While friends of mine worried that this unstable person would destroy the democratic party in her own pursuit of power, I reassured them that like Eight Belles at the Kentucky Derby, she would push it too far, and her campaign would have to be euthanized on the track. I didn't foresee this specific gaffe - only that as her hopes dimmed, the inner sociopath would emerge, and that all but her most committed supporters, people who were dug in beyond all reason would jump ship. The folks at Slate.com compared her to Reese Witherspoon's Tracy Flick in "Election," but I always felt the far more apt analogy was to Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." "The ring is mine!" she seemed to say with every outrageous tactic and divisive maneuvering.
It seemed so strange that the NY Times and other mainstream media didn't see what was so apparent to so many. Perhaps Frank Rich saw it, and Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic, but so many others kept saying: "We have two great candidates" no matter what kind of campaign she ran, no matter what kind of vitriol her petty and vindictive advisors and increasingly unhinged husband shouted. The Times endorsed this person, and didn't retract it in the face of so much evidence. And now, it's plain as day, thankfully, but this was there all along.
Whether people out of political correctness due to the historic nature of her campaign didn't want to point out that the empress had no clothes, or whether people were really that cynical about politics to be duped into believing that just about anything goes, it's hard to say. But, and I've made this point many times - just because she's a woman does mean she's not a sociopath, and her supporters do a disservice to the many genuinely wonderful female candidates who will surely come after her by sticking with her this doggedly. Clinton and her supporters are making it more difficult for female candidates to get their due by allowing identity politics to cloud their character judgment. As Martin Luther King dreamt, people will one day be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, and I believe the same thing can be said about the configuration of their chromosomes.
Surely we only want a quality African American candidate like Obama, and just are surely we want a decent female candidate, not just the first available one.
May Clinton's campaign rest in peace, and may we look forward to a female president whose ambition is balanced by decency and integrity.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Just Say Yes: The Moral of the Bush Legacy
One unintended moral of the Bush presidency is that for certain people, it's better to booze hard and snort cocaine than to get clean and find Jesus. Because had Bush remained a fuck-up, he would merely have destroyed his own life and hurt his loved ones. Instead, he got clean, and 4,000 US soldiers and half a million Iraqis are dead.
If the ghost of Christmas past came down and showed George Bush his alternate life - one where, homeless, he pisses himself on a park bench before expiring quietly, and meanwhile, the United States is prosperous, and the world a safer place - I think he'd be morally obligated to go back and choose that fate.
If the ghost of Christmas past came down and showed George Bush his alternate life - one where, homeless, he pisses himself on a park bench before expiring quietly, and meanwhile, the United States is prosperous, and the world a safer place - I think he'd be morally obligated to go back and choose that fate.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama's Deft Handling of Sociopaths
People wonder how Obama would deal with a sociopathic enemy in Iran or elsewhere - I think we'll have a good idea over the next couple weeks. McCain and Obama can trades barbs in the press all they like, but how he's handling the Clinton campaign right now is the best evidence. Even though it's ridiculous to count ANY of the FLA or MI delegates (Clinton agreed to the rules, and Obama wasn't even trying in those states), he's going to compromise anyway (even though it's unjust and wrong) because it appeases the people of those states whose emotions the Clintons have destructively and selfishly stirred up. BUT - without jeopardizing his overall goal in the bigger picture of securing the nomination. In other words, Obama will negotiate with dictators, even legitimize them if he has to, but always with the big picture in mind: the safety and prosperity of America's citizens.
Imagine if in Iran, they chatted with Ahmadinejad, showed Iran some ostensible respect and in so doing quietly wooed the disgruntled Iranian population further and further toward our side. The Iranian people are what's important - just like the voters in MI and FLA. The Clintons are merely an obstacle to be worked around just like Ahmadinejad. The mistake Bush and McCain make is that their disgust with Ahmadinejad causes them not to do what's necessary to reach out to the citizens of the "enemy" who we ultimately need on our side. Obama doesn't let his distaste for Clinton and her unjust behavior get in the way of getting the outcome he needs.
Instead of fearing that Obama will be outsmarted by Ahmadinejad (and Bush has truly been in every way as Iran's influence has grown immensely on his watch), let's trust him to outsmart him the way he has with Clinton.
Incidentally, I sent this as an email to one of my favorite political bloggers, Andrew Sullivan, and he actually posted it.
