There is a fantastic book, "Timequake" by Kurt Vonnegut, which much like anything this writer ever wrote, has warm humorous instructive observations for anyone lucky enough to have a copy in their hands. I always feel like I have discovered secrets I should have already known, and lies that I can the feel the truth in.
This book like Great American Fiction from Mark Twain, with wry humor and sad hope plots a description of our times, as clear as a diagnosis as cruel as a post mortem. With it in mind, a narrative for progressives to organize our actions around seems more than possible, it demands like a unavoidable call to action.
Click through and see fate and history, humor and courage, discovery and awakening plot a progressive parable of action.
instead of "balancing" the ticket to compensate for his flaws by, say, selecting a member of the old, northern, liberal establishment as his running mate, he picked another young, white, DLC southerner who had run a virtually identical campaign four years earlier.
It occurred to me that the parallel choice for Obama would be not Edwards, but Howard Dean, who four years ago ran an insurgent, outsider campaign driven largely by the energy of the intertubes. What do y'all think about Dean as a choice? Even if choosing Dean would not be a good idea, I'm wondering why his name has been entirely missing from the conversation.
America is America because when we are tested, we rise to the challenge. American history, if you have the eyes to see, is the repeated story of The American Crisis of Democracy.
The American Crisis of Democracy
Crisis, often misunderstood, is not a problem, or a panic, or blood in the streets. Crisis is not too much yelling, bad odds nor an emergency nor a lack of solutions.
According to The Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
Crisis Cri"sis\ (kr?"s?s), n.; pl. Crises (-s?z). [L. crisis, to separate. 1. The point of time when it is to be decided whether any affair or course of action must go on, or be modified or terminate; the decisive moment; the turning point.
American history if thought of from this viewpoint, can be laid out before us as a series of civilization testing decisions. The Revolutionary War, when this civilization chose to govern itself. The Civil War when we decided "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." When the robber baron's power to control America through their dominance of our economy grew so great as to threaten democracy, Teddy Roosevelt, just shot in an assassination attempt . . .
(w)ith the blood spreading against his white shirt, ...began:
"I have altogether too important things to think of to feel any concern over my own death. . . . I am ahead of the game anyway. No man has had a happier life than I have led. . . .
This effort to assassinate me emphasizes to a peculiar degree the need for the Progressive movement . . . every good citizen ought to do everything in his or her power to prevent the coming of the day when we shall see in this country two recognized creeds fighting one another, when we shall see the creed of the 'Have-nots' arraigned against the creed of the 'Haves' . . ."
Teddy Roosevelt used his mandate to break up the trusts, to bring down the robber barons and restore the power of democracy.
When America sank into the devastating Great Depression, and a quarter of the nation had no income, and the farms were blown to the winds, we grew desperate as fascism grew the world around. In this crisis FDR gave America a New Deal, completely restructuring the economy so that it did not just serve "the economic royalists" but all Americans, America chose democracy over Revolution, chose Democracy and reform over fascism, and a military coup was preempted. The beloved FDR was elected President four times. The country that the modern Republican cabal has been destroying, the country that would have dealt with Katrina easily, is the America that Franklin D. Roosevelt created out of the Great Depression and our crisis.
When our crisis of democracy in the 60's made us choose between allowing African Americans and others to be second class citizens, when we were forced to choose between allowing us all to govern our land or let a chosen few claim that power to their own few hands, we rose together, and we chose equality, we chose rights, we took the opportunity once again, in our crisis, to choose Democracy.
We are now, as Republican President Ike Eisenhower predicted and warned, in the terrible crisis of democracy arising from undue power and control of our great corporations from banking to pharmaceuticals, from insurance to our "military industrial complex" in Ike's words. Our nation is again dominated by a small number of companies controlling "the commanding heights of our economy." America is not just threatened by "a stranglehold on democracy" but we are already under it.
To re-assert Democracy in America will require effort unseen since the depression. Our constitution is in danger, our rights are already unsure, our economy is already sold, our jobs are already gone. Moneyed interests right now have more control than voters.
This is not an election, this is a crisis, in the most important way. We are once again being called to choose, to rise, to act. This is the American Crisis of Democracy. I am not afraid. America will, when it is asked, choose democracy, we will again rise to a new level. We will protect America.
Sacrifice, service, is called for now, the offering of everything we can give, even as my father did when asked, to put one's life in the hands of the democracy, that it "shall not perish from the earth."
The men and women serving in Iraq, put their lives in the hands of the democracy, to serve as they are asked. Giving, willingly, even their lives in the cause of service to democracy. This is nobility.
Their lives.
