Good Read

From Roger Cohen in today's NYT:

The world is weary of the narrative of American exceptionalism. Something’s the matter with something. Guns and God, Hillary’s latest mantra, won’t set America right. Nor will 100 years in Iraq.

Nod to Mr. Biglin for tipping me to it.

Clinton is the new Humphrey

Hillary Clinton was 20 years old in 1968 when the Democratic National Convention took place in Chicago Illinois. Barring amnesia or dementia, she should have some distinct, clear memories of the scar that event left on the American political psyche. I have no idea where she physically was at the time. My guess is that she was attending university and, as most young people were then, intensely aware of current events and the stark choices at hand.

For those whose history is a bit fuzzy, the Democratic Party was to nominate its candidate for the Presidency that would run against the Republican’s nominee, Richard Nixon, and determine how the United States would conduct itself in the Vietnam War. The Democrats’ options were Lyndon Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, and Eugene McCarthy. Mr. Humphrey did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination. The popular vote, however, belonged to McCarthy. From what I glean in speaking with the boomer generation, he was the anti-war candidate and the young person's favorite for those inclined to vote for a Democrat.

Vice President Humphrey sought to continue President Johnson's policies regarding the war. Mr. McCarthy campaigned for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. History tells us that relations between the two sides of the argument were not rosy. Humphrey, through despotic maneuvering, got the nomination. Rioting followed that got very ugly. Moreover, it fractured and more or less ruined the Democratic Party for years to follow. If the nomination had gone the other way, no one can say for sure what would have happened or where we would be today. What is certain is that Communism in Asia was a red herring that cost too much American blood and treasure.

The cyclical nature of history is awesome. Once again, our nation is involved in an unpopular war abroad and a majority of Americans want to withdraw our forces from the Iraqi theatre. Once again, we have two Democratic candidates who are on either side of this issue. While Hillary Clinton, unlike Humphrey, is running a competitive primary campaign to win the Party's nomination, it is very much like 1968 in that as of this writing, she has, arguably, enough super delegates to take the nomination despite not controlling a majority of elected delegates. She falls well short of an appreciable majority in the popular vote as well. May history write that when you’ve said “Wisconsin, you’ve said it all.”

Barack Obama probably has more momentum than Eugene McCarthy did in '68. We can certainly hope so. Polls and general observation suggest that he is the young people's candidate for change and ending the war. The Clintons embody the Boomer generation’s last, definitive grasp on power. While the contest is far from over, the political weather vein is suggesting that Hillary’s campaign is gradually spiraling into failure. Still, there is a lingering fear that she may attempt to clinch the party’s nomination through the use of super delegates. It would be her first step on an imperiously laden road to hell paved with “good” intentions.

It is surely a common human quality to, once invested in something, be reluctant to let it go. This is certainly the case when a presidential candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Call it the fog of war or not seeing the forest through the trees. The bigger picture here is that the Clinton campaign sits on the cusp of both history and hubris. From here to the Convention will show which she will follow more truly.

What is clear is that if Hillary attempts to grab the nomination without the support of the popular vote, there will almost certainly be riots again. Obama is clearly the youth candidate and that is the future of the Democratic Party. Be Obama the right or wrong choice, Hillary Clinton must abide by that choice or whatever ill comes down the road for the Democrats rests completely and solely on her shoulders. Until the Convention, progressives can only hope for a well situated, nearly altruistic moment of clarity for Senator Clinton or a total avalanche victory for Obama in the upcoming primary contests. Fingers crossed.

Over the weekend 2

Electric hoobajoob.

Well, not really.

Catching the train back from having beers my betrothed buddy, I found the train car unusually full for the late hour. All the same, I found a three seater to myself and settled in for the ride. Just as the conductor gave the last call for all aboard, a middle aged fellow stumbles in and pops down in the aisle seat after politely asking and me granting permission for him to take the seat. He appeared exhausted and a little disheveled. He didn't smell of alcohol (but I might have), so I wasn't too bothered one way or the other.

The guy opens his canvas briefcase and pulls out a bunch of news papers. He rifles through a couple of the local rags. I don't pay much attention. A New Yorker article is holding my interest and almost keeping me awake and then I notice that my fellow traveler is reading the Washington Post. Its not that someone reading the Post in and of itself is strange. Seeing the paper on the NJT is like seeing a Clinton poster at an Obama rally.