And then my ESPN buddy (one of the two best writers there along with Bill Simmons), Jonah Keri mentioned it in his blog. My readership just jumped from zero to two.
Imagine if in Iran, they chatted with Ahmadinejad, showed Iran some ostensible respect and in so doing quietly wooed the disgruntled Iranian population further and further toward our side. The Iranian people are what's important - just like the voters in MI and FLA. The Clintons are merely an obstacle to be worked around just like Ahmadinejad. The mistake Bush and McCain make is that their disgust with Ahmadinejad causes them not to do what's necessary to reach out to the citizens of the "enemy" who we ultimately need on our side. Obama doesn't let his distaste for Clinton and her unjust behavior get in the way of getting the outcome he needs.
Instead of fearing that Obama will be outsmarted by Ahmadinejad (and Bush has truly been in every way as Iran's influence has grown immensely on his watch), let's trust him to outsmart him the way he has with Clinton.
Incidentally, I sent this as an email to one of my favorite political bloggers, Andrew Sullivan, and he actually posted it.
And then my ESPN buddy (one of the two best writers there along with Bill Simmons), Jonah Keri mentioned it in his blog. My readership just jumped from zero to two.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
McCain Will Drop Out
I know it seems like a long shot now, but here's what's going to happen. Hillary Clinton will hang around too long, and exit the race ungracefully. All but her most diehard supporters will finally realize what a sociopath she is and happily embrace Obama. He'll build on the enormous network that he has in place, and he'll take on McCain directly.
McCain is already having trouble getting his facts straight on Iraq and the economy, and he'll soon be behind by double-digits. McCain's advisers will mount an increasingly negative campaign, but it will backfire. Obama will demonstrate strength and command of the facts in their debates. McCain will embarrass himself, and Obama will show him compassion and respect. McCain's aides will insist that they need to smear Obama with more Reverend Wright/William Ayers/muslim associations, and McCain will say no. They'll tell him that's his only shot, and McCain, still a man of integrity despite his recent pandering, will bow out.
It will infuriate the right who will say they knew he was a traitor to their cause all along. McCain will exit gracefully, and the right will run a dead-in-the-water candidate like Mitt Romney in McCain's place . Obama will win in a landslide.
McCain is already having trouble getting his facts straight on Iraq and the economy, and he'll soon be behind by double-digits. McCain's advisers will mount an increasingly negative campaign, but it will backfire. Obama will demonstrate strength and command of the facts in their debates. McCain will embarrass himself, and Obama will show him compassion and respect. McCain's aides will insist that they need to smear Obama with more Reverend Wright/William Ayers/muslim associations, and McCain will say no. They'll tell him that's his only shot, and McCain, still a man of integrity despite his recent pandering, will bow out.
It will infuriate the right who will say they knew he was a traitor to their cause all along. McCain will exit gracefully, and the right will run a dead-in-the-water candidate like Mitt Romney in McCain's place . Obama will win in a landslide.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Outrage Drug
I've been so worked up about the democratic primary race that I've had to take a two-week time-out between the Pennsylvania and Indiana/North Carolina primaries. Watching cable news channels and surfing web sites like the Huffington Post and Politico was driving me nuts, so now all of that is off limits.
I think those web sites and especially the cable news outlets feed two addictions (and I use that word literally) prevalent in people. The first is the addiction to reading and hearing opinions that reinforce your own. "Thank God other people realize how truly corrupt and unfit to govern Hillary Clinton is. What a relief!" It feels good to read many different opinions and angles on that basic belief that seems so clear to me and cries out for reinforcement in the face of its far from universal adoption.
The other is the addiction to outrage at seeing contrary opinions - some people actually think Clinton has what it takes, is more electable, is not so obviously a robotic sociopath dead set on assuming the seat of power at ANY cost. They think Barack Obama is a fraud, or worse, that America's not ready to elect a black president, so even if he's the better candidate - even if he's the ONLY one with integrity and decency - better to vote for the one we think is more electable. (I feel the outrage bubbling up even as I write this).
Those addictions are what drive the ratings for the cable news shows and the traffic to those web sites. But are they serving any other purpose? Maybe they motivate citizens to write or talk about the issues, but you don't learn much by talking with like minded people, and you don't get anywhere talking to people whose beliefs inspire outrage in you. In short, I'm not sure how constructive the emotional responses are - perhaps a sense of injustice or passion for the truth would inspire some to actually do something about the state of affairs - march on Washington, write to your government officials, campaign for a candidate or donate money to a cause. But otherwise, you're merely driving yourself nuts and perpetuating businesses that have tapped into your addiction.
