Just some kid from the Chicago suburbs that moved to the southwest, went to law school, and ended up confronted with shifting ideals. My thoughts...boring and unedited.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

disappointment in obama, franken’s fraud, misrepresented founders, and NAFTA...

obama has now officially denounced rev. wright...and I, for one, am deeply disappointed. originally, obama took the high road, and pointed out that while a few statements made during a lengthy and thought provoking sermon on the history of american violence against peoples (and, since nobody bothers to check, the famous "chickens coming home to roost" line - he stole it from former ambassador edward peck - and was followed immediately by "violence begets violence. hatred begets hatred. terrorism begets terrorism." and by the way, he referred began the sermon by noting that the events of 9/11 were unthinkable acts. all I'm saying, is read the full thing...it is one hell of a sermon). when obama did that I began to truly believe that this man may be the one to get us back on the right track. and then politics happened...and obama bought into the conservative bullshit personal smear campaign way of politics, and he did everything he could to distance himself from a highly educated, articulate, intelligent, and honest man. I understand that obama needs to watch his back, I understand that he is concerned about appearing to crackers like myself as an angry black man. but I so wanted him to force the dialogue that rev. wright was rightfully asking us to have with ourselves...the dialogue we should have had on 9/12/01 - how do we respond? we didn't have that conversation then...and look what happened.

turns out al franken is a fraud. the man skipped taxes in 17 states. it is difficult to continue liking a guy who makes a shit-ton of money and then rails against how unfair things are for the little guy when he doesn't pay even his unfair share. franken's excuse - my accountant did it. but al...why did you tell your accountant to minimize your taxes when you weren't struggling? at least tell us you didn't want your tax dollars going to a war machine and a justice system that is in the wrong. give us something to go on here...because when taxes are killing most of us, you skipping out on taxes that are several times the salary of many of the people who's votes you want is forehead slapping stupid.

how is it that conservative schmucks get away with claiming they represent the ideals of the founding generation? I suppose it helps that they have dismantled the public education system (seen as a key to a healthy democracy by the founding generation) and nobody knows the history of this country anymore (at least not if you are from here...elsewhere they know all too well). mass demonstrations, riots, town halls, democracy in action - that is what birthed the american revolution. (and you lefty folks...sorry do disappoint, but the revolution wasn't just rich white men...there were a lot of regular ass folk involved, still white, but regular ass folk). the constitution? curbing state power, protecting individual rights, providing for a massive federal government capable of protecting the "general welfare." the declaration of independence? life, liberty and property became life, liberty and happiness. it has convinced me that there must be a history test for all persons running for office, and especially for appellate and supreme court judgeships. but I wonder who could pass it...we teach early american history wrong and we never get to the part of american history where economic equality and the New Deal turned this nation into the giant of the world. put down the remote, stop hunting for nude pictures of billy ray's 15 year old daughter, and pick up a fucking book.

while NAFTA is a disaster, we're not looking to enter into similar agreements everywhere (if we haven't already). (quick dig here...al gore was not, nor will he ever be, the savior of the democratic party...he sold out his "environmentalist" convictions for big business dollars...he sold out the working man not only in this nation, but everywhere, for big business dollars. al gore is a shitbag...but I digress). we're americans...we take pride in how we go balls to the wall in everything (remember how conservatives always tell us the reason we couldn't subdue an insurgency in vietnam was because we didn't go balls to the wall?) - it took out hitler and the rising sun (along with a few million civilian casualties)...it got our asses to the moon. so why did we half ass a trade agreement? why is it that only rich folks money is free to move across the borders? why aren't laborers entitled to the same "freedom"? could it be because then the rich folks money swirling around might make them only disgustingly rich instead of ungodly rich? could it be because they prop up politicians, even "down home democrats" named clinton? enough pussy-footin' around this bullshit. repeal it altogether or do it the american way - balls to the wall. open the damn borders, bring canada and mexico into a true union.

I was born in an abundance of inherited sadness...

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The Conservative Movement Lied to You [updated]...

As primaries approach here in New Mexico and every single congressional seat seems up for grabs, I was reminded of a favorite topic of mine from times past. Steve Pearce is likely going to put an end to that hack Heather Wilson (sorry Pete, but when your anointed one can barely get past Patsy Madrid, it is a sign that her political career is done) and then will give Tom Udall the fight of his life. But in the meantime, Pearce and Wilson are at each other's throats on who is the "real conservative" or who is the "common sense conservative." All of this amuses me, because conservatives have destroyed this country...and why anyone would brag about being a member of the movement that ended the grand experiment is beyond me (unless they happen to be filthy rich and like getting filthier rich). We been stuck under the thumb of conservative leadership since Reagan conned (pun intended) the American people into believing that the founding documents of this country did not mean what they said in plain english, and the party of Lincoln abandoned that which its grandfather held dear in direct contradiction to its early platforms. After the actor turned destroyer of liberty, we were given a Bush that was not quite as crazy, a Clinton that sold out the greatest accomplishment of his party, the New Deal, and the boy king, who sold this nation to a few very, very rich friends. Now the country is slowly awakening to the reality of the situation, that conservatism and moving to the right has destroyed the fabric of this nation.

The conservative movement betrayed their promises to the American people. The big business elite which lead the way lied to you in order to garner more for themselves while leaving the American people holding a bag full of nothing but empty promises while their neighborhoods deteriorate, their homes crumble if the banks have not taken them away, their schools fail their children, their families go without medicine, their wages are frozen, and their tax burden far beyond their fair share. It is time for the American people to reclaim that which is rightfully their's. It is time for this country to once again return to the American tradition of progress towards greater protection of individual liberty and freedom through protections against the actions of the conservative elite and their big business cronies which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people.

The conservative elite told you tax breaks for their big business cohorts would help your family. They told you giving more money back to Big Business would mean it would be reinvested in you. They told you it would mean more jobs for your neighborhood, that more money for the big whigs running the company meant they would voluntarily choose to provide health care for you. But now you look around and you wonder when that investment, your investment, in the elite will make it's way down to you. You look at your paycheck and notice the numbers have not increased in years while your cost of living has shot up well beyond the measly few hundred bucks the government gave you in an attempt to buy your acquiscence into the conservative elite handing back much bigger checks to their big business friends. You see your paycheck covering less and less every month while they vote themselves raise after raise to coincide with the money given back to their big business friends. You look at your children and realize they still go without proper medical care while they are now on a free lunch program at school. Yet you look at proven economics, which provides a living wage to working people and the growth and boon that it brings to communities and that it brought to this nation from the New Deal until the conservative disaster. You figure it is common sense that rich people with more money will save it, while the rest of us will spend it, creating more opportunity, more jobs, more growth, and a more stable society. All the while, that huge check that the conservative elite gave to their big business friends went directly in someone else's bank account or sent overseas. And you are left holding the tab.

