Individual Liberty—Progress—Humanity—Ethics—Rule of Law
"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I am proud to be a liberal."
That sounds like a line my teenage granddaughter would use when talking about a failed romance, but in this case they are the words of David Michael Green in his Regressive Antidote column.
And, in this case the words are being used for a failed romance. Hillary just does not bring the blush of love, youthfulnes and promise of change to her campaign the way that Obama does in his. The problem is someone needs to let her know the relationship is over .
The editors of the NYT and Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh today are calling for Hillary Clinton and her campaign to look to the future—her future—as the goal, not the Presidency, which is a very improbable, implausible, future for her. I like the Times telling her that she has the right to run, but that running mean will destroy her not her opponent. I like Lehigh noting that the so-called "dream ticket" is very unlikely. Clinton is, as he says, the old regime and represents everything Obama is fighting against. Her only real chance is to find a home as a respected Senator and do her thing from there. If she does not exit gracefully, that too will be foreclosed!
Our reader in NYC points out this article in USA Today the title of which is a slick play on words "Clinton makes case for wide appeal," suggesting (a) that she made her point logically and effectively, which she did not, and (b) that there is a case, facts and votes, which there is not.
Senator Clinton's blunt remarks about race and class are, in fact, just the sort of verbal stumbling she is hoping will come from the Obama campaign and trip up his campaign. The reality is that she is the one stumbling and making an ass of herself. It really is time for the super-delegates to get off the fence and declare themselves. Another month of Clinton will just serve to alienate her hard-core support from the rest of the party!
"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
Today Slate is running an interesting piece on campaign finance and what happens when a candidate loans his or her campaign a substantial amount of money. I wish this posting were on Instant Messenger so you could tell me what thoughts ran through your mind as you read the essay. For me ... (see overleaf) ...[you might want to read it for yourself first] ...
Mr. Kristof makes an important point in his NYTcolumn today. Hillary is in the mold of Ted Kennedy refusing to back down and out of the race and, therefore, a real threat to the Democratic Party. His point is not new, but he points out a recent historical example of hubris and stubborn pride getting in the way. Maybe Ted was trying to exorcise Carter, purge him from the Party. Who knows! The point is that the Clintons really do not have a 2% chance, and the reason is that they are proving daily that their hubris and stubborn resolve goes beyond rationality and reason down into the nether parts of themselves. They are ruining all chances for Hillary to be on the ticket, and they seem satisfied that this is the case.
The editors of the the Washington Post this morning thought Russian President Dmitri Medvedev's inaugural speech remarkable enough to rate an editorial. Particularly they were impressed with Medvedev's rejection of the trend of "legal nihilism" in Russia and his pledge to put an end to it. At face value, nothing could be more important to the liberalization of the Russian political situation.
But, "legal nihilism" is a strange term to American ears where "nihilism" itself has fewer taproots into our culture and psychology. Nihilism seems vaguely anarchistic and destructive, ultimately ending in wholly unpalatable suicidal notions only touched upon by denizens of our own drug cultures. There is a sense that nihilism is about a world view that there is but one real and privileged reality and all else is nothingness. It has been a long time since I read Sartre, so my apologies if this sounds like him. It is not intended to.
Brent Budowsky, writing in The Hill, has an insightful piece about how the outcome of the May 6th elections has dealt a death knell to politics as usual.
That, coupled with Hillary's embracing of the Gas Tax holiday, and the statement that she would "nuke Iran," has made the American voter sit up and say..."enough!"
The title of this essay is a play on words. An article in the NYT this morning by a political operative named Dan Schnur, who worked for John McCain in 2000, suggests that (a) Democrats are panicked about the prolongation of the contest between Barack Obama and the Clintons, and (b) that the DNC rules on proportional division of delegates in the states is ... um ... childish. His essay is short and therefore readable.
But, yes, Democrats are antsy about the Clintons coming to their senses. Hillary's campaign is predicated entirely on the premise that Barack Obama will have a "train wreck" and she will be the last candidate standing. This is very unlikely, and with the perspective of the Wright troubles, even more unlikely that Obama will fall out of the sky. People understand politics and they will not be swayed by corporate media attempts to bring aid to the Clintons.
In a sleep induced haze very early this morning I thought I heard on the news the words that Hillary had quit the race for the White House. I was mistaken, alas, however, it seems that pressure on her to do so is growing daily.
It is hard to call it a day when you have sunk your heart and soul into an endeaver only to see the chances of your succeeding in reaching your goal dwindling away. But the wise thing to do is to admit defeat, wirhdraw gracefully and continue on in the arena where you can do the most good. In this case throwing your support behind the person who it seems obvious will be the people's choice.
With so much resting on the support of the super delegates it would seem that Obama has the edge. Anything can happen, that is understood, but it will not be good for Hillary, or good enough.
"Truth always rests with the minority,
and the minority is always stronger than the majority,
because the minority is generally formed
by those who really have an opinion,
while the strength of a majority is illusory,
formed by the gangs who have no opinion --
and who, therefore, in the next instant
(when it is evident that the minority is the stronger)
assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority."
Quote by: Soren Kierkegaard
(1813-1855) Danish philosopher
MSNBC news just flashed news that a diplomat from Myanmar says the death toll from the cyclone in his country may exceed 100,000 persons.
Relief efforts are mounting, but the Myanmar regime is a paranoid and hostile bunch and the whole world expects nothing but trouble from them as aid is provided. One cannot help but wonder whether a regime that had the welfare of its people in mind would have done something to prevent such a disaster?
Notwithstanding the preparedness of a struggling country, the huge death toll is a very sobering harbinger of things to come as planetary storms become more and more violent. Clearly the Burmese are innocent victims of climate change and will probably not be the last innocents to be sacrificed.
With the likes of Paul Krugman (last couple of days) announcing a soft landing and prospects for a hard recession dwindling, comes this opposing information from Fannie Mae by David S. Hilzenrath of the Washington Post. Fannie lost $2.2 billion in the first quarter of this year!
If there is a silver lining to this news, would someone please comment on this posting to explain it to me. Billions have nine zeros after them. These are huge numbers and my "anchors" for such news are way back in the low six zero range. You should also tell me why I should not think the system is broken and that YOUR mortgage is safe ... because you have so much equity in your primary dwelling ... and sound. I will comment on your comments, of course.
Nathaniel Bach writes in Huffington Post this morning about the psychology of a defeated and grieving campaign. It is a remarkable little essay that, (for me anyway), provides a rationale for the Clintons' behavior since the Super-Tuesday debacle that effectively derailed Hillary's candidacy. Like all formulaic analyses, there is reason to provide additional details and narrative, but stripped to its essentials, I think Bach has a good perspective on the doings of this spring's campaigns.
As Barack Obama mulls over the possibility of hiring Hillary Clinton on as his Vice Presidential running mate, in other words, as the United States prepares for a real change of administration, in Russia the Presidency changes today from Vladimir Putin to Dmitri Medvedev. As Marshall I. Goldman of the Harvard University Russian studies center says, this is not exactly a son and father situation, but at some level a "Fathers and Sons" (Turgenev) scenario. Putin moves over to the office of the Prime Minister and will yield little to his apprentice. As Goldman notes, Putin has createded a "Chekist" state, replete with KGB cronies at every turn. It is going to be hell itself to break through a bureaucracy populated by miniature J Edgar Hoovers, all intensely loyal to their leader and all understanding that the alternative is unemployment and worse for most of them.
Russians are an enduring people in the sense that historically they endure unbelievable hardships and yet persist. They are definitely prepared culturally and psychologically for the implications of spies and informers and assassins running their country. Tam vizil—tak delal.
As Alexandra Marks writes in this morning's Christian Science Monitor , it might as well be over, but it won't be because Hillary refuses to give up or give in.
An editorial in the West Virginia Charleston Gazette gives us a glimpse into the upcoming primary in that state. The writer hopes that the reporting from the national news media will be fair and balanced and not try and paint the West Virginians as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies.
The writer also harkens back to the Presidential race of 1960 when John Kennedy's Catholicism threatened to be a major issue.
Well we have two more primaries behind us and a few more to go, and we soldier on. Obama wiped the floor with Hill in North Carolina , and even though she took Indiana, it was by the slimest of margins, and Hillary's chances are dwindling .
To say that race is not playing a very large role in this campaign is to deny the obvious, If my man (or woman) were not to get the nomination I surely would not jump ship and go over to the enemy, in this case John McCain. But apparently that is what so many Hillary supporters have said that indeed they would do should she not get the nomination. There can be no other rational explanation than they simply refuse to admit that a black man is capable of leading us onward and upward to better things.
Or, in some strangely deranged way they have actually bought into the myth that Obama is truly a Muslim in disguise and will bring in the bloodthirsty hordes to conquer us. Sound far fetched? I assure you it is not. My nine year old grandson will tell you these are the things that he hears daily in school. And this, I might add, is a very white school in a very upper middle class area, in one of the bluest of blue states in the northeast.
"[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers."
Quote by: Robert E. Lee
(1807-1872) General-in-Chief of the Confederate States army
Date: 1865
Keith Olbermann set the record straight last night on Countdown by rehearsing the various attempts by the Clintons and Clintonistas to move the goal posts as Obama wound up to kick her lying, narcissistic derriere through them. The Clintons (and Clintonistas) obviously are putting all their energy into interpretation of results rather than, say, integrity, honesty, etc.
For those who persist that Hillary has a "nuclear option" that will allow her to gain the nomination, Steven Rosenfeld, writing in AlterNet has a different story to tell you.
What it will ultimately come down to is who has won the popular vote and who has the delegate numbers, state by state. It will take alot more than a village to raise this election above the Clinton's shenanigans.
David Brooks, columnist for the NYT all these years, is a man in transition from some verities he held tightly with Republican hands a few years ago, to now, a time when he sits perched in the catbird seat almost. Brooks has fashioned himself—deconstructed himself actually—and found that he appreciates the fun of thinking more than the tinkering with the inner logic of dogma. All of this is by way of introducing him as an observer. He may turn into a recidivist, maybe not. His column on the brash and ugly machismo of Hillary Clinton especially in comparison to the steady and reflective and open composure of Barack Obama is worth reading today.
Slate the online magazine published by the Washington Post/Newsweek Corporation has run two articles in the breathless minutes before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries that suggest to me a bias that leans heavily toward the Clinton campaign. Yesterday there was an ugly piece by Christopher Hitchens suggesting that there is more radical Black stuff in the Michelle Obama closet. Today an article about George Orwell's half-century old musings about socialism is trotted out as a possible reason that Obama is not, they say, connecting with the working poor. Elitism, limousine liberalism, they say, really pisses off the blue collar vote ... when the liberal is Democratic. Somehow they avoid the problem of rich Republicans.
I quote and link to Post articles here all the time. The Post and I go way back. I have been careful to disagree with the editors of the Post on war, the military-industrial complex, and a host of other issues, but I am more than a little ticked that they have come out furtively for Clinton, although I think the reason is more or less obvious.
And another Primary Day is upon us. Not as much hoopla leading up to this one as there was with the PA. one, however, it promises to be a squeaker.
Obama has finally come out with an attempt to paint Hillary with the same brush with which she has been painting him, as Ariel Alexovich writing in the NY Times shows us. Will it make a difference? Who knows, but the more I have seen lately it would appear that Americans are operating on the assumption that the devil you know is better than the one you do not, and so if it is politics as usual with Hillary carryng the day, I do not have much hope for any of us.
We need a new direction, a new choice, a breath of fresh air if you will. Obama has a chance to show us that he can lead the country away from the horror of the past eight years and set us in the global community, once again in a place of honor. We must still come back to the numbers and no matter how you slice it, Obama has a lead which will be hard to overcome. Steven Jonas has this piece explainig the numbers, once again.
If you are at all interested in what the major newspapers in the two primary states have to say today you can go here and here .
No, it does not mean five (tablespoons) of mayonaise. In fact it is pretty meaningless altogether, but for reasons that transcend history and accumulate in the marketplaces of restless celebrants with nothing to celebrate it would have been long since forgotten. Joe Baca in Huffington Post writes about the Battle between the French and the Mexican armies in 1862 over the default of Mexico in its international debts. We link to this story only in the hope to exorcise Cinco de Mayo from the rash of make-believe holidays that are creeping into our calendar.
Oh, and one other thing: Baca suggests that France might have entered into an alliance with the Confederacy had they won the battle against Seguin and then conquered the country. This idea is why we try to leave historical speculation to bonafide historians. France and Britain would not have both alligned with the Confederacy, and you will recall the Brits sold warships to the Rebs. (My great-grandfather was attacked by one, the CSS Florida.) But, more importantly, France alone could never have mounted a successful and concerted effort to dominate Mexico, not even with the taste of Maxmillian soon to be fresh on the Mexican palate!