And the cable networks and political web sites have a sense of what works to drive readership - your outraged attendance will only inspire more outrageous coverage designed either to reinforce your beliefs or rail against it.
This tendency seems to be spilling into sports writing and reporting, to ESPN and elsewhere - there's a sense that saying outrageous things - even things that generate hate mail - will get you noticed. And attention is a kind of popularity - the one that advertisers care about. If you can't stand a particular pundit or his views, the best way to handle it is to turn him off. Don't respond, don't criticize, don't mention him. Your emotional outrage is his oxygen, and you can suffocate him by turning away.
If we want the scourge on our democracy that is cable news to go away, we must collectively resist the temptation to give in to our addictions and watch it. We need to be informed of the facts, but to avoid both like-minded and contrary opinions as much as possible.
The chemistry in our brains that draws us to these emotional states probably isn't that different than the kind that drives us to drink or use drugs.
After a few days of enforced withdrawal, it feels good to just say no.
I think those web sites and especially the cable news outlets feed two addictions (and I use that word literally) prevalent in people. The first is the addiction to reading and hearing opinions that reinforce your own. "Thank God other people realize how truly corrupt and unfit to govern Hillary Clinton is. What a relief!" It feels good to read many different opinions and angles on that basic belief that seems so clear to me and cries out for reinforcement in the face of its far from universal adoption.
The other is the addiction to outrage at seeing contrary opinions - some people actually think Clinton has what it takes, is more electable, is not so obviously a robotic sociopath dead set on assuming the seat of power at ANY cost. They think Barack Obama is a fraud, or worse, that America's not ready to elect a black president, so even if he's the better candidate - even if he's the ONLY one with integrity and decency - better to vote for the one we think is more electable. (I feel the outrage bubbling up even as I write this).
Those addictions are what drive the ratings for the cable news shows and the traffic to those web sites. But are they serving any other purpose? Maybe they motivate citizens to write or talk about the issues, but you don't learn much by talking with like minded people, and you don't get anywhere talking to people whose beliefs inspire outrage in you. In short, I'm not sure how constructive the emotional responses are - perhaps a sense of injustice or passion for the truth would inspire some to actually do something about the state of affairs - march on Washington, write to your government officials, campaign for a candidate or donate money to a cause. But otherwise, you're merely driving yourself nuts and perpetuating businesses that have tapped into your addiction.
And the cable networks and political web sites have a sense of what works to drive readership - your outraged attendance will only inspire more outrageous coverage designed either to reinforce your beliefs or rail against it.
This tendency seems to be spilling into sports writing and reporting, to ESPN and elsewhere - there's a sense that saying outrageous things - even things that generate hate mail - will get you noticed. And attention is a kind of popularity - the one that advertisers care about. If you can't stand a particular pundit or his views, the best way to handle it is to turn him off. Don't respond, don't criticize, don't mention him. Your emotional outrage is his oxygen, and you can suffocate him by turning away.
If we want the scourge on our democracy that is cable news to go away, we must collectively resist the temptation to give in to our addictions and watch it. We need to be informed of the facts, but to avoid both like-minded and contrary opinions as much as possible.
The chemistry in our brains that draws us to these emotional states probably isn't that different than the kind that drives us to drink or use drugs.
After a few days of enforced withdrawal, it feels good to just say no.
Waves, Particles, Stocks and Dollars
I can't remember the exact context in which initially I read about this. Apparently, all matter has both wave and particle-like properties.
I started thinking about this in relation to my stock portfolio which fluctuates so much from day to day and week to week. If my stocks went up $1000, should I go out and spend $500 comfortably, knowing I still had half my profits left? But what happens when it goes back down then?
I started thinking about this in relation to my stock portfolio which fluctuates so much from day to day and week to week. If my stocks went up $1000, should I go out and spend $500 comfortably, knowing I still had half my profits left? But what happens when it goes back down then?
At the same time, your portfolio is worth what it's worth at any given moment in time, and that $1000 gain is real assuming I wanted to realize it. So stocks are like matter in that they have this duality about them - they're a fluctuating wave, and also a particle. Once you sell, you get particles (dollars). Of course, those also have wave-like properties as the currencies rise and fall.
