouTube clip, for example, is the sauce or the salt or the chocolate topping. It's the part of the information that you WANT. The text is the vitamins, minerals, protein, etc...it's the information you NEED. Television has less opportunity to do this, but it can still make a better attempt.

Twittering a McCain FCC

2008-06-22T05:48:00.001-07:00

Cross posted at DailyKos:

In a recent first, the Personal Democracy Forum held a "Twitter Debate" between Obama and McCain surrogates. The PdF is a really interesting collection of people from various backgrounds, who jointly hope to promote, understand, and evolve technology in democratic uses.

The moderator of this debate was none other that Wonkette Emeritus herself, Ana Marie Cox. The surrogates in question were RNC Director of Communications, Liz Mair and Michael Nelson, Clinton's Director for Technology Policy at the Federal Communications Commission, IBMer, and Visiting Professor of Communication, Culture, and Technology at Georgetown University.

First of all, this exercise was a fascinating use of new media. Twitter is a fairly untapped tool at this point, and the variety of applications that are being generated in support of it are adding to a new landscape of old media forms. The Tweetboard application that hosted the debate is little more than a glorified conference call, using chat style instant messaging as its code. The Lincoln-Douglas debates, which lasted for days are being played out over the course of days again via the PdF's Twitter experiment, although I think it's safe to say that the number of words communicated per second/minute/hour/day pale in comparison to the oral presentations of 1858.

For those of you interested in seeing this media technology in action, just follow the links above. Also, feel free to add me to your list of tweeters by clicking here.

Beyond the technology, one of the interesting things that's come up in the course of this communication was the name dropping that Ana Marie Cox engaged in when asked about potential FCC appointments by John McCain, were he to be elected president. The direct cut and paste (bold mine):

anamariecox: (Jun 21 20:12:00) Forgot "#pdfdebate" in my last q. Asked both @LizMair & @MikeNelson abt possible FCC chair. Will return 6ish for today's last round of q's.

LizMair: (Jun 21 21:33:43) @anamariecox Just a few big names for you, beyond C Fiorina: Meg Whitman, John Chambers, Chuck Fish.#pdfdebate

LizMair: (Jun 21 21:38:42) @anamariecox And I have to plug my boss, Cy Krohn (ex-Yahoo and Microsoft) who's RNC eCampaign Director :)#pdfdebate

Let's review the names for a moment to see who we're dealing with.

1. Carly Fiorina (from her Wikipedia page)

Her tenure as H-P's leader included a 50% drop in the company's stock price, and thousands of employee lay-offs (done to cut expenses quickly). She was fired by H-P's board of directors due to dissatisfaction with her performance, in February 2005.

Fiorina is also a contributor on the Fox Business Network.

Bad CEO-ing and then a job with Fox. Sounds like someone we'd be thrilled to see working at the FCC. Another reason to soundly reject John McCain as president.

2. Meg Whitman

Whitman, like Fiorina has been bandied about as a potential McCain VP. She joined the McCain campaign as Finance Co-Chair after serving with Romney in his failed bid for the nomination. She's been rumored as a political figure for some time, but only after leaving eBay to support Romney did this materialize. A number of very unpopular fee increases and some shady happenings with the auction mega-site left Whitman the target of a massive user boycott this past year, although it's been argued that the effect of the boycott on eBay's bottom line was negligible. The real critique of Whitman's performance was made by Silicon Alley Insider, Henry Blodget:

In the past few years, as eBay's core business has matured, Meg has overseen several decisions and non-decisions that were, at best, weak:

* Failing to move the eBay brand perception beyond "auctions"--a retailing concept that will forever appeal to only a small segment of the overall retailing market.

* Failing to focus on the core site interface, which for more than a decade has been considered a joke.

* Buying Skype, which never had any real strategic synergy with eBay (despite several years of management insistence to the contrary), which distracted eBay from its core business, and which ultimately disappointed.

* Failing to kill, buy, copy, or at least partner with Amazon, whose superior customer service and site has now become the gold standard for any consumer interested in an end-to-end research, buying, and fulfillment experience.

Kim Peterson at MSN's Money Blog also had this analysis of Whitman's recent tenure at eBay:

Putting politics aside, is it time for Whitman to step down? If you're an eBay shareholder, you might think so. The stock was abysmal in 2006 and continued to disappointment in 2007, staying mostly in the $30-$35 range when companies like Amazon saw shares go through the roof. (Ebay closed yesterday at $32.49.)

Ebay has seen huge growth and international expansion during Whitman's 10-year tenure as CEO. The company is in nearly 40 markets, and has about 250 million registered users. Ebay says it has 100 million listings on its site at any given time, with 6 million added each day.

The company is undoubtedly an auction powerhouse. The problem is that it has remained just that, despite numerous attempts to expand to new areas. Perhaps the biggest black mark on Whitman's time at eBay is the $2.6 billion acquisition of Internet calling company Skype in 2005. What an expensive mistake. Skype never meshed with eBay and should be spun off as soon as possible.

Ebay is trying other things, like introducing its own "Neighborhoods" social networking service, but so far that doesn't seem to have taken off either. (Check out eBay's sad, sad iPod neighborhood).

Whitman has more to crow about than Fiorina, but still leaves something to be desired as an FCC Chair.

3. John Chambers

Chambers, the chairman and chief executive of technology giant Cisco Systems Inc., was tapped to serve as the national co-chair and economic and technology adviser of McCain's presidential exploratory committee. He previously served on the education committee of President Bush's transition team and on a Bush admin advisory council on national infrastructure. He also worked on a trade policy committee under Bill Clinton.

The ties to Bush and infrastructure and education would seem to be an automatic two strikes for Chambers, as would be his role in trade under Clinton a check swing, but this interesting note from a March article at Networkworld may be something positive:

Chambers and Bostrom outlined Cisco's efforts to cut carbon emissions in the way it runs the company and also in the power consumption of its products. The company has what it calls the Eco Board, a group of employees charged with finding new ways to cut emissions. Chambers said the company cut its carbon footprint 20% and saved $150 million after it was challenged by the Clinton administration to do so.

Chambers said businesses seemed to be taking more concrete steps than government, but he agreed that leadership from the United States and China - two of the biggest polluter - would be a big step toward solving the problem. "In Silicon Valley we can make dreams come true," Chambers said, "but you can't do it without government leaders."

I have some questions about Chambers and his attitudes towards deregulation, since Cisco has taken great advantage of it in India to score a huge vertically integrated stake in their national IT infrastructure, but I also don't come across anything overtly dangerous in my quick research of his past statements. In fact, I like what he had to say back in 2001 about broadband penetration:

Korea has the highest broadband deployment in the world because it has subsidized a build-out to the tune of $7.5 billion over five years. John Chambers of Cisco says, "I'd like to see the administration and Congress, both the Democrats and Republicans, make this a major project, like putting a person on the moon. Let's give broadband to every American home by the end of the decade who wants it." Of course, such a program would be a boon to Chambers' company. But it might also help recharge the economy.

4. Chuck Fish

Fish is a member of the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, where the following bio excerpt can be found:

Chuck Fish is Vice President & Chief Patent Counsel of Time Warner Inc. He is a 1984 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he was a national champion parliamentary debater and achieved two coveted Black N awards. After commissioning, he served on a destroyer and a Patrol Wing Staff in the Western Pacific until "President Reagan won the Cold War and we ran out of targets." He then attended Wayne State University Law School, graduating cum laude in 1992. While in Detroit at Wayne State he founded the Wayne Law Film Society and was active in the Federalist Society.

Hmmm....until, quote, President Reagan won the Cold War and we ran out of targets, unquote. That's not good. Also, active in the Federalist Society isn't a promising start. I see that Fish has worked on the Telecomm Immunity issue for the McCain campaign. Maybe he's had something valuable to contribute (although I suspect not):

"First, we need to be explicit we are not talking about granting indulgences," Fish said, clarifying that he meant forgiveness must be matched with repentance.

"There would need to be hearings to find out what actually happened and what harms actually occurred," Fish said, adding that immunity would need to be coupled with clear rules to make sure private records would be protected in future.

In the wake of that statement, the McCain campaign had to reassure their friends in the industry that they are still very much for complete and unequivocal amnesty. Julian Sanchez of ars technica summarizes the discussion held between Fish and Obama surrogate Daniel Weitzner, giving us this look into the future at a McCain administration:

Fish outlined the four core principles that would guide a McCain administration's approach to technology. First, ensuring the availability of risk capital in order to promote investment and innovation.

Second, creating a skilled work force, by means of education, but also tax and immigration policy. (On the latter front, Fish claimed that for each H1-B visa hire, 20 domestic jobs are created. I have only been able to find a study supporting the far more modest claim that H1-B visa requests are correlated with 5–7 new domestic jobs, which may simply indicate that expanding firms hire more workers, both local and foreign. Fish did not respond to an e-mail seeking a source for his claim.)

Third, Fish stressed the importance of a employing a light regulatory touch and respecting open markets. He noted that misregulation can impede innovation, and invoked what he called the "futility principle": There are some genuine problems that are only made worse by attempts to meliorate them.

Finally, he stressed McCain's "commitment to discovery," and noted that while we currently spend some 2.7% of GDP on research and development, "more can be done."

Just what I expected from a Time Warner VP. A strong commitment to deregulation, or non-interference in markets. Bah. Enough of him already.

5. Cyrus Krohn

From his Personal Democracy Forum bio:

Cyrus Krohn is Director of the Republican National Committee's eCampaign Division. Prior to joining the RNC, Krohn developed election websites & political advertising programs for Yahoo and Microsoft as well as launching Slate.com, formerly owned by Microsoft.

Krohn has no shot at the Chair of the FCC and it's clear that Mair was just giving her boss some kudos, but the irony is that he's probably just as qualified to hold that position (if not more) than the people named above. He's the only one (that I can tell) that has a blog, several social networking profiles, and direct hands on experience with the web. The field here is unsurprisingly heavy with CEOs of major corporations, primarily fallen or lackluster CEOs and I'd have to say that only John Chambers seems remotely promising as a potential McCain administration FCC Chair. Ugh, just typing that is painful.

For the record, Mike Nelson took a pass on naming names for the Obama side. I give you the pertinent debate comments here:

MikeNelson: (Jun 21 21:48:19) I do policy, not personnel. The list of talented, senior people supporting Barack who COULD be FCC Chair is a long one. #pdfdebate

MikeNelson: (Jun 21 21:49:05) Here's the list of tech supporters from last November: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/1... #pdfdebate

MikeNelson: (Jun 21 21:50:24) The requirements for FCC appointees: 1) believe in open, transparent processes and 2) understand new and old media. #pdfdebate

Vague, but not altogether unexpected. One might look over the list of Obama supporters named in the link embedded in Nelson's 2nd comment, but there are far too many people to draw any serious conclusions. In the end, I'd expect Obama to pick a CEO of some kind for the post as well. I operate under no illusions that the FCC is going to be run by real communications thinkers anytime soon. I hope I'm surprised, but I'm not counting on it.

The PdF debate continues today. Look in via Twitter and the Tweetboards and post your comment below on what you see there, and what you think about the people floated for McCain FCC Chair.

McCain: You....Tube? What's that?

2008-06-10T05:36:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Alter speaks to Keith Olbermann about the impact of YouTube on the modern political campaign....at John McCain's expense. Enjoy.

War is in His Blood

2008-06-06T18:21:00.000-07:00

John McCain launched the 1st ad of the general election today, featuring an "I Hate War" theme. The problem is, his grandfather fought, his father fought, he fought, and now his son is fighting. In some ways this is honorable patriotic duty that should be commended. In other ways this is evidence that John McCain is blind to the idea that war is a last resort. Avoiding war is harder work and far more honorable a pursuit that fighting it. The people who hear honor in this ad will vote for him anyway. The people who know his record and want this war to end, and the fighting to stop should hear the hypocrisy in it.

I hear both, but I face reality knowing the hypocrisy of this war and that far too distant war in SouthEast Asia that were both fought on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised over the wealth and power of a few. John McCain would keep the military-industrial-complex churning away to suit his own "family business" sensibilities and that is something we can't allow to happen.

Worst. Speech. Ever.

2008-06-06T04:19:00.000-07:00

The reaction to the McCain speech is priceless and dead on. The notable speakers in this clip are the people at Fox News, who should probably be touting the speech's brilliance, but who know just how awful it was.

There's some interesting advice for McCain's people at Politico today, which I generally agree with, but I think the only thing that's going to save McCain in 2008 is a combination of straight ticket Republican voters in the reddest of the red states, and racists. Oh, and maybe a handful of disgruntled and utterly stupid Hillary Clinton robots that will scuttle the Democratic Party and their own reproductive rights over a cult of personality. The question is, are there enough of any of these people to stave off the Obama tidal wave? I think not.

Presumptives

2008-06-04T06:55:00.000-07:00

First, McSame:

Then, Obama:

Can we vote today? This thing is over.

Story of the Decade

2008-05-29T18:54:00.001-07:00

Leave it to Keith Olbermann to do the job. Scott McClennan is this generation's John Dean. This will go to Waxman's committee and impeachment of Cheney will be on the table. Keep yourself up to date on this story:

The Real John McCain

2008-05-27T19:27:00.000-07:00

I'm about to post a YouTube video produced be the people at The Real McCain, but I want to provide a short disclaimer about my own take on the video first. I think that everything in the video is true, but the presentation is very dangerous. The truth is there. It's well documented in lengthy expositions about who John McCain is, what he's done, what he's likely to do in the future, and the flip-flops he's had over the years on key issues important to the American people. That's not an issue to me. The disclaimer here is necessary because I believe that we rely on short, edited clips of media appearances to make the case far too often in 2008, and it does a disservice to the truth.

Truth is a highly subjective thing in many cases. Never more so than when we attempt to portray truth via fast impression, video/audio bites that appear to make the case, but don't do much more than scratch the surface of the truth at best. That is what you'll find in this YouTube clip. "Truthiness" vs. truth. I post it because I hope the truthiness presented in the clip will prompt people to investigate the reality of the so-called truth more carefully on their own. More truthiness is found at McCainPedia, produced by the DNC and only accessible for editing by the DNC. This is a tool which should prove quite useful at engaging the truth about John McCain far more accurately than the truthiness we get in the mainstream traditional media. No one gets at real truth in this day and age. Truth lies in deeper, lengthier investigation. Please do that on your own, if possible. In the meantime, here's a bit of truthiness that should counter the other truthiness you get via TV and newspapers.

Is Hillary a Racist?

2008-05-22T18:56:00.000-07:00

People have been writing a lot about Hillary Clinton's support among racist voters in Appalachia recently. My contention is that she is simply a political opportunist who needs whatever edge she can get to steal the nomination from Barack Obama. That's politics. It's ugly but when the most powerful job in the world is at stake, it gets ugly. The thing is, Clinton worked her entire life to uplift the condition of African-Americans by many accounts, and I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I abhor the racists that you can see in the clip embedded in my last post, and I think she should come out to reject their votes on principle, but it is what it is.

She's started to repeat certain talking points about her support from "hard working voters, white voters" and it's raised some eyebrows around the US. The media has been giving it to her pretty good over those remarks. So what do we make of these remarks:

Why does the gas station owner have to be Indian, and why does he have to have the name of the single greatest populist leader of the 20th century? Isn't that racist, or dangerously close to it? In fairness, I've been known to make fun of Apu on The Simpsons over the years. A good friend brought it to my attention that there may be something racist in that impression, or at the very least racially insensitive. I've done my best to change my ways, and hope that I'm a far more mature and sensitive person at 37 than I was at 27 or 17. Hillary Clinton HAS TO know better than this. It's a shame that she's sunk this low.

My Old Kentucky Home

2008-05-20T18:31:00.000-07:00

All you need to know about Hillary Clinton's big victory in Kentucky. We have a lot of work to do Americans. A lot of work.

The DNC's McCainPedia

2008-05-19T04:09:00.000-07:00

All hail the new media revolution. The Democratic National Committee has launched a new research/framing tool for the 2008 Presidential Election called McCainPedia. It's a wiki-esque database of information about John McCain designed to frame his candidacy in a way that is friendly to the Democratic chances for victory. It's not open source, however, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it shows why the Dems understand new media and the GOP is being left in the dustbin of history. Enjoy.

Branding the Candidate

2008-05-16T19:58:00.001-07:00

A good e-friend of mine, and fine progressive writer/blogger, Nancy Scola put together a few pieces some time back about the branding of the Obama campaign and the sophisticated understanding of graphic art, fonts, and even the employment of folk art in building a movement. The pieces are excellent and show precisely how tight the Obama campaign is when compared to the Clinton and McCain efforts.

In the spirit of her work, I thought I'd put a few examples of the campaign art that's been out there this cycle and offer a few comments.

Mike Huckabee

It almost looks like the person who designed this sign had no sense of graphic arts at all. You get the vague Coca-Cola symbolism of the red and white flourish through the center of the sign, but the jumbled up letters that spell out "Huckabee" couldn't look worse. With all those different heights and crooks in the letters you have to kern out the font a bit more and let it breathe. Also, the yellow makes you feel like this sign has coffee and tobacco stained teeth or something. It's not clean, it doesn't evoke anything except local goober, and fails in almost every measurable way. He probably should have just put up a cross with the word "Mike" in the horizontal and "Huckabee" in the vertical and done away with the charade that he had a chance with anyone except Evangelicals.

Mitt Romney

This is actually a fairly well designed layout. It works on signs and it translates well to goods. The color scheme is standard, but the clever merging of the eagle and the banner in white and red make for a good flourish element that catches the eye without dominating the name. Romney definitely benefits from having a Roman looking name with large, wide letters that balance out nicely while projecting strength. The overall look of his signage is probably just what he wanted, corporate. He ran as a CEO-type candidate with the background to boldly fix the economy and the corporate branding style that he chose is bold, but safe. I guess it didn't work out for him in the end, but we might just see some variation on this theme again in 2012 after McCain is defeated.

Ron Paul

Wow. That's a lot of words in a small space. Too many, in fact. The main problem, as I see it, is the "PRESIDENT '08" line. All caps, smashed into a subordinate position between the only pertinent information you need. The brilliance of this sign, and perhaps the biggest reason Paul has remained in the race raising money and drawing votes is the website. He gets it. There was no chance for Paul to overcome the big name rivals in the campaign, or their money, but he found a way by using the internet. He understood the direction this whole act of democracy has taken and embraced it. The sign itself does nothing for me. It's mundane, uninspiring, and has no message save the internet....which is the key to it's genius. Too bad that's all he's had going for him as he's been largely drowned out. One interesting note, the star graphic in the middle is the same one the McCain campaign is using in their sign. See below:

Rudy Giuliani

This is one variation on the Rudy campaign's signage. The design actually fits the man. His first name in GIGANTIC letters with little space for anything else. I'm shocked that 9/11 isn't visible on the sign somewhere, although it might be subliminal. Despite the boring design and lack of elements other than his name, it accomplishes two things. It brands him as a familiar person (on a first name basis) and it gets the website out there. At least he understood that much. The problem is, no one saw this except Floridians since his people conveniently thought he could camp out down there and wait for something to happen.

John McCain

This is a bumper sticker for the McCain campaign. Oddly unpatriotic color scheme for a guy who is going to have to win this thing by making Obama look unpatriotic in contrast to his military service. I suppose this does evoke some kind of regal, naval imagery, but it also looks very slapped together. It looks like it took a couple of interns a day or two to settle on a font and a piece of clip art to throw in. It works if you hope to play up your Navy pilot background, but this election is about a lot more than that. This is a dynamic election and this says "status quo". In defense of the design, it's clean and the font is a very corporate, proud looking design. It has the requisite website URL, although it's unclear that any of McCain's supporters actually know how to use the "internets" since he is lagging FAR behind his Democratic rivals in cash on hand.

Joe Biden
I actually like this design a little. It's very traditional in the sense that the name is on top in big letters and the office and year are below. There's a little star for effect to punctuate the point of the campaign, but it stays simple. In the small format you see above, it's less effective since it doesn't have the opportunity to dominate anything in context. It fails in that it's a white background on a white field here. It looks fragile. In a different context, on a bolder, darker background it pops and brightens up the atmosphere. It's not a great piece of branding, but it can work. It has no URL though, and I'm not exactly sure what it says about Biden, who is an outspoken and tough nosed candidate.

Bill Richardson

Here's the Bill Richardson candidacy announcement photo. There are several strikes going against the man from the very start. His name is very long and it has to fit in this limited space. The design team does a good job of working the space issue out and finds room for both a flourish element and the URL. The problem is, the URL is ridiculously long and junks up the entire lower portion of the sign. The flourish is clip artish and makes the effort look amateurish. The blue field is probably an accurate account of the US flag, but looks a bit 1970s. He could have gone with a more updated look in the font choice, the artwork, and the branding via URL. Also worthy of mention is that his chin looks stronger with the goatee he wore after dropping out and added a kind of Washington outsider edge that would have worked to his benefit in the large field of candidates he faced.

Dennis Kucinich

Rather than put up a Kucinich sign here, I thought this piece of folk art would do better. It's an example of the new trend among Democratic voters and their candidates where individuals with skills in design put out artwork in support of their favored pol. It ALWAYS works better than the corporate looking stuff and appeals to a new breed of American accustomed to marketing trends and target advertising. I like this effort from PJ Chmiel a lot. Check out more of his Kucinich work at his website.