They told you they would get you off the welfare rolls and onto the employment rolls. Only now there is nowhere to go when you are laid off and your children are hungry and the electricity is turned off because the only training they gave you was for a job at Walmart, and then they told Walmart it does not have to pay you the full value of your work, and it does not have to allow democracy into the workplace. And they repealed the protections which secured your right to free assembly and balanced the power between you and the fat cats in the penthouse office making 430 times your salary. And in the meantime, your children are sick and there is nothing you can do but get in line for hours at the emergency room of the one not-for-profit hospital left in your state because the big business you are stuck working for after all the small businesses in the neighborhood were forced to shut their doors will not spend a miniature portion of their record profits to provide you with basic health benefits and the plethora of hospitals which used to accept all now only cater to the wealthy.

They told you they were looking out for the American worker when they spent your paycheck to "get tough" on undocumented workers crossing the border in search of a better life. They told you they were looking out for you and trying to make sure that American jobs went to Americans. But then you wonder why the factory in your town is shutting down after some elite big whig decided to send those jobs overseas, even after his big tax break. And you wonder why it is perfectly fine for capital to cross borders and transfer between the elite, but workers and jobs cannot follow suit. Then, as the last factory in the state closes its doors, you watch in disbelief as they line up yet another trade "agreement" in which Big Business and the conservatives agree on one thing, that the American Dream needs to be crushed.

They told you the economy was going great, they told you to just look at the record high stock market. You wonder, if the economy was so strong, why did my pay not keep up with inflation? Why did the stock prices increase and record profits for the giant corporations run by big business elite who fund the conservative policies and translate into your taking on a second and third job to try and maintain a basic existence which your parents took for granted? If stock prices rise they tell you it will mean more money for more jobs for your community and for raises in your pay and for health care to you and your family. Only when the stock market explodes, your pay decreased, and your health care and pension disappeared, and the fat cats salaries exploded. And again, you are left holding the tab.

They tell you they are solving the problems with your failing schools. They tell you they will leave no child behind. But you look around and see that every child in your neighborhood school is being left behind, and the answer of the conservative elite was to take even more of the already incredibly limited resources out of the school. They tell you the solution is to privatize education, even though when America took over as ground zero for technological and scientific advancement every state in the nation offered a college education, free of charge. And while they tell you privatizing education is the answer, you look around and see tuition at private colleges sky-rocketing well beyond the reach of your family and you wonder how it is possible that higher tuition rates at your neighborhood schools until only the richest of the rich can afford even a sub-par education will in any way, shape or form benefit your community.

They told you bankrupty laws needed to be altered because too many were taking advantage of the system. But after the accident at the job left you hospitalized, an accident which you cannot get relief from because they repealed your protections as a worker and your employer quit providing medical insurance even after those huge tax breaks he received, you find yourself completely unable to pay the bills. And the bankrupty judge tells you you still must pay the giant corporation that now owns you because it provided the credit (at 30 percent) to pay for the hospital stay which your employer and the conservative elite running the show refused to help with, every single penny. And then, just when you thought everything would be alright because your pension would be there to support your family even if workman's comp was off the table, you find out that the bankruptcy judge did not tell the big business that refused to pay for your health care the same he told you. No, the big business elite declared bankruptcy and took your pension away before combining with even bigger business, and the conservative elite that was running the show made off with his golden parachute and a few million more of your tax dollars.

They told you they would give you a prescription drug plan. Only you look at the three-inch thick "choice" you have and realize you have no ability to take advantage of any of it. You look at the prices of your medicine and realize that you are paying much more now than you ever were before, and that after spending your life paying into the system you are not getting your money's worth. The plan they offered gave drug companies huge profits, and you are left catching a bus to Mexico or Canada so you can afford your pills.

They tell you that government involvement in your health care would be "disastrous socialized medicine." But you look at your foreign friends stuck in such a frightening system and notice that they are healthier than you, that they do not have to wait to see the doctor as long as you, and that they are living longer than you - all for half the cost. And you wonder what kind of a "disaster" causes better health, less expensive care, more access to doctors, and longer life expectancies.

They tell you they are giving you clean air. But you hear your children coughing through the night and wheezing as they try and play through the smog that the conservative elite told their big business friends not to worry about cleaning up. You see the bills for your children's asthma medicine pile up, and you wonder how you will pay for it after the corporation you work for cut your medical benefits, even after the ownership received a fat check from the conservative elite's tax breaks.

They tell you if you just work hard and persevere you will get ahead. And so you went out and got the only job left in the neighborhood after their big business friend took the factory overseas. You work hard every day to put food on the table and a roof over your family's head because you believe that in America, if you work hard, you will be taken care of. But then they tell big business not to give you fair pay for a fair day's work, and they wink and nod as the company harrasses you and your coworkers for trying to bring your freedom of association and democracy back to the work place.

They told you they were going to bring personal responsibility and morals back to Washington and the White House. But they brought you child molesters heading their efforts to protect children, conservative elite walking around K Street pocketing millions while paying off congressman with million dollar golf trips overseas, the truth being covered up while the nation is sent to war, and the rights of voters trampled as the conservative elite applaud the efforts. All the while every one of them plays pass the buck, refusing to own up to any mistakes, refusing to take personal responsibility for anything, refusing to own up to their own moral shortcomings.

They told you they support the troops. But you wonder why your son, your daughter, your brother, your sister, your mother, or your father had to go into combat without proper protection, even as billions are ciphoned into the hands of the big business friends of the elite in the White House. You wonder why, after all that has gone wrong, the only option they have to offer is to stick it out to avoid losing face. You wonder if they will build another wall on the national mall and put your loved one's name next to thousands more and try to call it even.

They said they were making a "Contract with America." Only they did not fill you in on a little secret of contract law, that contractual obligations can be avoided if doing so is profitable for business. And at every turn, when it has been good for the big business friends of the conservative elite, they have avoided their obligations to the American people.

Life, liberty and happiness...they are your god-given rights. They require the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391 (1937). They require the government to have your back. The conservative movement would rather the government step all over it. They lied to you, and you let them. Tell them no more.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Is she seriously this oblivious?

The following is a column by Toby Harnden of Britain's Telegraph. (Yes, I've been too lazy to make my own observations as of late, I'm tired, and I'm getting in shape, so suck it up - besides, when a column opens with an Apollo Creed reference and then spirals into I'll-bite-your-kneecaps-off, how can you not share?)

Hillary Clinton can't see that it's over


By Toby Harnden in Chicago

Which movie is Hillary Clinton? In Pennsylvania, she liked to compare herself to Rocky, before it was pointed out that the plucky pugilist eventually lost to the black guy, Apollo Creed.