I suppose the wave/particle duality paradigm is useful for looking at a lot of phenomena, and it helps us embrace fluctuation and inconstancy more comfortably. Which is good given that we ourselves are particle/waves, too.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Faithlessness of Hillary Clinton
There's a lot of bullshit about who's more in touch with the American people, which includes the usual declarations by both candidates that they're people of faith. But faith isn't about going to church or talking about God, is it? For it to have any authenticity, you'd think it would include a sense of doing your best and leaving the rest of to Providence - or whatever else you choose to call it.
And that's where the Obama and Clinton campaigns differ so starkly. Obama makes his points, does his best and lets the chips fall. If he has an issue with his pastor or some ill-chosen words, he acknowledges the communication error and moves forward.
Clinton on the other hand denied that the Bosnia slip-up was a lie, then when the evidence was overwhelming says that she misspoke. She throws the "kitchen sink" at Obama, feigns outrage at his criticisms of her over NAFTA (which turned out to be true) and cynically tried to exploit Obama's "bitter" gaffe by pretending to be a gun-lover. There's no sense of her getting her vision and message out and being true to herself which is what you'd expect for a person of "faith." There's just no confidence in her message, in the American people or in way of Providence. In fact, it's just the opposite - she seems like a giant ego fighting and scrapping against the way things are to the bitter end.
And that's where the Obama and Clinton campaigns differ so starkly. Obama makes his points, does his best and lets the chips fall. If he has an issue with his pastor or some ill-chosen words, he acknowledges the communication error and moves forward.
Clinton on the other hand denied that the Bosnia slip-up was a lie, then when the evidence was overwhelming says that she misspoke. She throws the "kitchen sink" at Obama, feigns outrage at his criticisms of her over NAFTA (which turned out to be true) and cynically tried to exploit Obama's "bitter" gaffe by pretending to be a gun-lover. There's no sense of her getting her vision and message out and being true to herself which is what you'd expect for a person of "faith." There's just no confidence in her message, in the American people or in way of Providence. In fact, it's just the opposite - she seems like a giant ego fighting and scrapping against the way things are to the bitter end.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Letter to Maureen Dowd
I don't mean to single her out for writing a bad column on Obama's "bitter" gaffe - pretty much every pundit did. It's because they're not analyzing what Obama actually meant, but instead what they think the dumbasses in Pennsylvania will think. But apparently those dumbasses aren't as dumb as they think. According to polls, Pennsylvanians actually get Obama's intent. In any event, here's my letter to Dowd:
Ms Dowd,
I usually enjoy your columns, but I find this one to be particularly off base. Not only do you make the mistake that many have of interpreting Senator Obama's remarks implausibly, but you also spin them to fit your half-baked thesis that he can't close Senator Clinton out.
The truth is he has closed her out - just so gently and gentlemanly that you haven't even noticed. Perhaps you would prefer more drama, but it's not his style. She's finished, but in a free country, she's entitled to her delusions, of course.
As for your interpretation of his remarks, he can't possibly believe that people only hunt or attend church because they're broke. He's saying people vote defensively because they've lost hope that the economic situation will get better. They don't trust Washington to fix it (with good reason) and hence they're bitter. So they cling to the couple things they hold dear and vote DEFENSIVELY - do whatever you want with the tax cuts for the rich, but at the very least don't start letting gays marry and take away our guns.
When Kerry lost, the polls showed VALUES played a huge part. That's what it was - that no one trusted Kerry to fix the problems, and the cynical republicans basically said - this guy's an elitist, he doesn't care about you. So vote for us because we're the party of God and guns. And it worked.
That's all Obama was saying - that in the VOTING BOOTH, they cling to these things and vote defensively.
Clearly, no one can seriously believe that hunting and churchgoing only happen when people lose their jobs.
Again, I typically enjoy your column and your wit, but I think you've missed the mark here.
Thanks for the column
Not sure I actually enjoy her columns - some are okay, others are a little gossipy. But I was hoping to get a response. Which I haven't gotten yet.
Ms Dowd,
I usually enjoy your columns, but I find this one to be particularly off base. Not only do you make the mistake that many have of interpreting Senator Obama's remarks implausibly, but you also spin them to fit your half-baked thesis that he can't close Senator Clinton out.
