The condition our condition is in

March 3rd, 2008

OK, I’m having a low energy day — in the last 24 hours the temp has dropped by 50+ degrees, the sun has evaporated behind dark clouds and I’m gloomy — so I’m not going to harangue endlessly lest I ‘get some on ya.’

And perhaps my mood is a direct reflection of what happens when a nominating circus goes on just Too Damned Long. Although Tuesday is the big smack down in Texas and Ohio, with polls shifting by the hour, I’m so tired of this crap I could retch. If there were actual political discussions going on, it wouldn’t be so tough to bare … but we’ve gone dimwitted in this critical hour, and we’re wallowing in ’stupid.’

This is a PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION not a race for Commander in Chief to keep the nation out of enemy hands! We aren’t supposed to be trying to deliver a mortal wound to one another, are we? Now we’re talking phone calls in the middle of the night [who will keep us safer] and American flag lapel pins [made in China] and darker, quieter innuendo’s about each candidate, scandals resurrected or newly minted … that the GOP will pounce on and magnify for ‘later.’

I dunno who will win tomorrow — the pundits have it that Hil has to win them all to be viable … and Hil has it that Barack has to win them all to be viable. If this comes down to a donnybrook in Denver, we’ll all be sorry — but Hillary has determined that no matter what happens she’ll stay in til the last [Blue] dog dies. As for Obama, there will be a gazillion new young voters disenchanted if he pulls out.

So ’stupid’ wins the day, egocentrism and immaturity — and nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. Meanwhile the political ins and outs occult the larger issues, like this, this and this [and the reason I'm not writing about them is because I'm cranky, it's easier to howl about the condition our condition is in!]

To elucidate my point, here’s a nice link that includes plenty of ’stupid’ [still shots from FOX News] as well as a dandy picture of the Dubster saluting the flag with his hand on his belly.

Some interesting reads here, one by an astrologer. We will likely make a Left-turn in the fall … but at this point that feels a million miles away. I just hope we can rise above this ’stupid season’ and create an outcome that has some legs.

Jude

The Texas Star: Obama Campaign Keeps Rising
Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
March 1, 2008

Like a good soldier, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) dutifully campaigned in Texas on Friday, delivering a gritty, determined and focused speech on her qualifications to be commander in chief to 1,000 people at a midday rally in Waco, a poor, small city in the state’s Bible Belt.

But while Clinton stood on a stage with retired top military officers and veterans from conflicts dating back to World War II, including ex-NATO commander Wesley Clark, her opponent Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) held what could only be described as a political rock concert Friday night in San Antonio, where perhaps 5,000 people turned out in a city whose large Latino population has been touted as one of Clinton’s strongholds.

Indeed, as Dorothy Dean, a longtime political organizer in Dallas who ran Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns in the southern part of that city and delivered historic Democratic turnouts in prior elections, said in an interview Thursday, the state seems poised for an Obama victory on Tuesday, March 4 — not because there is anything wrong with Clinton, but because Obama has touched a deeper, once-in-a-generation nerve.

“I know Hillary. I have talked to her personally,” Dean said. “I have nothing against her. She is knowledgeable. She’s smart. She knows what she’s doing. But this is a new wave. It’s a new day. It’s a new time. And the people have heard the same old promises. They don’t know if Obama can deliver. But at least they want to give him a try.”

Dean, who has worked in local politics for four-plus decades explained.

“That’s the movement,” she said. “That’s the hope. And he didn’t coin that phrase. The people who heard him, who listened to him, they found that. He brings hope to the people of the country. That’s why they jumped on his bandwagon. That’s why they believe his message. And so, whereas I’m old and maybe should be thinking in the past, I am for progress. I am for the future, for my children, grand-children, great-grand children. I want it better than it used to be.”

Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns are running hard, competent campaigns. They have urged supporters to vote early or vote on Election Day and then attend local caucuses where more delegates are chosen. In Texas, Democrats elect two-thirds of their 193 delegates in precinct voting. The other third are chosen in local caucuses. Both campaigns are urging supporters to do the “Texas Two Step,” meaning they effectively get to vote twice for their presidential nominee.

