During Netroots Nation, we are running Golden Oldies plus a few surprises. Regularly Scheduled programming will resume on July 26.
A Matt Stoller Golden Oldie
Tue Dec 25, 2007. Original HERE.
Here's Ezra Klein expressing a fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites.
As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..."
This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson."
Ezra is happy with the Democratic candidates; most Democratic voters share Ezra's views. I don't (and neither do a few others). The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress? A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.
Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?
Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?
Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.
There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.
Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.
For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.
Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.
Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.
Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.
So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.
Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.
A Matt Stoller Golden Oldie
Tue Dec 25, 2007. Original HERE.
Here's Ezra Klein expressing a fairly common sentiment among both Democratic base voters and Democratic elites.
As a result of my post defending Obama this morning, I'm getting a bunch of links along the lines of "Ezra Klein, no fan of Obama..."
This is, to be sure, my failure as a writer, so just to be clear: I'm impressed with all three of the major Democrats, and, for that matters, most of the other Democrats not named "Bill Richardson."
Ezra is happy with the Democratic candidates; most Democratic voters share Ezra's views. I don't (and neither do a few others). The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress? A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.
Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?
Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?
Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.
There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.
Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.
For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.
Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.
Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.
Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.
So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.
Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.
From David Kaib's quick hit we learn the good news that New Mexico's legislature has passed a bill banning capital punishment, which now awaits Governor Bill Richardson's decision to sign or veto.
This is of course a postive step, and I'm hopeful that with his Presidential and Cabinet ambitions most likely doomed, due to his looming legal problems, that Richardson will (perhaps akin to former Illinois Gov. George Ryan) have a change of heart and sign the bill. New Mexico isn't alone, as several other states have death penalty repeals that have some level of legislative action beyond introduction.
However, the unfortunate aspect to this, is that it is all happening as a cost saving measure rather than from any decisive turn against the morality of the death penalty. In fact, capital punishment still polls very strongly in America, much stronger than in most other comparable wealthy democracies. In the 2006 GSS, the death penalty for murder was supported by even a bare majority of self identified liberals. So it's clear death penalty opponents have a lot of work to do to turn this around. Inside, I'm going to try and make a philisophical case against the death penalty. It's not wrong just because it's inefficient or expensive, it is fundamentally unjust and immoral.
Bill Richardson has been described as voluntarily withdrawing from consideration as Commerce Secretary due to an impending federal investigation of contracts awarded to a company with ties to the New Mexico Governor.
But at least one news outlet is reporting that Richardson's withdrawal came at the urging of the Obama transition team:
Meanwhile, two Democratic strategists outside the transition told CNN that Obama aides pushed the withdrawal because they did not want another ethical distraction in the wake of controversy surrounding embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors charge that Blagojevich had hoped to barter Obama's Senate seat for either money or influence.
One of these Democrats described Richardson as "stunned" by the sudden turn of events. But Democrats who talked with CNN noted it was in keeping with the Obama philosophy of resolving issues quickly.
Maybe this was the idea of the President-elect or maybe it was chief of staff designate Rahm Emanuel, who experienced the political costs of transition controversies in 1992 as a senior advisor to President Clinton:
As the new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, knows well, the early days of the Bill Clinton administration in 1993 were marred with nomination missteps that had to be withdrawn after presenting a brief image of incompetence.
Meanwhile a Reuters story mentions several possible replacements including Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.
Richardson has already proven his diplomatic mettle in places like Sudan, North Korea and Iraq. Also, it would be great to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so high up on the power ladder. So, should Clinton not accept, I think Richardson would be a very good choice.
As far as Clinton goes, while I'm sure she would do a fine job, and while I'm sure some would disagree, right now I would rather return to the question of whether being Secretary of State would help her chances of becoming President in 2016. Yesterday, I wrote that it would, as long as the Obama administration is popular. In response to my assertion, Nate Silver offers "a qualified no," which I will discuss in the extended entry.
(Gotta hand it to the former Republicans, they deliver some zingers - promoted by Adam Bink)
Got home at 8 p.m. from the errands. First reaction was that moving to Invesco was a great idea for the final night. The crowds looks fantastic in the sunlight, and in their massive size. Very good idea.
Mark Udall was boring. I was actually worried the sound system wasn't working while he was speaking, because his words seemed to float into the ether. Tim Kaine was a good speaker and got the crowd going. Still, I personally didn't like what he said very much. Much happier with Biden (although Kaine's Spanish was impressive-not typical candidate Spanish, but the real deal.) Speaking of which, Bill Richardson was actually quite good. Not quite as good as Kerry last night, but still loaded with great attacks. This line was hilarious (going from memory):
John McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but we are the ones who will pay for his flip-flips.