The truth is he has closed her out - just so gently and gentlemanly that you haven't even noticed. Perhaps you would prefer more drama, but it's not his style. She's finished, but in a free country, she's entitled to her delusions, of course.
As for your interpretation of his remarks, he can't possibly believe that people only hunt or attend church because they're broke. He's saying people vote defensively because they've lost hope that the economic situation will get better. They don't trust Washington to fix it (with good reason) and hence they're bitter. So they cling to the couple things they hold dear and vote DEFENSIVELY - do whatever you want with the tax cuts for the rich, but at the very least don't start letting gays marry and take away our guns.
When Kerry lost, the polls showed VALUES played a huge part. That's what it was - that no one trusted Kerry to fix the problems, and the cynical republicans basically said - this guy's an elitist, he doesn't care about you. So vote for us because we're the party of God and guns. And it worked.
That's all Obama was saying - that in the VOTING BOOTH, they cling to these things and vote defensively.
Clearly, no one can seriously believe that hunting and churchgoing only happen when people lose their jobs.
Again, I typically enjoy your column and your wit, but I think you've missed the mark here.
Thanks for the column
Not sure I actually enjoy her columns - some are okay, others are a little gossipy. But I was hoping to get a response. Which I haven't gotten yet.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Pundits Get Obama's "Bitter" Quip Wrong
Barack Obama might have "inartfully" described Pennsylvania voters as "bitter", but most of the pundits I read have completely botched the analysis of it. Probably the worst offender - and he's been pretty brutal throughout the campaign season is Mickey Kaus' in his blog on Slate.com - which has also slipped generally.
Kaus cites commentary by Michael Lind and calls it useful:
According to Obama, working class (white) people "cling to guns" because they are bitter at losing their manufacturing jobs.
Excuse me? Hunting is part of working-class American culture. Does Obama really think that working-class whites in Pennsylvania were gun control liberals until their industries were downsized, whereas they all rushed to join the NRA...
This reading of his statement is totally off base. Obama's not saying they're clinging to guns literally as in, they're grabbing a shotgun and hunting only because they're having problems paying the bills. He's saying they're VOTING based on issues like guns, gay marriage and religion because they've lost faith in voting the real economic issues. And they've lost faith for good reason - because politicians have lied to them. So they vote based on these narrow issues instead because at least they can agree on them.
In other words, he's not saying their culture of hunting or going to church exists only because of bitterness toward the way they've been neglected economically - he's saying that they VOTE defensively to protect what's left of their way of life because they've been given so little reason to expect improvement from government. The Clintons and Bushes despite pretending to be the friend of small-town working-class Americans have abandoned them. They vote defensively, and Obama is explaining that to his supporters - that it constitutes a challenge to his campaign.
The reading by Kaus and Lind is either deliberate spin to make the remarks sound worse, or they're both just stupid.
Also, Hillary Clinton, of course, is the one condescending to the people of Pennsylvania because she panders to that defensive voting - saying, among other things, that she believes in the 2nd Amendment. She's basically saying: "Keep voting on dumb things that aren't really helping you rather than throwing the bums out who neglected you and your families." She's trying to stoke their attachment to these more minor issues which, as Obama implied, serve to displace their real and pressing concerns about their quality of life.
This is similar to the way in which Islamic radicals stoke hatred of the West to young Arabs crushed by poverty and lack of opportunity. Their real anger is toward their governments and leaders, but the militants get them to displace that and direct it toward the West.
I don't think Clinton's strategy will work because Obama spoke the truth, and enough voters in the remaining states will get that.
Kaus cites commentary by Michael Lind and calls it useful:
According to Obama, working class (white) people "cling to guns" because they are bitter at losing their manufacturing jobs.
Excuse me? Hunting is part of working-class American culture. Does Obama really think that working-class whites in Pennsylvania were gun control liberals until their industries were downsized, whereas they all rushed to join the NRA...
This reading of his statement is totally off base. Obama's not saying they're clinging to guns literally as in, they're grabbing a shotgun and hunting only because they're having problems paying the bills. He's saying they're VOTING based on issues like guns, gay marriage and religion because they've lost faith in voting the real economic issues. And they've lost faith for good reason - because politicians have lied to them. So they vote based on these narrow issues instead because at least they can agree on them.
