Open Left - Hillary Clinton

China and the United States - a marriage of convenience

Zachary Karabell — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:20:00 GMT

As the United States and China wrap up their two-day "Strategic and Economic Dialogue," it's more apparent than ever that the two find themselves in a marriage that neither can easily dissolve and that neither fully wants.

The speeches struck all the rights notes - "the United States and China share mutual interests," President Obama announced. "If we advance those interests through cooperation, our people will benefit, and the world will be better off - because our ability to partner with each other is a prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges" Those sentiments were echoed by both Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The Chinese delegation spoke of the two nations as traveling in the same ship, a ship which was wracked by the global financial storm of the past year. In general, the rhetoric could not have demonstrated more clearly that both see themselves as locked in a relationship of mutual dependence.
Yet the words of officials belie the more ambivalent feelings of both governments and especially of domestic public opinion in both countries. The best-selling book in China over the past months has been a nationalist screed entitled "China is not happy," which argues for detachment from the United States as well as divestment from the U.S. dollar and which warns darkly that the ultimate goal of America is to keep China down. In the United States, there remains a strong current of distrust that sees Chinese policy around its currency as purposely aimed at conferring illegitimate advantages for Chinese goods and which views the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government as an absolute obstacles to future concord. And many U.S. economists do not believe that China - reliant as it is on state-spending rather than domestic consumer consumption - has a viable model for long-term growth.

While there are positive signs in the discussions around alternative energy, climate change, and the long-term security of the dollar, what's striking is how little has changed between the two as a result of the economic crisis. In fact, the events of the past months have propelled the two closer together, contrary to the arguments of those such as Niall Ferguson who are now predicting an impending divorce. The U.S.-China trade deficit is still immense, running at an annualized rate of nearly $250 billion a year in U.S. imports and $60 billion in exports, down from almost $340 in imports in 2008 and nearly $70 billion in exports ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-... ), but still considerable given the sharp contraction in overall economic activity globally. And China has been adding to its dollar reserves every month and has been a steady buyer of U.S. debt, which means it had become an even more significant creditor of the U.S. and a facilitator of U.S. government spending.

For now, elites in both countries speak the mantra of closer integration, but it's fair to say that their views do not accord with popular sentiment. It's also fair to say that neither government is prepared to face the real consequences of their economic relationship, which is a loss of control. China wants to diversify away from the dollar, but it has no alternative; the United States wants to be less dependent on China, but there is no other ready source of loans.

So this phase of the dialogue ends on promising notes. But reality will be harder to live, and its ramifications difficult for both sides to accept. For a 21st century relationship, this looks increasingly like a 19th century marriage, one of convenience and necessity rather than love and affection and one that is nearly impossible to end even if both parties desire it.

For a look at additional blogs and other writings of mine, feel free to visit River Twice Research.

The Democracy Index: An Interview With Law Professor Heather Gerken

Intrepid Liberal Journal — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:21:12 GMT

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, "How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index." Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index ("EPI") shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a "Democracy Index" would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.

Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:

"This index should take what Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji calls a `moneyball approach.' The word `moneyball,' of course, refers to Michael Lewis' book of the same name about the success of the Oakland A's after management substituted hard numbers and empirical research for the gut-level judgments of baseball scouts in making hiring decisions.

Similarly, the Democracy Index could change the terms of the debate by giving voters something new: moneyball politics. It would offer cold, hard numbers and comparative data in place of atmospherics and anecdotes. It would provide bottom-line results in place of subjective judgments. It would let reformers talk like corporate executives, not starry-eyed idealists. And, most important, it would enable the voters to hold election officials accountable for their missteps.

In the end, a ranking system would work for a simple reason: No one wants to be at the bottom of the list."

Gerken further described her Democracy Index proposal and identified the major obstacles to good election practices with her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It (Princeton University Press). Her book is an accessible 181 pages and postulates that we need more facts about our election practices and that a ranking metric is our best hope to facilitate accountability and reform. Gerken also contends that our broken electoral system has less to do with intended malice than "deferred maintenance," a term typically applied to failed infrastructure such as broken bridges.

Shortly after Gerken's LegalTimes article was published, Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, put her concept into proposed legislation and within a year, Congress set aside $10 million to fund model data collection programs in five states and the Pew Center. Other foundations also sponsored conferences and initial research. On March 1, 2007, Obama referred to these initiatives on the Senate floor as,

"an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information."

Hence, Gerken's efforts illustrated at least the potential for action from the body politic to facilitate electoral reform but obviously, more needs to be done.

With respect to electoral law, Gerken is among the most authoritative voices in the country. In 2006, Gerken joined the Yale Law School faculty where she teaches election and constitutional law. Previously, Gerken clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She has also written for the New Republic, Roll Call, and Legal Affairs and has been a frequent media commentator.

Gerken was among several commentators who appeared on Charlie Rose's program the very evening the Supreme Court rendered its fateful decision in Bush vs. Gore. During the 2008 presidential election, Gerken served on Barack Obama's election protection team.

Gerken agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about her book and proposal for a Democracy index. Our conversation was just over seventeen minutes and can be accessed via the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Hillary Clinton's Favorables Skyrocket

Chris Bowers — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:22:50 GMT

Congressional Democrats have scored positive, or even, favorable / approval ratings according to all eight polling firms that have conducted public opinion surveys on them since the Inauguration. These figures are remarkable because, in most polls, they are the first positive approval ratings from Congressional Democrats since early 2007 (and, in some cases, since early 2002, after the September 11th attacks). However, it is not just Congressional Democrats who have seen a dramatic improvement in their image since President Obama took office. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered stratospheric, 2-1 positive territory on favorabliliy over the past few months.

Check out Clinton's favorability ratings compared to this time one year ago (more in the extended entry):

NBC, March 1st (March 10, 2008 numbers in parenthesis)
Positive: 59% (45%)
Neutral: 11% (18%)
Negative: 22% (48%)

Gallup, January 11th (January 13th, 2008 numbers in parenthesis)
Favorable: 65% (50%)
Unfavorable: 33% (46%)

CNN, December 2nd (January 10th, 2008 numbers in parenthesis)
Favorable 66% (53%)
Unfavorable: 33% (39%)

I bring this up to point out that Hillary Clinton remains the "heir apparent" for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination. With a vastly expanded corps of dedicated grassroots activists, a more diverse resume as Secretary of State, and new, greatly improved favorability ratings, she is actually in a much stronger position that she was two years ago. While she will be 69 in 2016, that is still (just barely) young enough to run for, and win, the presidency. It is the same age Ronald Reagan was back in 1980.