Mr. Edwards, you have skill, you have insight, you have learned very very well. You have learned so well, that it has changed your heart. I believe you are no longer the same person you were when you were first elected. I think you have "felt the heat of the devil," and you will never be the same. It is obvious to me, and I think it is obvious to the American people, that you have been made whole. You don't have to read polls to know you would be of immense assistance to the creation of the mandate that is needed now. Not just a win, not just an election night victory, but a victory that proclaims America has chosen again.
History doesn't move in obvious or straight lines and America has proudly, thrillingly, defiantly chosen Barack Hussein Obama to lead our cause in this, our Crisis of American Democracy. Right now we are at the point where it is possible, only possible, that we might win. We are uniting, we are seeing the battleground, we know our causes and we are firm in our belief that we are about to choose democracy again.
But we have not won. The battle is not yet engaged. Sacrifice is about to be called from all of us. I do not pretend to know your personal struggles. I cannot fathom how it hurts you to be away from your wife even for a moment, and I am sure that my struggle to write this clearly will fail. However.
If you are called to serve, there is only one answer.
Both Edwards and Hillary Clinton were on The Colbert Report last night (Obama was too, live from satellite). He was broadcasting (live?) from Philadelphia. Needless to say, the Colbert Report writers had written some hilarious material for both of them.
Clinton came on first, to thunderous applause, and delivered her joke flawlessly and got a great response. Edwards then came on for an even longer cameo and inadvertently showed the real reason he lost the nomination.
The jokes were great. His delivery was AWFUL. It was almost like he didn't even get the jokes. He didn't know where to pause, he didn't know what words to emphasize. It was like a vacuum of charisma.
That is the reason I think he lost the primary so quickly (he faced some strong competition). His policy is dead-on, but his charisma and likability are totally absent. Others have commented about how the media and reporters just don't like him. Someone, I can't remember who, made the comment "Edwards couldn't get the [political reporters] to like him if he personally had sex with all of them." Edwards has the looks to be President, and quite possibly the qualifications and correct agenda, but he just doesn't have the charisma (neither does John McCain for that matter,although reporters do like him, which is why I don't think he's a threat to Obama, Huckabee would have been worse). Its a serious problem for Edwards that he comes off as even more unlikeable than Hillary (although technically has lower negatives). Even when making jokes he just sounded like another empty suit politician.
The past week has been highly important in the ongoing battle between consumers and merchants vs. the credit card industry. The focus has tightened on the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard in recent years, and after many hearings and much work, a solution might be on the horizon. However, the banks have considerable lobbying assets at their disposal, which means victory is not assured. I realize it's a bit of a long-shot, but I would love to see either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama pick this up as an issue. If John Edwards was still in this race, I'm sure he would. This is another opportunity for them to appeal to his supporters.
Two bills have been introduced in the House that could make all the difference, both for everyday cardholders and for merchant account holders. Both are hit with ostentatious fees on a daily basis, and the former can incur harsh penalties without even knowing about it. The first is called the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights (H.R. 5244), and the second is the Credit Card Fair Fee Act (H.R. 5546). The first is supported by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the second by Rep. John Conyers.
Last Wednesday John Edwards formally exited the Democratic Presidential Primary. This brings one very important question to mind. With Edwards gone, will Hillary or Barack gain the support of Edwards voters? This depend on two things, who if anyone Edwards endorses, and who better takes up his cause of supporting the impoverished.:
"I think both candidates wiil benefit in the short term, but long term, the candidate who talks about the plight of the poor, that champions the middle class.. will benefit from the support of John Edwards" CNN politcal analyst Donna Brazile said
Lead a march on DC to stop the FISA bill and stop retroactive immunity. You can't vote, you can't filibuster, but as you keep saying you can lead. Show it! Lead people to the steps of the capitol and demand they support the constitution and the rule of law. Support the basic structure that has allowed the "little guy" to succeed so well in this country for the last two hundred years. You will shame your opponents into supporting the cause of good, and once again direct the dialog. You should garner media coverage, though given their blind eye that is not a given, but I think this would be big enough to break through. But most importantly you would be walking the talk. And what greater a tribute to MLK than a march on Washington telling them to live up the the ideals of America.
[Update] john@johnedwards.com is the email to send Edwards you support and request to move on this issue, even if you think a march is silly, send him the request to move on FISA in some way.
Senator Edwards, We Need You To Lead
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday January 22, 2008 3:00 pm
John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The Republicans are not going to let Reid punt and extend the Protect America Act for another 18 months so it looks like the FISA bill is going to come back up again on Monday. Chris Dodd's objection to Unanimous Consent still stands, so they will pick up in the middle of the Motion to Proceed debate.
