Ann H's Blog

Wondering why Kent Conrad may not want to stall longer?

2009-09-24T18:58:34Z

I guess it didn't make the national news because there were no tea partyers involved, but this past Tuesday, 800 people demonstrated in Fargo, North Dakota, outside Blue Cross/Blue Shield, protesting the role that big insurance corporations are playing in trying to prevent health care reform and preventing people from getting affordable health care.
Yes, that's 800 people in Fargo, North Dakota. (Total population of ND = 641,481; population of Fargo = 90,599.)
The local news media did sit up and notice, and here's a link to some video http://ndpeople.org/

Are the Republicans Intellectually Bankrupt, or what?

2009-02-11T16:51:00Z

My expectations have been very low; I know they are still in shock, licking their wounds, that they have played out all their old ideas, and need to develop some new ones.

But jeez, the stuff they have been coming out with is so pathetic, they are a parody of themselves, leaving no material for the comedians except to just play the tapes straight.

Steele claiming that "jobs" are different from "work" (huh?). Multiple Repubs saying we do not need any economic stimulus, that the federal government has no role to play here (debunked in the 1930s, guys). Then they solemnly declare that building schools is not the federal govt's role, they want the feds to stay out of education-- and these are the guys who passed NCLB. Then a bunch (most? all?) of them call for more tax cuts. All the while shedding crocodile tears over the deficit. They can't even make their own conservative arguments with any coherence or consistency. Are they even trying??

Then we go to the not-merely-intellectually-deficient, but also lacking in maturity/ dignity/ professional demeanor. Michael Steele's goose egg comment (truly juvenile), Limbaugh already explicitly hoping that Obama fails (okay, who can be surprised by that). Add in Barack the Magic Negro and the new video about public employee unions out of Eric Cantor's office. Honestly, a group of high school students would be embarrassed to be putting out this stuff. This is just on beyond pathetic.

Get a grip, guys! If I were a Republican party member, I'd be asking for my money back now. Bush showed that he could destroy competence in most of the federal government; the Repub leadership is now showing that they can spread incompetence throughout the party as well.

Are the Republicans Intellectually Bankrupt, or what?

2009-02-11T16:51:00Z

My expectations have been very low; I know they are still in shock, licking their wounds, that they have played out all their old ideas, and need to develop some new ones.

But jeez, the stuff they have been coming out with is so pathetic, they are a parody of themselves, leaving no material for the comedians except to just play the tapes straight.

Republicans Need To Pay a Big Price for Voter Suppression

2008-09-11T22:29:56Z

Democrats (and of course the media, if only) need to make the Republican party pay a high price for its voter suppression tactics. We all know it happens, particular episodes get reported every so often, but it seems to me that we all mainly go "tsk, tsk" and move on.

Voter suppression is unAmerican. It is undemocratic. It undermines the very basis of our system of government. In short, it should be a serious crime-- if not in the law, then at least in public opinion. It should simply NOT BE TOLERATED.

In 2004, I was a runner in a precinct in Wisconsin for Kerry, seeking to maximize the turnout. About 11am, I went to the voting place for the precinct to check in with my coordinator, and discovered that two Democratic pollwatchers had been thrown out of the polling place for "misconduct". The complaints had been lodged by a Republican lawyer who was pollwatching. I appointed myself the next pollwatcher for the Dems, and placed myself right next to the Repub lawyer. While we were still able to chat in a friendly way (that broke down fairly quickly) he told me that he was part of a large group of volunteer lawyers recruited by the RNC to pollwatch in Wisconsin. Within minutes, it became clear that his job as he saw it was to challenge every possible voter, to minimize (suppress) the vote. With same day registration and address changes, there was lots of opportunity. If I had not been there, countering his every move, perhaps two dozen voters would have been excluded. I made it my goal to see that every person who wanted to could vote. Yes, the Dems had volunteer lawyers-- a phone call away, and completely useless to the people in the precinct I was in.

Multiply this by the number of precincts in Wisconsin, in the country, by the number of other suppression techniques.

At one point I asked the lawyer how he could look himself in the face in the mirror when he was subverting democracy that way. His response was to call to the election judge that I was disruptive and should be thrown out. I'm pretty good at this stuff and created a diversion-- but I have no doubt that the two previous Democratic pollwatchers were thrown out on the say-so of this Republican lawyer, simply for doing their jobs.