John Edwards
Oh John. Where to begin? I was a supporter at one time and I can appreciate the effort here. Modern font. Gradated star flourish. Simple layout. Then again, no URL, washed out colors, ambiguous white background. Grey? This is boring, uninspiring, uninspired, and just plain awful. You were running for the highest office in the land. You were running to be the leader of the free world. I know this is a departure and a bold step away from the controlled, corporate design of the other candidates, but it is blah. The Kucinich folk art is a bold move. This is a mess.

Hillary Clinton

Hmmm... Good use of the first name (see: Giuliani). Good flag flourish. URL is visible. Not bad. The serif font is a bit hokey, but it can be forgiven. It looks much worse for it's juxtaposition with the URL font, which is cleaner and more professional looking. This is a good, safe sign. It's corporate. It's establishment. It's patriotic. It's experience. Too bad this election is about change. It's about moving to the future. This sign says neither of those things. It's the sign of an establishment person, albeit it a competent and safe bet. It would seem that among the three main Democratic contenders, Clinton's is more expressive and effective regarding her message than John Edwards, but is far too "been there, done that" in comparison to Obama's design. Not to jump the gun, but the Obama signage and folk art are so inspiring and provide such a sense of newness, that this good sign loses its impact. In an attempt to jazz up the image, the Clinton people just released a piece of folk art.

I think this is a little sad actually. After mismanaging a campaign and its branding for 95% of the primary season, the Clinton people are rolling out a piece of folk art this contrived well beyond its expiration date. Folk art has to feel grassroots and it has to feel rebellious. Che Guevara art is the prime example of this. The Obama folk art has a kind of grassroots appeal that works with his message of "Yes. We. Can." The "we" aspect of the Obama campaign is what makes it amenable to a folk art element. This is just a lame attempt to show that "she can do it too" and smacks of regret. The red radials in this piece have been compared to Maoist layouts, something I'm sure the Clinton people aren't looking to do. The high contrast two-tone photo of Hillary is nice, but she looks nothing like that in 2008. Her hair hasn't been done that way in years. She's looking back to the left, which signifies the past. It's just a mess.

Barack Obama

This just feels right. I'm biased as a supporter, but the logo is original, patriotic, and serves to brand the entire campaign. It can be repeated in millions of iterations while maintaining its identity via the O and the flag. The font is light, but bold and the URL is visible without dominating the lower part of the sign. Great balance. It also works with a blue background in reverse.

This bit of signage, in addition to the "O" logo, is brilliant. The gotham font is forward looking and says "GQ" (since that's who commissioned it in the first place). It generates a message without using his name. It looks great in a crowd and reinforces the slogan of the campaign en masse. The URL is still visible.

To my knowledge, this is the first piece of folk art that was created for the campaign. It was put together by the "Obey" people of Andre the Giant fame. Sleek, clean, patriotic, and highly effective as a mural.

I like this one a lot too. It plays with contour the same way the first piece does, but in a much crisper way. The "Obey" people went soft, while this piece by The Mac goes a bit more sharp. He's looking forward to the future again in this piece, while you remember that Clinton was looking left to the past.

I found this piece by artist Rob Kelly while I was looking for the "Obey" piece and I like it a lot. Kelly's style eliminates contours and favors primary shapes and colors a lot.

I love that someone made Nike Air Obamas. That's folk art at its best. There are a lot of other less well known Obama pieces out there that are either local or less mass produced, but it's interesting how this phenomenon plays out alongside the very grassroots fundraising that has marked the Obama campaign. If you know of any other folk art pieces from any of the candidates above, pass them along. I love this stuff.

The Fall of an Era

2008-05-15T17:48:00.000-07:00

Since 1994 the Republican Party has held onto the reins of power in Washington and throughout the nation's governor's offices. Over the last 4 or 5 years the corruption and the mismanagement of the nation has swung the pendulum to the Left and the Democratic Party seems poised to wrest control of the whole enchilada from the Rigbt at long last in November.

The GOP has done such a poor job of actually governing the nation, that even staunch Republicans are voting Democrat in the current electoral season. The Republicans have lost 3 Congressional seats in the past two months in the reddest of the red strongholds thanks to organized and energized Democrats who have shined the light of reality in the faces of the Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity GOP. The problem with the Republican Party is the embrace of rhetoric and vitriol over competency. The Newt Gingrich engineered takeover of the government in 1994 was in large part a response to the Democrats lack of organization and message. The loudest voices in the room were Republicans, led by the new wing of pundits who permeated the mass media. The liberal bias, if it ever really existed, was transformed into an echo chamber of Republican, news-managed talking points. We've seen that throughout the Bush Administration. Lots of "on-message" rhetoric while Rome burns.

The following clip has been "diaried" twice on DailyKos today and both of the diaries sit atop the "recommended" list over there. It's so good and so illustrative of the kind of governance and the ideological noise that Republicans have employed for the last 14 years that I can't help but post it here. If there was ever any doubt that the noisy, vapid talking points of the GOP have played themselves out at this point in history, watch Chris Matthews DESTROY a right-wing radio wingnut on Hardball. This is going to be a very ugly year for the GOP:

Democrat Abroad Japan

2008-05-13T17:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm back living in Japan and in my familiar role as Co-Chair of the Democrats Abroad Japan Communications Committee. For those of you who haven't checked out my podcasts, the link is in the right margin somewhere. I edit and help to hold things together in general. It's a great group of people, who dedicate their own time to promote a progressive agenda for the betterment of the American political system. The perspective that DAJ members, and the groups in a multitude of other foreign countries, share with the domestic crowd is invaluable, particularly with respect to foreign policy and health care.

I'm following the returns for the West Virginia primary via the internet and shaking my head at the silly game that the media is playing with the results. There's no suspense left in this primary and it's just a cat and mouse game between the media and the Clinton people as to when she's going to get it through her thick skull that she's lost. She's sending red-faced former president William Jefferson Lewinsky Clinton out to the remaining states to pretend there's something to be excited about for Hillary supporters and she's off to pretend she's a blue collar champion herself. Have fun dopes. I have tried to keep an even keel about the Clinton campaign, but I'm tired of the charade and the potential damage this is doing to our presidential chances in November. It's over. She has no mathematical path to the nomination, even if you hand her Florida and Michigan on a platter. She's $20 million in debt and growing. The Obama campaign has shifted to a general election strategy thanks in large part to the steady flow of superdelegates to his side, giving him the lead in that metric for the first time last week.

An interesting journal at DailKos a few days ago showed that the mainstream media meme in which Obama can't win white, working-class voters is false. It's a generational thing with roots in Appalachia. Look at the diary and tell me how wrong the media have been in dumbing down the metrics for the TV audience. It's pathetic. Watch Obama score a 20-point victory in lilly-white Oregon and let's talk then. It's on to Washington for Obama and Albany for Clinton. Let's be real.

Obama: The Presumptive Nominee

2008-05-07T07:21:00.000-07:00

It's over. If you don't believe me, check out Tim Russert:

It turns out that Hillary Clinton loaned herself $6.4 million dollars again last month in order to continue, upping her personal investment in the campaign to $11.4 million. Even with that loan, it appears as though she's still in big debt. Obama, on the other hand, has something in the neighborhood of $50 million in the coffers with less than a million in debt.

That's the money. The path to the delegate lead is over as well. The loss in NC, combined with the narrowest of wins in IN, assures that Obama will end with the delegate lead after June 3rd. He can actually clinch the nomination after Oregon with a win and the superdelegate flood that is expected to come now. In fact, he can get 2025 on that day, or he can probably get the 2209 that Clinton has newly introduced as the magic number, which includes both Florida and Michigan. This is a blessing in disguise because Obama can clinch the 2209 with some help from his super friends, and then seat both delegations at the Democratic National Conference well in advance of that event, giving the Party enough time to heal any rifts that may exist.

Hillary sounded resigned to the fact that this thing is basically over when she spoke last night, in stark contrast to the Obama speech, which I thought was his best in almost 2 months. Looking at Chelsea, standing behind her mother, nearly in tears, told the story as did the red-faced, sullen Bill by her side. His from and puppy dog eyes betrayed his own emotion. Even Matt Drudge, the conservative blogger, posted a headline saying "The Nominee", featuring a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama walking hand in hand. The Huffington Post did something similar.

On to the general election campaign, John McCain is gearing up with a series of speeches designed to broaden his appeal. The conservative pundits are now talking about how great he matches up with Obama, and how the contrast works to his advantage. Provided the Clintons follow through on their promise to work hard for Obama (maybe in exchange for a VP slot going to a Clinton ally) McCain is absolute toast.

When these two men stand up next to one another to be compared, it's going to look ridiculous. I mean, RIDICULOUS. McCain's gaffes have gone largely unexamined by the media as Obama and Clinton have been fighting it out. Obama has been vetted in the media and the public has spoken. Most of the skeletons that have come out of his closet have come and gone, and he survived. Not only did he survive, he thrived. The GOP will probably have to abandon Reverend Wright as a main strategy, as the ad campaigns that were run to tie local pols with Obama/Wright ended up backfiring. Democrats in heavily Republican districts pulled off historical election victories. A few of those districts flipped for the first time in 30 years!! The tide is turning.

The Tony Rezko situation is likely to be a GOP attack point, but McCain's own Keating 5 scandal makes Rezko look like chump change by comparison. The media has seen the Obama dirt, and while they're unlikely to completely give up the focus on his skeletons, the added scrutiny of McCain's skeletons will, however, make this thing wide open. No one ever looked at Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky during the Democratic campaign, to her advantage, because we lived through it and it was played to death on TV for years. McCain has been a teflon candidate his whole career, but this is different. This is the presidency. He's going to be examined harshly. I guarantee it.

So, in the end, the general election started last night. McCain's decrepit, undead spirit will walk the Earth seeking support, while Obama's youthful energy and loaded coffers will be aimed at making this contrast so apparent as to force the most ardent Republicans avert their eyes. Away we go.

Hoosiers and Tar Heels

2008-05-06T10:09:00.000-07:00

This is my official prediction for the Tuesday daily double primary. I have no logic worthy of mention here, but rather a lot of intuition and one eye on the myriad polling numbers that have been floating out there.

INDIANA
Clinton: 53
Obama: 47
Clinton wins by 6

The gas tax holiday and the stumping in the back of pick up trucks has worked for Clinton, although it's made her look absolutely ridiculous to most of America. I hate to label people "low info voters" because I think it's just politically correct speech that means to say, "dummies" or "hillbillies" or something along those lines, but let's go with something that splits the difference. "Dumb, low info, hillbillies." Just kidding. "Gut voters" seems to tell a bit of the story. These are people who aren't inclined to read a book, trust TV, or subscribe to a newspaper. They might listen to talk radio. Many of these people like the gas tax holiday and love to see her in a pick up truck under a skoal sign. The Republicans have cornered the market on these voters in recent years by nominating the ultimate "gut president." In the Democratic primary, the "gut candidate" has been Hillary Clinton. She's the known evil. Barack Obama is the scary secret-Muslim, with the hateful Christian preacher, and the arugula salads. His pandering has been far worse than Clinton's.

NORTH CAROLINA
Obama: 56
Clinton: 44
Obama wins by 12

North Carolina, like its neighbor to the north, Virginia, has turned purple in recent years. In this election, it would still be an uphill battle to carry NC in the general, unlike Virginia which WILL go to Barack Obama, but the primaries are going very well. Large African-American contingent, large professoriate, large upscale suburban groups. The Nascar crowd that Hillary is counting on in NC is also powerful, but won't help her make up for the disadvantages she faces there. Bill Clinton has been stumping in NC with his best southern drawl out of mothballs (doesn't he spend most of his time in Harlem these days?) and he's hammered his populist rhetoric with that finger wagging all the way. I think he's helped her a bunch in NC. Nice to have the popular, former president stumping for you. I picked this state by 12 for Obama, but an interesting swing in either direction is possible. I secretly believe that Obama could win NC by 20, but the recent bad press may have done away with that completely. Instead, this race may close to single digits if the Clinton "get out the vote" machine is better than Obama's. That will decide whether this is a blowout, or a moderate victory for Barack.

Either way we go on. Her chances are dissolving, but she's going to try something. Watch.

Grandpa McCain

2008-05-02T19:53:00.000-07:00

What if...?

2008-05-01T14:03:00.000-07:00

What if someone on television was a real journalist?

What if our elections were based on debate over issues instead of impressions?

What if there were no 24-hour news networks?

What if our education system was more fair and effective?

What if we judged people on the content of their character, rather than....whatever else?

What if people got off their asses to demand a government that worked for them?

What if we lived in a culture that valued building instead of destroying?

What if we had a parliamentary system?

What if social justice was the currency of society rather than material?

The Reverend Wrong

2008-04-29T13:47:00.000-07:00

Hmmm...

I think I got too excited, too fast. I really enjoyed the speech that Wright gave at the Detroit NAACP. It was energetic and spoke on race in a way that we rarely hear on national television in this era. I thought he was ready to come out and show his intelligence and his humor and put the vitriol in the past.

As I thought about it today, I realized that I might be wrong. I read the excellent Washington Post Assistant Editor Eugene Robinson talking about how Wright was making a caricature of the Black church and trying to speak for a broad group of people as if they were all the same. My own feelings about race began to bubble up and I realized he was right. Robinson put the "different, not deficient" remarks into a more balanced and representative perspective and in doing so put Wright back in his own ideological wing. I felt a bit remorseful that I'd written so glowingly about his speech, since I think it was a bit too showy for the point he was trying to make. The humor was great for easing some of the tension surrounding him, as a political football, but in the end this is no MLK. The dignity of MLK transcended race, gender, nationality, and ideology. Wright's demeanor transcended the pettiness of the cable television journalism, but not all that much else.

Then, I see today that Wright was at the National Press Club tossing Obama under a bus, while hocking his book. Obama turned around and tossed him back under a bus of his own, finally cutting him off in a way that many had been calling for all along. I wasn't one of those people, but I see why he's been forced to do it at this point. Wright's a self-promoter and a showman. He may be a legitimately good man of God, and an inspiration to the people of Chicago, but he has a little of the celebrity in him too. He seems to relish the chance to be up in front of people. For a little context, MLK was said to be hopelessly shy and reluctant to promote himself. He found the courage to defeat that shyness and used his pulpit for social justice.

It's unfortunate. Had Wright come out with a message of strength in the face of the tabloid nonsense, but used his opportunity to calm the fire, unite people, and take advantage of his clear intelligence, we'd all be better off. All he's done is make another spectacle and ruin a relationship with a member of his flock that could have worked with him to do tremendous good. It's something for all of us to be sad about...

The Reverend (W)Right

2008-04-27T21:04:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching the CNN coverage of the good Reverend Wright at the Detroit chapter of the NAACP and I have to say, "WOW!" I'll be honest, I didn't know anything about Wright and I suspect neither did you. I knew that he'd said some bombastic and perhaps offensive things, and I felt that Barack Obama did a fine job of putting him in perspective. I felt that Obama did the right thing by denouncing the comments we all saw via the mainstream media and YouTube, and that the Reverend Wright would have to slink into the shadows.

Boy, I didn't know Reverend Wright....and neither did you.

Yes, the things he said in those clips we saw for weeks and months were over the top and perhaps even offensive. No, Obama didn't have to gloss over this thing for political points as we all thought. His explanation that you can't boil a whole man's life down to a few 30 second clips was taken as a mechanism of spin, but it seemed effective so we let it pass. The problem is, he wasn't spinning. He was speaking the truth.

The speech given by Revered Wright tonight was so intelligent as to make me shake in my seat. The rhetorical style of the African-American church has to move you unless somehow you're dead, or a Republican (just teasing). The style was perfect for television (as a media scholar), but the substance was ground breaking for our national discourse. Not since the days of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American Civil Rights Movement has the nation been treated to a frank, intelligent, and passionate discussion of race and society. I don't think we can put Wright in King's class, but you never know. If he gets a platform for his Word as a result of this whole controversy, he may save our American soul. I'm not a Christian, or a practitioner of any particular religion, but I felt like shouting out, "Praise Jesus!"

This is a man with two Masters degrees and a doctorate, who speaks 5 languages and possesses rhetorical gifts that would make the finest speech writer blush. He's a man of social conscience and an advocate for justice. There may be a few things that come out of his mouth that rub the wrong way. There may be some things that are unpopular or controversial, but this is no empty demagogue. It's okay if people disagree with the things he says, or find it uncomfortable, but that's GOOD for us as a people. When we're forced out of our comfort zones, out of our familiar paradigm, we grow furthest and fastest.

I encourage you to see this speech if you haven't already. It will move you, whatever direction that is.....

Disgraceful Treatment of Troops

2008-04-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

This clip will speak for itself. Watch it. Understand the level of disrespect our government has shown our troops from the Walter Reed scandal to this individual case. Contact your Congressperson by looking them up at Congress Watch.

Atomic Hillary

2008-04-24T09:31:00.000-07:00

The "he said, she said" game that has taken over coverage of the Democratic Primary Campaign has done more than exhaust the spirit of good Americans looking for answers from their government and some sign that better days are ahead. Rather than taking on the issues of the economy, the Iraq Occupation, the Afghan Occupation, the environment, and healthcare we've been treated to flag pins, the Reverend Wright (while McCain's Reverend Hagee has had a free pass), and "bitter-gate."

One aside....can we please stop calling anything remotely controversial "something-gate?" The Watergate scandal was a historic moment in America and has been largely diluted by the repetitive use of that suffix to describe things like Barack Obama fumbling some words and looking silly in the process. Watergate led to the resignation of a president and transformed our political culture forever. Enough-gate. Now back to our regularly scheduled rant.

One of the important REAL developments that has received a more "under the radar" treatment in the media is the Hillary Clinton policy on the Middle East that includes massive nuclear retaliation against Iran should it attack Israel or any of its neighbors. This policy position first emerged on the infamous ABC debate amidst discussion of aliens and recipes for secret Muslim apple pie. In the days that have followed, all the attention has been focused on the Pennsylvania primary and why Obama can't win white, blue collar women with high school educations, making less than $50,000 a year, over the age of 50, who like peanuts better than cashews. Oh, and beer. And...bowling. Can't forget the beer and bowling voters.

Here's a clip that should raise the hair on the back of your neck. Comments to follow:

This is one of the most hawkish ideas I've ever heard from a Democrat. It's almost to the right of neoconservatives. It makes me wonder if her foreign policy adviser is Norman Podhoretz, on loan from the Rudy Giuliani campaign. The policy is problematic on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. In my opinion, there's only one place that's necessary. It comes in two parts.

1. Iran isn't really that close to weaponizing nuclear materials.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) has shown that while Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities, it has not resumed its plan to transform materials into weapons systems. This NPR article and timeline help to follow the issue in a snapshot. The following development is particularly important to this discussion:

"November 2007: A final draft of the National Intelligence Estimate is presented to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It concludes that Iran stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and since then has shown no signs of resuming it."

Let's not be too comfortable here. It's not prudent to assume that there isn't some behind-the-scenes work being done to at least keep the possibility open. It's the conservative thing to assume that Iran will eventually weaponize their nuclear material and lord it over Israel and the US as a threat. The problem is, our own best intelligence work has shown that the current climate is plainly calm. The time for saber-rattling isn't now. Hillary Clinton opening the idea of massive nuclear retaliation against Iran is more likely to inflame the situation, and if I were the Iranians, I'd start wringing my hands a bit more about getting that program back in motion. If the US is posturing hawkishly against me, and that position holds true across the Right and Left, I think I'd want to have a big club in my hand for when they come marching into my backyard (Iraq and Afghanistan). I think Clinton just played a huge blunder in our foreign relations, and she's not even in office yet. (slaps own forehead).

2. Massive nuclear retaliation kills millions of innocents.

If the crazy dictator of Iran decides to lob a nuke into Israel, does that make the appropriate response a nuclear war? What of Russia? What of Pakistan? Won't they retaliate? Then India has to get involved, right? Where does it go from there? This idea shows a fundamental lack of understanding of both Iran and nuclear deterrent strategy.

The Supreme Leader is given province over the armed forces in Iran. The president controls the ministers of defense and intelligence, but only at the discretion of the Supreme Leader. For all of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's lunacy regarding Israel and the Holocaust, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is not in favor of the rhetoric about either. He's a human rights violator and something of a dictator himself, but he's far from the monster the hawks would like to make him on the issue of mass destruction. For all the vitriol he's spewed about the United States, he has also said with respect to 9/11, "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be." He refused to attend Ahmadinejad's disgusting conference on the Holocaust.

It's also important to note that the Khamenei isn't universally supported by the religious establishment in Iran. There are multiple prominent clerics who have called for a Supreme Council, questioning the logic of placing power in the hands of one man. Ahmadinejad is far from the universally loved president that the US media paint him. A good deal of dissent exists in Iran among the more moderate middle class. Iran has always been a more evenly distributed society than its neighbors along the economic and political spectrum. It has an infrastructure and a long, established history of development unlike its Middle Eastern cousins.

The idea that there is an impending danger of nuclear aggression from Iran is ridiculous in the first place, but assuming that a radical change occurs in a very short period of time that results in an attack on Israel, Hillary Clinton would be willing to kill millions of Iranians who no more support Ahmadinejad than I do George W. Bush. She'd be willing to engage in the most destructive act in US history by "obliterating them" when so many of the Iranian people only want peace and prosperity. Insane! She's playing a very hot game in a situation that calls for a cold one. The cold war wasn't about hot rhetoric. Every time the Soviets or the Americans shook their fists at one another the effectiveness of the cold strategy was compromised (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?).