Hillary’s Waco Rally

The Waco Convention Center sits in the middle of that small city’s struggling downtown. Home to Baylor University, a conservative Baptist school, a M&M Mars candy factory and many businesses that support nearby Ft. Hood, the city and surrounding area has a conservative slice of the electorate that Texas pundits have said Clinton must win to offset Obama’s support in the state’s largest cities.

Inside the hall, a large American flag hangs behind a stage. On each side are risers filled with a mix of mostly White voters. Like the rest of the audience, there are many older people, young mothers and children — schools were closed on Friday — college students and a handful of businessman. On stage sat three rows of decorated veterans, all wearing jackets and hats with insignias from their service. In the front row, in blazers, crisp shirts and ties were a half dozen retired generals and admirals.

“You are aware how conservative this town is,” said Julie Ed, whose husband works at nearby Fort Hood and has teenage children. “I am a minority in the neighborhood that I live in. There are only a handful of Democrats.” Like others in the room, she had long-decided to support Clinton. “I am Hillary all the way,” she said. “I like everything that she stands for. She has great experience. She can work with Republicans. She is not so liberal that things will fall apart … Obama is too new. I think he has great ideas. He is an awesome speaker. His time is yet to come. Plus, we need a woman in the White House.”

The commander of a San Antonio chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars introduced Clinton — after brief remarks by Wesley Clark. On Friday, the campaign began running a new television ad that featured a hotline phone ringing in the White House at three in the morning — and asking viewers who they would trust to respond in a crisis.

“This morning our campaign introduced an ad that illustrates just how this works,” said Clark, “because the phone rings and we have to have the right person answer that phone. Hillary Rodham Clinton has studied foreign affairs. She has seen it first-hand. She has been in the White House when the phone rings.” Turning to Clinton, who stood beside him at the podium, Clark said, “I guess you have been at that bedside.”

Clinton was greeted with a rousing ovation and began her remarks by acknowledging all the supporters and retired senior military officers on stage. She then began a speech on national security and what was needed in a commander in chief. She reminded people that America was fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. She recalled her visits overseas to war zones, as First Lady and a senator, and said soldiers were “America’s finest.”

Transitioning to the campaign, she recalled meeting veterans from Iraq who have stopped her when shaking hands to urge her to help injured soldiers — in Iraq and back home. She said she would be “a commander in chief that our troops deserve,” saying as president she would face ongoing crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Darfur, and “rising challenges” from Russia, China, Latin America, global warming, global health pandemics, and the threat of terrorism.

“I understand completely when that phone rings at three in the morning,” she said. “There isn’t time to consult your advisers, to take a poll. You need a person to make decisions. We need a president ready to decide.”

Then Clinton began her criticism of Obama’s on national security issues.

“Sen. Obama says if we talk about national security, we are trying to scare people,” she said. “Well, I don’t think Texans scare easily. There’s a big difference between giving speeches on national security and giving orders as commander in chief. There is a big difference between giving a speech as a state senator at an anti-war rally and picking up the phone in the White House — the difference between making a speech where you have no responsibility and having to step up and take charge.”

Clinton said there has never been a presidential campaign where national security was not an issue and that she was better-positioned than Obama to confront Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the likely Republican nominee. Speaking of McCain, she said she would start bringing the troops home from Iraq. “I think it takes strength to know when to bring the troops home and it is time.”

She then criticized President Bush for not going after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and for failing to properly equip soldiers in Iraq and take care of veterans at home. She said she would support a new GI bill for returning soldiers, remove bureaucratic barriers that prevent vets from getting needed health care, and promised to fully fund the Veterans Administration. She also criticized the Bush White House for “cold-hearted policies” such as rescinding signing bonuses from injured soldiers who can no longer fight.

“No one knows better than our veterans the difference between speeches and action,” she said. “It takes hard work. It is time to honor the service of those who served, not just with words but with deeds. I promise you this, that I will fight in the White House as hard as you have fought for our country.”

Clinton also touched on other domestic priorities. She cited proposals for universal health care, creating new green-collar jobs in the renewable energy sector, making college more affordable, ending tax giveaways to the rich, embarking on a new era of diplomacy and making “government work for the middle class.”