Her supporters also like The Comeback Kid, for the title, if not the plot about a minor league baseball coach.

Back in January - which seems like aeons ago in this extraordinary Democratic race - I thought she might be the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction, who kept springing from the bath to confront Barack Obama (played by Michael Douglas) every time you thought she was dead.

Far less charitably, the blogger Andrew Sullivan has compared the former First Lady to the girl in Carrie whose hand emerges from the grave, and even the horror-movie stalwarts Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street) or Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th), who terrorise beautiful teenage Obama supporters and refuse to die.

But after the former First Lady's nine-point win in Pennsylvania, I'm convinced the "epic movie now on final reel", as yesterday's Chicago Tribune put it, without plumping for a particular title, is in fact Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Or, more precisely, the scene in which Arthur - the Obama character - confronts the Black Knight (Hillary), lops off his arm and declares: "Now stand aside, worthy adversary."

But the Black Knight, like Hillary, refuses to succumb, declaring "'tis but a scratch" and it's "just a flesh wound" as Arthur dismembers him. "I'm invincible!" the Black Knight, by this point just a torso, declares finally. "The Black Knight always triumphs… I'll bite your legs off!"

Hillary is in this race until - as her husband, Bill, likes to put it - "the last dog dies". She won in Pennsylvania, but by every yardstick she faces virtually insurmountable odds in her quest to win the Democratic nomination that the Clintons consider theirs by right.

What would have been a series of fatal blows for any other candidate was delivered by Obama back in February when he cruised to 11 wins after holding Clinton to a score draw on Super Tuesday on February 5.

Her strategy had always been to wrap up the nomination that day and she had no plan for the weeks afterwards. Capitalising on his prodigious fund-raising, legions of young supporters and far-sighted grassroots operations in remote states, Obama swept the board.

Despite the howls of indignation from the Clintons about a collective media swoon over Obama, the press - as well as the Democratic Party - gave them the benefit of the doubt.

If the roles had been reversed, the establishment pressure on Obama to drop out for the sake of party unity would have been almost unstoppable.

Use of the plural when contemplating Hillary's candidacy is not a cheap jibe. As this race has gone on, it has become clear that this is a co-campaign, just as, presumably, it would be a co-presidency if Mrs Clinton returned to the White House in 2009 or even 2013 - a more realistic goal for her.

They have a dysfunctional marriage - they see other a handful of times a month as they campaign separately in different states - but politically they are as one, if not always quite in sync.

The reasons why they fight so tenaciously might not be the same. For Bill, it is redemption and salvaging his legacy; for Hillary, it is payback for the years of humiliation and her loyal support. But they are both "in it to win it", as Clinton said - and boy, did she mean it - at the outset.

In their desperation to win, however, the Clintons might well end up destroying themselves - like the Black Knight, who refuses to step aside when mortally wounded - and fatally damaging their party's chances against John McCain, the Republican nominee, in November.

Already, they've injected a subplot worthy of The Godfather into the contest. Bill Richardson, who was given two cabinet posts by Bill Clinton, was denounced as a Judas for backing Obama.

Similarly, the Clintons are said to refuse to speak to Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, also in the Obama camp, because two years ago she remarked of Bill: "I don't want my daughter near him."

A Clinton aide said John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, was "dead to us" because he'd publicly criticised the former president.

In trying to defeat Obama by falling back on conservative white voters, the Clintons have alienated black voters by playing the race card.

Clinton has also branded the liberal activists who defended her husband during impeachment as zealots who "flooded" caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters.

In appealing to conservative voters by threatening, on the eve of Pennsylvania, a nuclear attack against Iran, she further alienated anti-war groups.

With Hillary's coffers almost empty, a Clinton victory could be achieved only by a top-down coup d'état in which super-delegates are cajoled into overturning the will of Democratic voters.

Party leaders feel this would an unthinkable - and suicidal - thing to do to their first black nominee for the White House.

The end of the movie is apparent to all but the Clintons. For the Democratic Party, this is turning into Night of the Living Dead.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

a woman's bitterness toward’s hillary’s bullshit...

The following is a column by Tom Hayden of the Nation. I will never understand why so-called "liberals" ever look up to this woman...vagina or no.


Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream

by TOM HAYDEN

[posted online on April 22, 2008]

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.

It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore.

At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an antiwar force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus.

But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.

Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.

To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are.

To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.

Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.

where's Morrow when you need him?

The following is a column from the New Yorker (online edition) by Hendrik Hertzberg. It is a spot-on indictment of the despicable tactics, supported by Clinton and the "liberal" media, that have poisoned our politics.

You (Really) Don't Need a Weatherman

On the magazine's Campaign Trail podcast, recorded the morning after last Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, I sputtered that the attempt to hang William Ayers around Barack Obama's neck was "McCarthyism." But I didn't get a chance to elaborate, either on the podcast or in this week's Comment.

McCarthyism is a term rarely heard since the Cold War ended, but, like "red-baiting," it used to get tossed around on the left entirely too loosely during the nineteen-sixties and seventies. There were those who failed to understand that it's not red-baiting to point out that a person is a Communist—if that person really is a Communist. McCarthyism is a little more complicated. It wasn't McCarthyism to deny a government worker who was a member of the Communist Party access to classified materials. It wasn't McCarthyism for the A.C.L.U. to bar Communists from membership. It wasn't McCarthyism to fire a person from a public-school teaching job for being a Communist if that person was using his or her position to propagandize to students. Similarly, it wasn't McCarthyism to call somebody a "Communist sympathizer" if that somebody sympathized with the salient features of Communism, such as one-party rule, totalitarian repression of alternative opinions, the abolition of civil liberties, and murderous gulags. But it was, and is, McCarthyism to try to comprehensively ruin a person's life solely because that person was once a Communist (or a Fascist, or a racist, or a radical Islamist)—or even if that person is still a whatever-ist but doesn't actually do anything about it.

The central feature of McCarthyism, however, was accusing people of being Communists or Communist sympathizers who were not, in fact, either. And one of Senator Joseph McCarthy's favorite evidentiary techniques for carrying out this particular form of character assassination was "guilt by association."

Guilt by association is another tricky term. The Communist Party is an association, and being a member of that association does indeed makes you guilty of being a Communist. A garden club is also an association. But being in a garden club with a Communist doesn't make you a Communist. And being in a garden club with an ex-Communist doesn't even make you an ex-Communist.

Which brings us to William Ayers.

The relevant facts:

1. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were prominent members of the Weather Underground nearly forty years ago, when Barack Obama was a child. They are now, respectively, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and an associate professor of law at Northwestern. They long ago abandoned the political ideas they supported in their youth, which speaks well for them, but they never acknowledged that those ideas were mindless and vicious, which does not. They live in the same Chicago neighborhood as Obama.