If this isn't enough to give Clinton supporters pause about where her head is at, and to whom her loyalties lie, I don't know what to say to you. Just something to think about.

Pennsylvania Poll-ka

2008-04-22T20:33:00.000-07:00

I took the early train from New York Penn Station to my mother's local Exton Station in Chester County, PA today. Over the years, I've spent a fair share of time down here working and visiting and I know the vibe fairly well. Likewise, I spent a year living in Center City, Philadelphia in the late-90s and keep my legal US residence in Pennsylvania while I live in Japan. My heart belongs to New York, but my vote resides in the purple state of Pennsylvania.

When I arrived at the polling station around lunchtime, it was very quiet. As I cast my ballot, only 2 other people were present among the machines and the dozen or so volunteers. I filled in all the little black circles and tallied a vote for Barack Obama. All afternoon and evening I've been tuned in to the election coverage hoping for a 5 point loss for Obama, knowing that it would mean a practical defeat for Hillary Clinton. However, back on April 10th I wrote the following here at Communicative Action:

"My impression of the polling in Pennsylvania leaves me cold about Obama's chance to win PA, let alone close to within 5 points. It's sexy for the networks and for Obama supporters to imagine Obama winning the state or coming within 2-3 points of Clinton, but it ignores the fact that her baseline support has changed very little in his overwhelming spending. She has been sitting at around 50% for virtually the duration of the campaign in PA, and while Obama has stolen a couple of point from her, and vacuumed up most of the undecideds, her 50% has held firm. My guess: Clinton 55% Obama 45%"

With around 95% of precincts reporting, the tally now stands at Clinton 55% and Obama 45%. There are times when you are right and you really feel bad about it. This is a very bad defeat for Barack Obama. In fact, I actually think it's made worse by the excellent speech that Hillary Clinton made in celebrating her victory. By my estimation, it was her best, most inspiring speech of the campaign and the kind of speech that may have locked up the nomination in February had she gone inspirational rather than safe/shrill. Obama was fair in his Indiana speech tonight, but I thought it was flat by comparison. It was sort of a hollow rally in light of the defeat and in fact it seemed a bit like he's phoned it in half-heartedly.

The interesting swing in perception for Clinton probably rescues her campaign from true bankruptcy and allows her to at least hang on for May 6th. It holds the superdelegates frozen in place for at least another 2 weeks. In the end, she can't come close to evening the pledged delegate count, and has a huge uphill battle to close the popular vote. For whatever money boom she gets from the PA victory, it will still pale in comparison to the Obama take and she still has a huge debt to pay off. The numbers advantages, the money advantage, and the time advantage are all on his side. This bad night for Obama will wash away with a big victory in North Carolina and will cripple her with a win in Indiana. If she tries to compete beyond Indiana, there will be bigger money issues and less delegates and votes to catch up. By most metrics the Clinton campaign is a "dead man walking." For at least one night, and maybe 2 weeks, she is the hot political property again.

Thick Irony

2008-04-18T08:07:00.000-07:00

How years in Washington warp good people. George Stephanopolous. James Carville.

1992 NH Primary

Carville: Let me tell you what's at stake in this election. Every time that somebody comes along that's got some ideas, the Republicans come up here and they ambush 'em. Remember Muskee? Okay? That is standard procedure. And here comes Clinton, he comes to New Hampshire. People here are hurtin'. They want hope. They want somebody with vision. He gives it to 'em. So what do Republicans do? They get together with their wedge issues and they knock him off."

Stephanopolous: What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them.

Funny how we can plug in "Democrats" in these quotes where it says "Republicans." And, those Democrats are the hypocrites who made the statements originally.

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuce.

2008-04-16T22:39:00.001-07:00

From "The Boss" on his website:

"'Like most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest." The posting added: "He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years.'"

More from The Guardian.

Worst. Debate. Ever.

2008-04-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

ABC spent the first hour of this debate dealing with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Bosnia, elitism, and all the peripheral nonsense that has bogged down our national discourse during this silly primary season. People are going hungry in America, dying in Iraq, and being tortured in Guantanamo Bay and we have to listen to the political equivalent of Paris Hilton for an hour. Absolutely shameful.

Barack Obama is performing horribly in this debate. Just horribly. Partly, he doesn't seem prepared for the style of questioning that Gibson and Stephanopolous is asking. Partly, it's because the style of questioning is petty, framed poorly, and skewed towards a Republican ideology in many ways. Insane. Hillary Clinton isn't exactly setting the world on fire either. She is rehearsed and especially stiff tonight. She occasionally can be seen looking up in the air as she answers as if to try to recall something she'd memorized earlier.

One ethical question...

Is it okay for the former Communications Director of the Bill Clinton campaign and presidency to be one of the moderators of a debate between Bill Clinton's wife and a second hopeful? How is that ethical? The appearance alone is problematic for a "news" organization. I don't think I can ever take him or ABC seriously again.

Last thing for now...I'm sure I'll be posting more later. Is Charles Gibson the biggest jackass that's ever moderated a debate. He's playing "gotcha" moderator at every turn. He's more visible in this thing than the two people running for president. Hell, he's helped to make John McCain more visible in this thing than either of the Democrats participating in the Democratic debate. Here's a great clip of the crowd booing Gibson for his shameful performance:

UPDATE: Here's a snippet from the ABC News Live Blog of the "debate":

"Live Blogging from the Democratic Debate

April 16, 2008 8:52 PM

9:50 pm ET: Apologies for drop-off in postings as the debate wore on -- the overwhelming number of comments slowed down our server.

Overall -- with the preface that all of this may not matter, since Obama was and is the delegate leader, this was not a good night for the frontrunner. He hasn't been all that strong in any of the debates, and we saw some of his less attractive qualities tonight -- odd comparisons (Ayers and Tom Coburn?), some slippery answers, and a general prediliction to avoid confronting his own words and actions directly.

Clinton had one of her better nights -- set a generally positive tone, despite the need for her to score some points. She managed to avoid overt attacks but still found ways to differentiate herself -- and make herself look presidential.

Bottom line: I don't think Sen. Obama got this much scrutiny in any other two-hour period during this campaign, but then again he shouldn't have been surprised by any of the lines of inquiry. I'm not sure he held up that well -- not that he fell apart, but he didn't do himself all too many favors. There are a number of answers I think he'd like to have back. But for his supporters -- the soaring above his opponent is almost certainly attractive."

The key point is that ABC apologized for a dropoff in posting because the overwhelming number of postings slowed the server. By all accounts the comments section was SLAMMED with negative responses, so I guess that would make it likely that ABC would shut things down. They've done it before. You can send your opinions to ABC News Media Relations: Natalie Raabe at Natalie.J.Raabe@abc.com or 212.456.2418

UPDATE2: This Washington Post article sums the whole thing up very well from the shoddy moderators to the poor direction that showed Chelsea, Ed Rendell, Mayor Nutter, and other Clinton supporters throughout the debate. Also, this excellent post from Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Daily News.

IF YOU FEEL LIKE I DO, THAT THIS DEBATE WAS ATROCIOUS, E-MAIL ABC HERE. LEAVE A COMMENT ON THEIR BLOG HERE.

I Heart Michelle Obama

2008-04-15T22:04:00.000-07:00

Yeah, Barack's my candidate, but my heart belongs to Michelle. This clip from tonight's Colbert Report:

Not to bump my far more important post about Neoliberalism (READ ON BELOW!), but I had to throw this up there.

A Brief History of Neoliberalism: Part I

2008-04-15T16:21:00.000-07:00

I'm zeroing in on a presentation for my Communication Ethics grad course this Thursday and busy with the paper that goes along with it. I will post excerpts of that paper here by the end of the week, but you'll be interested to listen to author David Harvey's talk at the University of Chicago a few years back in anticipation of my article. Give it a listen and absorb the important aspects of this paradigm shift in the global market structure. It's a little long, but it's fascinating and one of the most important topics in our national and international discourse in the 21st century.

More soon.

Strong

2008-04-11T19:28:00.000-07:00

This is the strongest I've ever seen Obama. It comes off very well, I think. If he had done this prior to Texas and Ohio things may have turned out differently. I'm curious about the reaction to this in the next couple of news cycles, since they've all jumped on him for suggesting that people are bitter and vote on cultural issues instead of their own economic interest. Here's what he said originally, the McCain and Clinton statements, and then his reply via YouTube.

Obama said, "But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

McCain replied, "Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a "remarkable statement and extremely revealing." "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

Clinton replied, "I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter," Clinton said this afternoon. "Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.`"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."

Obama's final word:

Let's face it, if people weren't bitter and frustrated all over America how could you explain a 25% approval rating for Congress and a 30% approval for Bush? You couldn't. Let's be real. I should note that I stole this format directly from a great post over at DailyKos. You can head over to see it in its original form, but I wanted to spell it out very clearly here as well. Hat tip to SusanG. By the way, Digg the Obama video by clicking this link. Get it out there everywhere.

UPDATE: The comments on CNN are excellent. This is going to backfire on McCain and Clinton big time. Watch this and listen, in particular, to Jeff Toobin. The other pundits are good, but Toobin is priceless.

I'm glad Obama finally channeled his inner Howard Beale:

"Regular Guy" Pet Peeve

2008-04-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

Something's been bugging me for a little while. I wasn't able to put my finger on it exactly, but I think it's getting clearer recently. The election season has brought it out into the light. What is it, you ask? It's the "regular guy" thing.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC is particularly useful in illustrating this point as he takes pride in his regular guy credentials. He talks about his Philadelphia roots and loves the people who "tell it like it is." It's a kind of homage to the Philly brand of blue collar, street vendor coffee, hockey jersey wearing, bar stool street cred that turns Matthews on. There's a different version of this regular guy myth depending on where your from, but it's out there. It's more than that though. The other half of the equation is the imaginary formula that constitutes irregular guyness or non-regular guyness, or however you'd like to put it. If you have a job in an office, drink coffee from Starbucks, wear a polo shirt on weekends, and drink wine with your dinner you're some kind of "namby pamby" wuss. At least, that's the implication. You don't count for a real, down to earth, honest to goodness opinion on the "stuff that really matters."

The problem with the "regular guy" theorists, like Matthews, is that they disdain the elitist, intellectual, white collar sensibility but set up an elitist position of their own in doing so. In effect, they are the grand champions of the dumbing down of the American middle class. Speaking in terms of the properties of media, television works best when it sets up either/or propositions. It deals with issues in black and white, setting up false choices at every turn. In that respect it serves propagandists and PR specialists perfectly because it narrows our perspective and sets us up in a position of extreme polarization. Wonder why we have red and blue states? Thank you CNN.

George Bush is a "regular guy" because he clears brush, talks kinda dumb, and used to be an alcoholic. Al Gore was a latte-drinking, Prius driver "non-regular guy" cause he likes to answer questions and stuff. The ultimate sign of a non-regular guy? Nobel Prize. Ed Rendell is a regular guy cause he looks kind of burly, "tells it like it is", and doesn't care what people think about it. Barack Obama isn't a regular guy because he can't bowl, speaks real good, and was President of the Harvard Law Review. Forget Hillary Clinton. Women obviously can't be regular guys, but whatever the equivalent might be for them it must include taking no offense to being called "honey" or "dear" by regular guys.

The way I see it, the whole phenomenon is a direct result of the extreme reliance on demographics in marketing, advertising, and politics. In order to capitalize on trends in spending we've become slaves to targeted messaging that defines the boundaries of personal identity. While ad execs are busy dissecting the psyche of every possible sub-group of American society, they are also reinforcing the psychological boundaries of identity that they seek to understand. It works perfectly for an industry that wants to identify and hold a particular audience in place in order to target it most effectively. This works to define identity in general, but reserves a particularly insidious place when it comes to politics. The excellent book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank describes the phenomenon very well, saying:

"Over the last thirty-five years the Republicans have transformed themselves from an aristocratic minority into the nation's dominant political party, a brawling, beer-drinking buddy of the working man. The strategy by which they have won this triumph is instantly familiar and yet so bizarre it's sometimes hard to believe it's actually happened: Think of Richard Nixon extolling the virtues of the "silent majority," or Ronald Reagan shaking his head at those crazy college professors, or George W. Bush sticking up for the "regular Americans," or the army of pundits who have written so eloquently in recent months about the humble folk of the "red states.""

That quote identifies the shift in the political environment perfectly, except that I think it overly emphasizes the Republican identity. Yes, the GOP managed to take control of the electorate using this strategy to convince blue collar America to abandon the labor union, embrace cultural identity, and vote against their own economic interest. The entire political landscape is now dominated by this line of thinking from Republican to Democrat and everywhere in between. In fact, the Lou Dobbs brand of everyday man mythology targets the large number of independent voters who are disillusioned by the whole process. In an age when everything is branded, packaged, marketed, targeted, spun, and carefully managed the ultimate quest for authenticity is the defining characteristic of our modern world. The irony is, the definition of authenticity takes place by the identical process used to brand, package, market, target, spin, and carefully manage everything else. Authenticity is now the province of the mass media.

I'm on the cusp of my first graduate degree. I like wine. I like espresso. I'm inclined to buy a hybrid if and when I buy my next car. I take pride in my ability to express myself intelligently. I read the New York Times. I speak Japanese. I'm a vegetarian and I like to eat at expensive restaurants with foreign names. Chris Matthews is writing me off as I make this list. The thing is, I like street vendor coffee for a dollar. I prefer to wear jeans and Timberlands. Beer is good. Whisky and tequila, too. If you crowd me on the subway, I'm gonna say, "Get outta my fucking space." I'm a fan of clearing brush and stacking wood. Put on the game and I'm likely to jump through the roof when something happens good or bad. I love boxing and I think motocross is about the most exciting sport to watch in the world. Sit me down at a diner and I'll order the greasiest thing on the menu. What does all that tell you Lou Dobbs?

It tells me that there is no such thing as a "regular guy." The myth of the regular guy sells all of us short. It counts on us all being zombies. It counts on men favoring their more base selves and women favoring their submissive side. Humanity is best for its complexity and we demean our American culture by boiling it down to false choices. Reinforcing these choices by framing our national political discourse as a battle between the regular guy and the elitist intellectual class is a distortion of the truth and robs us all of a deeper vision of who we are and what problems face us as a people. Next time you hear someone playing this "regular guy" game, ask yourself what the truth is. Ask yourself what's missing in their portrayal of the issues and the culture itself. I'm sure you'll find it lacking.

April 10th Political Notes

2008-04-10T09:36:00.000-07:00

I have nothing specific to discuss today, but I thought there were a few things floating around that are worth a mention.

1. Pennsylvania

The mainstream media are on top of the story in Pennsylvania as the primary approaches and have almost unanimously reported that Barack Obama has closed to within single digits. The set up now is a bit like a stretch run for the pennant. I know that sports analogies rub some people the wrong way (as was in evidence in the reaction of some critics of my last post), but the sports metaphor is one that applies to the coverage of news and events on television. Students of media will understand this, but anecdotally I only have to point to the CNN "Ballot Bowl" coverage of the election to make my case. My impression of the polling in Pennsylvania leaves me cold about Obama's chance to win PA, let alone close to within 5 points. It's sexy for the networks and for Obama supporters to imagine Obama winning the state or coming within 2-3 points of Clinton, but it ignores the fact that her baseline support has changed very little in his overwhelming spending. She has been sitting at around 50% for virtually the duration of the campaign in PA, and while Obama has stolen a couple of point from her, and vacuumed up most of the undecideds, her 50% has held firm. My guess: Clinton 55% Obama 45%

2. Iraq

The president made a speech today about the Occupation (which everyone keeps calling a war for some reason) and our stay in Iraq. The Democrats sent Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi out to respond. The president was necessarily vague about where we go from here, and the Democrats were necessarily outraged. Neither group is dealing with the situation realistically at this point. I have said that I support a withdrawal on a 2-year timetable. I still think that is doable, and I think it's what Hillary Clinton has said for some time. Barack Obama may be coming around to that timetable, but he's been more aggressive about his schedule. I watched the horrendously unattractive Michael Ware (why doesn't he fix that nose?) on CNN last night talking about the Petraeus/Crocker hearings and he said that the duo was full of shit about a number of things, while taking time to point out the ridiculous notion that we can leave anytime soon.

Ware, for his part, lives everyday in Iraq and sees the problems of the US military, the Iraqi people, the insurgents, Al Qaeda, and the Maliki government up close. He is emotionally and intellectually invested in the full dynamic. I believe he sees the situation as a quagmire that has to be resolved by reconciliation at a grassroots level. He has no faith in the Maliki government (nor should he), little faith in any politician on either side, and is hinting at a Balkanization of the country that separates the factions and sectarian parties in order to achieve a lasting, if tenuous, peace. I'm putting words in his mouth, but I believe I've captured some of the nuance to his position. At least I can say that he sees some complexity and lives in the gray area between the two political wings of the United States.

The Petraeus hearings have taught us two important things. First, the news media have largely ignored the Iraq Occupation for at least a year. We've lost touch with the on the ground reality of 2007-08 Iraq. Second, we're beginning to see the worst repercussions of our national blunder peek their heads out from the sand. The foothold that Al Qaeda has taken in Iraq, the depth of the Shiite ties to Iran that have evolved, the Kurdish separation from the Federal agenda, and oh so many other things that will grow worse before they get better. We're in this for a generation. The question is, how deeply? Are we in Iraq with a sizable military presence (combat or non-combat) for 100 years as McCain suggests, or do we draw back and seek out other means of support for a national Iraqi identity? Who knows at this point? I do think the president is dragging things out in order to leave it at the next president's feet as Nancy Pelosi says. That's unfortunate.

3. Gas at $3.36 a gallon

I don't see this as a tragedy actually. I live in Japan, where gasoline has been more expensive than any place on Earth (other than Sweden, I believe) for decades. We get by. It's forced the Japanese to develop fuel efficient automobiles, light engine cars for urban and short distance drivers, and hybrids. What's more, people can afford it. Why? Because Japan is the world's most successful socialist state. Don't get me wrong, Japan is a capitalist powerhouse with one of the world's most powerful economies. That's despite the fact that Japan has few natural resources except their own labor and ingenuity. It's actually quite remarkable.

Japan, traditionally, has been a middle class nation. There are few uber-wealthy, and virtually no working poor. The social services that Japan provides for some of the highest taxes in the world provide a good life for everyone. National social health care is a blessing that has provided for my family and the birth of my son. My daughter(?) will be born this summer under the care of fine doctors, in a fine hospital, free of charge. High gas prices are a product of high import costs in Japan. We're seeing that in the US now. That's never going away as long as any of us live. That makes the cost of goods and services rise, and the cost of living will become almost unbearable for many, while it's already been unbearable for millions for some time. Solutions will depend on whether you believe that neoliberal economic policies that trust in the free market, while providing bail outs for financial institutions when they fail, are the answer or a move toward higher taxes and more social services is the answer.

It's more complex than that, of course, but we live in this paradigm. One philosophy destroys working people by holding their wages and social services at a minimum while propping up the rich. The other tends towards stagnation that stalls the economy. Japan has seen significant periods of stagnation, which have been managed as relatively short lived. Economic downturns are less likely to result in recession, while upturns are less likely to result in booms. Japan has unique problems that threaten a prosperous future, but a commitment to supporting a broad middle class has always been a priority. I'll write more on this soon, but it's something to consider.

"The Surge" Hearing

2008-04-08T14:38:00.000-07:00

I've been watching the MSNBC coverage of the Petraeus/Crocker hearings before Congress all day, often wishing someone would say something tangible or constructive. I'd like to deal with the things I've heard today, piece by piece. I don't want this to be another 2008 election post, despite the obvious overtones with all 3 candidates addressing the panel. I will start, briefly, with that point to get it out of the way.

The question I was hoping to hear from any or all of the candidates (or any of the other Senators) was, "What is the minimum requirement to declare victory in Iraq that will allow us to bring our troops home?" I'd heard all the prepared statements from Petraeus and Crocker and found them seriously lacking in detail or vision. They were very careful and non-committal, generally preferring a combination of status quo rhetoric and ambiguous progress which may or may not continue in the future. Essentially, they said, "The conditions dictate our next move, and we don't know what those conditions will be at any point in the future despite optimism about recent progress."

John McCain, to use a baseball analogy, drew a walk in his inquiry. He didn't take a swing with any real questions, preferring to highlight the party line on successful benchmarks on the ground. He said more or less the same thing he's been saying on the campaign trail and while he didn't hurt himself with any ridiculous new projections about Iraq, he also never took the bat off his shoulder to get answers for us, the American people. He took his base, and passed the rest of the inning along to his Committee on Armed Service teammates.

Hillary Clinton hit a ringing double with her command of the facts, pointed questioning, and her insistence that the U.S. Congress holds the right to ratify a treaty with the Iraqi government, not the other way around. I think she missed the opportunity to ask more questions as a result of her rather long opening statement, but the tone was very very strong.

Before I get to Barack Obama, I'd like to say that I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, overall, was FAR superior in their tough questioning of the two guests than their Armed Service colleagues. The Democrats on the Committee on Armed Service panel allowed Petraeus to repeat his prepared statement talking points over and over and allowed Ambassador Crocker to drone on in a filibuster-like waste of valuable questioning time. The Republicans kissed their asses on a number of occasions, never asking a single productive question about where the Occupation ends.