She also asked people to vote for her and join her campaign as precinct captains for Tuesday’s vote and caucus in Texas’ 8,000 polling places.
“I am specific,” she said, wrapping up her remarks. “I do not want you to take me on a leap of faith … This is a hiring decision. The best way to find out what someone will do is look at what they have done … I am not asking you to vote for me, but to vote for yourselves — your family, your health care, your child’s education, you loved ones who have been in harm’s way.”

Obama in San Antonio

In contrast, the Obama rally in San Antonio was a political rock concert. Rows and rows of cars filled a large parking lot outside the Verizon Arena on the city’s outskirts. People hawking Obama tee-shirts and buttons greeted people on the long walk into the big open-air venue. This was an arena where you would see touring bands and pop stars. Once inside, the seats under the canopy were filled to capacity with thousands of supporters. A sound system belted out “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” while spotlights beamed “Fired Up” and “Ready To Go” on walls on both sides of the stage.

A giant American flag hung over the stage, with Obama’s trademark “Change We Can Believe In” banner underneath. As in most Obama events, three rows of seats lined the stage, filled with local organizers and volunteers. They all held smaller blue-and-white “Change We Can Believe In” posters. Surprised by the turnout, I turned to a man seated behind me, who brought his kids, and asked, “Isn’t this Hillary country?”

“But with her supporting the war, this is mostly a military town and a lot of families have people shipped overseas,” replied Rev. Chris Minor, with Friendship Missionary Baptist Church. “We didn’t want that war. They didn’t want that war.”

Minor said the audience was typical San Antonio — a mix of all races but with many parents bringing their children. “What is so important for me,” he said,” is we have so many young people here. They are seeing that they do have hope. There is a brighter tomorrow. There is a ray of sunshine. There is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. This transcends race and religion. Everyone feels included in the plan. It gives a whole new meaning to ‘We The People.’”

The sound system played “Ain’t No Stopping Us Now” and then a veteran turned schoolteacher walked on stage and introduced Obama. As the candidate came out, he received a thunderous ovation. Obama thanked the audience a dozen times but they kept on clapping and cheering. He asked them to sit down, and began thanking his volunteers and urged people to vote, and to help others to do the same on Tuesday.

Obama began his speech by recounting his decision to run for the presidency. As in many speeches, he spoke of his “unlikely journey to change America” that he said was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s writings about “the fierce urgency of now.” Obama quickly sketched the nation’s ills: people working harder for less; high gas and energy prices; difficulties saving money; inadequate or overly costly health insurance; struggling schools; high drop-out rates for people of color; global warming. He then said, as he often does, that these problems demand action now, not at some future more convenient time.

Obama said he was willing to bet that many Americans felt as he did — that massive change was needed — and said that as he has campaigned for the past year that people across America have validated his premise for running. “I am here to report that my faith has paid off,” he said, “because everywhere I go, people want to turn a new page in American history … Yes we can … Si se puede … That’s what I am hearing from the American people.”

Obama continued to sketch America’s problems, citing predatory lending by banks to homeowners. He talked about teachers buying school supplies with their own money. He said the high costs of college left students with “a mortgage before they bought a home.” He said veterans should be very proud of their service, but the federal government had not kept its promises to take care of them on their return.

Then Obama began the section of his speech prefaced by, “if you are ready for change …” that listed solutions. He talked about providing health care for the uninsured and lowering costs for those already with insurance. He talked about ending tax breaks for companies that export jobs overseas and deprive workers of pensions. He talked about expanding federal support for education at all levels, from pre-school through college. As he said public schools should be teaching art, music, poetry and science, the crowd loudly cheered. Obama said college students should get a $4,000 tuition credit, but there was a catch: mandatory public service. “We invest in you. You invest in us. We march forward into the future.”

Obama continued by saying the country needed to break its oil addiction and Detroit needed to make the cars of the future, not the past. “One of the things you need from the next president is someone who will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear,” he said. And America needs a foreign policy “that makes sense.” He said the war in Iraq does not “make sense” and pledged to end it in 2009.

He then addressed Clinton’s latest ad, featuring the “red phone moment.”

“The question is not about picking up the phone,” he said. “The question is what kind of judgment will the person picking up the phone have; Senator Clinton may not be aware, but she had her red phone moment. She picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer (on Iraq). John McCain picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer. And George W. Bush picked up the phone and gave the wrong answer.”