2. When Obama first ran for state senator, in 1995, the incumbent he hoped to replace introduced him to Ayers and Dohrn at a social gathering in their home. Ayers later donated two hundred dollars to his campaign fund.

3. For three years, ending in 2002, Ayers and Obama were both on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a local foundation that gives grants to anti-poverty and arts programs. Ayers is still on the board, which currently has nine members, mostly bankers, lawyers, academics, and businesspeople.

4. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama ever sympathized with the politics of the Weather Underground, and there is overwhelming evidence (read his books) that he didn't and doesn't.

McCarthyism is not a charge to be levelled lightly. Even so, I conclude from these facts that attacking Obama because of his "association with" Ayers constitutes McCarthyism. Any uncertainty on this point disappears when one considers that George Stephanopoulos, who should have known better, justified making an "issue" of that association by telling Obama that it came under the heading of "the general theme of patriotism in your relationships."

Obama has never served on any corporate boards. Hillary Clinton, however, was a member of the board of Wal-Mart for six years, ending in 1992, when her husband ran for President. Her service on the board coincided with that of John Tate, who summed up his views on labor relations as follows: "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off of the productive labor of people who work for a living." These views were not youthful follies, left behind long before Tate joined the board. On the contrary, they reflected the long-held attitudes of Wal-Mart itself, which has been credibly accused of fighting unionization with such nominally illegal tactics as firing union supporters and spying on employees.

Although, according to the New York Times, Clinton "largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions," she did use her position to push for the advancement of women employees and for the company to improve its environmental profile. These facts are in keeping with her reputation as a moderate reformer. Unlike the Ayers-Obama "association," they are at least arguably relevant to what sort of President we might end up with.


I'm ready...I'm willing...

Monday, April 21, 2008

more forehead smacking despair...

Bitter Patter

by Hendrik Hertzberg April 28, 2008

Last Wednesday's two-hour televised smackdown in Philadelphia between the two remaining Democratic candidates for President, which might have been billed as the Élite Treat v. the Boilermaker Belle, turned into something worse—something akin to a federal crime. Call it the case of the Walt Disney Company v. People of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and of the United States, for that matter). Seldom has a large corporation so heedlessly inflicted so much civic damage in such a short space of time.

None of the other debates had been models of philosophic rigor. But, right from the start, there were clues that the sponsor of this one—ABC News, a part of the ABC network, which is owned by Disney—might establish new benchmarks of degradation. After brief opening statements from the candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, ABC immediately cut to an advertisement for a cell-phone company. A commercial? Already? Were candidates for President of the United States being used as teasers?

After the break, one of ABC's moderators, Charles Gibson, asked Clinton and Obama to "pledge now" that whichever of them wins the Presidential nomination take the runner-up as his or her running mate. ABC put on the screen a solemn quote from the Constitution (they were at the National Constitution Center, get it?)—the bit where it says, "In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President."

It happens that this part of the Constitution was scrapped after the election of 1800. It should no more be cited as evidence of the framers' wisdom than should the equally defunct passage calling for "three fifths of all other Persons"—i.e., slaves—to count toward congressional apportionment. It also happens that Gibson's question was not only premised on nonsense but also profoundly unhelpful, because the only answers it could elicit would be both predictable and substance-free. And so they were.

If Gibson and his partner, George Stephanopoulos, had halted their descent at the level of the fatuous, that would have been bad enough. But there was worse to come. In the seven weeks since the previous Clinton-Obama debate, the death toll of American troops in Iraq had reached four thousand; the President had admitted that his "national-security team," including the Vice-President, had met regularly in the White House to approve the torture of prisoners; house repossessions topped fifty thousand per month and unemployment topped five per cent; and the poll-measured proportion of Americans who believe that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track" hit eighty-one per cent, a record. Yet for most of the next hour Gibson and Stephanopoulos limited their questioning to the following topics: Obama's April 6th remark about "bitter" small-towners; whether each candidate thinks the other can win; the Obama family's ex-pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.; Clinton's tale of sniper fire in Bosnia; Obama's failure to wear a flag lapel pin; and Obama's acquaintance with a college professor in his Chicago neighborhood who, while Obama was in grade school, was a member of the Weather Underground. And the problem wasn't just the questions' subject matter, or the fact that all but the last had been thoroughly raked over already; it was their moral and intellectual vacuity. "Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" That was Stephanopoulos. (His follow-up: "But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?") The idea was to force Obama either to denigrate Wright's patriotism or to equate it with his own. Obama's exasperation showed, though he slipped the trap by pointing to Wright's service in the Marines. One question—"I want to know if you believe in the American flag"—was apparently beneath the dignity of even Gibson and Stephanopoulos, so ABC hunted up a purportedly typical voter to ask it on videotape.

Still, it wasn't ABC's fault that Obama's demeanor was as listless as the assembled journalists and spinners (for both sides) judged it to be. His mind was engaged—that much is clear if one reads the transcript, in which the match is noticeably more even than it was on the screen—but his spirit was absent. His opponent, by contrast, was sharp and alert, missing no opportunity to press the lines of attack that the moderators helpfully opened up.

Obama was coming off a harrowing week that was of his own making. No one had forced him to say, of people whose "jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years," that "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." That he said this at an off-the-record fund-raiser in San Francisco amplified the gaffe. But the context (there was one) is worth noting. Obama was arguing that his trouble with part of the "white working class" is not fundamentally racial:



Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by—it's true that when it's delivered by a forty-six-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

From 1972 onward, Republicans have successfully deployed the trope of "élitism" against every Democratic opponent except the two winners, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. But this year it has been deployed Democrat-on-Democrat, with Hillary Clinton accusing Obama not just of élitism but also of being condescending and demeaning. Obama was not saying that people acquire religious belief on account of worldly troubles. He was saying that when such troubles appear insurmountable the already religious seek comfort and help from a higher power. Hillary Clinton must know this. Surely she remembers that when her husband's sex scandals threatened the survival of his Presidency and their marriage, the Clintons summoned the clergy (including, by the way, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright).

Hillary Clinton explained her culture-war assault on Obama by saying that the "issue" in question is bound to be one "that certainly the Republicans will be raising" (though that hardly justifies inviting them to do so with her imprimatur). Clinton portrays herself as a seasoned survivor of the worst that the Republican attack machine can dish out. She has been relatively unrestrained in her battle with Obama, but he has had one hand tied behind him in his battle with her. He cannot mention many of her biggest general-election vulnerabilities, most of which involve her husband's Administration, the awkward role that he might play in her own, and the potential conflicts of interest posed by the funding of his charitable and commercial activities. Bill Clinton remains popular among Democrats, if not as popular as he used to be. Anyway, all-out attack would undermine the unifying theme of Obama's campaign.