In other words, he's not saying their culture of hunting or going to church exists only because of bitterness toward the way they've been neglected economically - he's saying that they VOTE defensively to protect what's left of their way of life because they've been given so little reason to expect improvement from government. The Clintons and Bushes despite pretending to be the friend of small-town working-class Americans have abandoned them. They vote defensively, and Obama is explaining that to his supporters - that it constitutes a challenge to his campaign.
The reading by Kaus and Lind is either deliberate spin to make the remarks sound worse, or they're both just stupid.
Also, Hillary Clinton, of course, is the one condescending to the people of Pennsylvania because she panders to that defensive voting - saying, among other things, that she believes in the 2nd Amendment. She's basically saying: "Keep voting on dumb things that aren't really helping you rather than throwing the bums out who neglected you and your families." She's trying to stoke their attachment to these more minor issues which, as Obama implied, serve to displace their real and pressing concerns about their quality of life.
This is similar to the way in which Islamic radicals stoke hatred of the West to young Arabs crushed by poverty and lack of opportunity. Their real anger is toward their governments and leaders, but the militants get them to displace that and direct it toward the West.
I don't think Clinton's strategy will work because Obama spoke the truth, and enough voters in the remaining states will get that.
Friday, April 4, 2008
There Were Orders to Follow
2008 7:43 am
Link
I read a post somewhere saying the mainstream media's not giving this much play, and in truth, I don't really care about it, either.
It's not that it isn't horrendous - it is. But so what? Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez and Yoo and Rove did something else that was horrendous. I mean, no one's going to DO anything about it, so why even waste time on outrage? Why even click on the headline any more. And the media senses this, and that's why it doesn't get much run.
Outrage is great when there's a path to its satisfaction. Will we impeach someone, put him in prison, embarrass him to his face? No, we won't do such a thing. I don't know if anyone watched Jon Miller and Joe Morgan on ESPN's Opening Day Sunday night broadcast, but President Bush stopped in, and they had the most amiable chat imaginable. No one's going to do anything about it, so why bother with this stuff. I don't care to read more. Just do something about it, please. Let's have some accountability. Otherwise, what's one more affront to the constitution or our civil rights?
That's also why no one wants to hear about Iraq any more - because unless someone's held accountable - and I mean seriously accountable - as in liquidating the assets of the neocons bank accounts to pay for veteran's medical care - (which would be a slap on the wrist compared to the true karmic retribution in store for them if such a thing exists) - then it's a miserable story because there's no justice.
That's the real problem with this. And the unlikelihood of justice makes outrage unsatisfying and therefore depressing. So honestly, who cares about these torture memos and what happened in Iraq's prisons and the war profiteering and rendition and Guantanamo and the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping and the political persecution of US Attorneys and Katrina - because heads are not rolling.
So please, don't bore me with new revelations that continue to prove something I already knew: that the people in charge for the last eight years did terrible things.
Link
I read a post somewhere saying the mainstream media's not giving this much play, and in truth, I don't really care about it, either.
It's not that it isn't horrendous - it is. But so what? Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez and Yoo and Rove did something else that was horrendous. I mean, no one's going to DO anything about it, so why even waste time on outrage? Why even click on the headline any more. And the media senses this, and that's why it doesn't get much run.
Outrage is great when there's a path to its satisfaction. Will we impeach someone, put him in prison, embarrass him to his face? No, we won't do such a thing. I don't know if anyone watched Jon Miller and Joe Morgan on ESPN's Opening Day Sunday night broadcast, but President Bush stopped in, and they had the most amiable chat imaginable. No one's going to do anything about it, so why bother with this stuff. I don't care to read more. Just do something about it, please. Let's have some accountability. Otherwise, what's one more affront to the constitution or our civil rights?
That's also why no one wants to hear about Iraq any more - because unless someone's held accountable - and I mean seriously accountable - as in liquidating the assets of the neocons bank accounts to pay for veteran's medical care - (which would be a slap on the wrist compared to the true karmic retribution in store for them if such a thing exists) - then it's a miserable story because there's no justice.
That's the real problem with this. And the unlikelihood of justice makes outrage unsatisfying and therefore depressing. So honestly, who cares about these torture memos and what happened in Iraq's prisons and the war profiteering and rendition and Guantanamo and the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping and the political persecution of US Attorneys and Katrina - because heads are not rolling.