Summing up, he said, “You won’t see me trying to scare up votes using the threat of terrorism.”

As in most of his speeches, Obama said neither he nor his supporters were being niave or idealistic for wanting sweeping change. He recited the criticisms — that his agenda was not based in real-world or pragmatic Washington thinking. He then replied with a newer caveat. He said he was sure there were people in the audience who have struggled in their lives with tough issues, but many people hoped their problems would be solved. And they have worked hard to make it so, Obama said, just as he would work to solve America’s problems.

“Imagining and then fighting for, and then working for what did not seem possible before — that is the chance that we have in this election,” he said. “We may not solve every problem, but let’s start solving health care for every person … Let’s start solving this immigration problem … Let’s start creating a world that is less dangerous … This is the choice we have right now.”

And with that, Obama asked San Antonio voters to support him at the polls on Tuesday and then go to caucuses afterward. “If you stand with me, and organize with me, we will win Texas,” he said. “We will win the nomination … We will win this election … We will change the country and change the world.”

The stupid season
Ed Naha, Smirking Chimp
March 3, 2008

In the 19th Democratic presidential candidate debate two weeks ago, following a laughable attempt by Hillary Clinton to come off as a diminutive Don Rickles, Barack Obama gave the camera a WTF? look and ascribed Clinton’s “Xerox” moment as being linked to “the silly season” of politics. I respectfully disagree. I think it represented the unrelenting “stupid season” of politics.

Looking at some of the recent actions of everyone from Nader to McCain, Russert to Matthews and Clinton to Obama - well, it’s enough to drive any sane person to cry, “I reject and denounce” you all. Or, at the very least, lead you to drive a spike into your forehead and pretend you’re Eustace the Unicorn, who lives in a land where no one is an idiot.

Exemplifying what we’re up against is Ralph Nader’s declaration that, once again, he’ll be running for President, presumably because Harold Stassen is still dead. “Dissent is the mother of assent,” Nader told Tim “Bullfrog” Russert on “Meet the Press,” “and in that context I have decided to run for president.” Great. In all fairness, this is a much better context for his run than he originally came up with. “I like cheese.”

Adding to the authenticity of his campaign, Nader chose former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Matt Gonzalez, as his running mate. Gonzalez assured voters that he would not enter any campaign “I could not win.” Not bad for a guy who lost in his attempts at being mayor and D.A.

Their campaign slogan: “Unreal At Any Speed.”

The always entertaining jockeying for the Democratic presidential nomination outdid itself in the past week or so, with Hillary Clinton emulating Sally Fields in “Sybil.”

Two days after saying she was honored to be running against Obama, Clinton sallied forth into snarkiness, mocking Obama’s message of hope. “Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’

“Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.”

Clinton caught herself before braying: “You kids with your peace and love signs, your loud music, your protests. Back off. Let the adults handle it.”
For Democrats, this is a tough race. With Obama, we get free kittens. With Clinton, we get detention.

Clinton has been all over the place in the last two weeks, chanting “shame, shame on you, Barack Obama” for his campaign’s stooping so low as to say that Hillary had once supported NAFTA although she actually did. Taking the high road, she then released a TV ad stating, basically, if you vote for Obama, your kids are going to die when something happens in America at three in the morning and the White House phone rings. Clinton is obviously a night person. Obama needs his sleep.

Ironically, the ad ran the same week that everyone’s favorite pundit Bill Kristol advised Clinton to puncture Obama’s “wave of euphoria. She needs to puncture it. The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton (she use) the politics of fear.”

Mission accomplished.

By the time the 20th Democratic debate rolled around, the ghost of Rod Serling was penning the script. At the outset, Clinton alluded to the fact that the press was treating her unfairly and that Obama was getting the kid glove treatment. Her proof? A sketch on “Saturday Night Live.” As we all know, as a valid reflection of what’s going on in America, no show is more “with it” than “Saturday Night Live”… especially since the cancellation of “Mr. Ed.”