Being post beer buzz but still relaxed, I had to ask why he was reading the Post. He replied that he was a newspaper guy. Brevity being the soul of wit, I'll just try and re-create the dialogue.

Traveler: I'm a newspaper guy.
BD: Oh yeah? What rag?
News Paper Guy (NPG): The Times.
BD: The New York Times?
NPG: Yeah.
BD: What do you do?
NPG: I'm an editor for the sports section.
BD: Really? Nice! Good section. Never short of material.
NPG: Right.
-pause-
NPG: What news paper do you read.
BD: I read the Times. Online mostly. Love it.
NPG: Oh good! Sports?
BD: Not so much. Though, when I do feel the need to know, the Times sorts me out.
NPG: Well, good. I guess. [half giggle]
-pause-
BD: Not to offend, but in the spirit of constructive criticism... I have a friend of the family who is a big Browns and Indians fan. When she visits us, she insists on getting USA Today. Says your section stinks.
NPG: Well, you can't please everyone. [beat] And its the Browns and Indians. C'mon!
BD: Right? [forced giggle]
NPG: Uh, pardon me, but I kinda have to read the paper now.
BD: No problem. No problem at all. You're nice to talk to me. Enjoy.

-about five minutes pass-

NPG: Say, what did you think of our endorsements?
BD: Uh, not surprising? I didn't really agree with them, but they weren't offensive either.
NPG: Just curious.
BD: Sure.
-pause-
BD: Did you agree with them? Hillary and McCain?
NPG: No. No. There was a lot of back and forth before the endorsement came out. I mean, it makes sense since she's our state senator and all. But, if you were to take a vote of all the staff for the paper, I think Obama would win. Hands down.
BD: Really! So, it sounds like it was sort of a top down kind of decision?
NPG: Yeah. You could say that. People support her, but the guys at the top made a political decision. It was theirs to make, I guess.
BD: So, a lot of people don't agree with Krugman?
NPG: Not really. I wouldn't say he's popular in the office right now.
BD: Sure.
NPG: And McCain... I rode in an elevator with him a few months back. The guy just looks old. Old! And, you know, he can't raise his arms past here [raises left elbow approximately 90 degrees from his hip]
BD: Really? I've noticed his arms seem kind of, well, restricted.
NPG: Yeah. I know he looks different on TV, but in person... Wow.
BD: So, is it the kind of thing that we might see a picture in the paper one day like the one taken of Dole when he fell?
NPG: [nodding] I wouldn't be surprised.
BD: Neither would I. I guess. But at least he pisses the majority of the Republican establishment off. That, at least, will keep the race interesting.
NPG: [nodding] Yeah. We can hope.
-pause-
NPG: Gonna read. [motions to paper]
BD: No problem.

-another two minutes pass-

Train Conductor over the loudspeaker: Now arriving at Bay Street. Bay Street. This is Bay Street. Bay Street.

- train begins to move-

BD: Next stop's mine.
NPG: Yeah? You live in College Suburbville?
BD: Not quite. Suburbia. So practically.
NPG: Right. How long?
BD: Just moved over from Brooklyn in September. How long have you been doing this commute?
NPG: A while. We have twin ten-year-old girls. Moved from the City for them.
BD: Wow! I bet you've got your hands full. Identical?
NPG: Yeah. But they're good kids. Fraternal. Really smart, but in very different ways. One's organized and methodical. The other's sort of scattered but picks stuff up really quickly. They balance each other out. How 'bout you?
BD: Just one. For now. Maybe. 18 months old. A handfull. We kinda moved out here for him too. Now he's running all over creation, making as much noise as possible. Trying to talk.

Train Conductor over the loudspeaker: Now arriving at Walnut Street. Walnut Street. This is Walnut Street. Walnut Street.

BD: Ok. Have a good night. Good luck with everything.
NPG: Yeah. Thanks. You too.
BD: Thanks. And thanks for talking to me. I know how busy you guys are, so that was nice of you. Have a good night. See you around. Maybe.
NPG: Yeah. See you around.

-scene-

Moral of the story: Don't proffer constructive criticism to anyone after you've been drinking.

Master Debaters

OMFG! How many more Democratic debates can we have? There has been a challenge issued from the Clinton camp to have a debate hosted by Fox. Given the biases of the host, you can well imagine how substantive the discourse of the conversation will be relative to informing the electorate's decision for a Democratic nominee, let alone President. While I am all for thorough vetting of candidates, out-of-the-box thinking needs to be applied post-haste in this field if debates are to continue to catch our attention. Allow me to posit the following...

I have read other bloggers who have, quite reasonably, advocated (or demanded) debates moderated not by journalists but bonafied conservative or progressive thinkers, pundits and the like. To wit, having a Democratic and/or Republican debate hosted by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would be brilliant. Other moderator/hosts who come to mind are: William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Ann Coulter and Tina Fey, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Cosby, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, any prominent poli-blogger (Kos, Atrios, Sullivan, etc...) ... The list could go on for pages. Oh, and me. I want to have a debate too.

When Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000, he rationalized a Bush victory due to Nader leeching of votes away from Gore by stating that it would reinvigorate progressive voters and call attention to the important issues that the Republicans are, from the progressive perspective, so wrong on. Sadly, I don't think his prediction was the case. By some accounts, the Republican Party is now imploding thanks in large part to the unconstitutional and, arguably, criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. But a exponential short term loss for a long term gain does not a justification make for Mr. Nader.

Record turnouts in the primaries and caucuses thus far have shown that people are paying attention. The electorate is invested, motivated and participating like the nation has not seen in, perhaps, a generation. Still, having yet another debate hosted by yet another news entity (albeit decidedly "other" relative to their piers) is dulling the effect of the political process. Sadly, policy and personal convictions are not enough to hold an audience over time. The institution that is American Democracy would do well to take up a bit more self deprecation beyond the White House Correspondents' Dinner and individuals' appearances on various late night talk shows.

There is everything to gain in being informing and entertaining (by incongruity of context or genre) at the same time. The popularity of The Daily Show, et. al., bolstered by analysis showing that a significant percentage of people get their news content from it and the actual facts presented are approximately equal to those of the regular network news programs validates the concept. Its an innovation we need, would welcome and would work.

Oh, and dig this:

Breaking News 12:19 PM ET: Romney Is Suspending Run, According to Campaign Sources. (NYT)

Suck it Romney.

In case you have not voted yet

Must read. On Hillary Clinton's "35 years of change."

Too funny

Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Nod to Andrew Sullivan.

I *heart* Populism

Sasha Abramsky has a good post on Edwards in Nevada. Despite the poll numbers, I am not counting him out of the running. Again, it would be great to have a three way race going into Tsunami Tuesday.

As of 1/15, American Reasearch Group shows:

Obama 32%
Clinton 35%
Edwards 25%

(Source)

Its still anyone's race.

Michigan, Hillary and Obama

Watching the Michigan primary results last night and then flipping over to the Nevada debate hosted by MSNBC proved fine entertainment indeed. To add to my AADD, I was also constantly refreshing my browser window for TPM getting live coverage of both television events. I was and am pleased for Romney. Mostly for similar reasons that I stated yesterday. Competition is good. Its the American way. And it was almost comical how Romney appeared to be releived to get the win. Telling, don't you think?

Just as a side note, Rudy beat Dennis Kucinich in Michigan. What a relief. And I thought Il Duce's campaign was floundering. Florida can't come too quickly. Shut the blowhard up once and for all.

One thing last night did reveal, despite a crisp debate performance from Hillary, is that she has a major weakness with her campaign. Despite the fact that she was the only major candidate for the Democrats on the ballot in Michigan, she failed to garner anywhere near a majority of the Black vote. In fact, CNN's polling suggest that Obama would have netted about 73% of the African American vote. Even if its not entirely accurate, its too large a number to ignore. This projects heavily on her standing and/or chances in South Carolina.

Given the unreliability of polling lately (which is awesome, IMO), Clinton could be facing third place finishes in South Carolina AND Nevada. (Well, maybe. A fella can dream.) All the same, I thought Edwards and Obama were quite good in last night's debate and showed that however sparkling Hillary can be, the field is really strong as a whole. That is, relative to the Republican field, of course.

And for once, I'd love the Democrats to emulate the Republicans. I.E. a course de trois manières, if only until Tsunami Tuesday.

The last thing that was gleaned from the African American vote in Michigan was how it reflects, actively or passively, on Obama's campaign. Until the Iowa caucus, it seemed that much of the African American community thought that a Black man could not be elected President of the United States. Then in one of the, if not THE whitest state in the nation, that all changed. And it was too big a win for it to be considered a fluke as Hillary, who's husband is considered the first Black President by some, finished third.

So with a substantial key demographic in play, last week's "race" flair up between the candidates and their supporters could foreshadow excactly how in front the race issue really is. Whether in reality it is or isn't does't matter. What does matter is that this Presidential election season is riveting and its keeping peoples involved. All we can hope for beyond this is that United States style democracy and the nation as a whole comes out the better for it.

Looking at the entire field

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own. (Slate via TDD)

From the blogroll

• ALa is freaking me out. And not just because she watched Tyra Banks.
• Saint McCain is unclean. (via DCeiver)
• FDH is frustrating me w/ their exquisite minimalism.
• D.A.U. give a countdown and opines for fondue.
• Get your mulch on. Way to go Mike!
• Hillary gets another barrage from the left.
• Expanding your vocabulary.
• Hillary (effectively) strikes back.
• When I was 12, having a Schwinn was awesome. 20 years later, it is again.
• Edible landscape. Mmmmmm. (via planetgreen)
• I'm shocked! Shocked to find diabetes in Canadian suburbia!
• There has to be a petroleum jelly joke in here somewhere.
• Of Obama, criticism and the (green) punditocracy eating its tail.
• My suburbia needs a SLUT.
• Good shit.
• Soft bigotry? No!
• I'd be happy to be wrong. Dream ticket?
• More on McGovern from this Sunday.
• The NYT gets its first Fair and Balanced printing. (via HuffPo)
• Joe Klein smokes crack?
• Andrew Sullivan wears his swami hat.
• Evil genius. (via M4H)

Republican entertainment

I have paying a consistent passing interest to the actual content of the Presidential debates and have noticed how the notion of "change" is so prominent in much of the content of discussion. Edwards and Obama chided Clinton last night in New Hampshire for being an establishment candidate, which she in fact is, more than the others save for Richardson perhaps, but he doesn't count so much for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, the clip below came to mind. Mostly for how Republicans might see Hillary's candidacy. However the same is applicable, perhaps more so to Romney (particularly if you're Lawrence O'Donnell). It all depends on what side of the isle your standing in. This isn't to condemn Hillary, mind you. This is just my strange effort to entertain a broader audience. So, try and enjoy.

Jigga wha???

Today:

Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated, and — my goodness — the most innocent, it turns out...
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

(Politico via TDD)

Are you kidding me? The investigated part I'll buy. Vetted and innocent, it turns out, is some of the finest bologna available.

From the a.m. blogroll

• AP tells us that the Admnistration actually holds the auto industry accountable on fuel standards. Huzzah. (TPM)
• They're calling it "Tsunami Tuesday" now? In poor taste, I think.
• Everyone's favorite indolent candidate ready to drop out. Go figure.
• Your top ten list... of toxins.
• Nellis AFB goes solar! (MetaEfficient)
• A mixed bag, to be sure. (Alternative Consumer)
• The stinkiest $30 you'll ever make.
• One more possible reason not to vote Clinton.
• The silver lining of past colonialization and "duh." (IHT)
• One more reason to love the Village Voice.
• Another conflict in Africa? Really.
• Finally.
• Lastly, Sam Harris tells us we're doomed. Quell suprize.

Primary Season Eve Thinking

So sayeth TPM, Rudy is in free fall. To this, I say hooray. The once front runner is falling from the fore and for good reason. So, if he does bow out, rather, when he bows out, who will he endorse? Moreover, who will his cash and/or backers go to? Its hard to see him getting behind Huckabee or Romney. McCain's tide is coming back in and, as far as Republican candidates go, he's the most tolerable of the bunch. He also seems to be the least distant from Giuliani in terms of core issues. But I could be wrong on that given my proximity to the left.

Anyhow, you still have to consider the Paul haul of cash, Huckabee's popularity w/ the Rapture crowd (which was largely responsible for Bush's success at the polls), Romney's flip-flopping machismo to those GOPers that just want to win for winning's sake and lastly, the oddly dogged Thompson supporters who claim he's the guy for the job because he'd be loyal to the Constitution and he looks the most presidential (whatever that is). In the end, despite what others say, I think the betting person should be placing their money on either McCain or Romney. As to who ends up endorsing who, only time can tell. But its an entertaining speculation for another time.

Hillary is not doing so well. And the way in which she is not doing so well portends of how it might be if she is the nominee, or elected President for that matter. See here and here to see what I am alluding to. Frankly, its worse than watching Rudy and smacks of the Bush '00 and '04 playbook, but softer. Sort of. Meanwhile, Obama is advertising on Drudge and has voted for every funding bill for the Iraq War that has crossed his desk, despite having voted against the War in the first place (as he frequently reminds his audiences). Clearly he walks the politicians' walk in this regard

John Edwards is consistently in third place overall and nearly every one's second choice. He has been a populist for his entire campaign, not to mention is '04 run. The tone of his populism has strengthened as the primaries have drawn closer and now he is saying he'll have the troops out in ten months. While the initial appeal of that promise is alluring, you have to realize that given the size of our forces in the region, to leave Iraq would take ten months in the best and fastest of circumstances. So, like all the other candidates, he's giving the best case scenario. The reality is most assuredly to be starkly different.

Like Michael Moore, I am not endorsing Edwards. I have called him an ideal candidate and consider his poll position to be a vindication of that prediction. I think he is suited for the job and has championed causes that I think are the most important. However, circumstance and the reality of our modern times are stacked against him. Senators Clinton and Obama are the inheritors of that circumstance and the symbolic, reactive progression of history's equation to date.

America wants change desperately. The blunt, obvious antidote to what we've had in our new security age is either a woman or a man of (if partial) minority dissent. To have a brown skinned man be the President of these United States may be the most important and symbolically helpful thing we can do as a nation to send a message to the rest of the world that we can change, definitively. Electing a woman to the office surely wouldn't be harmful in terms of symbolism. It would, in fact be a great achievement in the identity politics of America as a nation, but only inwardly. The world community has had international women leaders before and will continue to.

Now is not Hillary's time. For all her "experience," Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated to this blogger that she can master the helm of a ship that is currently stern deep in threatening and mineable waters. We are a great nation founded on great ideas. Those ideas and this nation need either be served by someone possessing great ideas or able to seize upon the great ideas that will restore what has been so badly tarnished and worn.

Speaking as a Democrat, if Hillary is nominated to run as the Democrat's candidate for President, she'll likely lose. That is if McCain or Romney are the Republican nominee. If Democrats look past nostalgia, baby boomer gender politics and obvious easy choices and really look forward to righting Bush's wrongs and voting for leadership that will steer our national ship of state to safe shores, Edwards or Obama are the better votes.

Update: Freddy T. likely to bow out! Likely to support McCain!. Tick one of the speculation list. Sorry ALa.

Douche and the Future of the DNC

Last week I, perhaps foolishly, thanked George Allen for being a duplicitous Republican in actually criticizing the President. Well, allow me to retract that. Yes it is cool when the President’s own party shallowly criticizes him on a point of common decency, but here we see George Allan’s complete detachment from reality. All cool points withdrawn. He’s back to being a first class hypocrite. Thank you TPM!

I nominate George Allen as douche bag of the week.

In other news, I watched Meet the Press yesterday and Russ Feingold was on. In his introduction, he was mentioned as a possible contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The only things I know about the guy are that he is from Wisconsin (go Packers!) and that he and John McCain (one of the few Republicans I genuinely respect) teamed up to reform campaign finance.

For as much press as the McCain Feingold bill got, this is the first time I have seen Russ’s face. This to me is, initially, encouraging. Here is my reasoning: There are two types of politicians, those who want the limelight and are out amidst the press constantly promoting their agenda and ideas. Then there are those who work diligently on legislation and actually do most of the leg work that makes the legislative world turn. My impression is that Senator Feingold is the latter type of elected official.

So, perhaps Russ Feingold is humble. This would be an asset that would set him apart from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I am not against either of those two seeking the nomination, nor do I think they are arrogant, but baggage and disenchantment linger from years and elections past. Senator Clinton has a lot of bad blood with the Republicans from when she was First Lady. And, she has Bubba in tow (both a massive target and a killer advisor all in one)! Edwards is still Mr. Charm and has good ideas, but the sore memory of a losing ticket combined with his general relative lack of legislative experience might be a an Achilles heel.

It is both my hope and my sincere worry that Senator Feingold might be another Bill Bradley candidate. In the 2000 election, Gore blew it, without question or doubt. Bradley would have blown Bush out of the water. That is pure conjecture, but I feel that it would have been the likely outcome. So, I hope that Feingold is as substantive as Bradley was. My worry is that the Democrats will make a similar “go with what we know” kind of choice and select Hillary or Edwards. However, with Dean as the DNC chair, all establishment bets are off. I entreat you, the reader, to share your thoughts on the Democratic hopefuls.