Barack Obama was fortunate to make his questioning near the end of the Foreign Service business, after Senators from both parties had tenderized the Bush administration's front men with tough, pointed questions about the loss of life, treasure, and focus in the Middle East and on the larger battle with Islamic extremists. The Committee managed to keep the pressure on regarding our finite resources, patience, and military personnel. Obama hit a solo home run, by following a rather powerful and heated Barbara Boxer and a fairly bland George Voinovich with an almost professorial examination of the duo before him. He started slow with a bit of a wordy opening question that never materialized as clearly as he wanted, but evolved into a productive, respectful, and logical dialog. He occasionally interrupted the panelists when their answers strayed from his point, but did so with a respectful and dignified tone that kept the pair open to his line of questioning. I'm biased in Senator Obama's favor, but he asked the question that I wanted to hear. He asked about whether a messy status quo would be an acceptable outcome for the United States, especially in light of the uber-high bar the administration seems to be setting to define success. That was close enough for me, as it gets right at the heart of my own question, and far more effectively.

There was never an answer to that question that seemed remotely acceptable. We have lost 4, 024 American soldiers since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, if not more, have been killed. We have spent trillions of dollars. We have diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda and Iran to create footholds in Iraq where they did not exist before. We stand by and allow the political stalemate in the Iraqi government dictate the tenure of our military presence. What little progress they make in the effort for reconciliation and an end to sectarian violence is offset by the corruption, bad blood, and lack of commitment to a real Iraqi state. 1,000 Iraqi soldiers went AWOL in the recent battles in Basra, refusing to fight. News reports show US inspections of Iraqi units which find them taking long lunches and sleeping on the job. There has been almost no progress on restoring electricity, water, sewage, or other important basic services, while money has gone missing at an alarming rate. The list goes on and on.

The people that needed to be seated before Congress to take the heat for this situation, or explain it to all of us, are Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Those are the people responsible for the policy in Iraq. They need to address military and diplomatic goalposts for success. Could they sit there are answer the question that I wanted to ask, and that Senator Obama posed so eloquently. Senator Robert Menendez put it very well when he said something to the effect of, "You can't tell us what the end game is for success. It's almost like you're saying, we'll know it when we see it and give us an open checkbook in the meantime."

In the end, we never heard anything resembling a decent answer about where this thing goes from here. I've said in the past that I don't want a precipitous and risky withdrawal that leaves a power void to be filled by Iran, Al Qaeda, Moqtada al Sadr, militias, criminals, or civil war. I do want a reasonable withdrawal starting ASAP that indicates that Iraq needs to stand on its own sooner than later. It needs to resolve the unresolved with some measure of urgency and seriousness. A messy status quo looks good to me, as long as we stand prepared with an international coalition to provide some air cover for the Iraqi military and/or some logistic support in the area of intelligence and reconnaissance. We need to reject the idea of a long term presence in Iraq because it will be unproductive for them and for us. It will put a tremendous drag on our economy and promote ill will with the Arab and Muslim community that already sees us as imperial occupiers.

The upcoming election will determine everything about the way we move forward, and I think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have a good command of our realistic options for the future of the Occupation and our presence in the region. John McCain? Not so much.

Pennsylvania

2008-04-06T19:51:00.000-07:00

I just arrived back in New York after a nice weekend with my sister and brother-in-law in Pennsylvania. I spent a number of years living in the Philadelphia area, and much of my immediate family has been there for nearly 20 years now. I'm the lone hold out New Yorker. New York is a bit of an illusion as far as the rest of the United States goes. There are too many departures from the American norm in New York, including the fact that 36% of New Yorkers are foreign-born and somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of the city's population is non-White. It's my life, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The other part of my life includes the majority of the last four years living in Japan. I am one of the very few foreigners living in my community there, and I'm very used to being the foreign spectacle.

Going to Bucks County, PA for a few days reminded me of just how Caucasian the United States is overall, and how different predominately white communities feel. Bucks is a beautiful county with a fairly high median income and an approximately 95% white population. The county has become one of Pennsylvania's "purplest" electoral areas with a large pharmaceutical presence as well as a fairly strong conservative undercurrent politically. Doylestown, PA, where I spent part of the weekend, is the typical Prius-driving, wine sipping, university educated Democratic base that has gone to Barack Obama throughout the primary season and it was evident that the town was buzzing with Obamamania during the evening I spent having dinner with my family. The town opens up the streets to a festival atmosphere on the 1st Friday of every month, and chants of "Obama" could be heard from blocks away as groups of young, excited teens carried signs and bumper stickers to show their enthusiasm. Most of the younger crowd were still 4-5 years from voting age, but they were swept up in the atmosphere of this unusual election season.

The Obama headquarters were open in town and people casually strolled in and out to pick up materials, give donations, and generally share in the positive vibe of the movement. I bought two pins and two bumper stickers while visiting with the kind people in the office and really began to think about how other communities like this one were wrapped up in the big campaign. New York is a bustle of 10 million separate agendas, and the sheer number of activities, happenings, and attractions tend to swallow one another on most occasions. The city is capable of tremendous unity and community character, but on the average day it's a vast Metropolis. Doylestown was alive with Obama. I walked into the restaurant where we had reserved a table and was immediately greeted by a table of people sitting near the door. "Where did you get those bumper stickers?" one man asked. He was thrilled to hear that the Obama headquarters were open around the corner and rallied his table of middle-aged friends and family to head over after dessert and coffee. While sitting at our table, a neighboring diner gave the thumbs up for Obama and nodded in approval. The waiter stopped to touch the bumper stickers on the table and said, "Good choice." I thanked him and agreed.

Driving through the area there were dozens upon dozens of Obama lawn signs, with only a smattering of Hillary's placards visible from the street. It was evident that the money Obama has put into Pennsylvania has given him an overwhelming presence. I saw one Hillary sign in town, sitting next to an Obama sign in the county Democratic committee office window. I saw one Hillary pin on a woman in her late-50's, surrounded at a cafe by a number of Obama supporters. Likewise, I saw more Obama television ads than I care to remember, while the only presence Hillary currently has in Pennsylvania is a phone campaign asking for donations and support. There was one on my sister's answering machine when we got back from dinner. Obama's been running a blitz of ads on television in PA for weeks now and has at least five different versions in play at this point. The newest of those ads is called "For Decades" and was aired during what seemed like every commercial break I saw. See it for yourself:

In Philadelphia, the Obama spirit was also very high with brilliantly stylized artwork featuring Obama's face at every bus stop in Center City. There were a lot more Hillary placards in town, but the placement was awkward and haphazard. Personally, the experience was very exciting. On a broader level, the weekend in Pennsylvania was a great chance to steal part of the enthusiasm for our political future that has embodied this campaign. At a time when things look bleak, and when our problems seem to be mounting by the hour, an energy is in the air for democracy. The trick is, can we maintain it when times are good?

UPDATE 4/7: The New York Times blog "The Caucus" reports that two Pennsylvania counties, Montgomery and Bucks, have accounted for more registered Democrats than Republicans for the first time since the 1960's. I guess this long primary season hasn't been all bad, has it? My weekend in Bucks seems to anecdotally illustrate this point.

Chelsea and Kid Gloves

2008-03-31T18:29:00.000-07:00

I'm getting extremely bored with the current campaigning and can't wait until the Dems resolve their mess so we can get back to a legitimate national dialog about ideology and progress. I intend to spend more time in the next few weeks writing about issues independent of the 2008 Presidential Election before turning attention back when we get closer to April 22nd and voting in Pennsylvania (where I am currently registered and where I will cast my ballot for Barack Obama). One thing on my mind today, unfortunately, is the role of Chelsea Clinton in her mother's campaign.

This has gone on for quite a while, but I think it's getting to border on ridiculous. Chelsea has been enlisted to campaign on behalf of her mother in places where high youth turnout promises to affect the election. That's great. It's good to see the young woman who grew up in the White House spotlight now out in public, using her voice, and intelligently supporting the cause of her political family. What's unacceptable is the insistence by the Clinton people that Chelsea is off limits to reporters during her stumping. Of course she's not politically sophisticated enough at this point in her life to deal with a few sneaky, contrived questions, but they sent her out in public on behalf of a public servant and I believe she is then accountable for her words, positions, and personal connection to the candidate. She must be allowed to speak to reporters and no questions ought to be out of bounds. If she doesn't want to answer, "no comment" is a perfectly acceptable response, but she has to be open to dialog with the 4th Estate.

That issue, however, is secondary to this situation. The primary complaint here is that Chelsea has agreed to answer questions from the students at her events, yet gets her back up when asked something uncomfortable. Several students have now asked her about the Monica Lewinsky situation and she has repeatedly reacted with near revulsion at the idea that someone dare ask her about that personal moment. I agree that it's something close to sleazy, but (1) it was a major national event and hardly something we can consider private, anymore than Watergate or Iran-Contra, and (2) she put herself in public to answer questions. Again, I believe that (1) the president's affair doesn't nearly approach the breach of trust that Watergate or Iran-Contra caused, and (2) she has the right to a "no comment." However, it is a part of her family's public history and affected her father's ability to govern. He put himself in that position, and the Right wing took advantage of it. She can't get away with standing up there promoting her mother, refusing the press, and only taking softball questions from adoring fans. This is politics, not American Idol.

Instead of being horribly insulted by the questions, she should take them in stride, learn a little poise in the face of sticky public situations, and open herself up to the press, who would presumably ask more high minded questions (except for Fox, of course). This is a young woman who graduated with honors from Stanford University, earned a Masters in International Relations from Oxford, and now holds down a job at a high power hedge fund in Manhattan. She is intimately familiar with her father's work, as her undergrad thesis was on his mediation of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, and her work has been provided to her by financial supporters of her parents political ambitions. I'm not saying that she didn't earn her degrees and her professional position, but we're not even allowed to scrutinize her while she's out on the stump. If the Clinton's insist on putting her out there, but demand she be afforded child-like protections, they might as well keep her home. Give us all a break.

I Love the Nationals

2008-03-30T21:59:00.000-07:00

Good friend and fellow blogger Brian McFadden gives us a roundup of the first pitch thrown at the new stadium in Washington, DC as the Nationals kick off their 2008 season. Who threw that pitch? See for yourself:

Hot Dog - $3.50
Beer - $7.50
Parking - $27.00
Upper Deck seat - $55.00
Booing George W. Bush - Priceless

Are These Your Politics?

2008-03-28T13:30:00.000-07:00

There are some who do not support Barack Obama who openly wonder why so many have chosen his candidacy. Of course, for some of those people the crux of their wonder is a simple differing in ideology or method. That's fair and legitimate. That's the political process. For others there is the misinformation and propaganda machine that has reared its ugly head since day one of his campaign. For the record, I think Obama has stood up to address the lies and deception aimed at him very effectively, and I think the mainstream press has done so as well, although not as aggressively as I would prefer.

The propagandists, for the most part, are of the Karl Rove school of politics. They primarily come from the scorched earth, Right wing fringe who have hijacked the Party of Lincoln and have turned the American political scene into a filthy gutter. Anyone who wonders why Barack Obama has drawn so many to him and how he survived the Reverend Wright "scandal" relatively unscathed need only understand that the promise of a higher minded leadership is the key. Wonder why George Bush has a 28% approval rating and why Congress is at 21%? Look no further than the negative tone that has been established. Make no mistake, I blame this on the Right wing fringe, but everyone has bought into it and everyone is guilty at this point.

This campaign has turned particularly ugly, however, as I think the tone is racist, xenophobic, and intolerant. It's subtle in many ways and overt in others. Republican supporters can easily stand with a straight face and shrug their shoulders asking, "What's wrong with saying his middle name?" or, "Why doesn't he wear a lapel pin?" but it's all code for "He's a Muslim. He's not American. He's not patriotic. If you vote for him, he'll sell us all out to the enemy. He's not one of us." If anyone tries to defend the Right wing propagandists on this, they're fools. I'm sorry to be so blunt and inflexible, but I've never been more sure that I'm on the right side of an issue than I am now. This is racism at its most insidious and divisive. Reverend Wright's comments were overt, over the top, out front, and non-apologetic. This campaign is covert, subtle, back region of the brain, and offensively defended as nothing serious.

Take a look at this clip, borrowed from a recent post at DailyKos:

The people who are behind this are invisible vampires, represented up front by largely anonymous Congressmen and GOP Party stooges. The reason I decided to write on this topic today is the most recent John McCain ad which breaches decency in a similarly covert and fear mongering way. Again, borrowed from a DailKos post:

Why the "American President" for the "American People" line at the end? The ONLY purpose for that strange wording is to subtly highlight that the opposition isn't American in some way. The theme of the whole ad is that McCain is a true patriot while others (specifically Obama) is an America-hater and somehow non-American candidate. It plays into all the dirty rhetoric that we saw above. It's under the radar racism.

Last word on this. I used to be a registered Independent. I always said that I'd keep an open mind about who I voted for and I believed deeply that no party held the moral high ground or the complete monopoly on solutions to America's pressing issues. I saw deep flaws in both major parties and vowed to use my vote to support the best person regardless of affiliation. I'm a progressive, but I'm also a political pragmatist in many ways. I think many people have registered as Independents along similar lines of thinking. That said, the Karl Rove brand of politics and the neocon brand of hijacking our government that has damaged our nation and the common people of America has, perhaps, permanently pushed me to the Democratic Party. I see the fight, at this point, as a battle to make one of the parties more representative and less divisive. The Democrats, for all their flaws, stand closer to the America that I love than the undead that have hijacked good conservatism in the GOP. This is that battle in its most glaring form.

Wiki Vandals

2008-03-28T01:03:00.000-07:00

I was browsing the Wikipedia page of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tonight and I happened to do a double take at an item in the right sidebar. See if you can find it here:

You might need to click on that image to enlarge it, but I'll save you the trouble by highlighting the offending vandalism here. This is not an unusual phenomenon at Wikipedia and it's really the main problem with open source platforms in general. In this case the heat of the Democratic primary campaign has obviously led some poor, deranged individual (perhaps James Carville) to besmirch the good name of Bill Richardson. Shame. Shame on you anonymous Clinton supporter (probably James Carville). I didn't scan the entire Wiki entry on Richardson for other unflattering edits. It's possible that someone put reference and link to Judas in the article (probably James Carville) or mentioned something about branding (likely someone with the initials J.C. - and not the REALLY famous one either). If this makes you angry, sad, frustrated, cranky, sleepy, amused, or just plain bored donate to the campaign of Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. It will cover the inevitable anti-Wiki-vandalism expenses of the run for the White House. I think someone at Clinton central has a project in mind for on-line sabotage (probably a Cajun we all know and love).

By the way, I alerted the good people at Wiki-central about the vandalism, so it probably won't be up by the time you head over to look, but try anyway.

400 Pound Gorillas

2008-03-27T01:01:00.001-07:00

Recently, we've heard revived talk of an Obama/Clinton ticket. In the beginning, the idea was floated as a way for Democrats to have their cake and eat it, but I think the sense of that notion has changed a great deal. When the subject was breached initially, pundits and laypeople alike flip-flopped the names in that Democratic combo plate, mulling over the special ticket that would emerge to oppose the Republicans. With the bitter feelings that have emerged, and with the lead that Obama has built in pledged delegates and popular vote, the Obama/Clinton version of that ticket seems to be floating on the wind. This time, however, it comes in response to the anger and division that have been growing within the Democratic ranks over the nastiness of the campaign.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote about it on Wednesday, and Chris Matthews dealt with it during his roundtable on Hardball as well. Dowd claims that the Clinton people are quietly floating the possibility to insiders, while the Hardball gang simply wanted to take it on as a hypothetical. I was struck that the only person who wholeheartedly endorsed the idea was Pat Buchanan, to which Matthews quizzically wondered if partisan Buchanan was speaking or analyst Buchanan. It seemed too mischievous, his enthusiasm. For my part, before this flares up again as a national debate, I can't think of a worse idea.

I don't say that as a bitter Obama supporter, who has grown weary of Hillary Clinton. I do have those feelings, but I'm also a pragmatic Democrat who wants the Party to win in November. If I thought that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be the best way to win, I'd consider it long and hard. I, personally, think it would be a disaster of immense proportions and political suicide for Barack Obama. Think about it for a second.

The president is the 400 pound gorilla in any room he or she walks into across the entire planet. There is no greater alpha character in the human race at this point in history than the president of the United States. Well, with an Obama/Clinton ticket you'd have President Obama in front with President Bill Clinton in the background and at least for a large handful of Democrats President Hillary Clinton. Forget the "Vice" part of that title. If some Democrats already see her as the most presidential candidate in this contest, that won't change if Obama happens to be first on the ticket. Let's think about the problems associated with that arrangement.

1. In any crisis or delicate situation, does anyone believe that the Clintons wouldn't be secretly tapping into their legion of supporters to be the power brokers? They have an established political machine that would overlap with Obama's administration in many places, but act independently in others. Why would anyone deal directly with Barack Obama with a former president sitting in the wings and his powerful wife, the Senator from New York.

2. How would that appear for the first African-American president to be backed up by the Clintons? I'll tell you how it would look. It would look like the American people only put him there because they knew the backup were good White folks. It would make him look safer to people who couldn't accept him for his own merit and brilliance and it would undermine all that he's worked for without their help.

3. Who's the top gorilla in a White House with three 400 pound gorillas pacing the halls? Yes, Barack Obama gets the Oval Office, but anytime Bill or Hillary are in there to meet with him, wouldn't it feel like he was in someone's seat. If the Clinton's weren't in the administration it would be easier to see Obama as the big man in the room, but if Hillary were a heartbeat away and her husband was there backing her up, it would create a poor perception of leadership for Obama.

I could go on and on, but the point is very easy to make. If Barack Obama is going to be president, he needs to stamp his own identity on the role and he needs to make a clean break from those who have been there before. Fresh blood assures the American people of fresh ideas and that's what his campaign is all about, isn't it? If he is "Clinton-free" as president, there will be no question about who the boss is in the White House and there will be no question where the Clintons are hanging out either. Away from the Oval Office and in plain sight (as much as that's possible anyway).

In the end this is only marginally about a distaste for a Clinton return to the White House. I am a huge Al Gore fan and always have been, but I wouldn't want him on the ticket with Obama either. The same can be said for John Edwards, who I like, or John Kerry, who I don't particularly care for. They've been on the ticket and Obama needs a fresh face.

Personally, I'd go with a governor and someone with good national security credentials. There aren't all that many out there to be honest, but I have ideas about how Obama could construct a very plausible cabinet of people that address whatever perceived weaknesses he has while maintaining his own brand of governance. Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, shares many of Obama's beliefs and would help him to win a state that has been Red in recent years, but could go Blue in this election. As a VP candidate he could also help with the Roman Catholic vote that has gone largely to Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Enlisting Bill Richardson as Secretary of State and hinting at it broadly during the general election could help to win Hispanics and people in the West that might otherwise go McCain. It would make Colorado very competitive for the Democrats, especially given Obama's wise positioning of his campaign HQ in Denver. Of course the governors chairs are very very important to Democrats and one would hate to give up two to the Obama administration, but these two strong political figures could offset some problems that he would have in Ohio and Florida. Just a thought.

Campaign Notes

2008-03-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

There aren't many specific issues going on in the current presidential campaign that merit their own post, but there are a number of developments that may be worth a short mention. As a result, this entry will be a lightning look at the current state of affairs and a possible preview of the coming days and weeks.

1. Obama and Race

The Reverend Wright controversy seems like so much nonsense to me. With all the important things going on in the United States and the world, the fringe rants of a pastor are only important to the mainstream media and the gutter campaigning of the current environment. The association of Obama with Reverend Wright is certainly worthy of some critique, as are the endorsements of several controversial preachers in the McCain campaign, but it's only so revealing about the candidates themselves. Obama is a fairly straightforward political character. He isn't the type to have radical skeletons in his closet. On the topic of race, there is little doubt in my mind that he is a healing force with a distinctly balances perspective that reflects much of mainstream America's lukewarm sentiment on the issue in this new millennium. I thought his speech was very good and accomplished a lot of things simultaneously. The irony is that the larger audience will still hear whatever they want to hear from the speech, regardless of its overarching treatment on American racial environments. Personally, if I want to hear an honest discussion of race (particularly African-American perspectives) I will turn to Cornell West everyday and twice on Sunday.

For the record, since this early campaign moment Cornell West has said some intriguing and supportive things about Barack Obama, available here in this Rolling Stone article.

2. Hillary's Sniper Story

Dueling controversies in the Democratic Primary campaign seem to be the state of things. Hillary Clinton has run her campaign on "experience" and has largely been unchallenged by the mainstream media on precisely what experience she's talking about. Her recent accounts about coming under fire in Bosnia during her co-presidency of the 90's has been debunked in the most harsh and telling fashion as video has been put out showing her photo op on the tarmac in Bosnia well after the peace accords had been established. Combined with her debunked story about assisting in the brokering of the Northern Ireland peace accords, her experience is looking a lot less "3am-worthy" than it did only a week ago. If this incident has legs and turns into a greater scrutiny of her "experience", perhaps a new perspective will emerge in that debate over who's ready on day one.

3. John McCain's Free Pass

McCain has been stumbling along the campaign trail with multiple misstatements about Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, and his endorsements. If this were a general election season, he'd be facing the music in the polls and probably sinking like a stone. Since the focus has been squared so firmly on the Democrats, McCain has relied on his buddy-buddy relationship with the mainstream media to soften the mistakes and hide in the shadows. I look ahead a bit to a one on one campaign with Barack Obama (probably) and think that John McCain is in serious trouble. That leads me to my next point....