At the end of Richardson's speech, he said "are we going to win this election?" I actually shouted back to the television "yes!" I'll take that as a good sign that my feelings on the efficacy of the convention have changed.
This is an open thread. I will update after Obama speaks.
Amidst all the discussions about Barack Obama's potential running mate, the single most important consideration is being consistently overlooked.
The office of vice-president exists so that the president can be swiftly replaced in the event of his death, removal or incapacitation. Indeed, this is why we have vice-presidents. These individuals are only a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.
This is such a stark consideration that it really ought to narrow things down somewhat regarding whom Obama should choose. Far too many discussions that I have observed treat the "running mate" as some kind of special electoral buddy, whose primary responsibility is to somehow grab votes that Obama could not secure on his own. Much of the reasoning behind the purported electoral impact of the running mate is ill-founded, speculative and secondary to our principal goal of electing representatives that we believe in.
In a sign of how seriously the Obama campaign is taking Pennsylvania, last night at my ward endorsement meeting, the Obama campaign actually sent three surrogates to speak to, and take questions from, the committee people. One of those surrogates was iMark Alexander, the national policy director! And this is just one of 66 wards in Philadelphia, which itself only represents 23-25% of the statewide primary electorate in the state. Despite my large platform, I could not pass up the chance to ask a question about residual forces in Iraq to the national policy director.
The answer was pretty much as expected. There will be residual troops, carrying out a variety of possible missions: protecting the embassy, participating in an international peacekeeping force, conducting counter-terrorism, and training Iraqi troops. All of those missions, except embassy protection, were listed as possible missions, not definite ones. No estimate on troop levels were provided. Basically, it was all of the same answers I kept receiving from campaigns back in 2007, and which eventually led to the following television commercial:
A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
This is not surprising at all, given that Kahl wrote the paper for the Center for a New American Security (which is not "center-left"). That was the think tank that finally allowed us to put a solid figure on the size of residual forces back in September. Second, it has been clear for literally a year now that both Obama and Clinton (and Biden and Dodd) were proposing residual forces in Iraq of this size. This is publicly available information, and it has been around for some time. While both Kahl and the Obama campaign deny that the plan represents the position of the Obama campaign, the fact is that the answer I received last night on residual forces, just like the answers I had been receiving on residual forces during 2007, is exactly the same as the Center for a New American Security plan. It is exactly the same list of troop missions, only without the estimate on the number of troops.
This isn't something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign's plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country. The simple fact is that once Edwards dropped out, there was no longer any meaningful difference between the remaining Democratic candidates on residual forces. As such, residual did not play a role in determining who I would support in the primary.
It is increasingly clear that, even in a Democratic administration, in order to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq, several things will have to happen. First, it will be important for a no residual force supporter, such as Bill Richardson, to hold either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Second, it will require congressional leadership, such as that found in the Responsible Plan for Iraq, to pass legislation requiring even a Democratic President to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq. Third, it will require continuing pressure of Democrats, progressives and anti-war activists who will support the nominee this year to influence and hold the new President accountable on completing withdrawal from Iraq. The simple, and depressing, fact is that we will not end our military participation in the war in Iraq just by winning a big trifecta in the 2008 elections. In order to build a truly progressive governing majority in this and other areas, we will have to keep fighting long afterwards. To put it one way, progressives will need our own residual troops in a Democratic administration.
This will probably come as quite a surprise to those of you who read my recent post criticizing the Clinton machine's hardball tactics, and specifically referencing Carville's Judas attack of Richardson. However, I really liked James' column in the Washington Post where he defended his attack. I know, I'm confusing the hell out of you. Let me explain.
It's not that James convinced me he was right to make that kind of nasty attack, I still didn't like it. But I do really respect the argument he is making.
What James is saying is that in his values system, loyalty is the thing he values most. Richardson owes the Clintons a lot, they've always been good to him, and he owed them more loyalty than to endorse Hillary's opponent.
I understand the argument, and I too prioritize loyalty above a great many things. Without loyalty to your own- your family, your friends, your team, your faith, the people who have done well by you, the people you've worked for, and those who've worked for you- community and mutuality are destroyed. You sure as hell can't build political power, or a long-term movement, without it. I have felt the pull of loyalty to the Clintons as well, and I would have handled myself this political year in a very different way if I hadn't felt that way. I wrote many good things about Hillary over the last year because I believed them and out of loyalty. I have given her the benefit of the doubt many times when I felt uncomfortable with what she was doing. I have defended her against many attacks. I gave lots of advice to Clinton campaign people in Iowa, and nationally, and hooked them up with smart people I thought they should know. I took calls at 11:00 PM on a Friday night and agreed to try to help them out of a political jam in Iowa. And I stayed neutral for a long time after my heart started to move to Obama.
But as loyal a person as I am, and highly as I prioritize loyalty in my value system, I ultimately endorsed Obama at the point where I thought Hillary's campaign was going down a destructive path, a path that I fear will destroy our chances of beating John McCain this fall. Loyalty is one of my most important values, but in the end it was trumped by other things. It was trumped by the sense that for the good of the party, the country, and the world, John McCain has to be defeated, and Hillary's campaign is leading us away from that goal.
I have always thought that, for a good person raised with solid values, the most difficult moral choices have nothing to do with the obvious good/evil kinds of things. I have never been tempted to steal money or sell out to corporations I hated or commit violence to my enemies. Those calls are easy. The tough moral choices are when you are faced with competing things that are good are like this: is it more important to get important work done, or spend time with friends and family? Is it more important to swallow my pride when a rich person I'm trying to raise money from for a good cause says something I disagree with, or better to be honest and direct even when I know I'll lose the money? If I have to make a choice between spending time on one important issue vs. another, which do I prioritize? Is loyalty to people who have been good to me more important than following what I think is the right path politically? These are the things I really find myself wrestling with.
I made a choice that was painful to me, but one that I'm comfortable with. I have no idea what Richardson's inner values system is, but I suspect he did the same thing. James has chosen loyalty above all else, a path I understand and respect, but one I ultimately couldn't walk down.
This week, Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Senator Barack Obama. Governor Richardson was clearly inspired by Obama's speech. Now, the question is, will he be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama (and to an Obama administration, should that happen). And in particular, my hope is that Richardson will be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama on the issue of space policy. Please join me over the fold
Here is the AP link. Seems like a big story, but at this point the real question is whether Richardson brings any superdelegates with him. Right now, there isn't much voting left, and at least six former Richardson supers are now with Clinton (all from New Mexico).
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended his campaign for the presidency today after twin fourth-place finishes that showed his impressive credentials could not compete with his rivals' star power.
Richardson planned to announce the decision Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision.
They spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the governor's announcement.
I know Richardson started losing support online about six months ago, but I still greatly appreciate his contribution to the campaign on Iraq. Well done, Governor.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decided to pull his advertising from South Carolina and Florida, in a sign of trouble for a campaign that badly needs a win.
Romney had been hoping to challenge John McCain and Mike Huckabee in South Carolina, and Rudy Giuliani in Florida, where the former New York mayor has been spending time and money.
"We feel the best strategy is to focus our paid messaging in Michigan," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday.
Without Michigan, Romney is done. Here is to hoping that he can avoid a knockout blow, and keep the Republican picture muddled for as long as possible.
Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:
Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding
Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%)
Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%)
Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%)
Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)
While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.
Here is what I think happened, in chronological order:
Unbelievable night. Given the youth turnout numbers, I wonder what it would have been like if school had been in session and thousands more of the demographic that turned out for Obama were in the state and registered.
Mike just called from the airport to tell me some quick post-game thoughts:
-Looked at the entrance numbers vs. what actually happened. Edwards was the overwhelming second choice in his caucus. People walking in the door were only 19% for Edwards but in his precinct, Edwards got 90% of the second choice votes, which is probably a big reason why he did well statewide. None of the others were viable, Biden/Richardson had 6-7%, Kucinich had 4-5, undecided had 6-7%. Edwards was a lot weaker walking in than realized but picked up a lot of second choices.
-Obama in his precinct as well as across the state overwhelmingly got people who had never been to caucuses before. That was the difference… of the people who had been to caucuses before, Clinton probably won, but Obama just overwhelmed it with new people. If it had been all the old-timers, Obama probably would not have won. High-risk, high-reward, as mentioned here.
-In 1988, the precinct Mike said he was in had 60 people show up in what was at the time a pretty high-turnout race, this time it had 475 people.
-Turnout numbers in urban areas were incredible. In rural areas numbers were same as usual, but in urban areas, Ames, Iowa City, Waterloo, the numbers were off the map.
-In terms of dynamics, Mike said he went to Obama HQ, people were welcoming and friendly and pumped up… what can we do for you… Hillary's HQ the door was locked and there was a guard at the door, grilling you about why you were there. Totally weird. These are the state headquarters in Des Moines, on Election Day, of all places and times.
STATE BLOGS
Bill Richardson has 