Now, it must be said that, eight years ago, much the same could have been said about John McCain. The problem that McCain ran into was that, in the intervening 6-7 years, the popularity of his party plummeted. Hillary Clinton faces the same potential pitfall. Just as John McCain's 2008 hopes were largely tied to Bush's, Hillary Clinton's 2016 hopes are largely tied to the job performance of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. Should Democrats govern poorly, or otherwise see a precipitous decline in their popularity, Hillary Clinton's position will erode.

Is it possible that another underdog, grassroots favorite could emerge to defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016, ala Barack Obama in 2008? If Clinton's favorable ratings stay this high, then the answer is actually no. No one has a prayer against a candidate with a mid-60's favorable rating and a big-time activist army if her party is popular. At that point, any candidate looking to pull an upset better have saved the world from alien invasion, or something similar. As such, the person I can think of who would have a shot to challenge her in that circumstance would be Al Gore (very high favorables, one year younger than Clinton). I know that it is six or seven years from now, but an epic Clinton vs. Gore 2016 primary might actually be kind of fun (if, at the time, possibly a bit too retrograde).

Hillary to Israel: Let the Humanitarian Aid In!

fairleft — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:26:15 GMT

It's nice when a U.S. Secretary of State gets pissed off at and does something about the flagrant inhumanity of the main recipient of U.S. foreign and military aid, Israel:

Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid
By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents
February 27, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.
Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday.
"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."
Two weeks ago, four senior European Union officials sent a letter to the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and Yitzhak Herzog, the minister charged with humanitarian aid transfers to the Gaza Strip, protesting delays in the flow of aid through the crossings into Gaza. . . .

Now don't back down girl! Of course, the Israel Lobby quickly responded (and reported; WCBS doesn't allow readers to know what Clinton said that made seemingly 'everyone' so angry):

Feb 27, 2009 9:34 am US/Eastern
Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know
. . . On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.
"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council. . . .
"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

Yes, uh right, Iran's forward battalion, but do you include civilians in the battalion? I.e., is Hamas's dastardliness a reason not to give food and shelter to Gaza's children?

Here's generally what Clinton is pissed off about:

The gates to Gaza slammed shut again on Thursday, February 5, the day our three-person group departed Gaza, having been allowed in for only 48 hours. The Egyptian government closed the border crossing into Gaza, continuing the sixteen-month international blockade and siege. The crossing had been briefly open to allow medical and humanitarian supplies into Gaza following the devastating 22-day attack by the Israeli military. The attacks killed 1,330 Palestinians and injured over 5,500. . . .
Today, seventeen days after the gates swung closed on Gaza, they remain firmly locked. . . .
For the people of Gaza, rebuilding their homes, businesses and factories is on hold. Over 5,000 homes and apartment buildings were destroyed and hundreds of government buildings, including the Parliament building, were smashed. Building supplies, cement, wood, nails and glass will have to be brought in from outside Gaza. Two cement factories in northern Gaza were destroyed by Israeli bombs.

The EU's Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy, talks about the "disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza," and adds:

"[T]he crucial problems at the moment are not related to funding but to access."
"In the aftermath of the crisis, a clear priority remains the immediate and unconditional reopening of all Gaza crossings on a regular and predictable basis, for the flow of humanitarian and commercial goods as well as people," she said.

C'mon Israel Lobby, c'mon America's Israel supporters, how about putting some pressure on the government of Israel to treat the people of Gaza with common decency. Look at the pictures! Do it for duh children!!

Thanks to Blue in SC and MD (in 'The Lobby should shut up') for cluing me in to Clinton's solid move, expending some political capital and defying the Israel Lobby in order to help out a group of truly screwed over civilians, half of them children. Ain't something done lightly.

Clinton Telling China How It's Done

Natasha Chart — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:02:07 GMT

Secretary of State Clinton is focusing on climate change during her visit to China. Admirable, though I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read the start of this New York Times article:

BEIJING - Declaring "we hope you won't make the same mistakes we made," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited China to join the United States in an ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gases, as she toured an energy-efficient power plant in Beijing on Saturday.
"When we were industrializing and growing, we didn't know any better; neither did Europe," Mrs. Clinton said. "Now we're smart enough to figure out how to have the right kind of growth." ...

One wonders which "we" she had in mind.
For example, I doubt it was the federal government that ignored one of the nation's most successful energy efficiency policies in the stimulus bill. As Mary describes at the link, California has achieved enviable increases in energy efficiency through aligning the power companies' bottom lines with reductions in energy use by their customers.

A provision that mandated copying this policy in order to receive federal funds was stripped from the stimulus bill.

It's almost like the people making policy in the US didn't understand the seriousness of the situation. As if, perhaps, they didn't know any better and weren't really interested in promoting the right kind of growth.

Admittedly, the Democrats are saying the right things and there have been some good, if halting, steps in the stimulus. But that hardly seems to give the country the standing to suggest that our mistakes are in the past.

Considering that Senate Republicans and state utility regulators are still holding the country's emission reductions hostage, perhaps we could attempt a touch more humility when alluding to our accomplishments.

On The View From Egypt, Part Four, Or, Gaza, We Have A Problem

fake consultant — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:39:22 GMT

What had been a truce between Israel and the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip seems to have abruptly come to a halt; with the Israelis blaming Hamas and Hamas blaming Israeli oppression of the displaced Palestinians for the simmering hostilities that are now boiling over into military-scale violence.

Before the recent holidays and an immoderate amount of snow buried me in things that could not be done on the computer we had been having a conversation about the strategic importance of our relationship with Egypt. Within that series of discussions we explored the influence of the political opposition, and we considered the fragility of President Mubarak's hold on power.

We also noted the immediate proximity of Egypt to the Gaza Strip.

Today we're going to tie all of that together-and the end result of all that tying is that we better keep a close eye on Egypt, because trouble in Gaza has spilled over into trouble in Cairo....and that's one more Middle Eastern problem we don't need.

If you're looking for more details as to why Egyptian politics have been a one-party affair since the Republic's founding, information about the opposition, or a consideration of the country's strategic importance, have a look at Parts One, Two, or Three of this series.

So that we might put some of the background in place, here are some of the salient facts surrounding the events of the past few days:

A ceasefire that had existed between Hamas and the Israeli Government has expired. That ceasefire, however, had been a bit of an imperfect exercise.

Some attacks from Gaza into Israel have been self-attributed by Hamas (actions that they have described as responses to Israeli aggressions); and there are suggestions that forces loyal to the rival Fatah movement have also been involved in attacks. The Israeli Foreign Ministry reported 2502 rockets or mortars were fired from Gaza in the first 11 months of 2008, resulting in 17 Israeli deaths. (The ceasefire began in June of 2008.)

Over the four days since the ceasefire's expiration at least 1100 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli airstrikes, with some airstrikes targeting tunnels that connect the Gaza Strip to Egypt.

The tunnels are important because they are used to import supplies to the region when normal commercial crossings are restricted or closed by the Israeli Defense Forces. (Truck crossings into Gaza have been reduced from 475 daily before Hamas took control of the region to 123 daily in October 2008 to none for the past eight days.)

The IDF reports that the tunnels are used to import weapons as well.

It is also reported that IDF troops are massing near the Gaza border. It is possible that an entry into Gaza by the IDF is imminent, but as of this writing that has not yet occurred...or it may have already occurred, as reported by the sometimes reliable Debka.com.

And it's the tunnels that connect this story to Egypt.

As you may recall from our earlier conversations, there are many Egyptians who support the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamist views, and there are also many Egyptians, unassociated with Islamism, who feel a sense of solidarity with Gazans and their struggles with Israel. Add to that the fact that President Mubarak's secular but increasingly unpopular Government has been cooperative with Israel as they have worked to isolate Gaza and you have the makings of some serious trouble in the Egyptian street.

And as of today, the trouble seems to have started.

In a country with a Government that attempts to deter undesired street demonstrations with an extremely hostile internal security response, El Badeel of Cairo reports as many as 200.000 of the undeterred may have taken to the streets in demonstrations against the Government in cities such as Cairo, Alexandria, Tanta, and even down the Nile in the farm country of Minya and Asyut.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul-Gheit, and the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, are trading words-and Egyptian police and military border guard units are firing on Palestinians who attempt to enter Egypt through holes blown in the wall (by the bombing raids...) that would normally prevent such entries.

Now here is where it gets tricky.

Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza, is essentially descended from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-and the last thing Mr. Mubarak wants is hundreds of thousands of Hamas supporters taking up permanent residence in his country, especially if they end up forming fairly insular communities out in the Sinai Desert where the Egyptian internal security apparatus is at it's weakest.

On the other hand, being perceived as supporting Israel is fraught with 200,000 or so of its own perils-and if the internal security apparatus can't control the demonstrations, or uses unusually harsh methods to regain control, the internal security threat to Mr. Mubarak's control from his own citizens will also rise dramatically.

There are those in Israel who want Egypt to take control of Gaza...and it is possible that Israel will use the blockade to create an atmosphere that will "require" Egypt to take "humanitarian" steps-something that might be popular in the Egyptian street...but something that Mr. Mubarak, as we have noted, has no desire to accept.

There are also those who would like to see the Fatah Party take over again in Gaza, removing Hamas from power-but you may recall that Hamas was able to come to power in Gaza because many ordinary Gazans perceived Fatah and Yasser Arafat to be extraordinarily corrupt and ineffectual during their time in power.

The bad news for the US?

We are perceived throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds as the blindly supportive enablers of what Israel is doing in Gaza...and we are perceived in Egypt as the country that enables Mr. Mubarak's often highly oppressive rule.

As things go badly for the Palestinians, ironically, they get bad for us-and probably for the Israelis as well.

Why? Well, as I often say to my friends, we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. This blind support of Israel against the Gazans isn't helping matters...but Johann Hari tells the story much better than I:

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.
To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall - as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 - there is nowhere to hide.
--From an editorial in The Independent, December 29, 2008

There is one bit of good news: if Hillary Clinton can find a way to be seen as an "honest broker", instead of just a supporter of Israel, the incoming Obama Administration could change the atmosphere enough to allow Gazans and Israelis to again return to negotiations. Can the Obama Administration change the atmosphere enough to induce Israel to adopt a less hard-line anti-Palestinian stance? That may be the biggest question the new Secretary of State finds on her plate next month.

Another possible bit of good news: a rapid settlement and return to a semi-ceasefire status could reduce the long-term political damage. In the unfortunate event of a large-scale ground action by the IDF, it is likely the long-term damage increases. (Some suggest the Israelis chose this moment because they feel the Obama Administration will be less supportive of a hard-line policy than the Bush Administration. If this is true, the window for aggressive action may be closing sooner rather than later.)

So here we are: The Israeli actions against Gaza, intended to end the desire of Gazans to attack Israel, are likely to have exactly the opposite effect...which is spilling over the border to create all kinds of problems for the Mubarak Government in Egypt...all of which means all kinds of new bad news for us.

Hillary Clinton might have problems negotiating with all the players...but if she can overcome that obstacle, there could be a better outcome down the road than we have today.

If Israel cannot be convinced to find a way to develop a different relationship with their Palestinian neighbors-and vice versa-eight years from now President Obama will find himself just as vexed as Mr. Bush is today with his giant Middle Eastern failure...and if events cause Egypt, Pakistan, and maybe even Morocco to slide over to the Iran end of the "scale of hostile nations", he may find himself quite a bit more vexed than he ever expected.

Entitlement and Seeds Of Hope in New York's Senate pick

villagernyc — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:26:21 GMT

by Cody Lyon
As is often the case in the empire state, New York once again finds itself under the spotlight as drama builds over who Governor David Patterson might pick, if, as planned, current Senator Hillary Clinton resigns some time next year to assume the Secretary of State position. Truth be told, a number of worthy names have been whispered here and there, but only a couple of them have made their way to the main stages of discussion, debate and that sometimes annoying media glare from the rest of the country that has always seen New York as a national soap opera.

Among the whispers is a Cuomo, several women of which a couple happen to be Latina and another from Up-State.

Of course, there's no denying the biggest fish in the fry, a Kennedy, a name that evokes political reverence, respect and legacy. But in spite of tremendous political accomplishment, that same family, through no fault of its own, has also come to represent an American dynasty, the oft clichéd version of our royalty.' And while there's nothing wrong with Royalty per se, or Americans expressing affection for the tradition that comes with it, there is reason to question, show concern or perhaps raise flags when one's family genes potentially provide an untested individual with what could be a simple coronation into national political office where the power is more than symbolic.

History books teach us the United States is a free and open Democracy that consists of government by and for the people. So, considering that `by' essentially equals election, it might seem more fair, that in choosing New York's next Senator, the one set to succeed Hillary Clinton, the Governor might consider appointing an individual who has at least gotten votes for public office, or consider tapping a public official who has earned more tangible political wings beyond being the daughter of one of the nation's most revered presidents and a high profile member of our nation's often romanticized but powerful political dynasties.
Picking Caroline Kennedy to succeed Hillary Clinton as Senator from New York might actually send a contradictory message to Americans, the world, but perhaps more importantly, to the children of New York state. It could, inadvertently impact the spirit of the message that the election of Barack Obama reaffirmed, that hopeful seed our parents plant when they tell us while we're still young and naive, that anyone, regardless of race, income and yes, name, can be elected to high office in the United States.

Choosing Caroline Kennedy as the Senator from New York, based on nothing more than her good deeds that are boosted by familial association, dilutes that message, and at least on the surface, seems to say that like Royalty, position is indeed an attribute, even a card of entitlement in American politics.

Obama Fulfilling Campaign Promise by Hiring Clinton

Matt Stoller — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:19:04 GMT

I find the traditional media intolerable for its fake little dramas. Obama for instance promised a centrist administration that took in points of view from all sides, and he is delivering on that promise. I didn't like what he said at the time, but I understood he said it. It is not therefore a betrayal of the left that he is doing exactly what he said he'd do. The narrative that Obama was an ideologically progressive was nearly always in contradiction to his own statements and political choices, as Chris noted on Hardball last night.

The drama over Hillary Clinton is similarly ridiculous. In one primary debate, in what was a high-profile moment, Obama snarkily noted he'd want Clinton to advise him should he become President.

And so he did exactly what he promised he'd do during the campaign. He chose Hillary Clinton as someone who would advise him on foreign policy.

Clinton's Challenge: Israel

Matt Stoller — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:53:33 GMT

There's no question that Clinton's views on Iraq are tilted more towards hawkishness than many of us would like, but I've noted before that the criteria I'm going to use to evaluate her performance is Israel. My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews.

Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does.

Clinton Still Likely To Be Secretary Of State

Chris Bowers — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:15:00 GMT

Bloomberg:

Senator Hillary Clinton is likely to be nominated for secretary of state after the Nov. 27 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, according to an aide to President-elect Barack Obama.

Potential hurdles related to the financial disclosures of Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been worked out, said the aide, who asked not to be named.

The appointment, should the New York Democrat accept the post, would make her Obama's highest-ranking Cabinet official.

AP:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation's top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

So, apparently a senior advisor is leaking the same story to multiple sources. Anti-war activists are expressing frustration that no one who opposed the Iraq war from the start is receiving much consideration for these top cabinet positions, and I share those concerns. However, if the only options the Obama transition team is giving us on foreign policy are people who originally supported the war, then I see no reason why Clinton is any worse than the other potential options.

I will be discussing this, and other Obama transition related topics, on Radio Times today at 10:00 a.m. Check it out.

Will Hillary Clinton Seek Peace in Israel/Palestine?

Matt Stoller — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:46:55 GMT

If Clinton is considered to be Secretary of State, it's going to validate those who argued that there really was not much daylight between the two of them in the primary. She's a relatively hawkish Democrat whose policy decisions under the Bush administration were not good, and they tended to disagree on the role of diplomacy, but their voting records on Iraq were identical. That said, under a Democratic administration, both Clinton and her husband have the ability and credibility to work on the Israeli government and push it towards peace. I'm not up to date on Israeli politics so I don't know how possible this is, but domestically Americans are ready. While I often describe AIPAC as a problematic organization, what its rival J Street has really done is to broaden and diversify what it means to be pro-Israel.

If Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State, one of the bright spots of the Clinton legacy - the attempts at Oslo - would be something a good number of decision-makers are hoping she and her husband will continue. I do not think that Clinton would have domestic problems were she to push for a liberalizing policy in the area, since American Jews by and large trust her and her husband. I could see solving this problem as a large area of alignment between Obama and Clinton, and it would very much be in our strategic interest as troops leave Iraq, and it would be useful to have a firm American hand ensuring Israel doesn't do anything crazy should right-winger Netanyahu win the Israeli elections in 2009. Every President tries to solve this problem the last year they are in office, and it never works.

Putting Clinton on the task would change this dynamic and allow for a big personality to work on a big problem she is very well-suited to tackle.

Secretary Of State Update

Chris Bowers — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:30:00 GMT

If Hillary Clinton does not accept the Secretary of State job, then it appears Bill Richardson is next in line:

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.
Nate writes (emphasis in the orginal):

Still, we haven't really addressed our question: If Hillary Clinton's goal is to become President of the United States in 2016, would she improve her odds by accepting the Secretary of State position?

My answer to this is a qualified 'no'. If the Obama administration is perceived as successful, that will likely make Clinton's road to the White House easier. But this is probably true whether or not she serves in Obama's Cabinet. If the Democratic brand is strong in 2016, Clinton will have little trouble riding that wave and presenting herself as a safe, trusted, capital-D Democrat (which is essentially her brand to begin with), almost no matter what she had spent her time doing.
On the other hand, it would probably be easier for Clinton to extricate herself from an unpopular Obama had she avoided serving in his Cabinet. This is particularly the case if Obama loses in 2012, in which case Democrats would inevitably want to go in a "new" direction in 2016. Clinton would find it easier to present herself as that alternative if, say, she served as Governor of New York, rather than as a member of Obama's cabinet.

As far as Clinton's 2016 chance are concerned, I'll go along with the comparison between the benefits of being Governor of New York and Secretary of State, and examine it in the three most likely scenarios we will face in eight years:

Obama defeated for re-election in 2012: In this situation, it would obviously be better for Clinton to be Governor of New York than Secretary of State. If Obama is unpopular enough that he is defeated for re-election in four years time, then the country will not welcome back the highest-ranking members of his administration in 2016. See Mondale, Walter. In this scenario, accepting the job it would indeed hurt Clinton's chances. The only Democrats with a chance would have to come from outside the administration, such as Governors.
Obama is re-elected in 2012, but is unpopular during his second term. Let's say that Obama follows a similar trajectory to Nixon or Bush, and is re-elected but then quickly becomes unpopular. In this scenario, it will be virtually impossible for any Democrat to win, no matter if they are inside or outside the administration. See Ford, Gerald for the inside example, and McCain, John, for the outside example. If one party has been governing for eight years, and that party is unpopular, then it really doesn't matter if Clinton is Governor of New York--the very heart of Democratic, blue-state governance--or Secretary of State--the very heart of the Obama administration. Either way, there is no path to the Presidency for Clinton in 2016, which will be the last year when she has a realistic chance at the job.
Obama is re-elected in 2012, and is popular during his second term. In this scenario, it would be better for Clinton to be a part of the popular, winning team. The country would probably be looking for a steward to carry the Obama administration forward, or at least the Democratic brand forward, and Clinton would be at the top of the list on both counts. If she were Governor of New York, then she might actually face problems in the Democratic primary from, say, Secretary of State Bill Richardson, who would be the steward of the outgoing Obama administration. Secretary of State would cover her bases by allowing her to remain the most highly visible Democrat in the country, and in the administration, after Obama.

On balance, if these scenarios are considered equally likely, then game theory still slightly leans toward Clinton as Governor of New York being the best choice. However, there are complicating factors specific to Clinton and the New York Governorship that flip the decision back toward accepting the job.

For one thing, David Patterson might not go quietly from his job, and running a second brutal primary against an African-American won't help Clinton repair her image with the African-American community (not to mention that New York has, at least in terms of raw numbers, the largest African-American population in the entire country).
Second, the three scenarios above are not equally likely. The first and most damaging one, if Obama is defeated in 2012, is also the least likely outcome. Republicans are in disarray to the point where a Democratic Congress with an 11% approval rating just won the largest national popular vote victory this country has seen since 1984. It is going to take longer than four years for the country to forget what it was like under Republican governance. Further, the Republican bench is pretty weak right now. So, Obama's chances at re-election in 2012 seem pretty good, thus making the second two options, which favor taking the Secretary of State job, the better bet.
Third, Secretary of State rounds out Clinton's resume more than Governor of New York. Our still sexist nation will have difficulty viewing a woman as a tough leader on foreign policy even in eight years time, but it will have a lot less difficulty viewing a former First Lady and Secretary of State that way. Clinton's skills on domestic issues are somewhat in question given her leadership in the 1994 health care fight, and being Governor of New York would offer her an opportunity to put those fears to rest once and for all. However, she is still a Clinton, which has always given her strong domestic credibility.

I say that, at least in the abstract, being Secretary of State improves Hillary Clinton's image more than being Governor of New York. Further, it certainly helps her image more than remaining in the Senate, where many long-term Senators are ready to cap their careers by taking leading roles on coming legislation. The path to Senate glory for more junior Senators will be difficult:

Democratic officials, speaking only anonymously about private negotiations, say Clinton asked Sen. Edward Kennedy to establish a subcommittee that she would lead that would allow her to shepherd health care reform through the Senate. But Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, wants to lead the effort as a capstone to his career, and there also are other members with more seniority than Clinton whom he wouldn't want to bypass.

It is a reasonably close call, but I still think Clinton does more for her chances in 2016 by accepting the Secretary of State job than by declining it.

Hillary Clinton Offered Secretary Of State Job

Chris Bowers — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:26:47 GMT

Nico Pitney reports for the Huffington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

This is a high-risk, high-reward opportunity for Hillary Clinton. If she accepts, and serves out six or eight years in a popular Obama administration, then she is practically guaranteed the Presidency in 2016. Consider that the Secretary of State has been the most popular political figure in the entire nation for about twelve years running now, starting with Albright, then to Powell, then to Rice. It makes sense, since about all Americans see the Secretary of State doing is looking stately while meeting with powerful foreign leaders who suck up to him or her.

However, there is always a chance she will be replaced, or that Obama will not be a popular President. In either of these scenarios, taking the job might make it the last job Hillary Clinton has in politics.

In terms of politics, some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option.

Update: I should also add the rumors about Durbin and Kennedy supposedly denying Clinton a leading role on health care reform. If those rumors are true, then Clinton should probably take the job. It is the best leadership position available to her.

Update 2: Some people in the comments are saying they would have preferred Bill Richardson or Wes Clark. Clark would be a great choice, I think. Also, I did cut a television ad for Richardson, he is already proven in dealing with foreign governments, and it would be fantastic to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so close to the top. However, I have not heard either Clark or Richardson floated as serious contenders.

Update 3: Some are expressing frustration over such a high profile position for Hillary Clinton, since they supported and worked for Obama in the primaries. All I have to say to that is any belief that defeating Clinton in the primaries would somehow vanquish all Clintonistas from the reigns of power was foolish. Obama's appointments so far are full of Clinton administration officials. It makes sense, since lots of Democrats went to work for Clinton, and if Obama wants people with prior executive branch experience, that is where he has to look. Further, while the party is supposed to come together after the primaries, that doesn't mean one side is supposed to be entirely subservient to the other side.

I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.

Hidden Contested Primary Advantage: Pundits

Daniel De Groot — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:41:56 GMT

Watching Larry King and he has a panel of two Democrats, two Republicans to analyze various things, and the two Democrats are Paul Begala and Joan Walsh.

Interesting because both of them referred to the fact that they were Hillary supporters and had been critical of Obama to build up their subsequent praise of him in how he had won them over the past month or two.

It made their points more effective I thought, lending them some additional credibility beyond your usual partisan flacks. This is an advantage of having a hotly contested primary I hadn't considered. I don't know if Obama's campaign had anything to do with them appearing on CNN, but if so, it is a smart play.

Yes, Republicans Fantasize About Murdering Democratic Icons

Matt Stoller — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:06:16 GMT

In the remarkable outpouring of ugly bigotry, a lot of people have finally woken up to the real nature of the Republican Party as a group of sadistic criminally minded yet competently organized citizens. It's important to realize that what is being put on display isn't just racism against Obama, it's a full-on orgy of revulsion towards of anyone who believes in non-authoritarian ideas like equality for women, multiculturalism, or economic justice for all. I happened upon a slew of right-wing email forwards today; the below picture is from a right-wing email titled 'Rudy Giuliani's Push To Save America...'

You might think that this can be excused as just a joke, but that would be foolish. Republicans constantly fantasize about murdering prominent liberals, not just Hillary Clinton but Supreme Court Justices. Their fantasies carry them into ritualized Birth of a Nation-style erotic fear-mongering about black men and white women. This video has over 2M views, and conservatives are emailing it to each other and saying that it is Obama's preacher.

On the flip is an email forward about Obama that ends with the line "The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!"

Who is Barack Obama? Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.
If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scarey to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it. We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.
Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.
Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

This can only be offset by a different electorate, and Obama is starting to create it. I ran into a proud non-voter today who told me how much he dislikes politics. He was a young father and a painter, and while he used to be interested in politics, he just thinks that his vote doesn't matter. Instead of paying attention to politics, he wants to work hard, "make a little money", and take care of his family. And what does he believe in? He hates war, he thinks McCain is awful for wanting to stay in Iraq, and likes Obama. And he doesn't believe in voting. My guess is that he is going to be a voter in the next few years, probably because the country will continue to polarize and politics will continue to become more and more relevant to our lives and access to the system will level out.

But this relevance is going to come because the racism and ugliness of the right will fully flower, and we'll descend into a very dangerous period in American history. It is not smart to think that Republicans share our values or that this is a group with whom we ought to work with on anything but extremely limited coalitions. These may be ignorant and mean, but they are organized people that are quite competent at hating and bringing along others for the ride. And they are honeycombed into important parts of the business world (like the cable industry) and all over the security industry.

These people like their non-lethal and their lethal weapons, and they want to use them on our leaders. And probably, if it comes to it, on us.

Flaming for Obama: Prospect Piece with Jerome Armstrong's Answers

brit — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:33:35 GMT

Given the meltdown in the economy, and the looming presidential debates, treat this as a mental health break, my piece on the primary wars has just been published in Prospect Magazine .

I first joined MYDD in 2004, and was an avid geeky follower of Chris Bowers (in fact I thought he ran the site) but as most of you know the site got a very different reputation during the primary war.

Though it's subbed and simplified for a British publication where the Netroots has to be explained as Blogosphere 101, I you might be interested to read it: in short, through an adversity, it's a paeon to the blogosphere and the possibilities of online advocacy and political campaigning
In the fierce urgency of defeating McCain Palin, I don't want to reignite any unnecessary and ancient flame wars, but you might be interested in the following themes such as this disquisition about SNARK:

It may seem puerile, but by then the primaries themselves had descended into farce-partly because the old "made for television" politics no longer worked in the digital age. This is something Armstrong foresaw in Crashing the Gate, arguing that the old Karl Rove-Dick Morris days of mass media campaigns were over...
Saying one thing to one electorate and another thing to another was viable in an age of local radio, television and newspapers. But with Google and YouTube, where every archived interview and campaign speech is just a click away, the contradictions could be burrowed out, held up and shown to be cynical and manipulative.

This is to me the other salient issue. Thanks the availability online of sources and stories, we've seen the rise of 'citizen journalists', who have provided many early leads on stories, especially in the vetting of Palin in the last month or so. My guess - my hope - is that it's going to be a lot harder in the future to fix, frame and spin stories without popular support.

I also try to question the structure of blogs and the promise of some kind of collaborative venture:

The paradox of the netroots is that for all their bottom-up inclusiveness, these sites are run by sole proprietors-Armstrong on the pro-Hillary MyDD, Markos on the Obama backing Daily Kos-the rock stars of the liberal blogosphere. The economics of the web means that clickthrough ad revenue, driven by visitor numbers, is the main source of funding. (Based on a rough estimate of traffic and Google ad rates, Daily Kos could be earning almost $1m a year through advertising.) As with early rock stars, the balance between driving up commercial success and retaining authenticity is proving hard to pull off.
The result is an uneasy mix of democratic collectivism and Rupert Murdoch-style autocracy.

But big Kudos to Jerome. Though in some ways, through my bannings and removal of privileges, he is the apparent enemy of the piece, he slightly stunned me, and showed his capacity to take flak, by frontpaging his take on the essay this morning

Its a compelling account, but I've a few inside-baseball quibbles that I'll point out. They don't point out flaws in the article, but just a different point of view (and if there were 10,0000 participants we'd have 10,000 pov's too).
First, I make it a point to distribute a majority of the income from ads on this site to other writers, and after the overhead and platform investment's I make, this has never been a profitable venture that I depend upon for revenue (which is how I'll always keep it too)...
(snip)
Whatever editorial moderation's we attempted here with trying to limit the pile-on gang-ratings failed or at best just caused a meta-uproar. But, like all things, the primary came to and end and we found a way to restore those privileges to everyone that stayed to fight the next battle.

Read the full article here, and see the spin off, Motley Moose

A Sad Descent into political Chaos?

villagernyc — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:06:20 GMT

Descent into political chaos
by Cody Lyon

On Wednesday, September 10, 2008, New York City saw puffy clouds, cool breezes and sunshine that gently bathed the city's tall buildings in crisp golden sunlight. The bike path along the Hudson was filled with cyclists and joggers while on the streets, tourists made their way to places like Times Square or the ferry out to the Statue of Liberty.

Outside towers near Wall Street, office workers took smoking breaks enjoying the hints of autumn while others lunched on benches tossing an occasional crumb to pigeons while traffic whizzed by on the West Side Highway. From an observation deck of an individual life in the city, the island of Manhattan was enjoying a beautiful day.

Still, there is no doubt, countless New Yorkers have been engrossed by the ongoing nonsense gripping the current contest for the land's most important political office a horse race that has recently been punctuated by references to dogs, swine and lipstick.

But with that captivation has come an increasing sense of worry and frustration, as many New Yorkers watch and listen to a political contest that has in many minds descended into a chaotic diversion and not a debate over party ideology, values and solutions.

Here it is, the second week of September and despite a Congressional Budget Office report saying the United States deficit is projected to rise to $407 billion, along with a continued rash of failing financial institutions, the nightmare of misled war in Iraq, a mere treading of water in the land of the Taliban, Afghanistan, despite the fact that 50 million un-insured, a disappearing middle class, the headlines are filled with talk of pitbulls, swine and lipstick, as if some sort of Animal Farm like fever had stolen the meat from the potato's of reality that politics is meant to address.

Even on this day before the anniversary of what is arguably the city's greatest tragedy, a crime of death, destruction and horror, a memory that still blips loudly on the radar screens of so many New Yorkers and Americans everywhere, text messages were being sent and phone calls made among political junkies who call themselves Democrat as they worried aloud that the party values they support were facing increasingly tremendous obstacles come November.

For many, some who call themselves transplants, those who originally come from places far away from the so called sophistication, the bustle and hustle, those who ran away to New York to exist in tolerance and acceptance, an added sense of urgency was setting in as polls showed increasing numbers for the party they held responsible for exploiting pain and tragedy for political gain.

They wondered why, in an election year where the baggage of the past administration would logically derail or simply, perhaps even dramatically sink any remnant of hope for Republicans maintaining control of the executive branch, the Democrats were still failing in their attempts to make victory, perhaps more appropriate, change, a "sure thing" in November

Since the days of September 11, 2001, New York City has moved on. Sure, the memories are still there, the pain, the hurt and the anger, but regardless, the busy lot that New Yorkers are, dictates staying on their toes, and that includes following politics.

In one phone call, a CEO of a small marketing firm downtown said that whomever devised the coronation of Sarah Palin as a running mate for the 25 year veteran of Congress was "simply genius."

He went on to say that they, the Republican strategists, long ago mastered how to get into the psyche of America's heartland.

Just what is that psyche?

In a chapter tilted Persecuted, Powerless and blind from his book "What's the matter with Kansas", author Thomas Frank asserts that in what he calls 'red land' "both workers and their bosses are supposed to be united in disgust with those affected college boys at the next table, prattling on about French cheese and villas in Tuscany and the big ideas for running things that they read in books.

According to the transplant marketing exec in Manhattan, the people described in that book are his family, his family's friends among others outside his current universe are the ones who see the antithesis of those college boys in Sarah Palin and John McCain.

"David Axelrod just got his head handed to him on a silver platter," he yelled into his phone.

Not that the marketing exec is happy about that. Rather, he says, the Democrats, i.e. Obama and his team must rise up, perhaps take a humble pill, and somehow figure out how to "inspire" the reportedly "more than half" of the nation's voters. He, his running mate and his surrogates must figure out a way to re-inject the hope that a better America is somehow attainable through the political process, a poisoned process that they can overcome, if they maintain their sincere message of opportunity for all.

To be fair, the marketing man on the phone was a Hillary supporter during the primary and as of just a few weeks ago, made no denials of his reluctance to grudgingly support the Obama-Biden ticket. But, with the new Alaska superstar stealing the thunder from everyone else in the campaign, he says he realized that his frustration was geared more towards the American people, and perhaps the media for not highlighting the crucial differences in the candidates and what it is they intend to do, or not do, once in power.

Plain and simple, how can Democrats spell out to the people that voting for the Republican candidate would most likely do little to change their lives from the current state it is in now?

Still, during the chat, he said some members of his own mostly politically moderate working class family had been energized by Palin simply because they can identify with her.

"They really don't care about her stand on issues, it's about a person that's like them, not some fancy pants elite politician like Obama," he said.

At that moment in the conversation, thinking back in political time to the Democratic Primaries, one can't help but recall the moment that Senator Hillary Clinton seemed to wake up and embrace the populism espoused by the now "disgraced" John Edwards. It was at that point Clinton appeared to whip her campaign out of an entitled, arrogant state of being and began to aggressively market herself as someone who passionately embraced the populist issues of all the people in a manner that was purely political, but somehow sincere. In the waning days of her campaign, Clinton was able to work that political formula, while guzzling whiskey shots and beer all the way to several victories, but alas, to little to late.

For some reason, despite fact the Senator was indeed a Clinton, people began to believe, that this candidate would wake up every morning and fight for their interests. They saw someone who would seek to bridge the glaring economic inequity that had helped further foster the class divides of the states. Perhaps, they even began to believe that she was sincere.

It is imperative that the Obama campaign figure out its way in doing basically the same, perhaps not a carbon copy repeat of the Clinton awakening but certainly not the sad tit for tat insult show that the campaign has engaged in along with the Republicans. Otherwise, millions of Americans will continue on their quest to choose a candidate they can relate to.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the anniversary of that day that shook modern America to its very foundation, tested its resolve and for a brief shining moment, unified a nation so tightly, will come and go just like every other day.

The threat to America, at our weakened far northwestern flank

murlandguy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:56:37 GMT

[Cross-posted from Free State Politics]

With things apparently heating up between the U.S. and Russia, we need to be on our guard everywhere, including in the Arctic region, where we are separated from Russia only by the Bering Strait. Our own state of Alaska sits astride that strait, due east of the Big Red Bear. Do we have the kind of leadership in Alaska we need to face down the supposedly reformed Commies, if the situation goes critical? If that red phone rings at 3am, do we have the right people in place to answer the call?

Sadly, the answer to that is, 'apparently not'. Governor Sarah Palin is hiding from the U.S. media. If she is too cowardly to face our lapdog corporate national media, how can we expect her to face Putin and his forces of world domination? For the safety of the nation, not only should she not be a heartbeat from the Presidency, she should be impeached by the state legislature of Alaska for failure to show adequate courage in the face of the threat to Alaska, and our nation.

Please, Senator McCain, do the right thing, and find someone brave enough to take that position of being "one heartbeat from the Presidency", who won't whine about her treatment by our docile media puppies (what, is Gov. Palin afraid of being licked to death?).

You have proudly noted your past record of working with Democrats. Replacing Sarah Palin with the braver and tougher Hillary Clinton would demonstrate both bipartisanship and resolve, and serve as yet another supreme act of patriotism in your long career as a public servant. The applause Senator Clinton received during mention of her name at the Republican National Convention tell me that this would be a winner, and would bring us together as a nation.

Senator McCain, I ask this as a concerned American. Be the patriot you have always been. Remember, Country First!

UPDATE: Hah, Gov. Palin has decided to let a media puppy dog lick her face after all! Charlie Gibson of ABC News gets to do the honors. Steve Benen speculates that internal polling by the McCain camp showed that too many folks had noticed. Personally, I still think exchanging her for Senator Clinton would send a better message of bipartisanship and Country First!-ism.
Wolverines!

UPDATE #2: More on the upcoming interview of Governor Sarah Palin by ABC's Charlie Gibson - this from Josh Marshall:

...it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.

My guess is that ol' Charlie may stop wagging his tail and licking Gov. Palin's face long enough to ask whether a McCain-Palin Administration will cut his capital gains taxes. Once he gets the answer he wants, he'll resume tail-wagging and face-licking.
Fortunately for Sarah Palin, she's not a Democrat.

Broad Political Implications Of A McCain Victory

Chris Bowers — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:43:22 GMT

I will post on the daily details of the tracking polls later today. However, the short version is that McCain was clearly ahead in Saturday's polling, probably by about 4% in Rasmussen and 6-7% in Gallup. With numbers like that, there can be no doubt that McCain is currently leading in both the national popular vote and in the Electoral College (the Electoral College is not as divergent from the national popular vote as some commenters imply). Before going into the minutia of the numbers, in the extended entry, I list five broad implications for our national politics if McCain were to win.
Five macro results of a McCain victory:

Large Democratic Congressional gains will not break the working conservative majority. Even if a McCain loss is coupled with large Democratic gains in the House and Senate, the working conservative majority will not be broken. Bush has presented McCain with a path to governing with a Democratic Congress: veto anything you don't like, never respond to any congressional investigations, and secure enough Bush Dogs to pass virtually any legislation you want. Over the past two years, the number of Bush Dogs in the House has actually grown from 40 to 70, and there is no reason to expect that number to shrink under a McCain administration. No Democratic majority will be large enough or tough enough to break that level of conservative support. Even sixty seats in the Senate simply wouldn't be even close to enough, given the large, and continually increasing, numbers of capitulation Democrats.
The Democratic Party will move to the right, not the left. There is a rather absurd notion among pundits that in defeat, parties often decide to move further away from the center. This just isn't true. Defeat pushes a party toward the winning the party, as Daniel De Groot wrote two months ago. As imperceptible as it might appear, we have even seen this among Republicans over the past two years. Democratic voting unity now surpasses Republican voting unity in Congress, and McCain won the Republican nomination on the backs of primary voters who were either "dis-satisfied" or "angry" with the Bush administration. A McCain victory would push Democrats more toward Republicans, making McCain's job of recruiting ~~Bush~~ McCain Dogs all the easier.
The old political narratives will remain in place. The new political coalitions that I wrote about in The End of Bubba Dominance in The Nation will not come into being. White social conservatives will continue to be seen as the dominant swing groups, and as such receive the lion's share of attention from the national parties and national media. Get ready for four more years of "Democrats don't understand middle America" editorials, for example. As such, one of the main anchors keeping our national politics firmly on the right side of the spectrum will not be lifted.
Clinton will become the 2012 Nominee. Should Obama lose, the "I told you so's" will rain down hard from the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. Specifically, reinforcing point #3, the focus will be on Obama's failure to win socially conservative white working class voters. Further, with Palin now on the ticket, a McCain victory would result in claims that Clinton could have also won more women voters, thus making her more electable. Combine these factors with the obvious point that a defeated Obama, a disgraced Edwards, and a disgraced Spitzer would leave Hillary Clinton with no serious challengers in 2012. You can pretty much bet that Clinton will be the nominee in 2012 should McCain become President.
Democrats will shoulder equal blame for national problems. With Democrats in control of Congress for multiple sessions, and with their majorities significantly expanded, the national political environment will no longer be overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats. The country will continue to go down the toilet, but Democrats in Congress will be blamed for it just as much as will the McCain administration. The only congressional gains that Democrats might make will be in the Senate in 2010, because they have to defend so few seats, and in the House in 2012, because they will be able to draw so many new maps. Otherwise, the congressional gains we make in 2008 will be our peak for several electoral cycles.

Overall, even if the country continues to inch to the left due to changing demographics, increasing income inequality, and the failure of right-wing policies, the political infrastructure and center of political power in America will remain firmly entrenched on the right-wing. Our generational chance for a six-year progressive governing window will have been missed, with only a chance at a two-year window still alive in the 2012 elections. A whole host of dangerous policies will come to pass, including the overturning of Roe vs. Wade when John Paul Stevens retires and the Democratic Senate inevitably fails to filibuster his anti-choice replacement (who would probably be an ultra right-wing woman, ala Sarah Palin). The internet will probably be sold of to telecoms, thus putting a serious dent in, if not end the promise entirely, the most progressive political development in decades (not to mention the greatest cultural outpouring in our country's history). Deficits will continue to balloon. Huge residual forces will occupy Iraq for at least another decade. Global warming will worsen. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The only way to stop all of this is to win the presidency. All of the trends that I listed above will be reversed should Obama win. Republicans will move even more toward Democrats. The Democratic Party will move to the left. Socially conservative working class whites will no longer be the most heavily coveted swing voters. Obama will be the nominee in 2012. One thing that will be the same is that we will shoulder all the blame for the country's problems, but at least we will have a chance to pass legislation that will stop those problems first.

There is a lot at stake in this election. I don't know if McCain is the favorite right now, since this could be a very brief polling spike that will reverse in just a few days. However, Obama definitely isn't the favorite right now, because he is losing. These are dangerous, and consequential, times for America.

Update: Since some of you are asking, I didn't mean to imply that there would be anything wrong with Clinton as the nominee. I have as much problem with that as I have with Obama being the nominee. In fact, I would actually be relieved that we would still have a strong candidate for 2012. However, don't expect Clinton to be more progressive in 2012 than she was in 2008. In fact, expect her to be the more right-wing Clinton who showed up toward the end of the primary season.

Update 2: Yes, because I am speculating on what a McCain presidency would mean for the country, that means I am panicking and have given up all hope. Whatever.

The Message of American Progressivism

Mike Lux — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:01:50 GMT

Crossposted at Huffington Post

As I argue in my book coming out in January, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, the history of American politics from 1776 on has been a debate between progressives and conservatives as to what kind of country we want to live in. Progressives have always argued that America should be seen as one people, one family if you will, where our fates rise and fall as one; where we are all equal in the sight of each other and the law, where we should each have an equal opportunity at the good things in life; where the luckier and better off among us give their less lucky fellow citizens a hand up, should be their brothers' and sisters' keepers; where people, all the people not just the elites, are the sovereigns, that we the people have joined together to form a more perfect union where progress is possible, where hope for a better future can overcome the fear of change. Conservatives, of course, have always argued the opposite: that we should look out only for ourselves as rugged individualists; that the powerful are powerful for good reason, and trying to change anything is to be feared.

I am convinced that this coherence and unity in pushing this compelling idea of American progressivism is a big part of what made the Convention such a success. Short-term for our 2008 electoral purposes, it is of course also great that so many speakers, especially including Obama, went hard after McCain and made the case against him effectively. That was essential. But after watching so many Democratic Conventions over the years with no coherent big picture message, messages that were all personal and didn't have an ounce of ideological definition to them (think Dukakis' stirring "I'm a good manager" message, Kerry's "I'm a war hero" message, and a host of others), it was a joy to see a clear definition of who we are, what we value, and what we believe in.
Ted Kennedy:

We are told that Barack Obama believes too much in an America of high purpose and bold endeavor.
But when John Kennedy thought of going to the moon, he didn't say, it's too far, we can't get there, we shouldn't even try.
Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge -- and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon.
Yes, we are Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon. We scale the heights. I know it. I've seen it. I've lived it. And we can do it again.

Michelle Obama:

All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do. That we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.
That is why I love this country. And in my own life, in my own small way, I've tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities.
Because I believe that each of us-no matter what our age or background or walk of life-each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation. It's a belief Barack shares, a belief at the heart of his life's work. It's what he did all those years ago on the streets of Chicago, setting up job training to get people back to work and after-school programs to keep kids safe, working block by block to help people lift up their families...
You see, Barack doesn't care where you're from, or what your background is, or what party, if any, you belong to. That's not how he sees the world.
He knows that thread that connects us-our belief in America's promise, our commitment to our children's future-is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we disagree.

Hillary Clinton:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?
We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America...
Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. He knows government must be about "We the people" not "We the favored few"...
America is still around after 232 years because we have risen to the challenge of every new time, changing to be faithful to our values of equal opportunity for all and the common good.

Bill Clinton:

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More band-aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.
They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks. In this case, the third time is not the charm.
My fellow Democrats, sixteen years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity.
Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. Sound familiar? It didn't work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won't work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.
His life is a 21st Century incarnation of the American Dream. His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the "more perfect union" of our founders' dreams. The values of freedom and equal opportunity which have given him his historic chance will drive him as president to give all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, their chance to build a decent life, and to show our humanity, as well as our strength, to the world.

Joe Biden:

And I am here for everyone I grew up with in Scranton and Wilmington. I am here for the cops and firefighters, the teachers and assembly line workers-the folks whose lives are the very measure of whether the American dream endures.
Our greatest presidents-from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy-they all challenged us to embrace change. Now, it's our responsibility to meet that challenge.
Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.

And especially Barack Obama:

It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well...
What is that promise?
It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper...
For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
America, this is one of those moments.
I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it.
This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

That speech was so powerful not only because Obama did such a great job of ripping the Bush/McCain policy view; not only because he answered Republican criticisms so beautifully; not only because he told the country more about who he was and where he came from. He did all of that beautifully. But the power of the speech came from his brilliant exposition on what American progressives believe in their core- something that Democrats have failed to do for quite a long while.