4. Iraq and 4,000

The death toll at the 5th anniversary of Mission Accomplished hit the round number of 4,000 in the wake of renewed violence in Basra. The Mahdi Army of Al Sadr has set aside the tentative cease fire with the US military and are now clashing with Iraqi forces on multiple fronts. The last two weeks have been the bloodiest since the Fall and the so-called Surge is looking a lot less like a success and more like a bloody stalemate. The neoliberal economic system imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority is stalling in Iraqi Parliament and any reasonable observer of the Occupation has to admit that reconciliation of any kind cannot happen under the current arrangement and in the current climate. To be honest, as a Progressive, I support the idea of an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but I also have my doubts. I consider my perspective to be more pragmatic, and I think there's a reasonable chance of genocide should we pull out quickly, leaving a military void.

That may sound like the product of the neocon fear campaign, but I would ask anyone watching the situation on the ground to offer evidence to suggest that outcome is unrealistic. I think our presence is divisive and counterproductive, but I think our absence is potentially a humanitarian disaster. We can thank Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and the rest of the neocon lurkers for putting us in this impossible situation. McCain would have us stay to preserve the peace and give the Iraqi government 100 years of opportunity to realize a stable national identity. The Dems would have us walk away. Neither seems right to me. Were I president, I think I'd engage in a 2-year, phased withdrawal of troops but only after securing United Nations support in the form of ground troops to ease the transition and a more balanced economy built on nationalizing oil and other key resources until such a time that Iraq is prepared to deal with opening its markets voluntarily.

UN help with reconstruction is a must, as is a nationalization of profits from the resources of the people. If 100% of the money from oil sales are put back into reconstruction, it seems reasonable that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds would equally benefit from the resource. Water, electricity, and human services could be supported across the board and the basic needs of the people could establish a more lasting peace. If life looks good, the attraction of death as an insurgent is less prevalent. Less insurgents means more stability. Nationalization of resources would seem to accomplish this best.

5. Where All This Goes

I see no clear path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. She will continue to take from Obama in an effort to steal the nomination via superdelegate coup, but it won't happen. Think about it. If Clinton were to steal the nomination by garnering the support of the superdelegates there would be a civil war. Increasingly, there is a sentiment that a Clinton coup would split the Party and no reasonable superdelegate would let that happen. The strikes against Hillary are far more daunting than the media currently reports. She has a huge chest of money that compares favorably to Obama at first glance, but she also has a huge debt that is unaccounted for, where Obama has none. Her money looks good on paper, but dissolves substantially when we consider that she has to use much of it to pay off that debt. It looks worse when we realize that the bulk of the remaining money is earmarked for the general election. By all accurate accounts, Obama's money advantage is beyond enormous.

Likewise, the sentiment among Party insiders is strongly in Obama's corner, particularly among the DNC crowd, governors, and congressional committees. They know that Clinton's national "coattails" are nearly non-existent in a season where Democrats hope to score 25-30 additional seats in the House, and several in the Senate. There are a few governor's jobs that could also swing in 2008. Obama has shown his ability to drive local elections in Democrats favor, notably in the recent win for Bill Foster in Illinois's 14th District. That area is squarely Republican and was formerly occupied by House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The win is emblematic of the type of victory the Democratic Party is looking for across the country. It is widely believed that an Obama candidacy would sweep up competitive races and deliver for the Party, while Clinton's national profile is divisive enough that local elections may be less successful with her at the lead. This was certainly true in both 1994 and 1996, when Bill Clinton failed to deliver for the Party and ended up presiding over a huge net loss of Democrats in government, giving up the majority to the GOP and ushering in the era of the Bush Administration.

John McCain's money situation is bleak. He'll get about $84 million via public funding in the general election, while Obama (probably) can expect to bring in double that total, if not more. Likewise, the turnout for Democrats in the primary elections bodes ill for the GOP as the economy sinks deeper into recession and Iraq sinks back into chaos. The money, domestic climate, foreign climate, and image advantage all go to Obama. What looks like a McCain strength now, might look a lot different once Obama gets the nomination and stands on the stage in Denver to raucous crowds of Party loyalists. I expect the polls to stay close until Denver, at which point every week will bring a wider gap for Obama....

Spitz the Bit

2008-03-10T11:17:00.000-07:00

Oh man. The New York Times is reporting that ethics champion Eliot Spitzer is admitting to links to a prostitution ring. This is shocking news for New Yorkers and Democrats around the country. The governor of New York hiring prostitutes. Ugh.

I've been an ENORMOUS fan of Eliot Spitzer since his days as Attorney General of the State of New York. He took on some of the most powerful industries in the country and forced them to reform. His run to the governor's mansion was bumpy and he's clashed with parties from all sides while holding the highest office in the State. This news kills me. He was a champion, and now it looks as though he's going to be a disgrace.

This will develop, and Spitzer will make a statement soon. I'll have more once that happens. Bad news.

Write-In Barack Obama

2008-03-08T15:13:00.000-08:00

I've started a campaign to write-in Barack Obama for the presidency should he lead the delgate count at the end of voting but lose the nomination to the superdelegate process. We need to have our nominee reflect the choice of the voting public and the threat of a split vote in November seems to be just the thing to pressure the Democratic National Committee in this regard.

Take a look at the blog and sign the petition. Make sure our voices decide our candidate, and not some political insiders in a "smoke-filled room."

...Because You're Hurting America

2008-03-07T18:54:00.000-08:00

In this election cycle I've found myself watching WAY too much MSNBC and CNN. As a graduate student, a husband, and the father of a small child I've been pleasantly preoccupied with actual life for the past 4 or 5 years and generally avoided television in favor of books and the internet, when the need for an electronic media fix arose. There are still moments when I'm happy to sit in front of the television and enjoy some frivolous entertainment. I like to watch sports and old sitcoms. I've attached myself to the news networks to follow the election process. The sports and old sitcoms work for me. The news networks....not so much.

Here's the thing. Since I gave up watching television more or less, I increasingly turned to various online news sources and a handful of newspapers and periodicals for my news. Coming back to television, I remember all the reasons that I left in the first place. I find myself unusually stressed out by the coverage of the primaries and it occurs to me that the biggest part of that stress is the volatile, self-serving, vindictive punditry that prefers to make news via speculation, in fighting, partisanship, and distortion than to cover it. These people of various ideologies and loyalties spout opinionated spin for hours at a time while talking heads like Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, and others egg them on and lick their salivating lips at the prospect of making themselves look authoritative and in the know. It the ultimate exercise in self-aggrandizing egomania and it extends from the anchor desks to the punditry to the people behind the scenes. You can forget the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world, the networks are now in the game and they are twice as loud and omnipresent.

Notice that I excluded the names of Keith Olbermann and Anderson Cooper from the earlier group. It's not that they don't belong in that group, but there's a kernel of something I like in each of them. Cooper seems more humble than the flock. He does a lot of CNN fluff nonsense and tows the company line, but I get the sense that there's something real going on underneath the facade. He seems bothered by the criticisms of CNN reporting and the sensationalism of the news cycle. He doesn't stand up against it, but at least he seems to take the criticisms personally. Olbermann is a hyperactive partisan for the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He's blatantly anti-Hillary and he's vehemently anti-Bush. He wears his opinions on his sleeve and pulls no punches. I don't think his brand of vitriol is good for America, but to be honest....my dirty little pleasure is to watch him harpoon the people I don't like. I let him off the hook because we share the same ideology and because....well.....F them anyway. Progressives are tired of being the punching bags for the lunatic fringe of the Right wing and his rants are a sort of catharsis.

If I had my way, however, there would be no discourse of its kind on major network news. I'd gladly trade in my guilty pleasure, watching Olbermann, to do away with Matthews, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the rest. It hurts America. Just my opinion. This post serves a dual purpose. First, I want to point to one of the most poignant moments on national television in modern history (as far as I'm concerned) and second I'd like to offer a contrast and lead you to something that needs your support.

Paul Begala was a key figure in the campaign to elect Bill Clinton to the presidency. He was half of the political consulting team of Begala and Carville. Of course, anyone who's paid attention to national politics over the last 15+ years knows James Carville as the loud-mouthed cajun with a knack for framing things in a way that just "makes sense." I have a great deal of affection for James Carville as a Democrat who came of political age during the 1992 election. The documentary "War Room" is a classic political inside look at campaigning and the election process. Begala, on the other hand, has always struck me as the kid in class who slightly embellished everything to prove how clever has was, how important. He clearly has issues of some kind with confidence as is apparent in his nervous, twitchy, rapid fire speech pattern that is often punctuated by nervous laughter and quick glances at the people around, as if to confirm that he's said something clever or interesting. That's my amateur psychology at work, anyway.

The clip I'm about to post features Begala and Tucker Carlson hosting the CNN program Crossfire. Tucker Carlson is a privileged boy who never finished his university education. He used to wear a ridiculous bow tie as some sort of attempt to live up to the Ivy League/Young Republican image that would give him entry to the William F. Buckley branch of conservatism. I believe he named one of his children "Buckley" as a matter of fact. He's the boy in class that always took a snooty, better than you attitude as long as the teacher was around to prevent a bloody ass-whooping. The pairing of Begala and Carlson eventually led to the end of Crossfire, I believe as a result of the following clip (although John Stewart has repeatedly denied playing any direct role in the cancellation). Enjoy. It's rather long at 14+ minutes, but as I said it's one of the great moments in modern television and worth every second:

Thanks for your patience with the first part of this post. The following is a ringing endorsement for a different sort of journalism that is both desperately needed and perilously in danger. Tonight I sat down to watch the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. The topic was the McCain campaign and conservatism in America. Moyers is a veteran newsman of the highest standing and a real American hero in the face of the dumbing down of our national discourse. He's clearly a liberal politically, but he converses with conservatives with the comfort and ease of a true statesman. He's an intellectual, persistently fair, and invites the sort of guests of all ideological persuasion that uphold his own respectable example. The discourse is genuine, balanced in the truest sense of the word, and somehow manages to transcend the fray of sensationalism that television as a medium seems to love so much.

Moyers and the PBS family need money to continue providing the last surviving forum of decent journalism on television. It's up to you whether you value this service or not, but I hope you'll at least think about supporting them with a few extra dollars if you have them. Think of the contrast between the clip featured above and the following video aired recently about Congressional earmarks and maybe it will help you make up your mind. Follow the link to Moyers program on the internet and continue to look in on his work to get some decent news from time to time.

Old Fashioned Ass Kicking

2008-03-04T21:54:00.001-08:00

Texas and Ohio have now made Hillary Clinton the comeback kid. In a crushing blow to the Obama campaign, having outspent Hillary Clinton 3 or 4 to 1 in this week's primaries, the big ticket states overwhelmingly gave their support to the woman who's promised to take their 3am phone call.

What does it mean?

1. We're going to Denver. There will be a bitter fight all the way to the convention and there will be blood.

2. We're going negative. It clearly worked. Fear motivates as much as hope and she is going to scare the piss out of you if you're leaning towards Barack Obama.

3. We're going to get a big Michigan/Florida push going. She's not going to give up on those states (nor should she) and we'll see some kind of do-over where she crushes Obama in Florida and probably beats him handily in Michigan as well.

4. McCain will get to load up and get his general election campaign organized. He has no money and needs to get the base more on his side, but he'll have time and plenty of help from the established Republican machine.

5. Obama has to rethink his strategy to address the "fighter" Clinton that has obviously resonated with people in blue collar areas. He talks like a diplomat and a statesman, but that demographic like Rocky. He needs to find that inner Stallone to balance out the softer, more cerebral Obama. His inner Wesley Snipes. "Always bet on black!"

6. The math doesn't lie. Obama might actually GAIN delegates after all is said and done on March 4th. It won't matter to the headlines and it won't matter to the newly energized Clinton base, but it is something. Presuming he goes on to win Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week, he can extend. He also is rumored to have 50 superdelegates waiting in the wings to back him. After tonight, you have to wonder how solid that is, but it could keep tilting the math in the Obama direction.

At this point the winners on March 4th are John McCain, Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party, headline writers and Saturday Night Live. The losers are Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, the Democratic Party, and mathematics. This is going to be long and painful. To wrap this up, I want to revisit my own pre-Super Twosday predictions to hold myself accountable.

I predicted that Obama would win Texas by 10 points and wipe up after her in the caucuses. I think it's obvious that Obama fell flat in the primary, but I think he still looks on target to deal her a delegate blow in the caucuses. I predicted that Clinton would win Ohio by 6 to 8 points and I thought it looked like possibly more. I was right on with that prediction as Clinton will win Ohio by roughly 10 points. It was in the tea leaves. I gave Rhode Island to Clinton by about 10 points, but she drank Obama's milkshake to the tune of 18 points there. Not completely unexpected, but stunning to the Obama people nonetheless. Finally, I was looking at a 15 point win for Obama in Vermont and he delivered by more than 20 points. It's very interesting, but my final prediction was that Obama would come away with more delegates in the end, and that Clinton would get the ammunition to run this campaign all the way to the end. And there you have it.....

Obama 2025: One Scenario

2008-03-04T08:08:00.000-08:00

That's not the name of a sci-fi thriller starring Will Smith. I happened to be playing around with CNN's delegate counter game to look at what kind of scenario might play out with the remaining states, and how likely it is we'll see one candidate or the other get the nomination. What I found was very interesting. Click the graphic below to enlarge:

I simply decided to award delegates at random by sliding the bar into either Clinton or Obama's side, awarding them each state by varying margins. I tried to make most of the states close except where I thought it was fair for one candidate or the other to take away more delegates. You may agree or disagree about who will win each state, but it's not all that important in the end as you'll see.

For the hell of it, I divided the states into these camps:

Clinton

Ohio
Pennsylvania
Indiana
West Virginia
South Dakota
Rhode Island
Kentucky
Montana
Puerto Rico

Obama

Texas
Oregon
Vermont
Mississippi
Guam
North Carolina

I also awarded more superdelegates to Hillary Clinton. I don't think, for the record, that this is how it's going to play out. I think Obama will win more of these states, offering that Clinton may end up performing slightly better in a couple of Obama's wins. The point here is, Clinton wins more of the remaining states and more of the remaining superdelegates and still doesn't stop Obama from reaching 2025. What I expect to happen is that Obama will win the larger portion of the remaining superdelegates and will win a few of those states in Clinton's column. This game was intended to see how Hillary Clinton could still clinch the nomination and I gave her an advantage that I thought would do it. When I looked up at the bar graph for the two candidates, oddly it landed at exactly 2025 for Obama. I expected that I'd just given Clinton a slim majority when I looked up, but it worked out so neatly that I had to post this. It also shows that Hillary Clinton's quest for the nomination is still a virtual impossibility.

One note: I believe this CNN delegate game counts the Florida and Michigan delegates for Clinton. It definitely gives her those states on the colored-in map. If that's true, and they did factor in the numbers.....more bleak.

Fear vs. Think/Hope

2008-03-03T21:24:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton's ad:

Bill Clinton 2004 Presidential Campaign:

That's all you need to know. Bill Clinton endorses Barack Obama.

Super Twosday Predictions

2008-03-03T10:35:00.000-08:00

I'm calling this set of primaries that includes Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont "Super ~~Tuesday II~~ Twosday for its serious political consequences for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The stakes are very high all around and we could either see an effective end to the Democratic nomination or a long (I mean loooooooooooong) month and a half until Pennsylvania. I'm going to make a couple of predictions about each state and then an overall prediction about how this campaign is going to move forward.

Texas

I believe, despite narrow polls in Obama's favor, that Barack Obama will win Texas by nearly 10 percentage points. The strange primary/caucus combination will make things a bit unclear, but Obama has outperformed the polling numbers by an average of nearly 8 percentage points since the primary contests started in Iowa. He currently has a 3 or 4 point advantage by most counts. More than the impressive win here, Obama will actually score a huge majority of the delegates as a result of the Texas system of allocation that gives more delegates to the urban areas that Obama will run away with. The loss in Texas for Senator Clinton, especially in my margin of victory holds true, should be the end of her campaign, but I don't think that's going to be the case, because.....

Ohio

Senator Clinton has held a good lead in Ohio, again despite narrowing poll numbers, and got a bit of a boost today when some memos surfaced showing an Obama aide hedging on the rhetoric about NAFTA in a meeting with the Canadian Consulate in Chicago. People in Ohio, already on Hillary's side, will see this as a betrayal and I can't see him surviving a death blow like this at the 11th hour. I would have predicted a very close race here with either candidate poised for a 2 or 3 percentage point victory, but I now predict a Clinton victory by 6 to 8 points (if not more). Ohio will give the Clinton campaign its needed "big win" to drag out the inevitable.

Rhode Island

RI will be the cherry on Clinton's Ohio sundae as she should win the state by nearly 10 points. Obama has shown the ability to close polls to within single digits, but I think that she's going to coast to victory in Rhode Island with a comfortable win. I'll go with 10 points here.

Vermont

I expect Obama to win this small state by 15 points and grab the lion's share of the delegates in the process. This will be a very big win for Obama, as it turns out, because it will help him to keep the delegate lead for Super Tuesday II. Although Clinton will be able to boast a split of states on this day (and she will) the overall gains that Obama makes in delegates might be significant.

Overall

Despite the overall delegate gain for Obama on this day, I would consider my predicted outcome a loss. Hillary Clinton will be able to make the case for a campaign that extends to Pennsylvania on April 22nd and we'll be forced to watch an increasingly ugly campaign drag the Democratic Party into the gutter. Make no mistake, this extended campaign and its negative tone is hurting the eventual winner a great deal. If there was a more dynamic Republican on the other side, this would be a fatal disaster. McCain has issues of his own to deal with and looks a bit tired already. Still, we may end up looking back at Super ~~Tuesday II~~ Twosday as the day that ultimately jeopardized the general election more than any other. Terrifying prospects for Democrats.

Note: If Obama can make a last second comeback to win Ohio, I expect Clinton to end her campaign. If she loses 3 states, it will be hard for her to continue with the DNC breathing down her neck. If she ends up continuing past a set of losses that includes both Texas and Ohio, you'll see her lose PA by double digits and you'll see dozens of superdelegates endorsing Obama.

Also, I just saw a Fox promo for their "Super Tuesday II" coverage, so I had to change my little name for the day. I can't use the same corny joke that Fox has employed. My corny joke has to be above that, so I'm going with Super Twosday. Ugh.

Flattered

2008-02-27T20:54:00.001-08:00

I don't have words for this. I'm very flattered and will make my decision in the very near future.

That's President Barack Hussein Obama to You

2008-02-27T17:44:00.001-08:00

So apparently the GOP smear dogs are already out in force against Barack Obama. The use of his middle name, Hussein, is being portrayed by the Right Wing hate mongers as fair game. They are using that "wink wink" strategy that on the outside says, "What?! I can't say the man's middle name? What's wrong with that? It's his middle name. So what?" but inside says, "Hey, fellow narrow minded white men unite!"

Yesterday it was Bill Cunningham opening for John McCain at a rally and today it was the Chairman of the Tennessee GOP, Robin Smith, okaying the same strategy while posting an article about Obama being an anti-Semite on their website. I'm now watching CNN and see former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, a raving neocon if I've ever seen one, playing the same "What wrong with the man's middle name? It's like saying George Herbert Walker Bush! I don't get it."

Even Karl Rove has said in public that this strategy is a bad idea. Well, I say let it go on. I don't think this is going to hurt Obama as much as it will set the GOP back one or two generations. I have a suggestion for a response to this from the Obama campaign...

"That's President Barack Hussein Obama to you."

White Guys with Mics

2008-02-27T09:36:00.000-08:00

I hate to title this post "White Guys with Mics" because it serves a dual purpose. First, it's a commentary on the recently passed William F. Buckley and his legacy as a verbose and dedicated voice for conservative America. Second, it's a look at the present state of political voices in America.

William F. Buckley was the son of an oil baron and a true blue Yale man. He served in the US Army and even briefly in the CIA before turning to a career in writing. Buckley was founder of the National Review and is credited with the wave of conservative enthusiasm which swept Ronald Reagan to national prominence. With the mass medium of television exploding throughout America, Buckley found himself a niche as a chat host, generally taking the conservative side against a more left leaning guest. This format is the preferred context for modern media treatments of political and social issues on every major network, although the quality of both host and guest has noticeably deteriorated since the heyday of Buckley and company.

In the following clip, Buckley interviews Gore Vidal and is confronted by Vidal as a crypto-Nazi, to which Buckley responds by calling Vidal a queer and threatening to assault him. I think this represents a low moment in television history and certainly is below both of these men. Notice that this clip comes from ABC.

Another interesting television clip, available via the magic of YouTube, is the now famous conversation between Buckley and Noam Chomsky. Buckley's smug, affected accent intrudes repeatedly on the mathematical and academic tone of Chomsky as he tries to make each point. This technique is now standard practice by the O'reillys and Hannitys of the world, although rather than interjecting rudely with well thought out counterpunches, the new breed simply shout shut up and gesticulate wildly.

The clash of ideologies that Buckley brought to television has continued in its basest form today. Notice in the Chomsky clip that the audience are all young, college-aged people. Can you imagine this type of conversation holding the attention of that age group today? Possibly, but I'm a bit cynical about that prospect. Increasingly, the decline of literacy and the fragmentation of attention spans would preclude a discussion of this kind from capturing a young audience, and certainly wouldn't be made available to a mainstream television audience.