Why is Republican voter suppression merely reported, sighed over, and tolerated? I am sure there are efforts to stop it, but I want public opinion to turn against it, to make it a shameful activity. Can we raise the visibility of Republican voter suppression tactics so that the American people see what is happening and are disgusted, so that the Republican party is shamed for their behavior?

I'm looking for suggestions about how this can be done.

Intrade Predictions -- being manipulated??

2008-05-28T14:46:47Z

Can anyone explain why Hillary's numbers keep inching up in the Intrade predictions? I know this isn't a scientific survey, and frankly, it isn't important, but it's bugging me.

Are Clinton folks deliberately going and buying to edge her up? Is there any other rational explanation?

Surely one of you numbers wonks out there can explain this to me.

And while you are at it, also explain why the numbers add up to more that 100 (off by more than a rounding error, which was my first thought).

Thanks.

Elitism: worse than liberalism!

2008-04-25T19:44:02Z

We really need a comeback on this slur, right away. Now that perhaps the L word is losing some strength, it is obviously the goal of the Republican party to brand Democrats with this E word.

I think we tend to shrug and groan-- David Brooks thinks someone besides him is an elitist? -- etc.

But it is really potentially toxic for the Democrats, and I haven't seen much of a good comeback on it.

(I'm not really wanting this thread to feed into the Clinton-Obama insanity; I have no doubt that while she is using this Right wing talking point right now, it will be turned against her the second she wins the nomination, if she does.)

What follows are some thoughts on this topic off the top of my head. I'd love to generate a conversation that would push this discussion a lot farther than my preliminary attempts, which I don't think go very far.

I can think of several grounds for labelling someone an elitist.

1) People who are very rich and thus shielded from the struggles of day-to-day economic life. The Republican party has far more of these than the Democratic party. (And of course, nearly all of the commentariat is in this category, cf, Charles Gibson and his question about a cop and a professor earning $200k.)

2) People with more education, and thus quite likely jobs that are professional, managerial, etc. Not run of the mill "workers". One of you numbers-wonks tell me how Ds and Rs break out on this.

3) People who just simple believe they know more and better than other people. Now my opinion on this is that the Right Wing has far more of these people than the Left does -- you have to get pretty far Left to be doctinaire and ideological. So many liberals are unclear exactly what they stand for -- we can't be both unclear about our values, and trying to cram our values down other people's throats, eh?

4) People who are part of the group that determines the "dominant culture". Perhaps this is the category that is really making the Right crazy-- they think progressives dominate the media and entertainment industries and dominate the field of education. Part of what this means is that we have won some of the culture wars of the past several decades-- women are working outside the home, everyone is recycling, gays are out of the closet, etc. But the Right has to take this loss and inflame and infect it with their version of class warfare -- what those elitists who hate America are doing to destroy our country.

I don't know that the Right is using elistist in a consistent way-- it is just a useful weapon for beating anyone who is not with them over the head.

But do we have a consistent comeback, a put-down, a ready response??

And of course, one more thought, I think part of the reason the MSM loves to feed this stuff is their unspoken guilt about how much they are nearly all part of the elite themselves.

Your thoughts?

1.3 million donors = campaign finance reform

2008-04-03T18:39:36Z

One of the most essential reforms needed to make democracy work in America is campaign finance reform, so that the fat cats do not rule all.

But of course, how do you reform a system to take the money out of it, when it is controlled by the money?

The continuing news about Obama's fundraising makes me think we could have a different form of reform. Hundreds of thousands of people each giving an average of $96 is campaign finance reform de facto, rather than de jure.

I would think Obama no longer needs --if he ever did-- money from the big boys. If Obama asked-- if he said, I need donations now so I can work against Big Oil money, or whatever-- don't you think the dollars would roll in, in a mighty stream?

This could potentially be the biggest democratizing effect of the internet yet.

What do you think?

Hillary and the Late Voting States

2008-04-01T20:26:09Z

Correct me if I am wrong here, but wasn't Hillary's main campaign plan that she was going to appear inevitable, have more money and superdelegates early on, win Iowa, win the frontloaded states, and have the whole thing over by Super Tuesday?

And now she is shedding crocodile tears over the late voting states, oh, please let them vote.

Oh course, meanwhile Ickes is saying that the popular vote may be nice, but it is not critical to Hillary's success.

Enough. Stop. Already. Please.

Re: Stickin' (or Should Hillary Get Out)

2008-03-31T20:40:54Z

It is my belief that Hillary should drop out for the good of the party, and that her friends and party leaders who are not associated with Obama should be nudging her. Here's why.

1. If she had a chance to win without trashing the remaining candidate, then she could stay. I have seen no evidence that this is the case; the math does not work for her unless she totally trashes him, which would be very bad for the party. (I don't think she could win in November if she did this.)

2. If she had serious policy differences (on the scale of pro-war, anti-war: I mean serious, not details of their health plans), then she would have justification to stay. But this is not the case.

3. If he represented something that was anathema -- a moral failing like corruption, or who knows what else-- that might justify her staying. Again, not the case.

4. If it really looked like he could not win in November-- not by some secret backroom math, but in the big, public polls, then she could stay in. But he is ahead in the polls.

5. If she were a maverick and an outsider running against the party establishment (McGovern, etc.) that might justify her staying in. But she is not, she is the establishment.

Here's the thing: There is no real difference between these two candidates on the issues; people with major credibility are backing Obama and saying he has the experience and judgment to be president (so she can't claim the electorate is somehow duped, not a good position for a person who wants to be elected anyhow); and there is no reason to think that he will treat her favorite constituencies (shall we say, women and blue collar workers) badly- on the contrary.

Honestly, as far as I can see, all we are left with is, she really, really wants to be president. She of course thinks she would be better, but I think pretty much by definition every candidate thinks this.

Her personal desire for the office does not justify her behavior.

Complaining about and trying to game the rules is also not justified, given #1-5 above.

And here's the downside, of course: she is running the risk of destroying the party's chances in the fall.

I believe she owes the party a certain loyalty, and absent reasons 1-5, I see no justification for her to stay in. In fact, I believe it makes her judgment suspect.

This is a different question from whether Obama and his folks ought to be calling for her to get out; I think that is primarily a political question, and the current politics of it are that they should not.

But I do believe that party leaders (or those who aspire to be party leaders) both neutral and supporting Hillary should be calling for her to get out, either publically and/or behind closed doors.

Because a lot of damage is being done to the party and its nominee, and Clinton has no justification at the point beyond her desire to win. Which is not enough. This is not a game. We are talking about the future of our party and our country.

It is my profound hope that she is only planning to stay in through Pennsylvania. I do understand that she has to sound determined until the day she drops out. But I am particularly alarmed by Josh's suggestion (which makes sense to me) that she has only one way of campaigning, and that is full-tilt, no holds barred.

If she had any judgment and concern for the country, she would drop out now; and if she has lost perspective in the midst of a hard fight (which certainly can happen) then her friends owe it to her to tell her what the situation is.

Shocked, shocked to find such anger in the black church!

2008-03-15T17:39:52Z

The discussion of Rev. Wright's sermon clips (not his sermons; just a few soundbites, remember) has highlighted for me how one-sided our so-called "discussions" of race often are. We would be so much better off if we had more black representation in the media, in the commentariat, in the blogosphere (not to mention, in other positions of power). The whole Rev. Wright issue is being presented from the perspective of isolated white folk -- shocked, shocked to find such anger in the black community!

Rev. Wright's sermons play very differently in the black community. Particularly for the older generation. There is a lot to be angry about. It's way better to express it than to bottle it up. Then you can start to deal with it, to take constructive action. Hell, if I was black, I think I'd be at least that angry. Being white, I have the luxury of being philosophical and judgmental if I want to.

Meanwhile, as a Chicagoan, I know that Trinity UCC is a church with an excellent reputation for constructive work in its community -- the black south side of Chicago. It is full of smart, constructive, social-justice minded folks, leaders in the black community in Chicago and beyond, leaders in business and politics and entertainment. Trinity builds strong, community minded leaders.

Let's look at what Obama has become, after 20 years in that church: an amazingly unifying leader, bringing people together across racial, ethnic, age, and political divisions. From his earliest public life, as an organizer, as a state senator, in the Democratic convention speech, in his first book, written before his political career, as well as in his second book, written as a part of his political career, Obama is clear about his approach: he wants to unify us as Americans and help us live up to our highest ideals.

My favorite example of his unifying spirit at the moment is the old white working class, small town Wisconsin man who was asked by NPR who he was going to vote for in the primary. He said, "I think I'm going to vote for that black boy. He makes a lot of sense." (or words to that effect)

As a white woman who can recall being chewed out years ago as a camp counselor for referring to a ten year old black kid as a boy, I cringed when I heard that -- and then I smiled, because I suspect Barack smiled when he heard it too. He is helping us transcend a whole era in race relations, move into a new period where we can have a new level of conversation about what we want our society to be.

Not an era that will be post-racial politics-- let's not kid ourselves. But one in which the conversation will have progressed from the anger of Rev. Wright's generation. Perhaps if we are lucky to a place where we can discuss substance rather than just react and react and react from places of mutual ignorance and pain.

I felt excruciating pain watching Barack denounce his pastor on CNN last night, and overwhelming admiration at his ability to remain calm and true to his high ideals, even when attacked in a very personal way. When Anderson Cooper asked at the end whether Obama could sing God Bless America or not, I was so offended for Barack I would have happily throttled Cooper. But Barack only smiled and said that he didn't think Anderson would want to hear him singing, defusing the tension with what looked like an easy smile (although it couldn't have been easy).

This is my defnition of a leader, guys. He's taking us to a new place, a place we didn't even quite know was there before he pointed it out, a place some of us haven't quite been able to believe in yet. He's calling forth the best in everyone-- including the black community. I can't imagine watching Anderson Cooper's self-righteous arrogance last night if I was a young African-American and not wanting to smash the TV (I'm a middle-aged white woman, and I wanted to smash the TV)-- but Barack is showing us all a different path, leading us from the angry path (quite literally, in the case of Rev. Wright) to higher ground.

So, after much agony over this whole episode, here is what I think. Anyone who thought we would get through this campaign without some excruciating discussion of race was naive. And this is it. The question is, how will Obama handle it, and how will we, his supporters and potential supporters, handle it.

Obama, I think, is coming through well in his response. I do not think anyone can ask ever again if he is tough enough. The question then is, are we tough enough? Will we let the white media crucify him? Will we run in fear to another candidate so that we never have to discuss race this frankly again? Will we tsk, tsk, and watch silently to see what happens next?

Or will we stand up for the man who has spent his whole public career defining a new approach the things that divide us, a new way to move us toward the vision of an America that tries to live up to its ideals, rather than make excuses for why it isn't possible. Yes we can.

So it comes down to character after all.

2008-03-13T17:54:28Z

This morning on Morning Edition, they interviewed Hillary, and then a bit later played tape of Barack, and the contrast could not have been clearer. Clinton was asked whether she really thought it would be fair to count the vote in Michigan, given that Obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot. She gave a convoluted explanation of how the DNC didn't really ask people to take their names off the ballot, and how it was all perfectly fair; tortured logic, rationalizations, and spin that honestly (not to call names) reminded me of Bush and WMDs. A bit later, they played tape of Barack being asked if he thought Ferraro's remarks were racist. He gave a mature, level-headed response-- no spin-- "I don't think she meant to be racist, I don't like to throw that word around; but I don't think most Americans believe it is an advantage to run for president as an African-American named Barack Obama" or words to that effect. That really said it all for me. He's had the kitchen sink thrown at him, he's endured a lot of serious ugliness; and yet he is mature, keeps a sense of perspective, doesn't either blame others or play victim; just states the facts as he sees them, quite powerfully. Whereas when she has a setback in her inevitable path to the nomination, and she starts getting ugly, nasty, dirty, and spinning like a top. I don't know honestly know where I rank character in my list of qualifications for president, but given that these two have very few policy differences (I agree with her on health care, and him on the war), this character difference this morning felt pretty definitive to me. I want a mature, responsible adult in the White House. I'm sick to death of weasling, twisting, rationalizing, and excessive spin.
Everytime I think, well, maybe Clinton wouldn't be so bad after all, she does something totally over the top like claim she can win a race when the other person wasn't even on the ballot.

Ferraro makes me sad; I remember being at a rally for her in 1984 and surprising myself by being close to tears because I was so moved by the idea of a woman as VP.
But this year, without doubt, I'm a 55 year old white feminist. For Obama.