It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to "changing the way Washington works" if they choose to sit by, more or less mute, and allow such a blatant and corrupt evisceration of the rule of law -- and such a vast and permanent expansion of the limitless surveillance state -- to occur without a fight. Any one of them, or all three, has a unique opportunity to actually demonstrate with actions, rather than pretty speeches, their commitment to the principles they claim to espouse.
John Edwards is the perfect person to lead with this message. Such an action would illustrate his genuine commitment to change and fighting vested interests in Washington, and hopefully it will channel that intense anti-immunity passion toward his campaign. He won't be able to participate in the filibuster himself, but by offering to leave the campaign trail and go back to DC with Clinton and Obama he'll be able to show leadership in challenging all Democrats to put thoughts of personal gain aside and join together in the fight to save the constitution.
Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence.
You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.
For more contact information for other campaigns, and to join the FISA fight, go to the original.
The furor over Barack Obama's remarks on Ronald Reagan indicates, yet again, that many self-labeled "progressives" view politics therapeutically and naively, not as a matter of getting things done.
For a good example, consider an exchange here recently where one correspondent claimed Obama's recent warning against scapegoating in Ebenezer Baptist Church was evidence of naive misunderstanding of MLK: King sure as hell wasn't calling for bi-partisanship and compromise on the issue of civil rights. The goal was not getting along. Two other piped on on the theme of Obama's supposed "sing kumabaya and get along" fecklessness. Another item in the "troubling pattern" of Obama's errors for the file. Or not. The headline at TPM reads:
At MLK's Church, Obama Denounces Homophobia And Anti-Semitism
Oops - he was not waving a Barney doll and singing "Let's be friends", he was making a principled and politically ballsy argument to his base constituency, but "progressives" too caught up in their own preconceptions missed it.
Our progressive campaign experts "know" that
Obama, a black man who was a known superstar at Harvard Law and worked for Alinsky's inner city community organizing group is so stupid and naive that he believes that political progress can be made by holding hands and "singing kumbaya". I heard this enough to come to believe that it must be based on racism - the poor dumb black guy needs to have some white progressives explain that there is racism. "Gee thanks, guys" he should gush, "without your incisive analysis, I would never have known."
That Obama "lauded" Reagan. Another tendentious and frankly senseless accusation. The smarter version of this claim is that he "reinforced Republican memes" because diverging from the way that self-selected political experts who have never run for office understand that political matters need to be presented is apparently, a terrible sin. The idea that Obama may have some idea of what he is doing and the level of respect to try to understand it, is something we don't see. A good example here is the endless complaining that the crouched over, defensive, positioning on Social Security advocated by some people is the only PC method of discussion. In fact, Obama's SS position is to go on the offensive and remove the cap - solving all funding problems even those in the future. If you want an example of accepting Republican framing - Hillary Clinton's description of Obama's proposal as "a trillion dollar tax increase" should do very well.
That any number of silly, "gotcha" stories circulated by the Clinton campaign are "revealing". For example, Obama, supposedly said that republicans had the better ideas for the last 15 years. He didn't say that and, you can understand why Clinton was unhappy, because Obama was pointing out that the Republicans have driven the agenda and the democrats have reacted. For Bill Clinton, whose primary accomplishments in office were the Republican takeover of Congress and Ronald Reagan's "welfare reform", that must be a bitter pill to swallow - but it is fact. What's appalling here is that realizing (a) politicians spin so Clinton may not have been telling the truth, and (b) there is no upside for Obama to say such a thing and (c) it would have been a contradiction of his entire program to say such a thing, should have defused this from the start.
That Obama is to the right of Hillary Clinton on substantive political issues. The only possible shred of evidence for this is Krugman's silly analysis of health insurance plans. In fact, Obama's plan is a much better plan both politically and in practice because it is not mandatory. The Hillary plan has an unrealistic and punitive mandate. What are they going to do - arrest poor people for failing to fill out the forms?
With the collapse of Edwards campaign, there are two serious candidates left in the Democratic camp. Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. Her campaign is run by a union busting DLC consultant who is a long time adviser and personal friend. Her spokespeople and advisors are DLC retreads from the Clinton years: Lanny Davis, Terry MacAuliffe, and so on. She voted for the Iraq War AUMF and has refused to disavow that vote - and war criminal Michael O'Hanlan is apparently an advisor to her campaign. She is a smart and capable and well intentioned woman - and certainly better than any of the clowns that the republicans propose, but that doesn't make her progressive. Obama is not a radical barn burner either. He is a centrist democrat with a host of progressive proposals. I lean towards Obama because I think Hillary has a tin ear that would leave her marooned and incapable of dealing with Republican attacks. Certainly her record shows her to be relatively easy for them to corner.