Talking things into the modern media environment, we now see a dumbing down of the national dialog on every network in every time slot across the board. I don't watch Fox, but the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys of the world live on their air. Anyone's who pays attention to the news is assaulted by their divisive distortions of reality. From "Outfoxed":

This type of behavior is not limited to Fox, however. MSNBC is also a famous stop for the hyperactive punditry. If anyone has ever seen Chris Matthews, his particular brand of veiled misogyny and smirking (spitting) rhetoric is enabled by fellow white guy Tim Russert, who is less excitable but equally in love with his own voice. For the record, I watch MSNBC and I watch both Matthews and Russert every week. They have access to the guests that are important to the national dialog and while I have to hold my nose to watch them, I want to see what these guests have to say. Here's a little snippet of Chris Matthews:

On CNN we have self-proclaimed "independent populist" Lou Dobbs, who has taken on the role of champion of the middle class. His rhetoric is self-indulgent and arrogant. Dobbs typically beings a female correspondent into the studio, sitting her to his left while he stands, towering in front of an American flag video wall, and asks for the woman's opinion. Following her report, Dobbs will ignore everything she has said in favor of spinning the topic into his own diatribe. I can't watch his program for more than the 3 or 4 minutes it takes to witness this phenomenon, but it repeats itself ad nauseum, day in and day out.

In this clip, a personal favorite, Dobbs interviews Candy Crowley about Barack Obama's alleged plagiarism and his response to the charges. The part of this clip you'll want to watch is Dobbs' typically smug assertion that Obama and Deval Patrick were devaluing Martin Luther King, Jr's words. He completely misunderstood that both men saying, "I have a dream....just words?" closes with a rhetorical question mark, rather than a period or exclamation point. The point of their speeches was to point out that words have tremendous significance and serve to inspire us to worthy causes. Dobbs' thick head can't quite get that and he assumes, for some reason, that the speeches were intended to devalue words. He signs off to an incredulous Candy Crowley....watch her face at the very end of the clip. She looks like she's thinking, "Wait...wha..?"

So, without getting into the vast landscape of radio white guys out there (often far worse than their TV counterparts) hiding behind their microphones, suffice it to say that while William F. Buckley may have rubbed people the wrong way with his conservative sensibilities, vocal affectations, and holier-than-thou persona, the level of national dialog that we witnessed under his "care" was a far better alternative to the numbskulls that we are faced with today. Buckley will be missed....in some way.

Campaign Fonts

2008-02-26T22:42:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to tip readers to a good friend of this blog, and outstanding New York-based writer, Nancy Scola's latest post at her site regarding the choice of font in the dueling presidential campaigns. If you aren't hip to the difference that font style makes and the messages they send, you should by all means see the documentary Helvetica. Here's a bonus clip that didn't make the documentary about Obama's font "Gotham":

Support Nancy's work, check out the post in question, and judge for yourself which style speaks to the message.

The Ohio Debate

2008-02-26T19:58:00.000-08:00

I like to preface my commentary on these so-called debates by pointing out that there is very little about them that actually resembles a debate. They are made for TV events that generally favor the questioners over the questioned. They are much better vehicles for the networks, reporters, and pundits than they are for the American people or the candidates.

The content of these events is irrelevant. The image that is presented via television is almost all that matters, especially after 20(!) have been conducted. Before I get into the specific of the content (because I am a wonky pundit in the end), I want to comment on the real communication offered during the one and a half hour "debate."

First, without the sound I thought Senator Clinton looked a bit out of control and looked to be shooting daggers at Senator Obama while he was speaking. She is definitely the "hot" candidate in this pairing (see: McLuhan's hot and cold media) while Obama is the "cool" candidate. For the purpose of clarification on this, the swing era of big band jazz was hot, while the Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" era was distinctly cool.

Working to her benefit was the light blue backdrop which was very flattering to her. Obama had a kind of red and blue gradated background, which works in terms of his ability to draw on Independents and Democrats on a highly symbolic level, but was less flattering to him than the light blue for Clinton. Obama, without the sound, looked a but antsy when Clinton was "filibustering" and made me think of the failure of Al Gore in his debate with George W. Bush in 2000. That said, I think without the sound, as the "cool" candidate Obama works much better on television. His expressions are much more controlled and dignified. His gestures are pointed, but always relaxed. Clinton has the problem with her "hot" facial expressions that distract from her notion of experience.

With the sound, Senator Clinton is almost always better in these debates from a control standpoint. She is forceful and isn't afraid to make pointed remarks, remarks with barbs. Obama's "cool" persona is a bit of a snooze in the debate format, but he can afford to be bland in this situation as he's the current frontrunner. Senator Clinton's "hot" facial expressions make a lot better impression when the passion of her voice accompanies them. Senator Obama's smooth voice helps his "cool" image. As McLuhan points out in his 1976 analysis of the Ford/Carter debate, Carter comes from a corporate culture, a Southern culture, and carries a corporate accent that appeals to younger voters. Ford came from a individualist, fragmented culture, which McLuhan attributes to Northern culture.

I think Senator Obama has a corporate quality in his voice that comes from his African-American socialization. There is a quality to the speech patterns and rhythms of African-American linguistics that can be heard in his voice, and that pattern has become familiar to Americans from the era of jazz, rock n' roll, and now hip hop and signals a kind of "with it" authenticity that works to his advantage. Senator Clinton's voice has very much a Northern intellectual pattern, which is very strong for her in communicating policy and providing solid, believable platforms. That works for her in this environment as the "cool" vocal patterns of Obama do in the large, arena environments.

As for the specific of the debate, I think the health care issue was largely a rehashing of prior commentary, and was a lot more interesting for the back and forth about the campaign trail than it was for the policy. In the end, it seemed silly. I would give that point to Obama because I think Senator Clinton looked a bit out of control and adversarial with Tim Russert, justified or not.

On the issue of NAFTA, I think Obama also came out ahead thanks to Tim Russert's grilling of Senator Clinton on her prior support for the trade agreement and his reading of her past remarks on the subject. Obama made a criticism and Russert backed him up, again, fairly or not. I think, however, in the end both candidates said the right thing about how to proceed going forward.

Obama also wins on the Iraq War and Senator Clinton's vote. That's not new. She has to walk very carefully on her criticisms of Obama on this point, and tried to score point by distorting his ideas on Pakistan. Obama did a great job spinning both points back on her and had a good line about her vote for the war as voting to drive a car into a ditch, even if she's voted to get it out since. His answer on Pakistan was also right on the money. The Bush Administration just killed a high level Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan with a precision strike, precisely what he said he's do months ago.

I thought Senator Clinton did a good job of deflecting the tax return issue, while Senator Obama was less successful in his wishy-washy answer on public financing in a general election. I also thought that Obama didn't handle the questions about Louis Farrakhan and the pastor at his church very effectively. I don't think either is an issue, for the record, and I think Tim Russert was trying to balance out his obvious "thing" for Hillary Clinton by sticking it to Obama once. It was weird and essentially beside the point, in my opinion, but Obama could have simply dismissed the whole thing outright by saying, "I don't think Mr. Farrakhan's endorsement is an issue as I reject the divisive things he's said in the past. I value my relationship with the Jewish community and hope as president to repair the relationship between African-Americans and the Jewish community. I will be a bridge between us rather than a barrier. Period." Instead, on his way to saying just that, he talked a bit in circles. The contemptible thing about the question is that the African-American community has struggled to be united for so long that any attempt for the white mainstream establishment to drive a wedge between African-Americans, even those as ideologically different as Obama and Farrakhan, should get a "shame on you."

The Russian/Kosovo discussion was interesting and I think it deserved more attention, but in Ohio I suppose it needed to take a backseat to the domestic issues. I call that a draw for lack of substantial discussion.

The close was telling. You'll decide who you thought won the wrap based on what you want in Washington. Clinton said she'll fight. She believes that a fighter is needed to combat a right wing/big business agenda in Washington. Obama campaigns on a uniter agenda that seeks to draw in people, change politics, and stop all the gridlock fighting that has led to a 25% approval rating for Congress. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this, and I get the feeling that the vote so far has fallen specifically on this issue, to be honest. I think people are speaking with their votes that the fighting has been exhausting to our national spirit and something different has to be done. Again, you decide. Your vote will tell which idea wins out in the end.

Senator Clinton, Are You Okay?

2008-02-24T19:52:00.000-08:00

These are disappointing days in the Democratic Party. For a good deal of our primary season we'd been treated to an inspiring campaign between Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards. The issues took the forefront. The rhetoric ranged from detailed to inspirational to provocative and it appeared as though the next President of the United States would be elected from the Democratic Party in a swell of enthusiasm unbridled by the contentious and often far too negative tone of recent political battles. That's certainly what we'd all hoped for.

John Edwards, in his inimitable populist way, backed out of the race in front of a rebuilding New Orleans with words of inspiration and hope for the people who were still rebuilding a shattered life in the Crescent City. His courageous participation in the campaign was marked by a remarkable dedication for country and family, as his ailing wife stood by his side as much as she could during the long hard months of rallies and speeches.

The lowlights of the campaign were few and generally unremarkable. Bill Clinton's outbursts and his unseemly characterization of Barack Obama in South Carolina were among the worst offenses, but his wife, not he, is running for the highest office and I suppose we can leave his odd behavior in the wings to focus on the excitement surrounding the remaining two statespeople after all. The tone has been upbeat, but sometimes harsh. The words have been strong and sometimes biting, but the dignity of the race was largely maintained. That is, until the last few days in Texas and Ohio.

Barack Obama isn't the rousing orator he appears to be on all occasions. Certainly, he and his people understand the rough and tumble game of election campaigns as they exist on the ground. Where there are few real differences, one must cherry pick perceived flaws in an opponent and target them as much as possible. This strategy is not without large risks, as one wrong move might provoke a backlash. In a campaign as relatively clean as this Democratic run for the White House has been, the recent appearance by Hillary Clinton in Ohio to decry campaign flyers accusing her of various unpopular things may be well founded. Perhaps the Obama campaign misrepresented her positions in order to pander to an undecided electorate. If so, it's not unprecedented, although we are certainly within our rights to wave a finger at him. Keeping it clean is a commitment we would all like to see as Democrats. The manner in which Senator Clinton decided to voice her displeasure, however, was puzzling. By now you've seen it, I'm sure. "Shame on you Barack Obama!"

The apparent anger is puzzling, given the fact that the flyers had been distributed for quite some time already and certainly her campaign must have known about them prior to that day. It seems as though the stress of an unexpected position in the polls may be getting to her and her campaign. It was barely hours before that she's talked about the honor she felt at sharing the stage with Obama and shook his hand in a show of good sportsmanship. There's something terribly schizophrenic about the juxtaposition of those moments, but it doesn't end there. Clinton seems to have drifted further over the deep end with an odd mockery of Obama in this speech:

I'm just not sure what to make of that clip. Where did the "honor" go, and where did the sentiment of that debate moment in Texas go? I'd said all along that while I supported Obama and hoped he'd secure the nomination that Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful alternative and an inspiring story herself. I looked forward to casting a vote for a candidate that understood what it meant to compete in the most dignified and honorable fashion possible. That's the dream of any American as fed up with the humiliation of being represented by the people in the Bush Administration for 7+ years. I'm questioning those feelings a lot these days. Even if Clinton can stage an astounding comeback in this primary contest, I'm not sure how much I'll be voting FOR her now. I will most certainly be voting against John McCain, but my feeling of excitement about my choice this year is waning. Is Hillary Clinton conducting herself in a presidential manner? Is this how she's going to appear in public if things aren't going her way as president. I just don't know anymore.

Naomi Klein, Order 81, and You

2008-02-23T19:07:00.000-08:00

For those of you unfamiliar with Naomi Klein, I suggest you give her work a long look as there may be no better journalist, activist, or public figure as effective at spelling out the problems with free market philosophy and globalization. Her first book, "No Logo", deals with issues surrounding corporate branding, sweatshops, and activism in favor of combatting the negative effects of both. Klein's second book, "Fences and Windows", is a collections of articles and essays dealing with the anti-globalization movement. Her most recent work, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism", is a disturbing look at the methods that profiteers have employed over the years to enact favorable legislation and programs to big business during points of historical crisis and upheaval.

The basic premise of "The Shock Doctine" is that people like Milton Friedman have aided governments in pushing through unpopular economic and civil reforms in the wake of disasters, as the general population reels from a kind of collective shock. We might understand this in terms of the Patriot Act and 9/11, or the sell off of coastal property in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This video was produced as a complimentary piece to the book, part promotion and part stand alone impact item.

One of the most striking examples of The Shock Doctrine is the set of Executive Orders penned by a combination of Bush Administration representatives and corporate lobbyists to slice up profitable portions of Iraq among the mostly American interests. The Coalition Provisional Authority, under the direction of abject failure L. Paul Bremer, provided immunity for all US contractors in Iraq from prosecution in Iraqi courts. It provides for as much as 80% of the Iraqi oil fields to be sold to foreign corporations, and hands over the entire Iraqi agricultural industry to Agribusiness giants like Monsanto.

Iraq has long been known as the heart of the “fertile crescent” of civilization. The intersection of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers provided early civilizations a perfect ecology for the development of agriculture. Iraqi farmers have honed their craft over the millennia providing humanity with the greatest variety of wheat strains possible. Order 81, also known as the ‘Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law’, essentially prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the techniques and resources available to them since the dawn of human civilization in favor of supporting agribusiness ventures favored by the current corporate government coalition. The Plant Variety Protection (PVP) provision states, “Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph (C) of Article 14 of this Chapter.”

Writing for Current Concerns, Engdahl notes, “The protected plant varieties are Genetically Modified or Gene Manipulated (GM) plants, and an Iraqi farmer who chose to plant such seeds must sign an agreement with the seed company holding the patent that he would pay a ‘technology fee’ and an annual license fee for planting the patented seeds. Any Iraqi farmer seeking to take a portion of those patented seeds to replant in following harvest years would be subject to heavy fines from the seed supplier. Iraqi farmers would become vassals, not of Saddam Hussein, but of multinational GM seed giants.”

This is significant, as the wheat cultivated over the centuries by Iraqi farmers cannot be considered new in any sense, and therefore is disqualified from use in the new Iraqi agricultural ecology. The purpose of this provision is to hand the agribusiness giants proprietary control over the food supply produced in Iraq in the guise of increased efficiency. Somehow the media failed to take note of this important story, and certainly never raised the question of who penned the order in the first place. Engdahl takes a crack at it when he writes, “According to informed Washington reports, the specific details of Order 81 on plants were written for the US Government by Monsanto Corporation, the world’s leading purveyor of GMO seeds and crops.”

Whether or not this proves to be true, there is another concern regarding the restricted seed varieties used in Iraq. They are being used to grow wheat for pasta manufacturing, a food foreign to Iraqi people in every way. Jeremy Smith writes in The Ecologist, “There can be only two reasons why 50 percent of the grains being developed by Iraq by the US are for pasta. One, the US intends to have so many American soldiers and businessmen in Iraq that it is orienting the country’s agriculture around feeding not ‘Starving Iraqis’ but ‘Overfed Americans’. Or, and more likely, because the food was never meant to be eaten inside Iraq at all."

Disturbing, no? That's what Naomi Klein is talking about. That's the way it works in a nutshell. The privatization of Iraq's economy could be assured, and assured for the United States and its interests, in a time of profound chaos. It's imperative that we are all awake enough to ask ourselves important questions on a daily basis, but we also must keep our collective faculties enough during times of chaos and hardship in order to be the vanguards of our own civil liberties.

Weekend Action: Part One

2008-02-22T18:55:00.000-08:00

Several random items that are worthy of comment this weekend:

1. The Clinton/Obama Texas Debate

The 20th debate in the Democratic Primary season was really much of the same that we've seen in the last several debates between Clinton and Obama. The policies haven't changed at all since there were 7 or 8 Democrats in the running for the nomination, so the good people at CNN (in their infinite wisdom and love for the American people) have found new and creative ways to generate sparks between the candidates. Both Clinton and Obama appeared to be a bit weary and perhaps under the weather and much of the first half of the "debate" was pedestrian at best. Things heated up between them on a few occasions, but at this point hasn't it all been said? In fact, in my humble opinion, the whole thing is over.

Clinton's message is scattered and undisciplined, her money is waning, her financial records look shabby, her husband has practically thrown in the towel in advance of Texas and Ohio, and Obama is gaining by the day. The Obama campaign is continuing to draw nearly 20,000 people per rally, while Clinton is struggling to draw 7-8,000 according to recent reports. Obama has reportedly raised $50 million this month alone (!) and can afford to outspend her as much as five or six to one in March. I'm not painting this favorably for Obama. The facts are undisputed across all loyalties, including many of Clinton's people who are gravitating toward Obama increasingly as we go on. A Clinton supporter in Texas attended an Obama rally and spoke to the crowd, saying something to the effect that he still supports Clinton, but he sees the way the wind is blowing. Ouch.

Every so often when discussing "debates", I like to go back to an interesting appearance by Marshall McLuhan with Edwin Newman and a very young Tom Brokaw in September of 1976 during the Ford/Carter election race. McLuhan attempts to describe the problems with the format we have come to know and love over the years, and schools the pair of NBC reporters on the finer points of his media theory. I have never liked Tom Brokaw, but this particular clip pushed me further over the edge with respect to the man as he arrogantly challenges McLuhan without understanding a word of what he's saying. Enjoy.

2. John McCain's Lobbyist

The New York Times reports that John McCain's campaign advisers had to ask a female lobbyist to stay away from the candidate during his 2000 run for the presidency because they feared that their relationship had become romantic. The Times has caught a lot of flak for the ambiguous sourcing of the story and have enabled the conservative critics of John McCain to abandon their adversarial stance in favor of circling the wagons around the embattled Senator. The focus of the story from the beginning has been the apparent adultery alleged by some shadowy figures attached to McCain's camp, but the missing element in the controversy is the serious allegation of favors to lobbyists that entangle the young woman, Vicki Iseman, and others in shady backroom dealings with the Senator. Some of those allegations remain unresolved, despite McCain's blanket rejection of the story as a whole. I doubt the romantic angle has legs (no pun intended), but the impropriety, which is the more serious charge anyway, may have more ahead. Newsweek is already on top of some inconsistencies that may come back to haunt McCain before all's said and done. Stay Tuned.

3. Bill Moyers

I'm a big fan of the Bill Moyers program on PBS and had the pleasure to take a little time out from reading to watch his Friday edition this week. Two important stories caught my attention that I wanted to bring to you. The first is a story about an intrepid group of reporters from the Seattle Times who took it upon themselves to investigate earmarking in appropriations bills before Congress. The reporters set up a project to dig into the committee reports, where the earmarks are hidden in fine print and strange code, and the Representatives own press releases and translated the information into a database of earmarks and campaign donations. They are able to cross reference the earmark expenditures and the dates and names associated with big money campaign donations by the people they help with special interest spending. It was remarkable and should be passed along to everyone within eyeshot of a computer screen.

The other story was a Sarah Chayes' tale of her work in Afghanistan and the things she's seen in her time over there. It's a mess and a cash cow for greedy companies, corrupt politicians, and opium businessmen who have set up agriculture, import/export, and even an above board credit system in a country where very few ever had access to credit of any kind. Also a must see.

"Hoodwinked" in the Boston Globe

2008-02-20T10:54:00.000-08:00

Communicative Action was mentioned in the February 10th edition of the Boston Globe thanks to a very interesting e-mail exchange I had with columnist Jan Freeman. Jan is a scholar of language and writes a column called "The Word" for the Globe highlighting the use of language in society and the many interesting twists and turns that our words take us.

Our exchange was related to a post I wrote about Obama's public identity as African-American that denies the more complex makeup of the man. I argue that we default Obama as an African-American when he is bi-racial and was raised by his white mother and grandparents, as well as an Indonesian stepfather. Jan was interested in the section of my post where I question Obama's rhetoric in South Carolina, in front of a largely African-American crowd, which echoed Malcolm X on the stump. He used the terms "okey-doke", "bamboozled", and "hoodwinked" in a not-so-veiled reference to the Bill Clinton commentary downplaying Obama as the second coming of Jesse Jackson (the presidential candidate version, not the civil rights hero). Jan rightly attributes those terms to a historical American tradition that significantly predates Malcolm X, arguing that Obama wasn't necessarily conjuring up a coded message to the African-American crowd. She also rightly corrected me in my own attribution of those comments to Malcolm, as there is no record of that particular phraseology in his speeches.

The determination that we agreed on was that the 1992 Spike Lee portrayal of Malcolm features the language and I argued that consciously or unconsciously I think Obama was using the mythological Malcolm to move a crowd. I argued that the language was coded for an African-American audience who would have a direct attachment to the words of the mythological X, and a very real understanding of the hoodwinking that the power elite have used for years to keep them marginalized and powerless. Jan is skeptical, and writes:

"I put those questions to Mike Plugh, who had highlighted the Obama-Malcolm echo at his thoughtful blog Communicative Action. I pointed out that the Malcolm in question was probably the movie character, since I couldn’t find the real man using bamboozle. (Google’s book search finds Malcolm using “deceived,” “brainwashed,” and “fooled,” but not bamboozled. And his only “hoodwinked” refers to young hustlers tricking older ones.)

After several rounds of correspondence, Plugh summarized his slightly revised view: He still thinks Obama was echoing (consciously or not) the movie speech, to say "They've done this to us for centuries, people, and I'm going to remind you of it by quoting Malcolm X” – the idealized character, not the real man."

I defend my take on this by noting that the words of Obama were organized in the same general arrangement that Denzel Washington's Malcolm X used in the film. Had he used the terms in a less structured fashion, I'd be equally skeptical that the message was coded.