So, how’s Obama’s free ride been going lately? After Michelle Obama stated that she was proud to be an American for the first time in her adult life, she was branded as being unpatriotic. A damning photo also circulated showing Obama standing at attention during The National Anthem but not putting his hand over his heart…a practice heretofore unheard of. (You raise your hand to your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.) He also was pummeled for not wearing an American flag pin (made in China) to prove he’s patriotic.

Leading the pin(head) charge was ‘Puglican Rep. Jack Kingston (GA), who appeared on various interview shows complaining about Obama’s lack of lapel adornment…while not wearing an American flag pin himself.

Republican consultant Roger Stone sniffed: “Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama…is part of the blame America first crowd.”

Pollster Punchinello Frank Luntz, on Fox, asked a crowd analyzing the last Clinton-Obama debate: “How many of you want them to make love to each other?” I have no idea what Luntz ingests to get “Mandingo” flashbacks, but it can’t be good.

Fox News also offered a news poll asking, “Who do you think terrorist leader Usama bin Laden wants to win the presidential election?” Obama won with 30% of Foxaholics seeing him as being a bin Laden kind of guy. At least Fox spelled bin Laden’s first name with a “U” and not an “O.” I mean, they don’t want to seem unfair.

MSNBC, meanwhile, flashed a photo of bin Laden during “Hardball,” while touting an upcoming story on Obama, causing Chris Matthews to apologize. Tomato, tomahto, Osama, Obama, whatever.

CNN launched an online poll asking “Does Barack Obama show the proper patriotism for someone who wants to be president of the United States?” As opposed to someone who doesn’t?

On CNN’s “Glenn Beck” barf-fest, Jonah Goldberg, who wouldn’t know a Fascist from a face lift, snorted, re: Obama, “I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he’s basically saying, ‘I’m a silver bullet. I’m going to solve all your problems just by electing me.’… FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, ‘All your problems can be solved.’”

Off-screen, Goldberg reportedly began frothing at the mouth, confusing The Lone Ranger with The Wolfman. Both Maria Ouspenskaya and Tonto joined in to slap him silly.

A photo showing Obama in traditional local garb during a 2006 trip to Kenya suddenly “appeared” all over media outlets. All eyes were on the Clinton campaign in this veiled attempt to link Obama with the Muslim religion. True to form, they neither confirmed nor denied sending it out, kinda, sorta, maybe. Anyhow, it was all Obama’s fault, anyway.

Stated Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams: “Enough. If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.”

What Williams failed to say was: the only places Clinton wore traditional garb were in countries offering pantsuits.

Right-wing-nut Michael Savage apparently was fooled by the photo, ranting: “And what about Muslim — the Muslim connection to Obama? Barack Hussein Obama. Father Muslim, grandfather Muslim. Nothing wrong with that. But we, the American people, being at war with radical Islam have a — have a need to know just exactly what kind of Muslim he was exposed to, what kind of Muslim he is, what kind of Muslim teachings he’s — he’s friendly to. We have a right to know if he’s a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings.”

Apparently, Obama is a really bad Muslim, in that he’s a Christian.

I’m sure glad the media folks are in Obama’s corner. I mean, he could really be fighting off some off-the-wall charges, if they weren’t.

Speaking of off-the-wall, at the 20th Democratic debate, co-host Tim Russert outdid himself. Tim is the kind of journalist who, apparently, prepares his questions while reading a copy of “The Onion” and, then, with the theme of “Jowls,” er, I mean “Jaws,” playing in his head, closes in for the kill, facts be damned. He just seems to figure that if he holds his breath long enough, jabs an accusing finger at the interviewee and makes his eyes bulge while clinging to pages of spurious notes, he’ll come across as being a defender of the truth.

At the debate, he grumbled and growled until Clinton admitted that she regretted her Iraq vote. After the debate, Chris Matthews gushed over Russert, saying that ol’ Timmy reminded him of the fisherman in “The Old Man And the Sea.” Spewing sentences concerning “hooking her,” marlins, struggling and pulling her into the boat, Matthews did everything but present Russert with a laurel wreath. Russert beamed. It was a true Huntley-Brinkley moment…if you watched Chet and David while you were on acid.