But as the election goes forth, it's time for "progressives" to grow up and stop going into hysterics anytime one of their sacred cows is gored.
So Far we have raised $838 on my grassroots page since midnight.
What is the difference between media perception and reality? Well, for the better part of a year the media has focused on 2 celebrity candidates.
Even after beating one of the celebrity candidates in Iowa (hint, it was Hillary Clinton), the media focused on two. Even after poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina, and other states, the media focuses on two.
Well, the reality is that there are 3 candidates, but only one who will fight to save the middle class and has led the field with the boldest agenda for change - John Edwards.
If you are tired of this media blackout join the millions of Edwards Supporters on 1/18/08 who will be standing up and saying to the media "You won't tell me who my nominee will be" Make a donation to the Campaign by clicking on the graphic below and help us reach our goal of 7 million dollars.
I've been wrestling with this diary for a day and a half... basically as Iraq has moved into the background, I've spent a bit less time thinking about it, but then I saw something on TV that I had to write about. Here goes...
The horserace narrative has swung back into full tweety ahead over the weekend. But more troubling to me than the Clinton/Obama back-and-forth (and let me say, pretty much all of the Democrats running for Prez are equally complicit in Iraq in my eyes) was what Clinton repeated over and over during her interview on Meet the Press on Sunday. Her rationalization for her vote on the 2002 AUMF was 1) it was her understanding that the vote was not for actual use of force but rather for the threat of force 2) she thought inspectors would go back in 3) she found out later Bush was deceiving Congress (and the American people) by going in unilaterally on an inflated / fabricated case for war. In this characterization, Bush is the one who bears the full responsibility for the war. Here's what she said on the transcript:
Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it.
...
I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it.
...
It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That's not what I was told by the Bush White House. That's not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That's not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.
Clinton is saying that Bush abused the power of war under false pretenses, and deliberately misled the country by lying about his intentions. Okay, I think we all can agree with that.
But this begs what should be a very obvious question, one that Russert did not ask.
First, the economy NEEDS not just a monetary (from the Fed) but a fiscal (from Congress and the President) stimulus package. Everyone from Larry Summers to Ben Bernacke agrees on that. President Bush is drawing one up--and guess what it'll be: to make the tax cuts permanent.
The Democrats are now uniquely positioned. We know who our nominee, and with work and luck, the next (Democratic) President will be: Senator Clinton or Edwards or Obama (deliberately alphabetically ordered). Their policy differences are minor and on the details. Let's use those facts to--already--create a shadow Presidency and a shadow fiscal stimulus package. Before the Nevada primary, in other words next week, these three candidates and their advisers should get together and hammer out THE Democratic stimulus package, something that they all agree to, that they can all be proud to take to the voters, that will then constrain congressional Democrats and that the Republicans will turn down at their peril. MORE
Despite the recent dust-up over the "inclusive" vs. the "populist" strategy, the differences between Edwards and Obama in terms of policy are tiny. And looking at the whole package, my guess is their general election campaign and governing styles wouldn't be all that different. Given his past record, I doubt Edwards would run the full-throttle populist campaign Krugman is hoping for, and likewise Obama isn't the centrist pushover some have made him out to be.
On one major point, though, the Obama and Edwards campaigns differ markedly. Obama has run a highly professional campaign, with tight coordination and agreement between the campaign's three principals: David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and Obama himself.
Edwards, in contrast, has allowed his operation to be hijacked by Joe Trippi.
Our campaign finance system is a vile, oozing swamp of legalized corruption which needs to be drained and scrubbed clean. Nearly everything that is wrong about the U.S. government ultimately grows out of the manure from this swamp. The system persists because people in position to potentially push for reform are precisely those who have so mastered its dark arts that they can't imagine changing it (think Bill Clinton). Expecting a politician to spend 15+ years in DC and then attack the campaign finance beast is like hoping the Pope will renounce Catholicism. For longtime DC pols, raising gobs of corporate money is what they do.
I know that right now he is focused on his campaign for the Presidency, but he will probably know whether or not he is in position to win the Democratic nomination sometime between January 3rd and February 5th. The deadline for getting into the Senate Race in North Caroline against Libby Dole is February 29th.
In 2009, the Senate will be the deciding body for a large number of progressive proposals from Universal Health Care to Restoring our Civil Liberties and Energy Independence. We need more strong progressives in the Senate to help fight to make these reforms law and to make sure that we can pass the best possible versions of these reforms.
STATE BLOGS
American people, that you have been made whole. You don't have to read polls to know you would be of immense assistance to the creation of the mandate that is needed now. Not just a win, not just an election night victory, but a victory that proclaims America has chosen again.