So please, don't bore me with new revelations that continue to prove something I already knew: that the people in charge for the last eight years did terrible things.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Deadbeat Candidate Offers Economic Solutions
Let's set aside for a moment the irony of a candidate whose campaign was a financial disaster claiming to be the one best able to handle some seriously difficult economic challenges. That's preposterous enough, but what strikes me as worse is who is getting stiffed by Clinton's financial mismanagement.
Turns out it's small businesses in Ohio, Iowa and New Hampshire who are still owed money, and the emails and calls to Clinton's campaign are not being returned.
Turns out it's small businesses in Ohio, Iowa and New Hampshire who are still owed money, and the emails and calls to Clinton's campaign are not being returned.
When you consider all the rhetoric about helping working families, protecting blue-collar workers against corporate greed, etc., this strikes me as particularly damning because the campaign is doing the exact opposite - literally. These small business owners and employees can speak up on a small scale, and the Washington Post did a story on it, but in the end, the campaign probably knows that their complaints won't affect the outcome of the race. And for that reason, it's almost more revealing - this is how she treats people when she doesn't think anyone's watching.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
What Made Richardson Flip?
There's an article in Slate Magazine by John Dickerson that tries to discern the motive behind Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. Dickerson writes:
What's significant about the [Nancy] Pelosi and Richardson duet is that both seem to have made a calculation that in the long-brewing tension between party elites and the new grass roots, they're siding with the latter. These veteran Democrats may be making their moves based on their assessments of Obama as a candidate, but they also may be informed by his success in raising money online and from a huge number of small-dollar donors, which may mean a dilution in the power of traditional rainmakers.
Dickerson brushes aside as a vague possibility that Richardson might actually think Obama's the better candidate, but pushes the idea that where the money's coming from in the democratic party "may" also be responsible.
Clinton incidentally seems to do the exact opposite, pandering individually to blue collar workers, big business, hispanics, women, etc. Of course, her job's tougher because she's got to lie - there's no way to individually look out for every group - if you take care of big business, blue collar workers lose. If you take care of the blue collar workers, big business loses. She essentially has to lie to somebody because somebody's not going to get his back scratched as promised in the end.
But in looking out for the GOOD, there are no losers because everyone has a stake in that - even if it costs some groups financially in the short run.
What's significant about the [Nancy] Pelosi and Richardson duet is that both seem to have made a calculation that in the long-brewing tension between party elites and the new grass roots, they're siding with the latter. These veteran Democrats may be making their moves based on their assessments of Obama as a candidate, but they also may be informed by his success in raising money online and from a huge number of small-dollar donors, which may mean a dilution in the power of traditional rainmakers.
Dickerson brushes aside as a vague possibility that Richardson might actually think Obama's the better candidate, but pushes the idea that where the money's coming from in the democratic party "may" also be responsible.
Now it may, and the assertions here are so flabby that Dickerson could plausibly say that he was just raising certain possibilities, but the tone and underlying assumption is that Richardson made a calculated political move that might be explained by following the money.
I'm not saying it's impossible that Richardson did this, but why characterize his motive as a "calculation?" Maybe he just genuinely believes Obama would make a far better president? Doesn't that trump all kinds of political motives?
In short, I think a problem with a lot of political coverage is this cynicism that there must be some self-interested motive with Obama supporters the way there is for Clinton's.
I don't know how an Obama presidency would affect my financial interest, but I'm supporting him because I believe he'll do his best to act in the interests of the GOOD. Whatever that is. I haven't been pandered to - I don't care about his health care plan vs. Clinton's - who knows how that will eventually shake out? Can't that be the rationale for a lot of people - even Richardson?
In fact, I think that's what's fundamentally different about Obama's candidacy is that people support him because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that he's out for the GOOD generally, and they trust that if the GOOD is pursued (not the narrow good vs. evil
"good" that Bush pursued), then we will all be better off on the whole.
Clinton incidentally seems to do the exact opposite, pandering individually to blue collar workers, big business, hispanics, women, etc. Of course, her job's tougher because she's got to lie - there's no way to individually look out for every group - if you take care of big business, blue collar workers lose. If you take care of the blue collar workers, big business loses. She essentially has to lie to somebody because somebody's not going to get his back scratched as promised in the end.
But in looking out for the GOOD, there are no losers because everyone has a stake in that - even if it costs some groups financially in the short run.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Why There's No Chance for Clinton
Forget about the math - which is reason enough - but I think fundamentally, Clinton can't win because I refuse to live in a world where that's possible. It just won't be brought into being in my reality. Period.
I refuse it. I reject AND denounce it.
And I think a lot of people feel the same way.
It was depressing to be sure when Bush won the 2004 election, but it's not like anyone had much hope for improvement under John Kerry. In this case, to have genuine optimism taken away for what - a petty, dishonest politician of the worst kind - it's an indignity that my world view would not permit.
It's also why the Clintons and the democratic party have no idea what's coming to them if they botch this - the party will cease to exist because enough people know the difference here.
I refuse it. I reject AND denounce it.
And I think a lot of people feel the same way.
It was depressing to be sure when Bush won the 2004 election, but it's not like anyone had much hope for improvement under John Kerry. In this case, to have genuine optimism taken away for what - a petty, dishonest politician of the worst kind - it's an indignity that my world view would not permit.
It's also why the Clintons and the democratic party have no idea what's coming to them if they botch this - the party will cease to exist because enough people know the difference here.
The Fundamental Difference Between Obama and Clinton
Obama's candidacy is fundamentally different from Clinton's because it has vision; she merely has tactics. That's why he's able to give a speech like that in response to the Wright flap, and she's unable to come clean about Iraq. Speaking to the American people honestly is part of that vision, irrespective of whether it ultimately was the most sound tactical move. (Many have argued that throwing Reverend Wright under the bus would have been smarter politically).
The other reason Clinton can't come clean on the war is that it's not the "yes" vote that's dirty, but the motivation. Remember, she didn't even read the intelligence report. And it's not because she was too busy - what could possibly be a higher priority than that? It was because the content of the intelligence report would only be relevant for someone trying to get the vote *right*. She was trying to seem tough on national security. So how can she repudiate the vote? She'd have to admit that she should have read the report and address why she didn't.
So we have a clear choice - pick a candidate who will do his best to get things right, or pick one who will be playing the political game. Sometimes the two overlap, and even Clinton will take action resembling public service. But the vote on the Iraq war was an instance in which they diverged with particularly tragic consequences. There will be other such instances.
Obama should rout McCain - a weak candidate who's not even particularly liked by his own party and who's running to continue the policies of the worst and least popular president in American history. It would be much easier if Clinton put aside her petty ambitions in the interest of the democratic party, but someone's going to have to convince her why that's a smart tactic.
The other reason Clinton can't come clean on the war is that it's not the "yes" vote that's dirty, but the motivation. Remember, she didn't even read the intelligence report. And it's not because she was too busy - what could possibly be a higher priority than that? It was because the content of the intelligence report would only be relevant for someone trying to get the vote *right*. She was trying to seem tough on national security. So how can she repudiate the vote? She'd have to admit that she should have read the report and address why she didn't.
So we have a clear choice - pick a candidate who will do his best to get things right, or pick one who will be playing the political game. Sometimes the two overlap, and even Clinton will take action resembling public service. But the vote on the Iraq war was an instance in which they diverged with particularly tragic consequences. There will be other such instances.
Obama should rout McCain - a weak candidate who's not even particularly liked by his own party and who's running to continue the policies of the worst and least popular president in American history. It would be much easier if Clinton put aside her petty ambitions in the interest of the democratic party, but someone's going to have to convince her why that's a smart tactic.
Stop The Monsters
It shocks me that anyone can support Hillary Clinton for president when we so urgently need a genuine leader and credible human being in that job after eight disastrous years. I can understand the frightened superdelegates who fear for their jobs if they jump ship - it's cowardly and despicable - but I can at least understand why they are fearful. But Americans who listen to the candidates, observe their demeanor, the way they carry themselves, the way their campaigns are run, the people who manage them - I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they could be for Clinton.
I also can't understand what Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Edwards and Harry Reid are waiting for. Do you want to give Clinton two more months to sling dirt on the best candidate you've had in 50 years, or do you want to exercise some judgment and courage and endorse the person who has a chance to win in November, and much more importantly, will sincerely undertake the monumental task of setting America back on the right course?
Because in the end, the democratic (or republican) party only has importance insofar as it benefits America generally. If you're not going to show the minimal courage to do the obvious here, what relevance do you really have to America's citizens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