Russert saved his biggest delusional salvo for Obama. Last week, bi-polar poster boy Louis Farrakhan backed Obama’s candidacy while appearing at a Nation of Islam convention. The pastor of Obama’s church, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, admires Farrakhan. Since Farrakhan is openly anti-Semitic, Russert asked: “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?”

Obama, apparently thinking he was talking to a sane person, said that he didn’t seek out Farrakhan’s support and denounced his anti-Semitic views. Not good enough. “Do you reject his support?” Russert demanded.

“I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama replied, obviously believing that free speech was somehow still prevalent in America. “I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”

Russert inflated his cheeks and furrowed his brows, making indignant noises; Perry Mason as played by Froggy the Gremlin. Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray, caterwauling about Obama’s refusing to use the word “reject.” “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting.”

Then, something happened. Of late, Obama often gets this expression on his face. It’s sort of like: “Who the fuck are you people? Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?”

Wearing that look, he said: “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

The audience actually LAUGHED at this crap, nearly drowning out the punchline, Clinton’s schoolmarm-ish “Good. Good. Excellent.”

A few days later, after a Texas activist and Clinton supporter Adelfa Callejo opined, “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black,” reporters asked Clinton if she would reject or denounce Callejo’s verbiage. “You know,” she said, “this is a free country. People get to express their opinions.”

Meanwhile, Republican man of a thousand faces John McCain had a new problem of his own. After being called out for cozying up to lobbyists in the past and having a bus-full of them aboard his current campaign, (”These people have honorable records, and they’re honorable people, and I’m proud to have them as part of my team,” he stated. I guess it’s those non-McCain lobbyists who are the fucktards.) McCain chased after and got the endorsement of Texas Pastor John Hagee; a real plus in McCain’s courtship of Christian conservatives.

The only problem with Hagee is that he’s batshit crazy. Louis Farrakhan’s rants are small beer in comparison. Hagee thinks that the Catholic Church is a “false cult system,” often referring to it as “The Great Whore.” He thought Hurricane Katrina was an act of God sent to New Orleans because the city “had a level of sin that was offensive to God.” He believes that Israel and America will join forces to wipe Iran off the map, the only difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher is “lipstick” and that the Koran teaches that Muslims should kill Christians and Jews.

Nice.

Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, was so impressed with McCain’s courtship of Hagee that he said: “Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee.”

The difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama never chased after Farrakhan’s endorsement. McCain spent hundreds of dollars on Chapstick doing just that. And his reaction shows it.

“Well I think it’s important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel.”

Denounce? Reject? Me know not these words.

As of this writing, Russert hasn’t weighed in. He must be busy eating flies at home. Ribbit.

Now, I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’m not swooning over Obama but I find it very disturbing when a dignified, well-spoken, optimistic and inspiring candidate comes along and is dissed for being, uh, dignified, well-spoken, optimistic and inspiring. Obama has run a pretty clean campaign and hasn’t stooped to yelling “Boo!” or wagging his finger and launching into screeds beginning with “She’s so old that…”

Yet, since intelligence really doesn’t play into today’s politics, you have Obama dancing, yet again, on the Ellen Degeneres Show. Look! He’s human! He may not be awake at three in the morning but he can bust a move!

On his press plane a couple of days ago, Obama joked: “I call myself a dancing bear. They let me out of my cage. I do my dance. They let me back in my cage. They feed me occasionally. They let me work out. And, every once in a while, I break loose before they get the tranquilizers.”

At least he KNOWS that this is the silly season.

He SEES the stupidity.

Most Republicans and political pundits have yet to notice.

Now, excuse me while I go prance with my fellow unicorns before my forehead really begins to hurt. ++

Governmental Transformation. How Will it Come About?
The Raging Universe
Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Game-changing

Pluto in Capricorn has begun the transformation of the American government soon to get into full swing with the Obama Presidency. It’s gone beyond the ususal game to a much bigger one already. The old-style negative campaign of character assassination and nonsensical competition is kaput and serious work is ahead. No wonder the oldsters are stunned, confused, and awkward. Not too quick on their feet, eh?

Obama is a political scientist who took theory and applied it in the streets of Chicago, then to law-making in the Illinois legislature, and on to the US Senate. He is a talented, innovative politician and a grand experiment is in the wings as Uranus heads into Aries.