Why Bill Clinton is Killing Hillary

2008-02-18T16:24:00.000-08:00

This is going to be short. Bill Clinton is killing Hillary's campaign, slowly but surely. It makes no difference what he says or how he says it. Appearing on the medium of television and losing his temper paints a picture of a campaign out of control.

The medium is the message. Berserk, bombastic, red-faced former presidents are exciting but don't paint the appropriate image in a political campaign. He could have proposed a lengthy, 48 hour, solution to global poverty and it was all lost in a few seconds of enraged confrontation with a heckler. Too bad he doesn't understand McLuhan.

Obama is a Plagiarist?

2008-02-18T15:29:00.000-08:00

...and the #1 sign that your campaign is floundering.....accuse your opponent of plagiarism. The Clinton campaign, looking more and more like a train wreck, is now using speeches made by Deval Patrick and Barack Obama, which use the same key phrases, to make Obama out to be a liar and a huckster. It's a desperate grasp at smearing the popular frontrunner, trying to generate media interest in something negative. Deval Patrick and Obama are friends and have been charged with using rhetoric rather than reality to win a campaign. Patrick said, "Hey, this worked for me. Go with it." and Obama did. Should he have attributed the remarks to Patrick when he made them? Probably. It would have voided all this made up bullshit.

Meanwhile, you have Bill Clinton out there on the campaign trail acting like he's on 'roids half the time, and we have to wonder if we're going to deal with this for 4-8 years every time someone publicly criticizes his wife. It seems to me that the Clinton campaign is so desperate at this point it will stoop to anything to distract people from the smoldering pile of steel that was once an unstoppable political behemoth. It's no coincidence that as soon as Obama became better known to the American public that his inspirational message swept him into a competitive situation with her. He passed her like she was standing still and now it looks like he's going to win Wisconsin and Hawaii and will have a very nice chance to take Texas. If that happens, it's over for her. Done.

I have said all along that I would be very happy to vote for Hillary Clinton, but now that she's dragged this campaign into the gutter with typical smear tactics and distortions of the truth, I have more lukewarm feelings. Where there was once a glimmer of hope that Democrats would have an opportunity to choose from one of two dynamic and forward thinking candidates, there is now only disappointment. The civil debate in Hollywood showed a united Democratic Party with a sly glint in its eye that the GOP was going to have a rough go of it come the general election. Now, rather than letting the people choose the message and the style they prefer, this has become a Mike Tyson boxing match of more recent vintage. Hillary is about set to start biting Obama's ear off in order to stem the tide of losing. If she were actually confident in her chance to win the election on real differences and contrasts, she's make them. Instead the Clinton campaign are taking a page out of the Rove/Nixon/Bush playbook and warping reality to suit their own position.

The irony of this situation is clearly lost on the Clinton people, as it will inevitably be lost on the McCain people. America is swept up by Obama because he's brought dignity back to politics, even if only for a moment. He's taken the propaganda, flat out lies, and dirty tricks out of the game in order to deliver a message of hope. Even if you believe he isn't the right man for the job and that he lacks experience, backbone, or the wisdom to handle our toughest issues head on, he has been statesman-like. Even if you think his rhetoric has been empty, he's carried himself with dignity and shown tremendous respect for us as a people. All this while the president enjoys a sub-30 approval rating and Congress a sub-25. Wonder why? Just look at the Clinton campaign and you'll see why. What a waste.

McCain's Bigotry

2008-02-17T11:16:00.000-08:00

I recently posted about the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama in back to back television appearances made just after the so-called Potomac Primaries. Obama made a rousing speech in front of a diverse group of 17,000 cheering supporters, followed immediately by McCain in a small, intimate setting backed by the old, white, mostly male GOP support that he's counting on. I treated the event as a simple matter of contrasting campaigns, with a juxtaposition of new, fresh, energetic atmosphere to old, stuttering, dusty context.

Frank Rich of the New York Times writes a beautiful piece on the same subject, detailing the racial divide that was symbolically evident on that day. It's a very good read, although Republicans in denial may be upset by the characterization Rich presents. Such is Frank Rich, of course.

I've been saving my thoughts on John McCain and his spotty record on racial issues until we are ready for a general election campaign, but I couldn't seem to hold out any longer because it really bothers me. This is an overall criticism of the GOP, but it must be particularly aimed in the direction of McCain at this point because he is on the stump running for president. I could point, as Rich does, to the fact that there have been more African-American faces on stage during GOP events in the Bush administration than there have been in the crowd. There have been many press events with African-Americans during this administration, deflecting the reality on the ground. The Bush people have always been more in the business of propaganda than governing.

McCain's own history has been shaky on the issue of race. He has been both victim and perpetrator of racial intolerance. In 2000, the unscrupulous Bush campaign used McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter to hurt him in South Carolina. During that same campaign, McCain lashed out against "gooks" in front of reporters. In fact, it was at that moment that I recognized McCain so vividly for the first time. Katie Hong, a Korean-American government worker in the state of Washington wrote about the incident for the Seattle Post Intelligencer in March of 2000 saying:

"On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender."

McCain later apologized publicly for the comments and promised to never use the term "gook" in public again. That's fine, but the cat is out of the bag. We peeked into McCain's psyche and saw the ugly truth. No one will begrudge Senator McCain his ill feelings towards his Vietnamese captors. No one will deny him the pain and torment that he likely has held since his service and that he will likely hold until his last breath. The problem is, John McCain entered public service 18 years prior to these remarks. He had been released from captivity in Vietnam 27 years earlier. How is it that John McCain had not come to terms with the word "gook" in the 27 years that had passed since his release, and the 18 years that he had been representing Americans in public office? Are we to believe that he has privately come to terms with the word, even after his public recognition of its destructive power?

In his post-victory speech following the Potomac Primary, McCain was flanked by several elder statesmen of the Republican Party. It didn't make for an effective image, but more than that it was another hint at the racial intolerance of the GOP in general. With McCain (out of the picture in this clip) was George Allen, who McCain introduces as "former Governor, former Senator from Virginia...a great man".

You'll remember George Allen as the candidate that lost re-election in 2006 as a result of the now famous "macaca" clip of YouTube fame. The moment that made YouTube a political reality in the modern media landscape. What message does his presence with McCain send? His most recent public moment came as a result of racism, yet he is somehow a campaign strength for John McCain? Most people would consider George Allen a campaign liability, especially given the idea that the Democrats have opened this election to a new era of diversity. An era more reflective of the makeup of the United States.

I will write more about this as we move forward. I won't let John McCain dodge this for my part. The mainstream press largely ignored the "gook" comment of 2000, and as a result most people are probably unaware that it ever took place. We'd likely know nothing of the "macaca" incident were it not for YouTube. The most democratic forms of media participation (the internet, blogs, YouTube) have revolutionized our understanding of politics on the ground and make for a more accountable government. Hold the GOP accountable in this case.

UPDATE (2/18): I came across this little YouTube clip that I was unaware of. McCain using the term "tar baby" on the 2008 campaign trail. I'm sure there was no racial intent behind his utterance of that expression, but it is particularly demonstrative of the out of touch GOP and the power of YouTube....

Media Hatchet Job

2008-02-15T14:11:00.000-08:00

Now that Barack Obama is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination the hatchet jobs in the media have started to poke their ugly heads. That's politics. The problem is not that there are stories about Obama out there which portray him negatively from a political standpoint. The problem that I have is that the stories paint him as some sort of huckster. A snake oil salesman or a political version of David Koresh.

"Obamaphilia", "Obamamania", "The Cult of Obama", and so on.....

1. I am a vocal supporter of Barack Obama. I am not a cult member. I am not a blind idealist with stars in my eyes. I resent that representation of my support.

2. Obama is running for president. He is not president. Running for president is largely an exercise of inspiration. In this era of televised public discourse, wonkish policy discussions don't play. His campaign is brilliant. It has excited 100s of thousands of new voters. Isn't that something to be happy about? We've seen an exponential degradation of civic participation with each successive generation. This is different and it should be something we celebrate. If you want to see his detailed policy platform go to his website and read it. If you want Hillary's, go to her website. Reading, exercising your literacy, will give you a far better understanding of the issues than any 5-10 minute segment on television.

3. He doesn't have any substance? Well, he is certainly short on experience. He hasn't been plugged into the federal government for very long. He's young and he's probably untested at this level. Is he alone? No. Will he be left on his own as president? No. That's why you have advisers and cabinet level executives. He knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. He will seek out advice where he needs it, and he will trust his own intelligence and judgment on things he understands very clearly. We elected Bush twice. Do you trust his experience? He ran several oil companies into the ground while high on cocaine and did a mediocre job as governor of Texas. He didn't listen to anyone as president and went against every bit of good advice that was out there. That's why the environment is going to hell, the war has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and the economy is in the tank. Obama's style is a big part of his substance.

Get your heads out of your asses people.

Rice for VP?

2008-02-13T23:23:00.000-08:00

Loose talk around the pundit circle has hinted at a Condoleeza Rice nomination for McCain's running mate. I've heard this here and there, but never in so much detail as the recent article in the Nation by Nicholas von Hoffman. For the record, I think it could happen although the chances seem slim. I completely disagree with von Hoffman's take that the ticket would be tough with her on board though. His argument is based largely on the idea that voters will be drawn to her as a church going, strong on national security, skilled debater who happens to be both African-American and a woman. He shoves aside the idea that she's a lingering symbol of the failed Iraq policy with TONS of 9/11 baggage on her resume and was shoe-shopping and Broadway show-going during the worst part of the Katrina aftermath. She is attached at the hip to President Bush and alienated virtually every person working for her in the State Department.

Politically she would be a tremendous liability to a GOP ticket trying to rinse away the foul aftertaste of a Presidential administration with a 30% approval rating (less if you factor in Cheney). There will be a line of people who worked under her to stand up in front of cameras and tell of the horror stories of her control-freakish micro-management of the State Department and her cabal of insiders who ripped apart Colin Powell and any dissenters to the wire-tapping, waterboarding, rendition agenda. Nicholas von Hoffman has done fine work for The Nation, but not this time. I think he completely misses the mark. Bring her on.

Never Follow O

2008-02-13T21:21:00.001-08:00

Here was Obama last night, speaking in Madison, Wisconsin. I watched this on MSNBC:

John McCain waited to speak until Obama's appearance was finished on television and then stepped up to deliver this speech to the American people:

Sigh. One candidate is speaking in front of 17,000 cheering fanatics, using some of the most inspiring rhetoric we've seen in recent political memory. The other candidate waits for that to finish before following him on television with a rally in front of 250 people, backed by two retiring Congressmen who need help stepping up on stage. Forget political affiliations for a second. Forget your own biases. Tell me, isn't this strategy as stupid as can be? You want to draw a contrast with your opponent that makes you look BETTER in comparison, not old, out of touch, dusty, grouchy, friendless, and basically a product of America past rather than America future. He forgets the names of the primary, some of his guests, and says Disneyland instead of Disney World. At one point, he sticks his finger in his mouth and messes around for a second before continuing. Oh, Lord.

I love Obama so this delights me beyond belief. Keep it up Johnny Boy. Maybe you'll succeed in capturing the popular vote......of 1920.

Clinton Campain Manager for Obama??!!

2008-02-13T20:49:00.000-08:00

Yes. Well.....Bill Clinton's campaign manager. The New York Times reports that former Bill Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm has endorsed Barack Obama in the race for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination. Wilhelm tells the Times:

"He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising."

He claims that Obama is more electable than Hillary Clinton and has apparently offered to reach out to fellow superdelegates to lobby on his behalf. An interesting development to say the least. According to his bio at Wikipedia, David Wilhelm is a venture capitalist who started operations to fund entrepreneurs in Appalachia via his Adena Ventures partnership, and more recently founded Hopewell Ventures to support the underrepresented regions of the midwest.

The Candidates and Net Neutrality

2008-02-12T14:18:00.000-08:00

One of the most important issues facing the United States and our 1st Amendment rights is the issue of Net Neutrality. If you aren't familiar with this important campaign, you'll need to take a look at "Save the Internet", a cooperative project of Free Press. Since you've arrived at this blog, I'm betting that most of you are intimately familiar with the Net Neutrality issue and care a great deal about it as well. I thought it would be interesting to see where each of the major candidates stand on this issue, at least according to their campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton doesn't address the issue directly, and I was only able to find the following reference to internet/broadband in her Issues section under the heading "Innovation" (#7):

"Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton proposes that the federal government provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She also proposes financial support for state and local broadband initiatives. Various municipal broadband initiatives are underway around the country to accelerate the deployment of high speed networks. The initiatives are useful for education, commerce, technology development, and the efficient provision of municipal services."

That's an admirable plan, if a bit vague. It definitely focuses on the issue from a commercial and economic standpoint, moreso than a 1st Amendment angle. Let's look at Barack Obama. He seems to have a lot more information on Net Neutrality specifically, stating:

"Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Obama believes we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.

Protect the Openness of the Internet: Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or nonprofit speakers, have the same opportunity as big companies to innovate and reach large audiences.

Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas."

Interesting. He has a more well-rounded approach to this issue, at least out front on his website. I expect that both Clinton and Obama will feel the same way about the issue, but score one for Obama for making it a part of his public stance. Now for John McCain. I question whether he actually knows how to use a computer or access "the internets", but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt prior to checking his site. Be right back....

Hmmm......well.....nothing. He actually says nothing about it. I even used the site search engine, using terms like "broadband" and "internet." Nothing. Absolutely zero. So, on one of the most important 1st amendment issues to face the American citizenry, potentially in our history, he says nothing. His "issues" topics are:

Economic Stimulus Plan
McCain Tax Cut Plan
Government Spending, Lower Taxes and Economic Prosperity
Straight Talk on Health System Reform
Strict Constructionist Philosophy
Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
Lobbying and Ethics Reform
Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Border Security and Immigration Reform
Commitment to America's Service Members Past and Present
Education
National Security
Stewards of our Nation's Rich Natural Heritage
Protecting Second Amendment Rights
America's Space Program

I list all of those topics because I think they illustrate how much the GOP is living in the past. Some of the issues resonate because they are thrust forcefully into the spotlight by GOP activists, but the general American population have many other things on their minds that this agenda doesn't deal with. Particularly when you consider the youth vote, meaning those voters age 18-25. If those people come out in force for the Democracts this year, I just don't see how the GOP (McCain) can win on those issues alone. The war is unpopular, the economy is awful, and ethics hasn't exactly been a strong point for the GOP in recent years (Jack Abramoff....ahem...).

The issue of Net Neutrality isn't a partisan issue. It's an American issue and it is vital to the continued freedom of expression we enjoy on the internet. If we the people lose out on this issue, our voices will be Balkanized to a kind of Cable Access Television-style corner of the web, while big companies get the benefit of this modern form of expression. If we are truly a democracy, this will be addressed in the general election and the candidates will be forced to explain their positions publicly.

FISA=Free Pass

2008-02-12T10:41:00.000-08:00

The Senate votes 69-29-2 to let the Telecom companies off the hook for their role in revealing private consumer information to the intelligence community under the direction of the Bush Administration. Millionaires giving millionaires a Get Out of Jail Free Card and it's disgusting. I know there are some complex legal issues at stake here, but strip away the ambiguity of the law and this is morally wrong.

For the record, here's the vote:

YEAs ---69
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO)	McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---29
Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)	Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ)	Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Clinton (D-NY)	Graham (R-SC)

Notice that McCain voted "Yea", Obama voted "Nay", and Clinton didn't show up. For what it's worth. Send an e-mail to your senator to complain if they supported this....

UPDATE: Apparently, the list that I cut and paste from the senate.gov site just after the vote was completed was inaccurate as it now shows that Obama also did not vote. I was watching CNN and MSNBC throughout the morning and both networks reported that Obama was on the Senate floor, while Clinton was not there at all. If that's true and he didn't vote, it seems strange to me. At any rate, the point of this post is not so much the fact that Clinton and Obama didn't vote (as I'm sure both of them would have voted with the Kennedy/Schumer Progressive block). It's the idea that 68 people voted "yea" to a free pass on domestic spying. That needs a response from the American people.

UPDATE UPDATE: This Wall Street Journal Opinion claims Obama voted "nay", although I tend to believe the senate.gov list at this point.

George Lantos

2008-02-11T07:39:00.000-08:00

Many of us don't dive into our political environment with both feet and therefore miss out on a lot of the nuanced aspects of our federal government, both from a policy perspective as well as a personal perspective. The name George Lantos might not mean much to most Americans, save the wonks and the people who elected him as a Representative from northern California.

Lantos passed away early Monday surrounded by family. The New York Times reports that his children, 18 grandchildren, and 2 great-grandchildren were by his side as he lost his battle with cancer. He was 80 years old and served in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 28 years, most recently sitting as the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. I thought it would be interesting to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the Times article as a tribute to a life of meaningful service.

"Lantos, who referred to himself as ''an American by choice,'' was born to Jewish parents in Budapest, Hungary, and was 16 when Adolf Hitler occupied Hungary in 1944. He survived by escaping twice from a forced labor camp and coming under the protection of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who used his official status and visa-issuing powers to save thousands of Hungarian Jews. Lantos' mother and much of his family perished in the Holocaust."

This, on its own, is the most remarkable aspect of Lantos' life and service. The only Holocaust survivor to serve in the U.S. Congress, Lantos spent a lifetime working to build after experiencing so much destruction. In the heat of the ugly immigration battle currently being waged from the Right, Lantos' life serves as an example of the fuel that immigrants bring with them from their trying circumstances at home. The debate is about illegal immigration right now, but it only starts there. Emma Lazarus wrote in her poem "The New Colossus," a tribute to the Statue of Liberty,

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The battle against illegal immigration is simply a gateway to a lockdown on all immigration. Once the battle has been won by the Tancredo crowd, it won't stop there. Immigration to the U.S. will become a quagmire of epic proportions with a wealthy elite determining who can come in and see the light of our lamp beside the golden door. Representative Lantos was one of the huddled masses during the 1940s, when the Greatest Generation was engaged in a war that truly confronted tyranny and genocide. He was, of course, privileged in his acceptance to the United States as he entered via a scholarship to the University of Washington. He understood, however, the greatness of this nation and its generous and compassionate hand for those in desperate need. How likely is it that the humanitarian reach of our nation will extend to those silently dying in the genocide of Darfur, for example? A question that must be asked.

The Times further writes of the Representative, "Lantos, who was elected to the House in 1980, founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1983. In early 2004 he led the first congressional delegation to Libya in more than 30 years, meeting personally with and urging the Bush administration to show ''good faith'' to the North African leader in his pledge to abandon his nuclear weapons programs. Later that year, President Bush lifted sanctions against Libya."

So much for the notion that speaking with "people we don't like" is the wrong way to conduct foreign affairs. The Clinton camp and the GOP opposition have been waving that stick at Barack Obama as an example of his inexperience and naivete. Sometimes good faith can be rewarded with success, and that success can often spell the difference between protracted violence and the loss of life, treasure, and prestige. Something else to think about.

"''Morally, you are pygmies,'' he berated top executives of Yahoo Inc. at a hearing he called in November 2007 as they defended their company's involvement in the jailing of a Chinese journalist."

We can only hope that our elected officials, and those of us in the private sector, can find this measure of moral fortitude in our daily lives. It's up to us to cry out at injustice when we see it. The guardians at the gate of our national character are the people. We've lost one of the greatest guardians on this day, but we look to his life as an example of the extraordinary possibilities afforded us as the privileged few to be born under the protection of the American flag. Let's not forget that and extend its goodwill and compassion to as many in need around the globe as is humanly possible. Our resources are best spent in this way, rather than for the benefit of a privileged few.

Maine-ly Obama

2008-02-10T19:12:00.000-08:00

Another state, another caucus, another win for Barack Obama. The delegate race narrows and the momentum has clearly swung to the Senator from Illinois. It's hard to determine how much pressure the Clinton people are feeling as a result of the tidal wave that Obama is surfing on, but cracks can be seen.

Today the Clinton campaign replaced Patti Solis Doyle with top aide Maggie Williams in the role of campaign manager. The combination of financial difficulties and trouble at the polls has strained the once mighty Clinton machine. Terry MacCauliffe is widely believed to be the greatest political fundraiser in the business but he has been trumped by the people working for Obama. The strategy that had been working for Clinton's people prior to the weeks leading into Super Tuesday appears to need adjustment as Obama gains momentum. It's more than likely Hillary will go 0-fer-February when the month comes to an end, although March 4th could make up for all that if she wins big.

Tough to know what's happening behind the scenes, but it doesn't look good at all for Clinton at the moment and perception is at least half the battle. The press for her lately has been (1) feud with MSNBC, (2) winless in February, (3) loaned her campaign 5 million of her own money, and (4) replaced her campaign manager. Not good.

Obama's Big Night + Colin Powell

2008-02-09T20:48:00.000-08:00

Saturday has been a very good night for the Obama campaign. A sweep of the Virgin Islands, Nebraska, Washington, and the state of Louisiana has put this race dead even going into tomorrow's contest in Maine and Tuesday's "Potomac Primary." It's even overall, with Clinton holding the superdelegate trump card, but Obama with a lead in standard delegates. Things look great for Obama at this point thanks to a likely sweep of the Maine, Delaware, D.C., and Virginia. There are few projections our there that would suggest otherwise.

In terms of perception, this bodes well for the Senator from Illinois as the talk of the race for three weeks will be fixed on what he's doing right and how she can make up for her failures in the recent contests. With Ohio and Texas, among other states, looming Obama needs that PR and that perception of momentum to gain ground on the frontrunning Clinton. Ohio and Texas can be won over, but she holds fairly sizable leads at this point.

Both candidates have their eyes turned towards John McCain as the Arizona Senator is playing the role of the official nominee for all it's worth. despite the fact that Mike Huckabee is causing him some embarrassment in the conservative southern and midwestern states, while the lunatic radio talk show hosts eat him alive on the air. The main Clinton talking point in painting a contrast between herself and Obama has been her ability to stand up on the same stage as John McCain and hold her own on national security. Given the idea that McCain's only trump card in a general election against the Democratic nominee is the issue of Iraq and the war on terror, she may have a point.

One interesting idea that popped into my head while watching this unfold is the notion that Colin Powell might just play a role in all of this if he should so choose. In an interview on CNN recently, Powell suggested that he is excited about this election and that he reserves the right, as he has during his adult life, to vote for someone of the other party. He has spoken highly of Barack Obama in the past and it would appear that there is some chance that he may eventually speak on behalf of the Obama campaign. Now, that's tricky. Powell's reasons for speaking out may in the end prove to be some sort of redemption for his role in the deceptive leadup to the invasion of Iraq and a rebuff of the Bush administration that cornered him at every opportunity and eventually forced him out. If McCain is out to play that card against Obama in a general election debate, you may just see Powell stand up to cut it off before it happens by offering his advice and counsel to Barack Obama. With a former General and Secretary of State in his corner, a large part of the Republican attack plan would be blunted. Watch for it.....

To Bill, or not to Bill?

2008-02-08T13:50:00.000-08:00

I've been listening to the CNN team talk about the impact of Bill Clinton on the Democratic Primary race, and reading articles in the New York Times dealing with his own analysis of his impact. Clinton acknowledges his role in the loss of South Carolina, although he falls short of owning up to the divisive racial undertones of his rhetoric. His defense of Hillary Clinton operates publicly at the level of former president more than it does as supporting husband, according to him. He can support but not defend. I think that's a cop out but it's almost beside the point.

I like Bill Clinton. His years in office were good years either as a result of his leadership or by blind luck in some cases, but our standing abroad was great and the economy boomed. That said, part of his legacy will always be Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Both of those scandals were real, but were largely unimportant to his role as the president of the United States. The impact of those scandals would have been limited to historical footnotes had the Republican machine not latched onto them and run them into the forefront of mass media coverage for years on end. The legacy of the Clinton administration will be remembered as much for the Republican smear campaigns as they will for the successes of our nation under his leadership.

Why is this important now? It's important because this legacy will become the potential undoing of the Democratic Party's run at the presidency if it's not careful. It's inevitable that the GOP will smear Hillary Clinton throughout the general election if she wins the nomination. They will drag out the Whitewater situation, Monica Lewinsky, and anything else they can get their hands on. They want to dredge up the past in order to shape the future. It will work too. The worst thing that the Clinton campaign can do is have Bill out on the ground. Yes, he raises a lot of money. Yes, he's very popular. Yes, he's a popular former president. The problem is, people hate him. People remember the scandals. People remember the embarrassment. It worked to get George W. Bush elected over a standing Vice President in a booming economy.

Already, a number of knuckleheads in the mass media have questioned whether Bill Clinton will be seeking a 3rd term in office as his wife runs for the presidency. That's BS GOP talking point garbage, but it's real. The perception is there. It's easy to pull out that card and have it stick with enough people to make a difference. The more Bill Clinton is on the campaign trail, the more the GOP can help people remember the scandals they helped to create. The more he's out there, the greater the perception that we will be electing a presidential couple, rather than a highly qualified and effective candidate in Hillary Clinton. To that end, I think Bill should go on vacation somewhere outside the United States, stay out of view, and let the campaign take it's shape.

It won't happen. He loves the cameras and the spotlight, and frankly they need the money enough that he's got to be out there drumming up donations. If I were advising that campaign, however, I'd have him out of the camera's view as much as possible. I'll say it again. I like Bill Clinton. I will vote happily for Hillary Clinton if she's nominated, but there is a part of me that feels like we'll be in for another 4-8 years of GOP smear campaigns. The country doesn't need that. I cringe at the thought of it to be honest. If there weren't another viable candidate opposing McCain, I'd do my best to leave those worries in the background and go full speed ahead for Hillary. There is another candidate.....Barack Obama.

This is not a post designed to boost Obama, although you know I'm on his bandwagon. I think we've seen 12 years of Bush, Sr. in the White House as VP and President. We've seen his son for 8 years. We saw 8 years of Bill Clinton and we could potentially see another 4-8. Assuming Hillary wins and is re-elected, we could see the same two families at the reigns of power for 36 years!!!!!!!! America needs a hot shower and a big change. Obama is that clean start and offers a transformative change. That's how I made my decision to support him, beyond the truly uplifting spirit of his movement. That's why I feel that another Clinton administration, while a positive step in the right direction, is actually no better than a lateral move to the recent past.

Romney=Conservative?

2008-02-07T09:59:00.000-08:00

It's official. Mitt Romney crunched the numbers and determined that he would need 80% of all remaining states to win the GOP nomination. He is speaking as I type this in front of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) during their annual conference and will soon announce his suspension of his presidential run. This virtually assures Sen. John McCain the nomination of the Republican Party (as if he would have been in danger had Romney stayed in).

I would like to sit here are type out all the nonsense that Romney is saying in an effort to kowtow to the fringe of the Republican Party, but it would go on forever. This group of people are so in love with their own radical doctrine that they don't even see its own contradictions when stacked up against the vitriol against radicalism on the other side of their fence. If one radicalism is evil, repugnant, and destructive then the mirror radicalism on the other side is equally so. That, in a nutshell, is the current state of the GOP. It's the reason why they hate John McCain and why the Democrats are going to win the 2008 election in a landslide.

If you need more proof of the radical sickness of the GOP and the CPAC base, look at their website and examine the rotating ad at the bottom of the front page. It's an ad for the Conservative Book Club featuring books by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Laura Ingraham. Are these the voices of a proud and dignified Party? The Party of Lincoln? The Party of Teddy Roosevelt? Are these the people you want as the face of the Conservative movement?

Ann Coulter attacked wives of 9/11 victims, states her desire to have all Muslims killed or coverted to Christianity, called John Edwards a faggot, argued against women voting, and spewed anti-Semitic rhetoric among many other things.

Sean Hannity is less acerbic than Coulter, but equally sensational. He shouts down every guest that isn't on board with his vision of the world and deems to label people on the other end of the ideological spectrum as "Enemies of the State." He loud and obnoxious and dances around the truth in order to perpetuate a particular viewpoint. This is most troublesome because the forum for his brand of rhetoric is a news organization (Fox).

Bill O'Reilly needs no introduction. He is crass and vulgar, but can't see it. He reduces political discussion to shout downs and shut ups. He uses typical propaganda methods to rile up his audience in the "No Spin Zone" and while his trangressions against reason are too numerous to mention, he reportedly denied the existence of homeless veterans recently, only to be confronted at his studio by a group of homeless veterans who were shooed away by producers and shouted down by O'Reilly.

Laura Ingraham gave the introduction to Mitt Romney today at the CPAC conference and lit into John McCain with a rhetorical avalanche of hatred that mocked and discredited the work McCain has been doing recently on the stump. His pleas for civility among conservative radio talk show hosts was a favorite target of Ingraham's mockery. All you need to know about Ingraham, despite the many potential targets here, is that in the mid-1980's while writing for the Dartmouth Review she attended a campus meeting of the Gay and Lesbian organization and then used her powers as a "journalist" to out the people she saw there. Shame on her and the editors of the Review for letting that happen. She has later recanted on her acts, based largely on her gay brother's life with a partner faced with health issues. Recanting past injustices is fine, but it's an issue of character that can't be wallpapered over.

If the CPAC stands by the loudest mouthpieces of uncivil, hateful, acerbic, and combative rhetoric in our mass media as their public champions, why would any reasonable, civil, and compassionate person join their movement? There are plenty of good conservatives out there. Plenty of reasonable, fair, civil, decent, upstanding, intelligent, and flexible conservatives that lean to the Right, but not at the expense of the people. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper in the same way that John Kerry is a flip-flopper. One is entitled to change their mind, but when running for higher office a long record of doing so will come back to haunt. Romney is no authentic conservative in the Coulter, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh mold. He has been moderate on plenty of issues over the years. He was a target of the conservatives for years. Now, in an effort to find his electoral niche, he's flopped on the conservative brand of politics favored by the pundits at the extreme right of the Party. He's taken the road of political expedience in remaking himself as the civil face of the uncivil barbarians at America's gate. It clearly didn't resonate.

In the end, McCain will be the GOP candidate and the lunatics on the fringe who have moved to the center of the Party's base will continue to deride him and derail him. Great for anyone who supports the Democratic Party and great for our immediate future as a people. Long term we need the real and reasonable conservatives to reclaim their Party from the trolls. America is much better when all angles of the ideological spectrum operate with mutual respect and decency.

Supporting Obama

2008-02-07T00:22:00.000-08:00

I intend to use this forum in as balanced a manner as possible for the most part, but I won't disguise my feelings for Barack Obama in the current campaign for the presidency and readers will find, from time to time, items that highlight the best of the man and his vision for America. I believe in it that strongly. On this occasion, I bring you via the magic of embedded video the speech Obama made at the end of the day on Tuesday the 5th of February. Give it a look and take in what he says:

Super Tuesday Fallout

2008-02-06T09:25:00.000-08:00

The potential existed for both parties to lock up a solid nominee on Super Tuesday, although the polls generally showed that things might get close in the Democratic contests. What we saw yesterday was a potential clincher for Sen. John McCain and a near knockout blow to Mitt Romney. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama used energized voting turnouts around the country to inject an excitement into the Democratic Party that hasn't been seen since Bill Clinton became the "Comeback Kid", and more appropriately, since the Kennedy era.

What does it all mean?

On the GOP side of things, I think the showing in the rural South by Mike Huckabee proved that McCain is vulnerable in that area and that he needs a true social conservative as his running mate to make up for his perceived shortcomings with that base constituency. Huckabee is a virtual lock for that honor, in my opinion, for a few reasons. First, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she figures to show very strong in Arkansas. With a big win in a southern state like Arkansas, others may follow including Missouri and perhaps Tennessee. Those states, in the Democratic column, might just tip the scales toward Clinton and may even portend a landslide. With Huckabee on the ticket, a former governor of Arkansas, that advantage is completely neutralized.

Second, McCain is considered a moderate by the party's ultra-conservative base, which is harmful to him in many circles, but helps him to stay competitive in the more purple states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Huckabee would likely attract the South to the GOP column, where the Dems might otherwise strike a few upsets. A combination of McCain/Huckabee might carry the base in all the constituencies that HAVE to be won, while challenging in the contested areas as well. If Huckabee isn't McCain's running mate, there might be some trouble in GOP land. The other potential candidates won't have enough time to energize the crucial regions of the country that Huckabee has already captured with his presidential run. This campaign began 6 months ago in many ways and the groundwork has been laid for the symbolic association required of the presidential candidate that a running mate will only give a marginal boost. The VP candidate is largely a symbol assigned to fill in gaps in the perception of the presidential candidate. With McCain there are so many perceived gaps in his conservative resume that a last minute running mate can't completely cover. Huckabee has been on the scene the whole time and therefore carries a lot of weight as a #2. Stay Tuned.

The final piece of the GOP puzzle to discuss is the fall off of Mitt Romney. He took a lot for granted in his campaign. He assumed that attacking McCain as a "liberal" would ingratiate him to the conservative base. His rhetoric aimed at presenting himself as the conservative alternative to McCain, but the base knows Romney well enough to know that he was a "liberal" Republican during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. His flip-flopping on core conservative issues left doubt about his credentials and sent most of the Right searching for an alternative to BOTH McCain and Romney. Whoops. Must have forgotten the other half of the equation when attacking McCain, huh Mitt? He is finished. There's no way he can make up for the failures he endured on Super Tuesday, but he'll keep spending his money for a little while trying to score in the next round. If he doesn't nearly sweep the next set of states, he'll drop out. (He might drop out in the next few days if his family wavers....something to watch.)

The Democrats will spin the results of Super Tuesday to suit their agendas, but both Clinton and Obama have plenty to think over. Clinton was winning most of the Super Tuesday states by double digits for months, and in many of those areas she had 20 or 30+ point leads. Obama's political machine has proved that it has energy, momentum, and a solid plan of attack. Clinton's name recognition and superb political skills set her out ahead of the field by 20 lengths as the campaign began. In fact, her New York Senatorial campaigns were largely seen as warm ups to this presidential run. She's been on the radar as a presidential hopeful for so long that the image has already been solidified in the public's mind. Obama is so savvy and so inspirational that he has closed the recognition gap to a dead heat in a matter of two months. Clinton managed to win the big delegate states, and can therefore crow about her Super Tuesday victory, but the fact is she should have won those states. Obama managed to nearly duplicate her delegate total by splitting the contested states, while racking up wins in the lower point locations.

The Democratic primaries are a much different animal that the GOP contests. A candidate may lose a state by 10, 15, or 20 percentage points, but split the delegates evenly if the local victories occur in the right places. In many cases, Obama managed to pull off that strategy. Clinton has to be very worried about the tremendous climb that Obama has made recently both in the polls and in the finance arena. Obama is out-raising her by $3 to $1 at this point and will have a huge war chest to blitz the remaining states with ads and on the ground volunteers. She may be worried about the momentum and the money, but the climb for Obama is still very steep. He will have to win the remaining big delegate states by convincing margins to catch Clinton. She's ahead and she is still the better known candidate. The Superdelegate situation also favors Clinton at this point. The way it works, Party officials and high profile members get a vote at the convention that equals the total of some Congressional districts. Not only do they get their personal vote, but they get a big enchilada 2nd vote as well. This seems hardly legal in a representative democracy, but that's the system until we change it.

Clinton is a Party insider with a lot of favors to cash in. When Bill Clinton was president he MADE a lot of the people in the Party hierarchy and can claim loyalty from them in support of his wife. That's the shady reality of this process. The hope for Obama is to swell the national tide in his favor, win the big states which remain and take the overall lead, and grab as many undecided Superdelegates as he can. It's an uphill battle, but he has a puncher's chance that could become much more than that in the next two to three weeks.

For my part, I will use this forum to officially endorse Barack Obama. You will find a link to his campaign website in the right column, and I encourage everyone to go take a look at his positions on the key issues of this election and watch some video of his inspirational leadership style. I've donated to his campaign and it was money well spent. If you can afford to drop a small amount of cash in his coffers, I guarantee he will use it well and make a run at representing all of us as president in a dignified and responsible manner. Go Obama!!!!

UPDATE: MSNBC is reporting that Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in the standard delegate count by a thin margin of 838 to 834 after the Super Tuesday count is finished. Of course, she has a 100 or so point advantage in the Superdelegate race keeping her the frontrunner, but this is meaningful.

The Reagan Myth

2008-01-30T18:42:00.000-08:00

The CNN Republican Presidential Debate just concluded at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. In attendance, sitting in the front row, were California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former First Lady Nancy Reagan. The evening was lit with a backdrop of Ronald Reagan's legacy and the broadcast is scheduled to be followed by a glowing look back at Ronald Reagan's years in office.

The GOP rallies around the Reagan years as the Golden Age of American politics, and a time that stood up America before the world as a beacon of prosperity, compassion, democracy, and freedom. In order to be a successful Republican politician in the modern age, one must attach his or her own record and philosophy to that of Reagan. Recently, Barack Obama pointed out the transformative presence of Reagan's ideas, holding that legacy up as a model for the Democratic Party and its challenge to tranform the current climate of doubt and bitterness into one of hope and unity. Of course, Hillary Clinton tried to spin that statement to work against Obama, painting him as a closet Reagan conservative. Patently absurd.

The point here, is that Reagan's greatest quality was his ability to lead as an icon. He represented the proud patriot son of America, born into freedom and willing to die for the ideals of our forefathers. It's both hard to attack that icon, and hold it up to the scrutiny of political opposition. Reagan was able to do so effortlessly, and hence his glowing image is burned into the collective consciousness of the American people alongside the Stars and Stripes, the bald eagle, and the dollar bill. Every society needs its icons, as they fulfill a particular mythology about our own national character. The myth is far more important than the man in every case. Reagan is no different, and we are fortunate enough to have lived in such close proximity to his legacy that we have a chance at remembering the truth behind the veil of mythology that surrounds him.

While the GOP like to hold this myth up as a symbol of the ideal form of government, and as a sort of infallible philosophy of governance, there is much to remember about the Reagan years that bring shame to us as a people. The fiscal conservatism that the GOP holds up as the model of economic genius during these years also saw a spending deficit in the trillions. Surely the Democratic Congress was equally responsible for that dilemma, but the trickle down economics of the Reagan era took that deficit and placed it firmly in the laps of the hardest working Americans. The trickle down theory of economics never stimulated the economy as long as it was the dominant form of fiscal management, and it perpetuated hardship on the poor and middle class, while filling the pockets of the richest 2%.

Likewise, Reagan sold out the religious Right at every turn by taking their support, promising to ban abortion and fill the Supreme Court with Christian soldiers. He did neither, stabbing them in the back and going against every promise he made while it was politically expedient to do so. He perpetuated a Cold War that escalated military spending, handing over the tax money of the hardest working Americans while cutting social programs designed to uplift them. The scare tactics that we see today in the so-called "War on Terror" were honed and sharpened during the Cold War era of propaganda, headed by the Reagan administration. In fact, most of the architects of the Bush "terror strategy" were former Reagan soldiers, including Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The foreign policy of the United States under Ronald Reagan is known primarily for the statement "peace through strength", which is a very convenient abstraction that culminated in some of the bloodiest state-sponsored terror that the world has ever seen. "Peace through Strength" is a sentiment convenient for politicians and the military-industrial-complex to work hand in hand at building a military economy supported by empire building around the world. Of course, no one would support such a policy if it were spelled out in its most specific terms, but the convenience of "Peace through Strength" is that it plays on the notion that we will protect the interests of the everyday American by holding a stiff national backbone in the face of threats from dark corners of the world. Sound familiar?

The facts on Reagan's foreign policy are bleak in many respects. Central and South America were battlefields for the CIA and its state-sponsored death squads. The historical records clearly show this to be the case, although it is politically expedient for people on both sides of the aisle to sweep it under the carpet. It's there in black and white and we should own up to our role in the deaths of millions of poor and oppressed people below our southern border. John Negroponte, the current Director of Homeland Security, was the architect of those death squads, not to mention the former ambassador to Iraq during the early part of our occupation.

All of this is simply to say that we have to be honest about all the bumps and warts of our presidents and representatives if we hope to go forward in an honest and positive way. If we don't live up to our own evils, our future is destined to repeat them over and over and over again. History bears this out. To be lost in the mythology of our past, despite the harsh glare of reality, is denial of the worst kind. We can never be a true beacon of freedom around the world if we systematically deny our own oppression. Slavery, WWII era internments, torture.....all swept under the carpet as someone else's reprehensible acts of history. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. FDR allowed American citizens to be rounded up and imprisoned simply for their DNA. Reagan sanctioned the murder of millions in South and Central America. Clinton bombed a baby milk factory in Sudan, creating a crisis of starvation from which the people of that nation have never recovered, and Bush has done any number of things for which we should all be ashamed.

Use your eyes, ears, and powers of critical thinking to see American history as it really is and don't blindly follow the mythology that makes us all feel good about ourselves, whatever the truth may be.

Hillary Wins!!!!! Uh....Sorta.

2008-01-29T17:34:00.000-08:00

Interesting comment by Keith Olbermann at MSNBC as Hillary Clinton arrives at a faux victory rally for her triumph in voting in the disqualified Florida Democratic Primary. As the TV crew at that network remarked that the candidates had pledged not to campaign in Florida the visual presented a smiling Clinton on stage with Sen. Bob Nelson and some members of the Florida political elite. In the background and the extreme foreground 100s of cheering supporters waved Hillary '08 signs vigorously, shouting and dancing in the aisles.

Keith Olbermann immediately followed the reminder that candidates agreed not to campaign remarking, "I guess all those people had those signs at home."

Zing.

State of the State of the Union

2008-01-28T21:13:00.000-08:00

I don't really "get" the State of the Union. I know that my negative feelings towards our current president and his gang of hooligans may accentuate my distaste for the SotU address, but I believe my objection is much more general. The fact of the matter is, other nations don't feel the need to put on the Show that is the SotU and in fact revel in the opportunity to vigorously voice their disapproval of things they find dishonest, broken, or just plain off base. Take the following clip as Exhibit A:

Ah, Taiwan. Okay, I mean something a bit more reasonable than that, so here's a bit more to my liking:

That's more like it. Someone says something patently absurd, and the opposition gets to shout the prime minister down. Someone tells a bold-faced lie and the power of the collective voice of reason rains down. Instead, we put our president up in front of a group of the most privileged and distinguished citizens in public service and let him or her say anything they like no matter how false, destructive, insane, or offensive. In fact, despite the often high level of dishonest, self-serving propaganda spewed the worst a member of the audience can do is sit on their hands while the loyalist weasels shout "huzzah" and give 2 minute standing ovations. In my humble opinion, we should look to our British allies and get down to business. If we are the most direct, straight-talking, and in your face culture in the world, let's act like it when it counts most.

What happened tonight was disgusting and hurtful to our nation. Boooooo......

UPDATE: NPR's blog did a live fact-check on the State of the Union that you can access here. Make sure you are looking at the January 28th entries as I'm sure the blog is regularly updated.