Obama's argument is that he represents a new kind of politics; Clinton's is that she can practice the old kind more expertly. John McCain will have plenty of allies and outriders eager to wield the blades sharpened in the campaigns of George W. Bush and Karl Rove. But McCain—whose sense of honor, however selective, is real—shows few signs of wishing to take up those weapons himself. Barring a much, much bigger than expected Clinton victory in this week's Pennsylvania primary, Obama will face McCain in the fall. At least at the candidate-to-candidate level, hope and experience will square off at last. The battle might even be about ideas.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

this must be a joke...

last night was an embarrassment to the nation...two purportedly serious journalists gave us an hour of "you can't be president if you don't degrade the flag by wearing it as clothing" and "I dare you to say the other one can't win the job." this was a pathetic indictment of the national media and a flashing red light of the problems inherent in our system. we require informed citizenry...and these fucking bozos continue to do everything they can to keep us from being informed...

how is it that a democratic primary debate is solely focused on uber-conservative rovian talking points? I guess its the liberal media...

hillary said the story she told a few times about being under sniper fire in bosnia was not as she knew the truth to be...where I come from, we call that lying...

and I come from the same neighborhoods as you mrs. clinton...and your family moved out as soon as your old stomping grounds became known for the influx of darker skinned folks into the suburbs...and I'm supposed to believe a black son of a single white mother in kansas is an elitist?

it is so refreshing to hear from a serious democrat politician that the clinton years were not good...and the "liberals" are finally starting to realize that bill clinton was the most effective republican president the conservative movement could have hoped for...

how do people not jump all over hillary for suggesting obama is a problem because he served as an unpaid member of the board of a philanthropic organization designed to assist poverty stricken neighborhoods in chicago? working to promote civic values and employment and assistance to those in need, the bastard. good god...why would any self-respecting democrat want to support a man that actually worked to help those in poverty rather than giving them "free" trade?

her point is all the more amusing considering her service to walmart...yup, way to go hillary...

I still cannot understand how self-proclaimed feminist women look up to hillary...she quit her career for her husband's...she let a man walk all over her for decades and humiliate her in the national and world spotlight...what exactly is empowering about this?

anyone else notice how georgey and charlie made obama's point about the ludicruous and defeating nature of our "politics" over and over again?

the supremes upheld lethal injenction 7 to 2...but they couldn't agree on why. immediately thereafter they all met with the pope for dinner. think about that for a minute...

white folks are still mad about rev. wright giving the sermon MLK would be giving if her were still alive (note, as soon as MLK began to move in that direction, some white folk shot him). how many of them are fawning over the pope being in town? now how many of them took note when the pope said the american promise and dream has never been fulfilled for indians and blacks? german guy says it, fine. black man says it, uproar.

hillary again claimed she would not have chosen wright as her pastor. I so badly wanted obama to state the obvious - she wouldn't because the woman wouldn't be caught dead on chicago's south side. us cracker suburbanites only go to the south side is to get to the united center...and then you roll up the windows and lock the doors. that way it is easy to ignore how much pain ending welfare as we know it has caused...and who brought us that - yup, clinton.

if I'm a pennsylvanian this morning I am really, really pissed off. charlie and georgey didn't do shit to address a damn thing I give a shit about. but at least I know who will wear the flag as clothing...

of course I am also aware that charlie is very concerned about whether people making thirteen times, or only ten times, more than myself will get hit with taxes...thanks chuck, I've been concerned as to how in god's name people making $200,000 a year are to get by if their taxes go up a little bit...

never mind that I just paid a quarter of my income in taxes...and I can assure you I make only a fraction of that $200,000...

and what do I get for throwing my money at a government that has been run by conservatives in the white house since carter? I get to spend an equal share on insurance and can still never afford to go to the doctor or get in an accident. I get no peace of mind whatsoever. I get to sleep tight with the knowledge that if disaster strikes, I am on my own and out on the street without any help from society.

but at least I can put a few more X's on the wall for arabs killed with my money...

and on that note...I will return to my shame at the state of our "democracy" - thank god we have a responsible press corp to play the vital role in an engaged democracy...without them I might actually have hope...

this town needs a fire...

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

speaking to my bitterness and clintonian destruction...

more holier-than-thou outrage from the queen of elitism herself about obama hitting the nail on the head in noting that struggling americans are bitter over the government's continued and lengthy record of ignoring their situation. in jumping on the karl rove bandwagon, clinton (the 10 million dollar a year, born and raised in the northwest suburbs of chicago after white flight turned them cracker, hasn't been in touch with reality in 30 years former first lady) declared that obama (the raised by a single mother and grandparents, lived in indonesia with kids that ran around barefoot for lack of shoes, organizer from one of the most depressed areas in the country) is an "elitist" and out of touch with small town america. forget the fact that clinton is the embodiment of elitism in this country (white, wealthy, ivy league educated, on walmart's board, etc.) and that the only way she could possible win the nomination is through elites overriding the will of the people, and that it is highly amusing that anyone could accuse a black man of being an "elitist" in this country...what he said is true.

what clinton and mccain don't want you to know is what else obama said. they don't want his comments in context, because it shows that he knows exactly what is going on in small town america. "you go into some of these small towns in pennsylvania, a lot of them - 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've gone through the clinton administration [for which hillary takes credit as "experience"], and the bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not." and as things keep getting worse even a democrat is resorting to the karl rove way of politics - divide and conquer. and it is disgusting to someone like me, an "elitist" in the making...

I was born in the suburb next to where hillary grew up. I know what life is like there, I know that it is a shock if you don't go to college from that neighborhood, even 40 years ago. I know that even today the area hates when brown folk move in and couch it in terms of warning about "deteriorating schools" and "crime rates." I know how ridiculously classist the area is and how much of an insane running start you get on life if you are lucky enough to be born into that. and I used that running start to get a degree, and then a j.d. I'm a white male from the chicago suburbs with a professional degree and a white collar job...and it is nearly impossible for me to get by. student loans, housing, insurance, food, and car payments (necessitated by the lack of any semblance of reliable public transit in my town) damn near take my entire paycheck...and I had every advantage. if I am bitter that I did what I was supposed to do, and had such a blessed head start, I can only imagine how frustrating it is to start from behind...and to be ignored by your government all the while.

and this is what obama was saying...that too many of us have been ignored by the government and pandered to on issues that, while important, will never keep the roof over our head, or the food on the table, or the kid's medicine in the cabinet. and too many of us have decided that all we will get from our leaders is promises on those issues, and have tried to face that in the wealthiest society ever, we just won't be getting our piece of the pie. and as our wages continue to slide, our bills continue to mount. gas prices continue to soar while the government refuses to induce car makers to do what we all know they can - make an efficient car. our grocery bills seem to raise every week, and we choose between food or medicine. our insurance rates skyrocket while our CEOs pocket our pensions. and the government continues to tell us about the jobs that globalization has created, jobs that pay less and require more. and yet too many are out of work, are putting off retirement indefinitely, are unable to receive an education, are despondent, are struggling, and simply cannot, no matter how much hard work they put in, close the gap.

and clinton knows this...her husband said the same thing about struggling people when he ran in 1992 - only he was pointing out what we all know, that the true elitists are the ones that continue to ignore our plight and refuse to talk to, and provide an answer for, our frustration without pointing it towards gays and mexicans and muslims. and that is why so many young people have flocked to obama...not only does he get it, but he will say it.

and yet hillary continues to divide us in the hopes that she can convince her party elites (the irony) that we are fools and that she knows what is best. and there are plenty I am sure that will listen...but to them I offer this warning.

you have an opportunity to grab voters like myself...with a good 40 years of voting ahead of me. you have an opportunity to earn my allegiance for a lifetime and transform the electorate in your favor and to the left for generations. but if you fuck me now...I will never forget and I will never forgive. and I, along with the millions more like me, will not think twice about throwing you aside. and you will have squandered a golden opportunity. and we will all be the worse off for it.

hillary...stop. if there is even one bone in your body that desires what is best for your country, your party and the world...stop.

Reverse Snobbery...

The following is a column by Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune published in today's edition.

Reverse Snobbery on the Campaign Trail

By Clarence Page

Why do Americans look up for people to look down on?

We Americans sometimes baffle ourselves with ambivalence toward ambition and success.

We applaud "merit," for example, yet we turn up our noses at "elitists."

We root for the little guy, yet again and again we elect the wealthy, the powerful and the insider-connected.

.. --> OAS_AD('Block'); //-->

In fact, we seem to love elites. It's the snoots we can't stand.

That's why Sen. Hillary Clinton figured she could block rival Sen. Barack Obama's momentum in their Democratic presidential nomination race by playing the "elitist" card.

She targeted some of Obama's remarks at a private fundraiser in San Francisco. As reported by Mayhill Fowler for the Huffington Post Web site, Obama was offering a candid explanation of why many residents of economically struggling industrial towns vote against their own economic interests. They "feel so betrayed by government," he said, that they don't think government is going to help them.

It's going to be a challenge, he said, "to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

With jobs disappearing over the past quarter century through Republican and Democratic administrations, Obama said, "... it's not surprising then that 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."

Voters don't like to be portrayed in downbeat terms like "bitter" and "cling." Obama, of all people, knows the value of emphasizing an optimistic, can-do spirit. His landmark "One America" speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention resonated with it. If he thought he could speak more casually at the San Francisco gathering, he was wrong.

That's why Clinton expresses shock - shock! - over his words, even though the sentiments should sound quite familiar to her.

Here, for example, is an account from the Sept. 17, 1991, Los Angeles Times of what her own husband said:

"In complaining that President (George H.W.) Bush has been exploiting the race issue to divide the Democrats, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, a probable presidential contender, said: 'The reason (Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death.'"

"As Clinton sees it," wrote Times political reporter Robert Shogan, "Bush has been telling worried white workers: You're right. I won't do anything for you. Government can't do anything for you. But at least I won't do anything to you."

Of course, Obama is more vulnerable to being labeled "out of touch" with middle-American values than Bill Clinton was. Unlike Clinton, Obama did not grow up in a small middle-American town. A description of the attitudes of mostly white factory-town voters that sounds candid when it comes from Clinton can sound condescending when it comes from Obama.

That's the argument Hillary Clinton was trying to make over the weekend. Democrats lost when John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale or George McGovern seemed to be too snooty, stuffy, wooden, remote or removed from the lives of ordinary folks. And, it must be said, Democrats won when the Clintons helped cast the elder Bush in the same aloof terms.

To underscore what a Regular Guy-Person she is, the New York senator held her own weekend blue-collar tour of regular-people places. They included a bar in northern Indiana where she was cajoled into a beer, pizza and a shot of Crown Royal, a fine Canadian whiskey. A few journalists saw a geographic irony there. Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, was forced to step down days earlier because he had been advising another client, Colombia's government, in how to win ratification of a free-trade agreement that Clinton opposes.

Trade is a tricky political issue, not only for Clinton and Obama but also for Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee. Trade brings in some fine whiskeys, among other imports, and NAFTA and other free-trade agreements have resulted in more American jobs gained than lost. But try to tell that to an unemployed worker whose vote you're trying to get.

It's a lot easier to beat up your opponent as a snob who is "divisive," "elitist," "out of touch," and not someone who "stands up for you." Clinton even rushed a TV ad onto the air by Monday afternoon. It features ordinary-looking people accusing Obama, who spent years organizing displaced steelworkers and other economically distressed folks on Chicago's South Side, of being out of touch with real people.

Obama joked Monday that Clinton must think she is "doing me a favor" by toughening him up with her attacks for a fall race against McCain. Maybe she is. In the meantime, Obama should avoid thinking aloud in so-called private meetings. For politicians in the age of YouTube, there is not much privacy left.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Hillary’s shock at being called on bullshit...

The following is a column by Dick Morris, a former Clintonite.

Hillary's Biggest Mistake

By Dick Morris

What worked for P.T. Barnum didn't do as well for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). When the great showman said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," he unknowingly anticipated the fundamental assumption that underlay the campaign of the first woman seriously to contend for the presidency. But however correct Barnum's observations may have been about the circus audiences of years ago, it has proven a flawed premise for a 21st century presidential campaign.

From the very beginning of her solo political career, Hillary Clinton has manifested a consistently low opinion of the intelligence of voters. Sometimes the bet has paid off -- as when she tried to convince New Yorkers that she wanted to become one of them (when, in fact, she would have run in Montana had there been a vacancy). But lately, it hasn't. Her entire decision to predicate her campaign on the basis of her so-called "experience" reflected a belief that she could put one over on us by co-opting Bill's experience and making it her own. So enticed was she by the prospect of attacking Obama for his lack of tenure in federal office that she didn't stop to notice that she didn't have much more than he did and could only make her point by exaggeratin g her role in her husband's administration. Small matter. She was so confident that she could pull off the deception that she premised her entire campaign on her ability to do so.

.. --> OAS_AD('Block'); //-->

In all matters but the most personal, Bill Clinton never played down to voters. His 1992 campaign mantra -- the need for a New Democrat -- addressed frankly the failures of the party for the past two decades. Facing globalization, he didn't talk down to the electorate but explained the nature of the new situation and articulated the ways in which we had to become competitive to meet it.

But Hillary always tries to put one over on us. She refused to release her financial records and tax returns and figured we'd never notice. She spoke vaguely of her sympathy with those who wanted to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and bet that the media would never force her to articulate a real position.

