Thursday, February 21, 2008

Oh, yeah....and his middle name is hussein

I can still remember the first time I ever heard a republican political consultant announce, with lip-smacking glee and country hick accent, how much he relished the thought of running a candidate against "Barack HUSSEIN Obama". It was about a year ago, when the "smart money" was on an inevitable contest between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Its funny what a year's time in the real world does to fantasies of inevitability. Rudy Giuliani's smug assumption-- that his alleged leadership in the aftermath of an alleged terrorist attack automatically equaled a shot at the white house-- overlooked both the irrational stubbornness of the conservative right (they're still voting for Huckabee, the last time I checked) and the absolute weariness of America at large with anything or anyone having to do with 9/11.

Hillary Clinton had similar assumptions, ran as a virtual incumbent--and has received an electoral trouncing that would've led anyone less convinced of their own privileged status to throw in the towel by now.


And so now it falls upon the voters of Texas and Ohio to cast what may well be decisive votes in the contest to choose the next President of the United States. For Texans who do not identify with the Republican Party, this is a particularly odd moment. For once it really matters what we think and how we vote--it really matters that we do vote. And this is one time that squandering your vote on a Green, a Libertarian, or some other principled exercise in futility doesn't cut it. It really matters who next becomes president of the United States. It matters to the entire world. The world doesn't get to vote--but you do. Even if you think the entire electoral system is an elaborate sham, you should vote anyway.....just on the off chance that you might be wrong and that your voice and your vote actually can make a difference. As for myself, I'm voting for the skinny black guy with the weird name. I think you should, too.

This really is a defining moment in American History. In eight short years that seemed to last forever, George W. Bush committed this county to the costliest war of choice in history, set into motion what may well wind up becoming the next "Great Depression", forestalled critical action to counter what may wind up being irreversible climate change, and set back basic principles of social justice and equality by almost a century. Because the last eight years have been so devastatingly bad, the need for overwhelming change in American domestic and foreign policy is absolute and crucial.

There is substantial evidence that the basis of Barack Obama's lead over Hillary Clinton is based on his ability to increase participation--to bring in younger voters who have never participated, bring back older voters who lost faith, and bring in disaffected independents. This alone is reason to support his candidacy. The American political system is by no means a perfect democracy. In some ways, it is not a democracy at all. But the surest remedy for those anti-democratic tendencies is participation. It was only razor-thin margins in key states and precincts that enabled the Supreme Court to give George Bush the White House. Greater participation might've spared us the worst president in history. Say what you will about the vapidity of some of his supporters. By re-energizing the electorate, Barack Obama is doing this country an enormous favor.

There is also evidence to support Obama's claims that he will move past the partisan paralysis that has so much defined Washington. Many of his accomplishments as an Illinois state senator were fundamentally based on bipartisanship. There is no reason whatever to assume the same of Hillary Clinton--certainly not when she cites her track record of "winning fights with Republicans" as one of her principal qualifications to be president. After the last eight years, this country does not really need a President who can win fights; it needs someone who is smart enough to win without fighting. Nor would it hurt, necessarily, to have a president who's written a couple of books as opposed to one who might've read a couple. Nor would it be a bad thing to have the White House occupied by a former professor of constitutional law-- none of which is to say that Hillary isn't smart also.....or is it? Obama's speech denouncing the Iraq war pretty well predicted everything that has happened since. Not only did Clinton vote to authorize the war, she has steadfastly refused to admit error ever since....didn't we just go through eight years of presumed presidential infallibility? Do we really need four more?

But the single biggest reason to support Barack Obama in the Texas Primary, the Texas Caucuses, and the November general election is the fundamental message of change his presidency would send to the rest of the world. Even if Barack Obama wasn't one of the smartest men to ever run for the office, even if he wasn't an inspiring and charismatic leader with the ability to mobilize millions, even if he didn't have both the intention and ability to move past the gridlocked business that currently passes for governance....even if none of that mattered as much as it does, there would still be that one signal, inescapable moment when a man with a brown skin, an African surname and an Arabic middle name solemnly swears that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That moment changes everything. A decade overdue, in that moment the United States of America joins the 21st Century.

His middle name's Hussein....and you're damned right I'm voting for him.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Visions of a Promised Land

Robert F. Kennedy's widow's has this to say of Barack Obama:
"...I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did,” Mrs. Kennedy said in an interview that day, comparing her late husband’s quest for social justice to Mr. Obama’s. “He has the passion in his heart. He’s not selling you. It’s just him..."
The words were spoken on the occasion of what would've been Robert Kennedy's 80th birthday, an occasion when Mrs. Kennedy introduced Senator Obama as "our next president."

This week, several other member of the Kennedy family are adding their uniquely influential voices to the chorus of those who think that Barack Obama at least should be our next President--not least among them the surviving daughter of John F. Kennedy and the surviving brother of RFK and JFK, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachussets.

This is a remarkable development in may ways. Most immediately seized upon in the media is how devastating a censure this endorsement is to Mr. Obama's principal rival, the virtual co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton. While this aspect of the announcement is undeniable (the catalyst for Senator Kennedy's decision, according to unamed sources, was specifically the Clintons' recent decent into race politics and Karl Rove-like distortions), it is by no means the most significant. Certainly, there is a tactical advantage to being embraced by the one political family more central to the Democratic Party than The Clintons....but there's a lot more on the table than that.

Somewhat more important, but by no means tantamount, is the strategic advantage this announcement confers in the matter of the so-called "Super Delegates." For those who have heard the phrase but not it's definition, Super Delegates are Democratic members of Congress, members of the Democratic National Convention, and former holders of high office (yes, Bill Clinton is a Super Delegate) who are entitled to vote in the Democratic National Convention, but not bound to honor the wishes of any state's voters--or, in fact, any voters at all.

To date, Hillary Clinton has held a hundred delegate lead over Barack Obama (despite the fact that Senator Obama has acquired a greater count of delegates won in primaries and caucuses). This lead is based on the fact that, even though Super Delegates are not called upon to formalize their choices until the convention, they are free to make them public in advance. In other words, every single one of the super delegates who has declared in advance for Hillary Clinton has plenty of opportunity to change their minds....and the 700 or so supers that have yet to declare a preference now have a lot more to think about.

The real significance of the endorsement goes beyond either the tactics or the strategy of securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. The real significance goes beyond the "how" of U.S. presidential politics, into the all-important "why". The Clintons are masters of the "how". Their campaign is built upon it. But when it comes to *why* Hillary Clinton wants to be President, or why the American People should choose her as such, the questions become considerably harder to answer.

The Kennedy endorsement brings into even sharper focus the many comparisions that have been made between Senator Obama and Robert Kennedy, John Kennedy....and, inevitably, Martin Luther King. Neither King nor the Kennedy brothers lived long enough to witness the "promised Land" that Dr. King spoke of in the speech he made the day before he too was struck down by an assassin's bullet.....nor have any other Americans. The promised vision of a more just and more honorable America that movitated the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements of The Sixties has been lost for decades. When Dr. King spoke of a "promised land" he was analogizing himself to Moses, who--having led his people out of bondage, wandered with them for forty years in wilderness before his people--not he--were finally permitted to enter the promised land.

And now, America has wandered for forty years in a wilderness of our own making--a barren wasteland of violence, brutality, and injustice. When Barack Obama speaks of healing this country's divisions and injustices, he speaks to a higher purpose than the mere mechanics of governance and the mere tactics of winning elections--he speaks to finally winning past the battles the Clintons are so good at fighting, but that ultimately still cripple this country. Far more than anyone, the Kennedys are the stewards of the dream that John F. Kennedy's presidency once seem to herald. As much as Bill Clinton tried to build upon the symbolism of his youthful meeting with Kennedy, and as much good as he did accomplish in his presidency, he and his wife are not the successors to the stewardship of that dream.

The Kennedys feel that torch is appropriately passed to Barack Obama. My feeling is that they are correct. All that remains now is for Americans to decide they no longer wish to wander in the wilderness.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Not So Fast, Evita

In the midst of all the attention being given to our own little Evita crying herself up a thin win in New Hampshire, a counter-narrative has been forming on the 'Net and finally broken through to mainstream attention (in places as diverse at Salon, NPR, and Fox News): the distinct possibility that the New Hampshire Primary that stalled Barack Obama's march to the White House might've been a rigged election.

The basis for this suspicion: 80% of precincts reporting in the New Hampshire primary use Diebold-supplied optical scanners to digitally tabulate votes, while 20%--primarily in poorer, rural areas-- tabulate votes by hand. The hand-counted votes are in accordance with both the predictive polling and the exit polling and show Obama winning. The electronically counted ballots show Clinton ahead. More damning: the percentages, according to at least one watchdog group, appear to be exactly switched.

The stories appearing in the mainstream media all contain the disclaimer phrase "of course, no one suspects the Clinton campaign" (no one, that is, who wants to keep their job). The official "explanation" is that the vote discrepancy mere reflect the preference patterns of the voters in these different parts of New Hampshire. In other words, we're suppose to accept that more people in rural farming communities voted for the young and controversial black man than for the old and utterly staid white woman, while the younger, better educated, and more affluent voters in urban areas did exactly the opposite.....yeah, right.

The other explanation being touted for Mrs. Clinton's unexpected win is the unprecedentedly high number (15% or better) of voters who remained undecided up until the moment they stepped into the polling place. ALL of these undecided voters, we are told, waited until the last possible moment to cast their vote for one of the most widely-known figures in American politics, without considering ANY of the alternatives.

If you are finding all of this a little bit improbable, you aren't alone. To his great good credit, Dennis Kucinich has used his position as one of the candidates in the contested election to demand--and pay for-- a recount. Kucinich no more accuses Clinton of complicity in the dubious results than he expects himself to benefit from a recount. He simply believes that this election cycle is far too important to be tainted by even a suggestion of fraud.

As is the case with all "conspiracy theories", it is necessary to provide a motive for conspirators and at least provide some likely suspects. In this case, there is no shortage of both. The presumed innocence of the Clinton operation is, to begin with, just a bit naive. They've proven themselves willing to do pretty much everything short of election fraud to win, and they absolutely believe that the end justifies the means-- if anything authentic emerged from Madam Clinton's little crying jag, it is her absolute conviction that she is far better equipped to discern what is good for the American people than we are able to do so for ourselves.

Nor is it entirely far-fetched to believe that the same people widely suspected of delivering an election for George W. Bush would not have been inclined to do Hillary the same favor. In the first place, anyone with an interest in keeping the White House in Republican hands would infinitely prefer to have Mrs. Clinton at the head of the Democratic ticket than Barack Obama. In the second place, if the corporate interests that run this country have to concede the White House to the opposition party (which is highly likely), the only "democrat" who would be any more suitable to their interests than Hillary Clinton would be Joe Lieberman. It has been obvious from the start that Mrs. Clinton fills the same role in this election cycle as that filled by John Kerry in the last--the "safe" democrat, the one who can be trusted to not rock the boat (interesting,given that Kerry has now declared support for Obama--over both Clinton and his former running mate, Mr. Edwards).

The results of a recount will not be available in time to impact the Democratic nomination process, and may not even be available in time to matter in November. It would be nice to see a statement from the Clinton campaign praising Dennis Kucinich's commitment to democracy. It would be nice to see the Obama campaign learn the full lesson of what happened to them in New Hampshire and find momentum and victory in South Carolina. It would be nice to see the pall of suspicion, distrust, and paranoia that is the true legacy of the Bush Administration fade like the clouds of a passing storm. Sadly, all of these things are far less likely than any of us would want to believe.

Friday, January 11, 2008

fuck politics!








Take the Sci fi sounds quiz I received 78 credits on
The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz

How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you?
Take the Sci-Fi Movie Quiz lose weight

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Hillary Bawls and Breaks Even

In a stunning reality-check, Barack Obama's predicted New Hampshire primary victory by two digits was turned out to be Hillary Clinton's win...by two points. Exit poll statistics seem to indicate that Mrs. Clinton won on the votes of lesser-educated women and that many of the independents who helped fuel Senator Obama's Iowa landslide chose in New Hampshire to vote for the Republican primary victor, John McCain.

Having thoroughly embarrassed themselves by effectively declaring the primaries won on the strength of one contest out of fifty, the mainstream media is now constructing a narrative that attributes Clinton's "out-of-nowhere" two-point victory to winning sympathy on the basis of a moment that would've surely ended the candidacy of any male contestant for the presidency-- the moment when the woman who's tough enough to bomb Iran broke down and teared up over the prospect of perhaps not moving back into the White House after all.

If this narrative bears any relation to the truth, then we are doomed and rightly so. The fate of the nation lies in the hands of stay-at-home moms, Denny's waitresses, and the pudgy broads trudging into any given Walmart on any given weekend.

While it is certain that the Clinton candidacy will paint this squeaker as a landslide victory (it is, in fact a thinner margin that the one that delivered us into the hands of George W. Bush in the first place), it is an effective tie--Clinton and Obama each walk away with with nine more delegates in the only only contest the really matters.

Meanwhile, the race for the U.S. Presidency is once more a race--which is not a bad thing; the country is no better served by an Obama coronation than it was by the planned Clinton coronation that preceded it. If Obama truly justifies the high and inspired hopes his first win inspired, he'll prove it as this grueling process continues. If Hillary Clinton truly has any substantive claim on her husband's former office beyond having formerly slept in the same building, we'll get to see that as well. And let's not forget that there are a few other people in this race as well who deserve to be heard as well. Perhaps now that the media superstars are tied, perhaps the pundits might find time to talk to, or at least about, someone else for a change.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

UrgencyTrumps Inevitability-- What Iowa Means To Me

Having been in Iowa four years ago as a volunteer for the Howard Dean campaign, I have some measure of insight into the events of the last few days. Then, as now, a small army of out of state volunteers had descended upon the hick Midwestern state that gets to play kingmaker every four years in America. Then, as now, an ardently anti-war Democratic candidate had managed to harness the power of the Internet to build a presidential campaign war chest from small-donor grassroots support. But four years ago, the insurgency campaign of Howard Dean ended in a beer hall.

The Mainstream Media may have put the shiv in Dean's back with the infamous (and entirely manufactured) "Dean Scream", but they were only finishing the job started by the coalition of corporate interests and Democratic Party power brokers who had decided that John Kerry was the "safe" choice. Whether or not he was the best choice to beat George W. Bush, Kerry was certainly the best choice (after Bush himself) to preserve status quo on behalf of the corporate ownership class that actually owns this country.....and, for the most part, gets to run it.

This time around, things may be a little different. While Barack Hussein Obama is by no means the most progressive candidate for the Democratic nomination nor in any way represents a revolutionary break with the current state of American politics or policy, he is certainly a figure of evolutionary change--and certainly not the anointed choice of the power brokers who did in Dean. His claim to Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" stands in utter and stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's arrogant (and now discredited) claim to "inevitability."

A lot of things are different between now and four years ago. Dean's people may have figured out how to tap the 'Net for money, but they never turned it into the virtual ATM Obama's people have created. Dean was in exactly the same situation John Edwards is in now--facing a make or break scenario in New Hampshire before the money runs out. Four years ago, the outspoken agent of change was a former doctor and former New England governor with enormous appeal to what he himself calls "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"--the educated liberals and urban professionals who connect with their heads first and their hearts second. This time around, the principal proponent of change is a former community organizer and occasional law professor who clearly won his first presidential nomination contest on the ability to appeal beyond the largely white and upper-middle-class confines of the Democratic Party base.

But what is more different than anything is Barack Obama himself. In the aftermath of his caucus night victory speech, I was amazed to see the practiced "media professionals" covering it--people like Chris Matthews, Rachel Meadow, Howard Fineman (yes, I was watching MSNBC... big surprise there)-- with visible tears in their eyes. Yes, it was an inspiring speech. But to have a visible impact on people who pride themselves on their jadedness and cynicism took more than an inspiring speech.....it took an inspiring (and perhaps historic) moment. Perhaps not since the inception of America itself has anyone had quite the opportunity Barack Obama now has to become a living embodiment of the American Dream itself, much less possessed the necessary gifts to seize that moment.

Obama is not alone in his claim to the mantle of "change" or its use as a mantra. In their speeches that night, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards made the best cases they could that they were participants in Obama's victory. In Clinton's case, the words rang utterly hollow. Edwards, on the other hand, gave one of the best speeches of his life and continues to enjoy the support of traditional populists and progressives. But even when I was in Iowa four years ago, Edward's trial lawyer career, pandering self-reference as "the son of a mill worker" and studiously manufactured image were already the topics of endless jokes as workers from all the different campaigns gathered in downtown Des Moines hotel bars. There are significant questions about his substance and his sincerity.....even if he doesn't run out of money.

As we look beyond the nominating process and into the general election, the single biggest change is that four years ago enough Americans were still sufficiently hypnotized by the blood sacrifice of 9/11 to believe the fear-mongering mythology of the Republican Party--and believe that a swaggeringly vapid cowboy from Texas could defend them from the supposed threat. Now, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a botched war that has dragged on longer than World War II, it is fairly obvious that the real threat to America's safety is Bush and his corporatist controllers--and that no one who enabled Bush legislatively to create this mess has any business claiming to be the reformer who is going to "change" anything.

My last and most vivid impression of the Obama victory in Iowa: that this is indeed the generational moment that Obama claims. I look at Hillary's supporters and I see old people, in either spirit or actual age. I look at Edward's supporters and I see people still fighting the class and culture wars that have racked this country for the last forty years. I look at Obama and his people....and I literally see hope. The results in New Hampshire could change everything, but right now the odds are better than ever that once again the future may belong to the young.... as it should.