“This is exactly what he did here in Illinois. He disarmed the republicans while getting most of what he wanted in his progressive agenda. He drove the republicans crazy. But, they always gave in. And he is using communityorganizing principles. He taught Alinsky to new organizers and he taught about power, etc. He applies a lot of what he learned to his politics and in this campaign. His Camp Obama was run by former associates from his organizing days and they are also on his ground game. That’s how he built up this great national organization in the early states in a matter of months. It is fascinating to watch him doing this and no one has a clue.

The pundits are their usual brain dead selves in not seeing what is going on. The bloggers are too angry to step back and see what he is doing and how he manages to work with republicans, but has one of the highest progressive records in the Senate. And this is partly how he has managed to run rings around Clinton and her fearsome machine. Obama has a much better chance of getting progressive policies passed than Edwards does [December comment]. Clinton is simply not progressive.”

“I agree that Obama is no fool. I have one addition to this article and the posts here. He’s stated that he will open up the discussion to the public. When he brings these parties to the table to deal with health care (for example) it’ll be on C-Span and the internet. Disclosure/exposure. This is not naive. Using technological tools to empower the people revolutionizes our political conversation.”

“The problem — that insurance and drug companies are so powerful — is merely a symptom of the underlying issue: the American people aren’t paying close enough attention. Obama’s method strikes right to the heart of that issue. Until you get people to pay attention, the entrenched interests will always override the masses. That’s why his plan to have a two-way conversation with the American people by holding townhalls and virtual townhalls with American citizens and his cabinet members holds promise.”

The “Theory of Change Primary”. Hope and bipartisanship are not things that Obama naively believes are present and possible — they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure.

From political analyst Mark Schmitt:

These are some comments I picked up in a discussion at the The American Prospect. And this one, from another site, particularly interested me:

“We are right now in a similar position to the one America encountered in 1800, when Jefferson was running for President against the very powerful Federalists. The Federalists were conservatives with attitudes much like our present conservatives. They believed in government and an economy both run by the elite and well-born, tight restrictions on voting (property owners or well-to-do only franchised), and government restrictions on freedom of speech (Alien and Sedition Acts) backed by the use of the militia and the courts to maintain order. Jefferson offered Democracy, in which adult males had voting rights and that people could rise from any social status to be competent to run government offices. Sean Willentz, in his excellent book “The Rise of American Democracy”, describes the election of Jefferson in 1800 as a democratic revolution.

It is interesting that, like Obama, Jefferson entered office by agreeing to reach across the aisle to work with the Federalists, and to the great disappointment of many of his “Republican” (as the present Democratic Party was then called) supporters he did not automatically remove qualified Federalist officeholders and replace them with Republican cronies. Jefferson also did not describe in advance what he proposed to do in great detail, although Willentz makes the point that one letter he wrote during his second year in office described his intention to eradicate the Federalist Party. Which he did.

It’s a fascinating story, with many parallels to today’s situation. And as Digby points out, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The emotional decision behind a big, revolutionary political change is - I think - one of those rhymes. As a wonk myself, I don’t like the lack of advance warning regarding the decisions that are going to be taken, but I think that in American society, the economy and politics are all changing so rapidly that only a primarily emotional decision is going to work. If you really want the facts and predictions, then you are a conservative clinging to the status quo, and as we can tell from the last two decades, the status quo has failed. Obama is offering the leadership that our current political leaders can’t or won’t offer. I think we are in for an interesting ride with this guy.”

No one knows how it will all play out, but many are anticipating changes and unusual developments. Definitely improvements, although incremental and over a somewhat lengthy stretch of time. Good change comes slowly. And with personal investment.

My understanding is that in times of wealth, a conservative government is there to maintain the status quo. In lean economies, redistribution is required. Then comes the progressive government. Right on cue. ++

The American Left: Liberals, Progressives and the Left
Ken Brociner, InTheseTimes
March 2, 2008

The term “progressive” has evolved a great deal over the past 35 years.