Hillary tried to make her insistence on mandatory health insurance the lynchpin of her differences with Obama and assumed that she would never have to explain how she would enforce it. Her campaign was funded by lobbyists -- and Obama's was not -- but she guessed that it would never become an issue. She and Bill kept dropping hints about racial issues in the campaign, but they decided nobody would call them on it.

Mrs. Clinton believed that she could support the Iraq war until moments before her presidential candidacy began and that the anti-war movement would welcome her as one of their own anyway.

The Clintons' entire approach to this campaign season was based on learning the wrong lessons from their political history. They survived the Lewinsky imbroglio, the pardons scandal, and the theft of White House gifts and assumed they were bulletproof. They confused our forgiveness with gullibility and came to feel that they could get away with anything. When Hillary won her Senate seat in New York, after Giuliani dropped out and Lazio could offer only nominal opposition, she believed she could sell voters any kind of chimera and they would fall for it.

But she assumed wrong. We saw through her claims of experience and followed her twists and turns on Iraq. We realized that she was being propped up by lobbyists and special interests as a phony brand of change. And when we saw the real kind of change offered by Obama, we backed his candidacy.

Maybe we were never quite as dumb as she thought we were.

Friday, April 11, 2008

bill admits hillary not up to task, mccain as nixon, and torture? (check one)...

bill clinton went on a rampage about how unfair the media has been to hillary...the nerve of those news types, actually calling a clinton on their bullshit. bill was all indignant about the reception that hillary's lies about her experience received from the media (rather than a pat on the back they felt it necessary to point out that the woman claiming "experience" as a feminist role model was sadly riding the coattails of her cheating pig of a husband...seriously, why do feminists like this woman?) when he was speaking in pennsylvania recently. after going on and on about how she had to go the front of the plane and some people were ready with flack jackets (apparently because the little girls with flowers might be hiding AKs) bill hit the jackpot...again. in calling out the media he wished upon them that "some of them, when they are 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night too." so there you have it...bill is admitting that hillary is old and forgetful when it gets past her bedtime. but I wonder...fuck, if she remembers phantom shots at 11 p.m., what the fuck is she going to do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.? hell, she's likely to remember phantom attacks and send the world into a nuclear holocaust.

it's the same old bullshit from hillary. she can take what the republicans will dish out because she is tough...and then she cries on the primary campaign trail. she was against NAFTA all the way...just ignore that section of her book when she says it was good for america. she's ready on day one...but she got shnookered by the bushies into voting for an unjustified war. she can answer the 3 a.m. call...but four hours earlier she was already forgetting huge life events. your time has passed...leave us alone.

mccain wants us to believe that if we just give it the ol' college try we'll win. we heard a lot of this from the likes of nixon and johnson back in the day. and here I thought we had "finally kicked vietnam syndrome." unfortunately, we now have a fuckbag that was tortured as a pow voting to allow torture and kill habeas who is telling us that we still need to kick vietnam syndrome. and we can do it too! we're americans for fuck's sake! we are invincible if we just don't accept defeat! american exceptionalism once again rears its ugly head...always seems to go hand in hand with militarism and financialization (right before the fall). heard a lot of the same shit a few decades ago...how surges will work and more firepower would end it. a long marble wall of dead kids later...we apparently still need to learn the lesson.

a CIA source has finally stepped forward and let us know what we all already knew...the bushies were heavily involved in ordering torture. we've come a long way since nuremburg haven't we? used to be, we held before the world that leaders who ordered horrible acts of deplorable inhumanity would be held accountable for the actions taken at their behest. now...we have torture demonstrations for the highest officials in government so they can give the thumbs up for them all. nevermind that their actions are a capital offense under the united states code...nevermind that anybody that knows anything about gathering information knows that torture gives you crap...nevermind that there will never be the "ticking time bomb" scenario from 24...nevermind that there was a time when we at least pretended we were above these things...they want us to believe the world changed on 9/11 (it didn't) and that we have to travel to the dark side (we don't) to prevail over our enemies (self-made and armed).

order torture and you get promoted and a nice job in the white house. get addicted to crack and you do 20 years. wonderful.

random olympic fact of the day - the united states has vastly greater numbers languishing in prison than china...even with china's massive overall population advantage. so I'm just asking...where should we direct our outrage?

it's hot in the poor places tonight...

Thursday, April 10, 2008

a rambling mind stuck in an aging body...

it is that time of year again...the lifts have stopped running as the snow levels drop quickly at taos...the cubs have returned to wrigley and realistically should be 6-2 at this point, but we’ll take 5-3...albuquerque has been hot...and I have begun my inevitable yearly pining for the city (a real city). and as time passes me by and I wish my 20’s would just be over already and let me get on with life, my brain is overloading and needs to be dumped...

hillary clinton has been telling us she will be "ready on day one" to run the country...except she can’t even run a primary campaign. her campaign is a mess and broke. here’s the thing hill - you can’t "loan" the country a few million when you fuck it up and expect everything to be ok. hillary clinton - ready to continue to run this country into the ground from day one...

anyone else noticing that the safety net for Big Business and Big Banks grows and grows and grows (and yes, I understand it is necessary) while the safety net for you and I shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. not a problem, except that when Big Business and Big Banks need continuous bailouts it can’t keep on forever, and eventually the crash happens and a few million of us get thrown out of work and out of our homes. but there won’t be any fed billions to throw at us...just a conservative scolding for not making good decisions.

tim russert got all over obama saying he didn’t want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" if they made a mistake about sex. here came the indignant "a baby is never a punishment" cries...and again the press fell right into the conservative trap and pushed their message. but that is exactly what the conservative movement thinks, even if they refuse to say it in public - for young girls that have sex they should learn a lesson by having to raise a baby. it is meant to be punishment...and that is why they hate contraception and they hate abortion. they think it lets girls and women "off the hook" for making poor decisions. so to tim russert and the rest of the media - we are sick of you feeding us conservative bullshit. and to obama - thanks for having the courage to say what we all feel.

the international olympic committee thinks that the growing protests around the torch relay are reaching a crisis. jacgues rogge, a spineless fuckbag and president of the IOC, spoke out against the protests before asking the chinese to open up a little bit. that’s the problem with giving the olympics to a country that is notorious for human rights abuses...makes me rethink whether chicago should get them.

rogge joined the chorus of fucking morons that are scared that china "will close itself off to the rest of the world, which, don’t forget, it has done for some 2,000 years." um...yea. that is a realistic possibility. true, the rest of the "world" can’t get by without china, and they know this. but then china can’t really get by without the rest of the world...and they know this.

not to say that some of the indignation in china is not warranted...afterall, how can world leaders from nations that abuse human rights in the name of freedom and capitalism honestly criticize the chinese for holding onto tibet and crushing dissent. afterall, if you don’t like it, you can just "get out."

so part of me is all for a boycott...except for one thing. a very dear friend of mine has worked her ass off for years to get a shot at an olympic games...and if she and others like her were to be deprived of that opportunity because the fucking IOC decided they would celebrate all that is good about humanity in a place that is symbolic of a lot that is bad about humanity it would be heartbreaking. disrupt the games, disrupt the ceremonies, try and douse the torch...but let the kids play.

my ride gets around 30 miles per gallon when I drive it right, and 35 on the highway. the fact that such "efficiency" is considered good in this country is embarrassing. when the gas crisis crippled us in the 70’s we could have kept up advancements and pressured car makers to give us what we all know they can...cars that can go without pissing gas like they’ve been boozing all night and broke the seal early on. instead, we subsidized the oil industry to keep gas artificially low...and now it is the people that can afford it least that get hit the hardest...

of course that’s the american way...fuck the folks that can’t afford it...because if they can’t afford it, it means you can afford to keep their voice muffled.

which reminds me...how can we be upset about corruption in the third world and blame corruption on the failure of many nations to rise out of poverty and the suffering of their people? hasn’t anybody studied any bit of history? anyone remember the hell we went through during industrialization in this nation? anyone remember how ridiculously corrupt our government was (makes todays government look like its run by fucking girl scouts)? its ludicruous to thrust a harsh transition on a nation, and expect them to get it right in 5 years when it took us a century.

somebody vandalized trees near chicago by cutting down a bunch of old trees...what the fuck?

little noticed story of late...the gap between the rich and the poor is growing at a quicker and quicker pace. and in the meantime, the government and hillary’s main advisor are trying to find ways to enter into a new "free" trade agreement. they stopped listening to us a long time ago...its about damn time we force it back on them...

and for those of you in pennsylvania still leaning towards hillary - um, why? she cheered for NAFTA (even when she claims to have been against it all the way) when bill pushed it down our throats...and now her go-to guy wants a columbian version. yup...those clintons sure have been good to you blue collar folks.

amid all the hoopla over reverend wright’s statements about how america has fucked up an interesting thing is forgotten...MLK was preaching the same shit near the end...

maybe that is why he had to be shot. afterall, a charismatic black leader telling the world that america ain’t the princess she looks under the pretty dress is a frightening prospect...for god’s sake, they might learn that we have been trying to fuck everyone but the uber-rich for centuries.

and maybe that is why mccain stood against a holiday for the man in arizona. way to go john...if there is anything I want in a president it is an ability to take tough stances - like ignoring the quintessential american because he’s black. afterall, what says "america" like a rich old militaristic fool ignoring the pleas of a black man?

this town has a way of crushing my soul. fortunately I’ve found a little something that lifts the weight as of late.

but man do I miss a real skyline...and busy foot traffic...and double-digit storied buildings...and taxis that you can flag down...and public transit...and waterfronts...and expensive beer...and anonymity.

music is my savior...

Monday, April 07, 2008

Clinton’s Kamikaze Campaign...

The following is a column by Jonathan Chait of The New Republic.



No Really, You Should Go

Wretched rationalizations for Hillary Clinton’s kamikaze campaign.

Jonathan Chait, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008


Last week, Senator Pat Leahy suggested that Hillary Clinton ought to quit the presidential race. How insensitive! How boorish! Pundits gasped, Clinton took umbrage, and even Barack Obama was forced to concede that Clinton has the right to run for as long as she desires.

The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense. Democrats’ reluctance to push Clinton out of the race is the perfect expression of that delicate sensibility.

There is some point at which a candidate’s chance of winning becomes so low that her right to continue is outweighed by the party’s interest in preparing for the general election. Does Clinton have a chance to become president? Sure. So does Ralph Nader. Clinton’s chances are far closer to Nader’s than to either Obama’s or John McCain’s.

Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama’s delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates’ hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that’s insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama’s lead so impressive.

The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won’t matter--like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.

And the supers who haven’t endorsed are even less likely to side with Clinton. Numerous reports on uncommitted superdelegates have made clear that they have remained on the sideline out of an exquisite fear of stepping on the results of the voters. As my colleague Noam Scheiber reported, "Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi’s recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most" ("Slouching Toward Denver," April 9).

Some have gamely insisted that a long campaign actually helps the Democrats, as evidenced by high primary turnout and new voter registration in states like Pennsylvania. But, to believe this argument, you’d have to believe that many of the voters flocking to the primaries would otherwise not have voted in the general election--an absurdity, given that even the high Democratic primary turnout is a fraction of normal general election turnout. You’d have to ignore Obama’s foregone opportunities to start organizing nationally and making his general election pitch. And you’d have to explain away the fact that, in recent weeks, Obama has gone from leading McCain in the polls to trailing. (Clinton has trailed McCain for months; now her deficit is growing.)

For the most part, though, Clintonites have presented her continued campaign as a fulfillment of rights. Historian (and TNR alum) David Greenberg recently placed Obama’s uplifting style in the tradition of the ineffectual liberals that Arthur Schlesinger derided as "doughfaces" ("Double Negative," April 9). As Greenberg wrote, "A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means." By contrast, he situated Clinton as an heir to "FDR and the New Deal’s lieutenants [who] respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put results first."

I think the analogy is apt, but Greenberg has the protagonists backward. It’s those defending Clinton’s campaign who angrily wave away any practical considerations. In an editorial bolstering Clinton’s prerogative to stay in the race, The Washington Post insisted, "No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates--but why is the answer to that less democracy?"

Anyone who tried to talk sense into a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000 probably heard some version of this rationale. Giving the voters more candidates is democracy, man. The decision to run is an act of civic virtue that may not be analyzed for its real-world effects. Nader himself dismissed Leahy’s call for Clinton to withdraw as "political bigotry." He urged, "Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run."

A related justification is the "Think of the Puerto Ricans" defense. As a Clinton campaign memo insists, "the citizens in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that fundamental right." Of course, if Clinton suspended her campaign, those states could still vote for her if they wanted. It’s true that their vote wouldn’t matter, but that’s the way it usually works most of the time anyway. A few months ago, everybody expected the race to be decided after New Hampshire. Now we can’t bear to face the fact that the race has been decided after merely 80 percent of the states have weighed in.

Then you have the millions of Clinton supporters who have come to see her campaign as the literal embodiment of feminism. "Now Clinton’s methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace," writes syndicated columnist Marie Cocco. "She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume."

In the same column, Cocco concedes, "Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination." That’s quite a concession! That is, if you consider the presidency an instrument for legislation and policy change, rather than a vehicle for Hillary Clinton’s self-actualization and the civic expression of the South Dakota Democratic primary electorate.

Schlesinger once described the doughface tradition thusly: "Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done, but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations." Is there any better description for Clinton’s rationale?

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic.