Standing against followers in his own party

Among the exchanges in the final presidential debate on Wednesday was one that illuminates a recurring asymmetry in how people align within our two-party politics. McCain challenged Obama to describe an instance where he stood up to the Democratic leadership:

MCCAIN: You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.

OBAMA: First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn't very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party...I support charter schools and pay for performance for teachers. Doesn't make me popular with the teachers union. I support clean coal technology. Doesn't make me popular with environmentalists. So I've got a history of reaching across the aisle.

The list is not short for lack of further content. Obama was not popular with civil libertarians when he voted to legalize illegal wiretapping and give immunity to the enabling phone companies. His support for faith-based initiatives does not please secularists. His promise to violate Pakistani sovereignty under certain conditions does not encourage those who oppose invasions (though few such people seem to be around anymore).

In these cases Obama is not crossing the Democratic Party leadership. He's crossing major constituencies of his party's loyal base. That's the asymmetry. Over the summer, Republican social conservatives harangued the McCain campaign for not throwing meat to the bible-thumpers. And now the civilized wing of the Republican party is pushing back against McCain's new eclecticism and Palin's airheadedness. Conservative constituencies stay loud and make demands upon their leaders. The Democratic hordes stay complacent and docile, talking every four years about how this election, this time, is too important to demand more than a lesser evil. It's truly difficult to find mainstream critiques of Obama from his left.

This pattern has stayed true for at least the last 12 years. The long-term implications are difficult to foretell, but the short-term effects will start to take the shape of a string of disappointments, starting within Obama's first 100 days.

The Allure of Mystery

Obama has been consistently labeled as dangerous and unknown by the McCain campaign. They, I believe, seek to play on the Bradley effect and hope that a phrase like “thief in the night” and constant bombardment of xenophobic associations will arise subconsciously in November 4th.

This may work.

But to me, examined with full conscious intent, this only heightens my anticipation of a potential Obama presidency. You see I have recently been wary that rather than a van guard politician bringing youth and change to a nation, Obama was in fact what he so often seems: a gifted, if bland, politician recently converted to rank and file Washington politics. But the more I am told of Ayers the more I see potential in Obama. Ayers is interesting not as someone who founded the Weather Underground (of which I know exceedingly little), but rather as a leftist academic who attempts to achieve change in a huge urban education system. If Obama indeed is influenced by these views (rather than those of, say, say the republican president of Northwestern), then I think there is a great potential for significant and monumental change in this country.

And we have recently been given abundant verdict on the failure of our current, in a very large sense, direction.

Race effects

As the election approaches I'll be interested to see whether the Bradley effect, the gap between poll numbers and actual election results in races where one candidate is black, is in play. The gap has been a factor in a striking number of major races, especially through the 1980s and '90s, but has not been as clearly at work in more recent elections (though a number of those featured black Republicans, cases where many other weird effects are probably at work).

The Bradley effect is an index of the extent of subjective racism or overt prejudice, but also the degree to which prejudice is masked by political correctness--the result is race-anxious voters who don't want their anxiety to be known. If the Bradley effect is negligible this year on the way to an Obama win, it will be taken by a lot of people as one more sign that we are indeed a colorblind nation. The thing is that this elides over the objective component of racism, or "systematic" or "institutional" racism, in the admittedly tired vernacular of the left. I've written up some of my thoughts on the objective side of racism and the Obama campaign, and what I'll be particularly interested to see is how a possible Obama win will be integrated into the liberal narrative on race in America. It's a narrative that's been in flux--when Stephen Colbert chose colorblindness ('I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe them, because police call me sir'...) as one of his tropes, he presumed a similar relationship to reality as he found with truthiness. But, especially as Obama went from a player in the primaries to the Democratic nominee, it feels like liberals really believe we're all judging each other according only to the content of our characters.

What's difficult to tell is whether the lack of a Bradley effect signifies more the eclipse of subjective racism, or the consolidated triumph of the ideology behind political correctness. If one is concerned about maintaining the appearance of a non-racist these days, it's much more important to observe PC strictures than it is to actually do or say anything that ameliorates racial inequality or anything like that. Similarly, Don Imus' nappy-headed ho comment arguably constituted, in the popular perception and as a matter of near-consensus, a greater violation of the American idea of racial harmony than did the racialized patterns of suffering left by Hurricane Katrina or the persecution of the Jena 6. In other words, in America these days racially-tinged gaffes are taken as truer indications of racism (or its absence) than any phenomena or patterns that require statistics or insight, rather than just one's ears, to notice.

One of the additional ironies of the Bradley effect is that it's measurement is made complicated by the fact that blacks are typically under-represented by traditional polling means, because of a relative deficit of stable addresses, phone lines, etc. It's almost like the continuing effects of objective racism make it harder to develop measures that might convince people that racism is behind us.

Top Lines of the Debate - A few are skewed ramblings!

by Nick Casady

M: Bailout - Let's call it a rescue!!!

M: Senator Obama, his cronies, his friends who gave out loans that would never be paid back.

O: Gotta Correct senator Mccain not suprisingly

M: Get rid of the Cronyism

M: What were the categories health? They are all important. Present day retireeess reach across isle russ fiengold ronald regan millions of new jobs clean coal tech, we can overcome, barak is putting 700 billion in the hands of terrorist organizations.

M: Not the overhead projector that Obama asked for

M: Nailing Jello to the wall. Lost 700,000 300,000 by small buisness. Obama will increase taxes 50%

Gold plated cadillac fantasy's i'm not looking for hair plugs

Did we hear the size of the fine (Acts like a weasel!)

We don't have time for on the job training my friend.

M: Requires a cool hand at the tiller

President Regan my hero

You know my hero is teddy roosevelt. Walk softly and carry a big stick!

I get follow ups too

O: The guy who sang bomb bomb bomb Iran

The Debate.

At this point in the election I don’t feel like either candidate will make a move that significantly alters the momentum at any given time. I don’t think Obama will slip up; I don’t think McCain is willing to take the gambles necessary to get him a big win (Although all this terror bating stuff comes close).

This debate was fine on substance. I am not a fair evaluator of that part of the debate because I’m not undecided: I firmly believe that the orientation of Obama’s policies are better, and the discussion between the two candidates usually supports my opinions, in my opinion.

So, the interesting part of the debate comes from the elements of the debate that arise out side of the repetition of campaign talking points.

The way time limits came up offers an interesting insight. Obama would defy Brokow in the interest of defending his position (or being impetuous) and, on a single occasion, actually changed the format of the question. You could argue that this is childish, to me, though, he came through as adamant and assertive. Subconsciously, I think that this is important.

McCain always reacted to situations with humor. It is the quality of his humor that interests me. He comes across as between snide and self deprecating. And I’m not certain about his wandering around while Obama was speaking. I thought it was kind of pointless and distracting, but certainly his advisors told him otherwise.

I’m not certain that these issues will be brought up by the general media. And if not, that’s great, because the coverage of this event ought to be reserved for those who have not decided, those who focus only on the substance.

Why We Lose

The unmistakable result of this “new” form of campaigning- the type that eschews substance for abuse, the one where Ayers and the Keating 5 take on more relevance than the currently plummeting DOW or crashing international markets -the unmistakable result of this is that the election will not have a winner.

As I see it there are two possibilities for this election, either Obama will win a sizable electoral college majority or McCain will sneak by in a close election. Either of these possibilities will leave a president without a clear mandate trying to bridge an insurmountable chasm between the reds and the blues.

If, for instance, Obama comes through the election with 50.5 of the popular vote and 2/3 – 1/3 split on the electoral college, he will be able to claim a clear majority and have what should amount to a mandate. Yet the current tack of the McCain/Palin campaign, while not clearly shifting the overall trend of the polls, is certainly radicalizing the GOP base, which, while shrinking, is ever significant, encompassing an easy 40% of the electorate and clear majority in at least 20 states. This base includes, to go along with many well meaning social conservatives, overt racists, unrepentant xenophobes, cloaked bigots and dormant fascists who have no problem using intimidation as a substitute for political discussion. An Obama victory would not yield a graceful stepping aside by this latter group and I can’t imagine many of these people sitting calmly along and abandoning their zealotry for cooperation.

A McCain victory, similarly, would create a huge swath of disillusioned voters, bringing the mistrust of the electorate to levels more befitting a third world dictatorship than a world democratic leader. After two elections that, to many, stunk of electioneering (between Florida in 00 and Ohio in 04), Obama losing a solid election lead in less than four weeks would never be seen as anything but the result of cynical demonization of Obama or an even worse rigging of the vote. I can’t imagine the uproar and anger a McCain victory would engender.

If you can imagine a peaceful outcome to the current political war, I would be interested in your comments. I for one, have trouble envisioning November 5th.

Class and Class

By Annita Achilleos

I just read an article in which the author was wondering when did the elite became a bad thing in America. She was referring to some instances during the VP debate in which Sarah Palin talked about being in the middle-class and being an outsider and hockey moms and all those things that I’m sure you have all heard so many times. Then the author mentioned how Biden referred to Home Depot presumably in order to show that he knows and understands the middle class and that he is not something alien. On top of this I had a discussion with an Obama fan that was saying that Obama looks more like a professor and someone that the average American won’t necessarily understand. In other words he looks too serious and too knowledgeable to be voted by the American people and that he needs to loosen up. I mean…are you kidding me? I am not saying the president should be cold and distant (the American people do not need a Putin), but the president needs to have some class. It’s the president of a country for god’s sake; he represents his whole nation on a political and a cultural level. Consider all the other world leaders and compare them to the current American president. The president cannot be a joke. George Bush has damaged this country already. Someone has to make things better and a middle class hockey mom that winks during what should have been serious debate definitely cannot!

Objectivity vs. Balance

An ongoing commentary of this election questions the role of the mainstream media in shaping the outcome. The McCain campaign has endlessly and brazenly accused the media of a bias towards Obama, decrying the disappearance of objectivity from political discourse.

In the McCain campaign’s estimation there is the neutral Fox and the biased everyone else.

I don’t want to interrogate the fundamental claim that any given news source is biased: I don’t have the capacity or the will to do this research. Rather, I hope to point out that being objective and balanced are not necessarily the same. For instance it is entirely objective to report Obama’s relationship with Ayers as innocuous while concluding that McCain campaign manager Davis had a monetary relationship with Fannie and Freddie. Now that one of those investigations turned out to be in favor Obama and the other largely incriminating to McCain doesn’t alter the objectivity of the two investigations.

However, the decision to publish the two reports could certainly show a imbalance in the NYtime’s agenda. This is the claim that McCain’s campaign is making while conflating the idea of objectivity and balance.

Playing the Wrong Game

By Aman Gill

Biden and Palin in Thursday's VP debate agreed on exactly two things. 1. They luuuuuv Israel (The love is not equal though; Palin's is much less elitist: "We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements." Expectations exceeded.) 2. They don't like married gays. We don't often get to hear about the shared foundations upon which we are governed, so I appreciated them making it a little more clear.

I'm not supporting either presidential candidate, so I look at this race sort of in the same way I might watch a football game featuring two mediocre teams--without much vested interest, but with some interest in gamesmanship, the battle of strategies and the exploitation of matchups. And I have to say that the coaching on Team Democrat is severely deficient, even looking at it from the vantage of their own interests.

26% of Americans approve of George Bush's job performance. 35% think Sarah Palin is competent to act as president, if necessary. Coarsely, somewhere in that quarter to third of the electorate is the base of the Republican Party. Within this fraction are the 13% of voters who think Obama is a Muslim. They probably think it's awesome that the two chants at the RNC were "USA! USA! USA!" and "Drill, baby, drill!" They're charmed by Sarah Palin's folksy vapidness, just as they were (and apparently still are), by Bush's.

They will never vote for Barack Obama.

Yet the Democrats won't cast them off in the way that the Republicans have disavowed the votes of anyone who identifies as, or to the left of, a liberal. Biden didn't invoke the large majorities in his favor on Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change and Palin's readiness to assume office? Palin's total discourse on Iraq was "surge" (repeated 10 times), "victory," and don't fly the white flag of surrender. She repeated her stupid line on climate change, that there's no point in focusing on causes, just solutions. Etc. But there's no offense. It's not an issue of weakness, it's that the Democrats are afraid of the right-wing echo chamber, and don't want to alienate the people who will never support them.

There's a history to this orientation that's based in the prostration of labor and black leaders to the Democrats, offering their people as a sacrifice, every four years, to the god of lesser evil. And they of course will not imperil their posture as the responsible party of American imperialism.

But even within this framework, they are a historically terrible party. They want the Republicans' god vote, ignoring the potentially powerful appeal that secularism could have over the electoral center, especially after the Bush years. They won't trash the ridiculous argument that a victory in Iraq is at all possible in the first war that was dumb even from Washington's own perspective. Biden wouldn't attack what I thought was the most notable passage from the debate last night, where Palin embraced the Cheney corollary to the doctrine of the unitary executive--which is that the executive is unitary, above the other two branches, except for the VP, who is outside of all three. The list goes on...

Any thoughts out there about what things might look like if the Democrats gave a Rove-style "fuck you" to the right third of the country?

Suicide is Painless

It will be an unprecedented political disaster if either candidate garners the support needed to pass the corporate bailout that was roundly defeated this Monday. By now one can make a convincing case that Nancy Pelosi, with purpose, derailed the legislation by giving the GOP no choice but to foot the blame and the bill.

In an ongoing commentary about the fecklessness of McCain’s acuity, he actually claimed credit for the passage of the bill prior to its passage. This move now looks even more damaging than it appeared at first. Not only did he try to broker a deal among his own party on a terrible bill, but his claim of leadership among his own cohort was called into question.

Now we hear word that both presidential candidates are redoubling their efforts to push forward a new version, perhaps lightly modified, of the bill by Thursday in order to claim credit.

The problem, not at all hard to finger, is that the public, with reason, unabashedly opposes this heinous piece of corporate welfare. A saw that has been honed in the past few days states that the only acceptable form of socialism in the United States is socialism for the rich. I would take it a step further and argue that welfare, too, resides in this same realm. A single mother relying on her will, energy and a bit of government support to survive is a leech; a failing bank, witless and morally spent, relying on exploitation, profiteering and a whole lot of government support to survive is rather a national imperative.

I am no economist, but the market failing in reaction to Monday’s legislative conscientiousness rather than as a result of the prior week’s failings, only furthers my claim that this is a load of artificial bullshit that is meant to scare the spineless bunch up on the Hill into repaying the lobbies that have provided endless bacchanals over the past decades. Now there are certainly legitimate concerns about the failings of cash in this strapped marketplace, but giving low interest loans rather than buying equity in the cornered financial institutions provides this fire of mismanagement with the fuel of billions of dollars to continue burning.

Who, then, pushes through a bill that is a mirror of Monday’s failed effort will die a sudden political death. I hope that over this oldest of new years a novel focus on this pending crisis may emerge.

To Be Avoided

Late update: I know all of you really appreciate my artistic ability, but this cartoon gains a little bit of meaning given Palin's recent response about what she 'reads' (by reads I think she means: throws in the bonfire).

Pakistan and unilateralism.

McCain pointed to a public statement Obama made regarding the US going into Pakistan as naive. On ABC Sunday morning McCain reiterated this debate point, framing such an action as 'unilateralism'.

It is my understanding that letting someone know you are willing to do it yourself if they are unwilling to comply, while not bilateral, is far better than not ‘saying it out loud in public’ and then doing it anyway. The latter, secrecy, is the current position of McCain and is nothing more than a continuation of current Bushian foreign policy.

Drinking Games

Take a sip of beer if:
McCain says "Financial Crises"
Obama says "Depression"
McCain says "Fannie Mae"
Obama says "Bailout"
Obama says "Change"
McCain says "Victory"
Obama says "terrorism"
McCain says "September 11"
Anyone blames "the media"
One candidate interrupts another candidate
One candidate compliments the other

Take two sips of beer if:
Obama mentions blogs
McCain says "surrender"
McCain mentions Jeremiah Wright
Obama says "more of the same"
McCain mentions Obama's "bitter" comment
Either candidate talks past their time limit
McCain refers to Russia, Georgia or the Ukraine
McCain says "the Surge"
John McCain asks the moderator to repeat a question


Finish Your Beer:
Anyone in the audience gets dragged out of the auditorium
Anyone says "occupation in Iraq"
Anyone mispronounces any word or name
Anyone uses a sports metaphor
Anyone attempts to speak Spanish to pander to Latinos
McCain says he would rather lose and election than lose a war
McCain jumbles Obama and Osama
Anyone says anything that gets bleeped out

Drink A Full Beer or take a Shot:
If McCain Doesn't show up

Who's Comin' With Me?

By Nathan Rodriguez

I think I'm going to be moving to Canada within the next year or so.

Some of that probably is based on my innate desire as a Hispanic to migrate to the north.

But seriously – if McCain wins in November, I don't think I can handle another four years of GOP rule. I'm utterly sick of the transparent bullshit.

If the way McCain has run his campaign is any indication of how he'll head his administration, we're fucking doomed. The man hasn't held a press conference in 40 days, while Palin has managed to avoid any questions — outside of Chucky Gibson and Fanboy Hannity — for almost four weeks. If she can't handle a press conference, she has absolutely zero business in the Oval Office. What we can judge her by, then, are her actions...and those are a little suspect, in refusing to release about 1,100 emails regarding the Trooper probe. Didn't we just go through this executive privilege claptrap a couple years ago with the whole Rove / Libby debacle?

It's astonishing and disheartening to think that John McCain, who just eight years ago, may have been a decent nominee for president, has turned into someone who will do or say damn near anything to get elected. It speaks volumes that the harshest interview he's faced has come from those geriatric vultures on The View. Say what you will about Obama, at least he faced (and ran circles around) Bill O'Reilly. Think there's any chance someone like Keith Olbermann could get within 50 feet of McPain?

Even more staggering is that we could have half the voting public honestly believe McCain knows his stuff better than Obama. Forget about that whole Iraq-Pakistan border gaffe — he just instinctively KNOWS foreign policy! Forget that McCain's top advisors have links to the embattled mortgage giants, or that he claimed to "not know as much" as he should about the economy — Obama's gonna raise your taxes!

But the real reason I'm so opposed to the idea of a McCain presidency is that he will be the oldest president elected to office. He has battled skin cancer four times, and both his father and grandfather died at a younger age than he is now.

This means one thing: President Palin.

This is a person who thinks drilling for oil is a "mission from God." She is redefining "Christian" to only mean "born again Christian." Her answers to Gibson's softballs on foreign policy were as shallow as a puddle of puppy pee.

I even endured part of Hannity's interview — a glorified suck and fuck — and she still kept uttering the same canned horseshit that makes you wonder if she even knows what the hell's coming out of her mouth. I swear, if she says "stringent oversight," or "change business as usual," once more, I'm heading straight for the goddamn border.

When she actually does get into specifics, she contradicts herself in such a way that even the most unseasoned high school open debater would call her on it: "I'm in favor of economic regulations," followed by a "Oh yeah, and I want to get government out of our lives."

Come again?

The absolute disrespect by the McCain campaign for our intelligence as sentient fucking beings is unconscionable.

They've tried to brand him as the candidate of "real" change, and say they're going to "clean up Washington," when homeboy has spent the last three decades in the corridors of D.C.

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't feel like change when one party has held an advantage on the Supreme Court, has had a rubber-stamp Congress for the better part of eight years, and the O.G. Maverick, Bush, occupying the White House, with whom McCain has sided more than 90 percent of the time.

And the worst part is, their plan is working. They may just be able to keep this shallow enough that a good chunk of Middle America will once again fall for the same scare tactics and vote against their own interests, and wonder what the hell happened four years from now.

If that's the case, I'll probably be somewhere in Canada...or maybe a little island off the Florida coast (not Cuba).

I've put up with enough lies, enough deception, and enough double-speak for an entire lifetime. Obama may not bring the full change he so eloquently talks about, but I for one am ready for a president who doesn't embarrass me when he speaks, and one who actually talks to me like an adult.

And I'm starting to doubt that will happen anytime soon in this country because whether we're failing as concerned citizens or as journalists, it may be that on the whole, we're a hell of a lot dumber than Obama gives us credit for...so maybe we deserve McCain after all.

All I know is that my landlord should be watching TV on November 4.

Negativity

By Annita Achilleos

How far will this negative ad campaign go? (both of them actually). Can it get worse? Is this really the way to go in order to win an election? Both Republicans and Democrats have spent millions of dollars on ads that simply say how bad their opponent is and some times deliberately misinterpret what they say. Sex education at kindergarten? I mean…come on…the republicans think that the American people are 10 years old? This kind of misinterpretations just underestimates the intelligence of the American people. By using a phrase that has the word pig and lipstick Barack Obama was NOT talking about Palin. I still cannot accept the fact that there are people out there that even made this connection. The American people should not be portrayed as brainless and idiotic!

Anti War

A fundamental question that is never stated explicitly asks why we should ever go to war; what is the motivation to circumvent diplomacy and international intervention in favor of adventurism that simply kills?

Running Laps

Yesterday I read Lysistrata, a middle comedy of Aristophenes, and had stirred within in me a dormant outrage at the direction this country is taking. Before I go into that though I want to digress as to the breathtaking series of events that made this reading so special. Recently I went to Cyprus and Athens with my Greek speaking girlfriend (whose perspective you can read here) and had the good fortune to visit the Acropolis along with any number of archaeological sites from the height of the Greek empire. To depart from the Piraeas to the seat of the Minoan civilization in Santorini, then subsequently read a play written 2500 years ago that describes the infighting between those elegant cultures reifies a hope (and despair) I have that humans across time and place share very fundamental spirits; the Spartan sails proudly puffed with Piraean air would have been no less a travesty to Athenians than smoke billowing from towers in NYC.

The sad truth is that these event s share not only a visceral similarity but also a much more worrisome material relationship. Aristophenes was a well known critic of the excesses of the Athenian politicians. The profit driven war mongering of the Athenian oligarchs, in his view, were systemically corrupting a culture that had achieved sophistication to the point where arts and sciences were truly flourishing. As a voice of reason he was marginalized by the truth of power. And today we see a small cohort of rich Americans desperately holding onto power. While America moves closer and closer to recession the privatized mercenary armies and defense contractors are getting fat on taxpayers dollars. While the few and the rich get richer, our schools are failing and our art, while vital, is marginal at best.

And the reason that we can listen to is often in the depths of late night, whether Tina Fey or Jon Stewart. So read those old plays, and hope that we leave the beaten path of repeated history and find a new venue moving forward.

From the Outside looking In.

By Annita Achilleos (EU citizen (Cyprus))

What will it take for Americans to start voting the right way (if at all)? At the same time, you tell me that the electoral college voting system does not really represent what people vote, and then I ask you…why, in this “great country of democracy”, an absolutely non-democratic voting system keeps controlling the fate of the US and the rest of the world? Why did it start in the first place? And why is it so hard to just count the votes of the people and the candidate that gets the most he/she gets elected? If this were the case, would the democrats rule the country in the last 8 years? That would absolutely make much more sense to the rest of the world, because, you see, in other countries where actual democracy exists (at least when it comes to electing a president), people do not understand the electoral college vote, and they therefore think that the majority of the Americans actually voted for the republicans…twice...and that killed every hope they had for this country to come to its senses. And the rest of the world really needs the US to come to its senses.

Whether we like it or not, if you go back in history at any point one nation had the power and could influence the rest of the world (eg the Greeks, the Romans) until another nation would gain as much power and take over. This last century it’s been the US and the last eight “disastrous” (both on an national and an international level) years it’s been the republicans. You would expect that any person with some common sense would not even think about voting for this party this coming election. You would expect that the average American would go straight for the democratic nominee (whoever that would be!). But it seems that the average American is really afraid of change, and this does sound cliché but it is the truth.

Now you are telling me that the republicans are becoming more popular just because of the vice president they chose? Are you telling me that the American people like McCain now because of Palin? Who is she as a politician? We absolutely know who she is as a mother and as a wife, and we could have known who she is as a politician if she did not lie in every single thing she said and if she was actually knowledgeable of both the domestic and the international political scene. I will tell you one thing: People and especially politicians around the world do not care about how good of a wife or a mother a politician is. We all know what kind of a person someone has to be in order to be in politics, so it really doesn’t matter if you are a woman or a man, if you are married or if you have ten different lovers at the same time. When you meet with other world leaders, you are not going to talk about changing diapers or about how you met your husband.

You are going to talk about matters that the rest of the world cares about. Can Palin do that? Can a serious politician say “We are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security” as an answer to the question whether the US should back Israel if it were to try to eliminate Iran’s facilities militarily. Are you kidding me? What kind of an answer is that? Israel is our friend so we’ll do whatever they want! I’m telling you if republicans win again this country is doomed.

Leadership vs Policy

By Jake Imber

A constant confusion of mine has been this focus on "The Ability to Lead" in our presidential elections. I hear McCain and Palin scream it from the pulpit - "I have executive experience! I have been a P.O.W.! I can LEAD!" In fact, it seems like the foundation of their presidential campaign. We can lead, our opponent cannot.

This unrelenting hammering of leadership seems entirely inane. In this day and age, anyone who ascends to the presidential ticket has the ability to inspire, fund-raise, make decisions, cooperate, and evaluate - in essence, to lead. As much as I hate to admit it - Bush has "led" us for the last 8 years. Like it or not, the country has followed his leadership.

What needs to be discussed is WHERE a candidate will lead us as a nation. What are the policies which will define the presidency? What are the key issues that will drive the nation? What matters to the presidential candidate?

I read many pundits poking fun at Obama's "Laundry List of Policies" during his acceptance speech at the DNC. To me, this was the most valuable part of his speech, even if it was not the most compelling to listen to. Hearing him expound on his key policy issues gave me a real sense of who he is and where he would like to lead us. What I am waiting for is to see McCain do the same. What will he do, besides maybe bomb Iran?

I don't know about you, but I eagerly await the debates. I only hope that we can move past the question of whether someone can lead and move towards the question of where the country will be led.

Understanding Democracy.

The sickest thing about the Palin Troopergate scandal lies not in the actual event, but in the response by Palin. Hiring a lawyer is understandable. But this insistence that the Legislature does not have the capacity to investigate Executive misconduct runs counter to the cornerstone of American democracy. The checks and balances system at once ensures the stability of the country while protecting the integrity of each branch. It is no surprise then that with the integrity of the Executive branch compromised the executives of the GOP have so compromised their integrity.

Defining Terms.

I think opponents of McCain ought to fully embrace his self identification as a maverick. But this ought to be done in stark opposition to the idea of change. This distinction, while subtle, if made properly, will pound into the public the idea that McCain rides the same solitary and irrational path that his predecessor blazed. By all indications the Bush administration’s unilateralism is the very essence of the Wild Western ideals of independence and vigilante justice.

In this formulation McCain’s gung ho attitude on war, whether towards Iran or Russia, negates the positive association one may have of the term maverick. This may be an exaggeration but I think it very likely that the USA would be in two more entirely extraneous excursions at the moment were the past months under a McCain administration. And this is not good.

Another association that should be made with maverick is the mob justice. I mean these guys (GOP) are pure thugs in the tradition of Casa Nostra, bullying, voter intimidation and lying are all means to ensure the end of control over power, the value of which is pure profiteering (starkly contrasted with the nominal goal of democracy, freedom or apple pies). Here, we associate maverick with independence from the law, a society where power is a right, not a privilege.

And in fact these two ideas go hand in hand with each other; one of McCain’s advisors was on a lobby that was paid, PAID, to place Georgia in the good graces of the US government. Once there, the Georgians felt as though military adventurism was their right, protected as they were by the umbrella of American hegemony.

Really, McCain is a maverick. But this is a song that’s been blaring for the last eight years.

All it takes is my soul?

Our nation stands today at a remarkable crossroads. We are in the midst of a battle for the very soul of reason in this election. And we must stop considering the GOP as a conservative organization. The sad reality is that the current iteration of the republican party is in fact a pre-enlightenment reactionary group: Machiavelli would be proud of the cunning treachery with which the GOP has gone about its business.

The clearest and only needed example of this is the insistent lying of the McCain/Palin campaign. With reason they believe that anything that stands in the way of their ascension to the throne can easily be wiped away by total fabrication. People don’t support the bridge to nowhere? Well then the VP didn’t support it either. People think Washington is too reliant on corporate lobbyists? Well then McCain doesn’t have 7 of them on his advisory board. People want change? Well then the McCain ticket provides it in spades.

The sad part about this is not that may succeed, but rather that by every indication, it WILL succeed. You see, we have been down this road before. In fact, as is now clear, and was to some of us at the time, the entire occupation of Iraq was perpetrated on a foundation of utter rubbish. And were there consequences for the Administration? No, they maintained the presidency and the congress at the next electoral referendum.

What is then exceedingly clear is that there is absolutely no reason for the GOP to cow to the truth. In our political world, truth has become an abstraction. Like a country of amnesiacs we can be certain only of the present as we watch constructed narratives unfold independent of any past reality.

In this brave new world the surest path to success is to free your reason from the constraints of conscience and to loose your soul from pangs of guilt. In this brave new world laurels are replaced by words not hollow but filled with the burning air of fabrication.

The Palin game

by Nathan Rodriguez

More than a week after the announcement of Gov. Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee for Vice-President, the strategy has become pretty clear.

Keep her away from the media as long as possible. Sequester her like she’s a juror on the O.J. trial, and don’t let her say anything off-the-cuff.

Right now the media are doing McCain’s job of actually vetting the Alaskan governor, so it makes sense to keep her quiet until the dust settles.

This accomplishes a few things: first, it facilitates the Republican strategy of playing “victim” of the media. They get to retread transparent accusations of sexism, and stick to the talking point of “executive experience,” while the media — merely doing its job — asks some pretty reasonable questions about her experience, and the McCain campaign accuses them of “ganging up” on her. It can look one-sided.

How dare the media belittle the myriad accomplishments of Gov. Palin! She’s a mother of five who can balance the budget while blasting a 12-gauge and selling a jet on eBay!

Second, it makes sense to keep her quiet while the national media unearths potentially shady stories. The cornucopia of scandals and suspect statements she’s accumulated in her 18 months as governor are pretty wide-ranging, and it makes little sense for the McCain campaign to expose her to damaging questions before coaching her on the appropriate response.

Had Palin been available from the beginning, it would have been interesting to watch her answer questions about her ever-changing stance on the bridge to nowhere, her husband’s involvement in a party promoting Alaskan secession, her slashing state funding for special needs children by more than 60 percent while claiming to “fight” for them in her acceptance speech, her apparent ease with banning books from libraries, opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest, and that little brouhaha called Troopergate.

Now, with less than two months before the election, the media has quite a bit of ground to cover, and things will get muddy.

Do they try and delve into her foreign policy opinions? Do they try to pin her down on a few of the beyond-the-pale social positions?

My guess is that they’ll continue to talk about Troopergate and Republicans will try to continue banter about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, to polish up the “victim” image.

In the meantime, if Palin plays her cards right, voters will become weary of these supposed scandals, and she’ll be able to pull off the ultimate goal of the McCain campaign: To keep her responses on controversial issues vague enough to sound reasonable.

Because if she looks reasonable and sounds reasonable —which she should, as long as the McCain campaign continues to control the message —the media will be as obsessed with her field dressing a moose as they are burnishing McCain’s maverick image. And that’s when they will have succeeded in changing Palin’s image from one approximating a manipulative, deeply partisan Kathleen Harris, to a benevolent, independent-minded version of Frances McDormand from Fargo.

Sadly, the mainstream media is just shallow (or busy) enough, and the GOP just crafty enough to make her nomination about image, not issues. And that’s what the Democrats need to combat — to show that behind the swash-buckling image and easy smile resides a wolf in sheep’s skin. If they don’t, Palin will be able to superficially relate to enough Reagan Democrats to make the race much closer than it should be.



Note: This was written before I saw “Sarah Palin: An American Woman” on Fox. For some reason, it seems a little soft...she seems almost...human. I’d better turn the channel before her appeal that, “We don’t have to agree on everything,” begins to cling like the worst kind of dingleberry.
Coming up next – is Sarah Palin totally awesome or completely awesome? We report the hard facts and let you decide!

Obama promises “Change we can measure”

by Nathan Rodriguez

Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama recently expanded on his plans to bring about change, with a vow to end domestic reliance upon what he called “dangerous sources” of measurements.

“We cannot afford four more years of the same, tired policies that have failed millions of Americans,” Obama said, before unveiling his bold and controversial plan to have the U.S. switch to the metric system within eighteen months.

“Right now, America’s children are falling behind their counterparts in nations like Russia, India, and China, who grow up with the comfort of knowing exactly how far a kilometer is,” he said, adding “We can’t continue down this reckless road if we don’t even know how far we need to go. We deserve better than a nation where only our joggers know how far five or 10-kilometers really is. Our children, and our children’s children deserve the truth about a hectare, not hot air.”

A crowd of several hundred thousand gathered at a towering temple constructed for the announcement.

“What started as a hint in the cornfields of Iowa became a suggestion in the frozen tundra of New Hampshire, and a firm but polite request in the tobacco fields of North Carolina and Virginia,” he said. “Enough! We can do better than this, we will do better than this, and that’s why I’m running to be president of the United States of America!”

The throng of supporters erupted in applause, and symbolically snapped yardsticks in half before depositing them in a recycling bin upon exiting. The Obama campaign issued new tire gauges that measure pressure in kilograms per centimeter, as opposed to the traditional pounds per square inch, and encouraged supporters to symbolically cross out the “miles per hour” reading on speedometers in vehicles — resulting in several dozen speeding tickets.

The McCain campaign was quick to issue a response.

“The latest statement from Sen. Obama shows just how dangerously inexperienced he is,” said Tucker Bounds, McCain campaign spokesman. “This isn’t the kind of change the American people want, or even understand. What Senator Obama failed to explain are the details — what happens to Denver, which is known across the nation as the ‘mile-high city?’ This just goes to show the importance of experienced judgment and leadership.”

Bounds indicated the campaign was in the process of amending “Country first” placards to have the reverse read, “We won’t budge an inch on the centimeter.”
Conservative commentator Sean Hannity was irate.

“Obama may think he can change water to wine, but this is like asking America to switch from Apple Pie to arugala,” he said. “John McCain brings the right kind of change to Washington, while Barack Obama is trying to bring about one metric ass-load of change we don’t need.”

Most of Sen. McCain’s comments on the issue were drowned out when all of the 14 people in the crowd ritualistically chanted, “U-S-A!”

Meanwhile, Gov. Palin’s handlers again made her unavailable for comments and questions, saying she was busy field dressing a moose and preparing folksy Alaskan witticisms for her upcoming foreign policy debate with Sen. Biden.

He would rather lose the War…

For all of that talk about losing the war to win an election. It seems as though McCain is praying for total devastation in the Gulf for political expediency. Prior to the actual landfall McCain and Palin, and their coterie of advisors and SS agents, are in Mississippi for a photo-op. They are scaling back the RNC (by all means the right move). And are said to be planning on doing the acceptance speeches from the disaster zones. Obama, on the other hand, has decided to wait until the disaster has struck, hoping to use his fundraising lists as solicitations for volunteer efforts to aid the damaged areas.

Now. If McCain had any sense of shame he would follow a similar approach. I mean, why go to Mississippi before the hurricane strikes? This could at worst hinder evacuations and at best, well, I don’t think there is really any positive implications to a media frenzy being there.

The saddest part is that when this disaster happened the first time, with Katrina, McCain was holding a birthday cake. So much for not wanting to celebrate during a disaster. I mean this is really opportunism at its most treacherous. A moral flip flop would be more palatable, but I would be giving him far too much credit if I thought that this decision had any kind or moral, rather than political, calculus behind it.

The Future Unseen

As the past 24 hours have made abundantly clear, this election now rests solely on the strategic, rather than the policy, abilities of the two candidates. I’m going to try to predict the strategies that each camp will use below.

For Obama the goal is clear, he must extend the momentum gained over the course of the DNC, thereby staying on the offensive. Punditry widely decried the campaign’s inability to respond to the rovian politics unleashed in the first few weeks of August. As the heat built up Obama remained unusually quiet and decidedly out of the public eye while vacationing in Hawaii. During this period the democratic lead in the national polls dwindled and the race became nearly a dead heat. The low point came at the time of the Biden announcement; concordantly the Hillary camp unleashed unimaginable vitriol toward the Obama cause and the punditry complained that the choice of Biden that largely countered Obama’s finely crafted image of change and independence from the standard Washington Politics.

As the DNC commenced there was a palpable sense of trepidation. And although this sense may have been only minor it was certainly present. But over the course of the DNC everything changed, I thought Hillary’s speech left much to be desired, but that is more of a personal aversion to her speaking style: she doesn’t capture my imagination. But she said what she needed to and provided a decisive catharsis for her large and still devout following. Bill Clinton, on Kerry’s heels, turned the tide. He focused the energy generated by Hillary onto the twin targets of McCain and Obama, bashing the former while providing a much needed, authoritative, endorsement from a man whose esteem is only growing.

And finally Obama. This man, with so much riding on it, didn’t suffice, he overcame, displaying a new controlled burn against McCain. Not one of fire, not one of counterpunches, but more of a generational, almost jewish, satire of McCain’s negativity. This speech, it was the change we were hoping for, a sea change in the Democratic strategic mentality, whence comes the hope that the democrats will finally be setting the course, rather than reacting to dictation.

And this is where we are now. Moving forward, Obama must, he must, stay out of mire, and respond to attacks with the same quiet confidence, the same laissez-faire attitude burnished by the subtle power of satire. And Biden as well. He is known, unlike Obama, for more of a street fighting purely American defense, neatly encapsulated by his “noun-verb-9/11” quip. It is good stuff, but it will be difficult to pull off against a mother of 5 with a handicapped kid. Biden, rather, must overwhelm her with his connections to foreign policy, both international personas and experience. We must come out of September certain only that when diplomacy is required, Biden will be an asset whilst Palin a detriment to success.

Finally, the Clintons will be an invaluable asset, not as team members, but as angry old uncle, from another generation, shouting slanderous remarks from the fringe while entertaining with winsome tales of past glory. Because, and precisely so, they have been in the game so long they can get away with digging at the GOP. Hillary, and no one else, can call out Palin and expose her inexperience. Bill, and few others, can befriend those who may oppose Obama for the only worst reason, and persuade them otherwise.

What it comes down to is that Obama is ahead in the homestretch, he’s the one we want to shoot the final shot, but if played properly, not too cautiously that is, that will be nothing more than comforting insurance.

So, what then is it that McCain can do to turn the tide? Well, for starters, Palin was an excellent choice. She is nearly unassailable, aside from a minor but nonetheless troubling scandal brewing in the Alaskan frontier. Otherwise she was one of the few picks that McCain could have made the day after Obama’s triumphant speech that would almost entirely neuter the success of those spoken words. For all the attacks she’s taken on her ability to be VP, she has certainly passed the first test with flying colors.

On the other hand, that he needed to make a VP decision as a strategic move is a clear indication that the McCain campaign is on its heels. Think Bush selecting Cheney; a big FU to his opposition. The choice of Palin on the other hand, reeks of grudging respect. It was reaction rather than diction; the subjunctive in lieu of the imperative.

Moving forward the McCain camp needs to do two things. One is to bait Biden into coming across as bullying to Palin, she needs to hold serve and be eloquent, nothing more. In fact, from here on out, McCain could hope for nothing more than for the press to speak of her only in relation to attacks from the democrats. If she is silent she will have served well her purpose. The worst case scenario for the GOP would to get into a discussion about Palin with Hillary.

As for McCain, I believe that there is very little that the GOP can do. Perhaps try to bring him down in the debates. If anything he has shown a weakness in on the go one-liners. And if McCain can get some good lines in than he can come across much GW against Kerry: inferior but more likable. This will be an almost impossible task, but the only one that seems to have any hope for success (aside from Rove, whose cynicism and guile is beyond my own cognitive sphere).

The GOP and their Idea of Women

The choice of Palin was certainly a ploy to counter the exuberance of both Obama and his supporters, not to mention a none too subtle grab at Hillary democrats.

For me, though, this choice reinforces a certain misogynist thread very powerful in the GOP mentality. Palin, in my view, fulfills a very strict and subjugated ideal of a woman. She has 5 kids, is attractive in a very conventional sense, is a hockey mom and she supports the relinquishing of control of her body in her anti-choice stance on abortion. She stands in stark opposition to single moms, career oriented women who choose to have small or no families, and, certainly, a whole swath of women who believe that the right to choice, whether in terms of sexuality or reproduction, is unassailable. She stands as an archetype for a very specific ideal of womanhood.

I am sure there are many third wave feminists who would gladly crush me for this view. But I am cynical and I don’t think that Palin was chosen for her own talent, but as a symbol of a new republicanism that is really nothing more than a straw man concealing the same ol’ chauvinism.

DNC

As a follow up to the prior post, I will now reflect a more conciliatory image of my wholly cynical self. For as much as I believe that the DNC has been a well planned affair with fine speech making, building slowly and deliberately into tomorrow’s finale with Obama, I still have the sneaking fear of a repeat of the last two elections.

But. I feel that this convention has uncovered some gems of political strategy that may serve well the Obama campaign were they to choose the right ones to polish. I think Hillary needs to recede from the spotlight, she is great as a symbol, but her following is too hysterical, too divisive, to be a committed target. Rather than using her to rally her message, Obama must use her message to rally her supporters. This will be crucial.

On the other hand, Bill needs to whistle-stop the entire south this fall. He needs to step in where Hillary must recede. Bill can connect in a way no other living politician can. Including Obama. Bill has the veneer of success emanating from his gilded words. And with one former president in the background, being consciously tied to McCain, Obama needs a second one, who inserts success into the voter’s subconscious, to suggest his candidacy.

Biden was a fine choice, he comes across as smart and humble, with enough of a rough edge to his style to impress humanity. I think this theme, seen in both Biden and Kerry’s speeches, needs to be continued: confirm personal friendships and untie the personal McCain from the Candidate.

Which brings about a larger point about what needs to be the Democratic strategy. They must not try to go negative in the way McCain does, Obama must not appear in commercials that attack McCain. Sure, the stuff that has been used recently is innocuous enough. But it is a slippery slope from there to rovian politics. Rather, negativity needs to be used as it was today. It needs to come from sources who have the esteem (B. Clinton), the pity (Kerry) or both (Gore) of the public. If these figures can make comments that rile McCain, while Obama stays above the fray, with Biden as liason betwixt, then I think Obama has a chance.

Thursday August 24th

Today it ended. On this, a cool clean Kansas night, unhaunted by the usual humidity of summer, I understood more clearly than before, that this election will not be watershed as expected by so many sanguine American youth.

I’m fresh off watching a Bloggingheads video with John McWhorter and Glen Loury contextualized by my following of the presidential race. And, frankly, I think McCain has seized the campaign in the court of public opinion. I am a cynic, always skeptical, and McCain has only fulfilled my cynicism as founded.

This is not to say that I ever believed in the campaignspeak of a ‘fair race’ or a ‘new politics,’ rather that I didn’t think McCain would be able to reanimate the seemingly decrepit war machinery left in ruins by Bush’s recent mismanagement of the American government or the GOP image.

But the case, I am feeling more and more - partly influenced by the recent Harper’s piece by Thomas Frank- remains that I mistook Bush as seperate from the GOP, a man who had some kind of independent ambition or vision, rather than as means for the end of GOP domination of the DC coffers.

The reality is that there are many rich intelligent men who simply cannot afford, quite literally, for the GOP to lose power. Ten times out of ten these savvy businessmen will do a better job of branding, scheming and plotting than well meaning, green-horned do-gooders concerned about democracy.

No one should be fooled. This election is not Obama-McCain, this election is Obama against the Lobby, with McCain as an innocent (I believe that) and unwitting (again, quite literally ) participant.

No Start In Sight

This is being started as a home for my thoughts. Whether it will ever begin is an open question.