By the ’70s, many ’60s veterans had concluded that working “within the system” had become a viable option. As a result, many leftists stopped using rhetoric and slogans that had marginalized them from the political mainstream. Labels like “radical”, “leftist”, and “revolutionary” sounded stale and gratuitously provocative. And so, gradually, activists began to use the much less threatening “progressive.” Today, “progressive” is the term of choice for practically everyone who has a politics that used to be called “radical.”

On a somewhat parallel track, in the ’80s, liberal politicians found themselves under attack by the Reagan inspired right-wing of the Republican Party. Soon, conservatives succeeded in changing “liberal” into something akin to a dirty word and liberal politicians began to avoid any association with the term whatsoever.

By the early ’90s more and more Democratic politicians began referring to themselves as being “progressive.” For most of the ’90s, though, this shift was so gradual that only the closest political observers seemed to even notice it. Notably, the progressive label was not only picked up by liberals like Ted Kennedy, but also by centrists like Bill Clinton and his cohorts in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

In fact, during the Clinton administration a tug of war ensued between centrists, liberals, and the left over who owned “progressive.” But by the end of the ’90s, “progressive” belonged to the left-wing of the Democratic party as well as to those activists who had one foot in the party and one foot outside of it—to its left.

Since 2001, “progressive” has become considerably more vague in its meaning and application. With a hard right-wing administration in power, the differences between various left of center groups and politicians became less important than the need to stand up in opposition to Bush’s disastrous policies.

************

Since it now appears all but certain that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, let’s assume—for the moment at least—that he also wins the general election. With Obama in the White House, the left would at last be able to go on the offense—especially if the Democrats can expand their majorities in the House and, most importantly, in the Senate.

Then what? Obviously we would need to help support Obama’s legislative initiatives against the fierce opposition he would face from big business and its Republican allies. But since most progressives see themselves as being to Obama’s left, the question then arises as to how we might push his administration further to the left.

Three basic organizational strategies could be pursued:

1. Building “a party within a party.”

2. Constructing a multi-issue progressive coalition to pull the Democrats to the left.

3. Proceeding in an ad-hoc manner to advance the progressive agenda on an issue-by-issue basis.

The first strategy is being employed on Capitol Hill by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The 72 members of Congress who make up the Progressive Caucus are left-leaning Democrats who have drawn up an agenda called “The Progressive Promise: Fairness for All” that clearly positions the Caucus on the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

Co-chaired by California Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, the Progressive Caucus regularly rallies support for causes and legislation that have yet to be embraced by their more “moderate” colleagues in the House and Senate. While the Progressive Caucus hasn’t been able to win passage of any of its legislative priorities, it is widely seen by grassroots activists as providing the movement with an important voice in the corridors of power in Washington.

The “party-within-a party” strategy is also the approach being followed by the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA is in the process of trying to build chapters across the country in order to move the Democrats to the left. So far, though, it has had only very limited success. Perhaps most significantly, the progressive movement itself hasn’t gravitated toward either PDA or its general strategy.

While few progressives would disagree with the desirability of having one grand progressive coalition, those who are most familiar with all the ins and outs of organizational politics on the left argue that such a coalition isn’t in the cards—at least not for the foreseeable future. The reasons for this include: the differences in the agendas of many of the largest progressive organizations—especially those in the labor movement; the all too frequent inter-organizational rivalries and clashing egos; and the genuine differences that exist when it comes to what strategies should be pursued in the first place.

So by process of elimination, we are left with the “ad-hoc, issue by issue strategy” (or non-strategy if you will). Given the shifting nature of groups that mobilize around one issue or another, this ad-hoc approach is the most realistic and viable strategy at our disposal (even if it does lack the strategic coherence that the other two might offer).

Ironically even though this “strategy” has rarely been spelled out, let alone given a name, it has, in fact, been the primary approach that the progressive movement has utilized since Bush became president in 2001.

The grassroots coalition that came together in 2005 to defeat Bush’s attempt to privatize social security is a highly successful example of this “issue by issue” approach—which will almost certainly be the de-facto strategy of the progressive movement in the years ahead.

Another key advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t require the same degree of ideological unity that would be required by the other two strategies. It allows moderate- liberal Democrats and leftists to continue to cohabitate under the progressive banner. And, given the strength and power of our common adversaries, maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship between mainstream Democrats and the left is of the utmost importance for the future of the progressive movement. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves