So I guess the latest Richardson drama is that someone is reporting that he once said he didn't think Obama could win.

Why this is making news is beyond me, but nonetheless, a few things:

If at one point he did say that Obama couldn't win, it's obviously quite possible that he changed his mind.  That's usually what logical people do when presented with new information.

And can we also remember that at some point not really all that long ago, a lot of people also didn't think Obama could come this far in the primary?  

Remember that interview with Katie Couric last November?

If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked. 

“Well, it will be me,” she said.  

Hmm.  No shades of gray there.  Shelby Steele wrote a whole book about why he can't win.  Perhaps even most ominously, George W. predicted Hillary would be the nominee.  Months ago it was practically a foregone conclusion that Hillary would be the nominee.  If there's one thing we should learn from this primary, it's that predicting where the voters will go is a tricky thing.  Polls have been notoriously wrong this season and there's no reason to think that Bill Richardson, even if he did think Obama couldn't win, is some sort of sage who we should all recognize as some "Man of Great Foresight."  After all, it wasn't that long ago that he himself thought he might be President.  

And personally, I always like being the underdog.  It makes the comeback win that much better.

Carmen Van Kerckhove poses the question in her post, “Why Should White People Fight Racism?”

 If we define -- as many activists do -- racism as a system that benefits whites at the expense of people of color, then how do we convince those reaping the benefits to change the system?

 A few things struck me.  First of all, in response to her post, reader dNA responded,

     “She's saying something important, which is that racism affects white people too, particularly in the way they see themselves. Black people aren't the only ones who internalize racism.
     It's much safer for white folks to pretend they don't have a dog in this fight, beyond "fighting racism" on behalf of black people. The scary part is that many people don't realize how deeply race and racism are ingrained into our own personalities, and affects everything from how we talk, behave, and act to the food we eat or music we listen to.
      More importantly, we rarely acknowledge how we use them to define ourselves, especially in relation to those we consider "different."

I was reminded of something I learned about Thomas Jefferson long after I left classrooms.  It is something that is rarely taught in our textbooks.  We all know that he spoke out against slavery, and yet he owned slaves.  When I was in school, that topic was essentially verboten.  Recently, it has made it into textbooks.  Prior to that, it was apparently too awful to acknowledge any fault or hypocrisy of a founding father.  What we never really delve into beyond a superficial level are his motives, his beliefs, his thoughts on slavery and race.  We know that he said, “Under the law of nature, all men are born free.”  We can all recite the words written in the Declaration of Independence.  But in truth, it seems that Jefferson contained within himself the moral struggle representative of the larger argument over slavery and race and racism, a moral struggle that still exists today, although it has evolved.  He believed that blacks were inferior, and writes much on the subject.  An example, after noting political differences between the races, he states:

 To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. - Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of Superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.”

 

In some of his writings it even seems as if he speaks out against slavery not out of the moral wrong of enslaving someone, not out of a condemnation of the unspeakable cruelty slaves endured at the hands of slaveholders, but out of a desire to free himself and other white men from the sin of slavery.  Not to help others, but rather to help oneself.  To view his motives as essentially selfish is certainly a far cry from the Thomas Jefferson we learn of as a hero. It should also be said that we have no real way of ever actually knowing what his motives were, and one would imagine it was a combination of many things.

 

So back to Ms. Van Kerckhove’s question:

 If we define -- as many activists do -- racism as a system that benefits whites at the expense of people of color, then how do we convince those reaping the benefits to change the system?

 I wonder if we don’t have to separate it’s manifestations in order to move forward? What I mean is, if we are going to move forward, I think we have no choice but to begin by combating the manifestations of race rather than the mental state of being racist.  That might sound backward, I know.

The reason I say this is because I am not sure that it is possible to change the hearts and minds of people who have long-held views about race.  I can’t help but wonder if that is something that can only change with the flow of generations.  How can we begin to convince someone who was raised to believe that blacks were inferior and who has believed it for years?  How can we begin to convince someone who experienced Jim Crow and discrimination first hand that not all white people aren't cruel?  I don't mean to generalize here.  I'm not saying that all older Americans hold those views.  I'm also not saying that all young ones don't.   I expect that if we approach trying to end racism by trying to change minds first, we’ll make progress much, much, more slowly.  Minds are a stubborn thing: they are notoriously hard to change. But instead, if we start to fight the ways in which racism manifests itself, then perhaps those who think they were benefiting from racism will see that they have nothing to lose from fighting it, and perhaps something to gain? 

At the advice of a fellow well-known TPM'er, I decided to google "Obama lies."

What I found was no less than astonishing.  

No further than the second result down did I find a website that had this video on it.  It lays bare the evident deceit I had been clearly blinded to before.  Thank God I saw it in time.

This has recently become my pet peeve.

The media consistently refers to itself in the third person.  Last night, while channel-surfing, I landed on O'Reilly for a few moments of self-inflicted misery.  He was complaining about how he has been treated unfairly by "the media."  He then asked his fellow media member if they trusted "the media," to which he replied, "Of course not!"  You can watch it here, at about 6:00 in.  

I really have no idea how these guys keep a straight face.  And they all do it!  It seriously drives me nuts.  

Dan Abrams does it all the time.  Usually after his absurd segment on demerits and cheap shots, or whatever it is, he goes into his "Beat the Press" on which he sticks it to "the media."  Here he asks, "Is the media rooting against Hillary?" Fair question, but seriously?  Just type in "Dan Abrams The Media" into YouTube and you'll get 60 results of him talking about the media in the third person.

Here Fox News kindly informs us that "The Recession is a Media Myth." Well shit, I feel better now.  I'm sure all those people who lost their houses feel an overwhelming sense of relief.

CNN makes it all clear when they tell us about "The Media Lovefest" with Obama.  They even give us examples of themselves doing it!  Brilliant!

Chris Matthews actually gets it right before he realizes he's on air.  

New York Times, The New Republic, and Politico all remind us of "the media's" love for McCain.  

Am I the only one who finds myself shouting at the TV and computer screen, "YOU ARE THE MEDIA!!!" 

"Keep that faith, keep your courage, stick together, stay strong, do not yield, stand up, we're Americans and we'll never surrender..."

The opening line to McCain's first general election ad.  Ah, American's love their dichotomies.  Win not lose, Victory over surrender.  If only it were so black and white.  

In the general election, the Democratic nominee is going to need to reframe this argument.  Actually they should both be doing it now.  Beginning to pull the troops of Iraq and using avenues other than military force is not a retreat, nor a sign of defeat.  It is the path to a "victory," if there's even one to be had.  I don't think we'll be able to convince the hundreds of thousands of Americans out there that Iraq is not a win or lose situation, even though that's the reality of it.  Instead, we need to reframe the plan in Iraq as the only way to a "successful" end to this.  

(Please forgive me, I hate to use words such as victory and success in relation to such a complex situation, for it oversimplifies it to a ridiculous degree.  It is precisely what I have faulted our current administration for doing.  So I use these words only for a lack of better ones.)

45 candidates who will be running for Congress have laid out a detailed plan entitled, "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq."  Unsurprisingly, it has gotten little press, at least to my eyes.  They raise two strategic questions, the first noting that there is no military route to success in Iraq: it has to be a combination of diplomatic, political, humanitarian and economic means.  But they make the point that "We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq."

We must remind America constantly that Petraeus himself said, over a year ago now, that "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq."  I think this is starting to take hold within the public.  But we need to make clear why, and demonstrate what the "counter-productive" operations are.  I stumbled across this today and found it to be an excellent example of this, a letter from a soldier currently in Iraq:

I agree that coming here was a big mistake for those reasons and others. As far as things on the ground, the outlook isn't much better. In my opinion, what everyone fails to realize is that this is not a counterinsurgency. If we wanted to stay in Iraq, then it would be a counterinsurgency. But it is clear that our goal is to turn over power and pull out. So, in building our strategic endstate, it's pointless to set goals that relate to our presence in Iraq. If the "insurgency" is a function of our being there, then it is not an insurgency in terms of our endstate. For example, if one of our goals is to stop IED attacks on US forces, that is pointless. When we leave, there will be no more IED attacks on us forces. So our endstate needs to be different. We need to ask "if we left tomorrow, what would happen in Iraq?" and from there, we need to determine which of those anticipated results are unacceptable to us. Then we must aim our efforts on making sure those unacceptable results do not occur.

When I look at the problem that way, it becomes almost impossible to find a purpose in what we do. Regardless of what we do, the Shia are going to take control. They have completely infiltrated all the security forces. The only kind of leader who could keep them in check was a tyrant like Saddam. And when the Shia take control, as soon as we leave, they are going to be as brutal as they like against the Sunni and there will be little we can do about it. That is what will happen whether we leave tomorrow or in ten years. As far as the foreign fighters, they will leave Iraq when we do. So what are we trying to accomplish here? Train the Iraqi forces? History shows that training forces in the Middle East can backfire. Any training we offer these people will find its way to our terrorist enemies.

Things are heating up as well. The Shia are getting more aggressive. We lost a man the other day and another was seriously wounded a week or so later. We're facing a high risk with very little potential payoff. We are able to make a difference at the local level. Some of the people are very kind and appreciate our help. That is the only positive thing I can see coming out of this.

We must force McCain to answer what he has not: "What is the definition of success in Iraq?" "How will we gauge that?"  "You say the surge is working, but was the goal of the surge not to provide 'space' for political progress?  What is your response to the recent statement by Petraeus that the Iraqis were not making sufficient progress politically?"


Via his own website, his plans for Iraq seem to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what so many others have recognized.  His solutions? 

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.

This statement completely ignores what even the Commanding General in charge of Iraq has stated.  And I have seen no attempt at digging into this claim of his either.  What does he mean by this?  Does he plan on putting more troops into Iraq than those already there?  Does this mean keeping the level of troops there as they stand now?  And what exactly will the specific goals of any increased military presence be?  How will those play into the bigger picture of "success"?  

Another tenet of his Iraq proposal via his website:

Keep Senior Officers in Place

The Pentagon has adopted a policy of rotating our generals in and out of Iraq almost as frequently as the rotating of troops. John McCain believes this to be a deeply flawed practice. If these are, in fact, the best leaders for the task, they should remain on the job as long as possible. These generals and other senior officers with experience possess critical situational awareness and expertise necessary to prevail.

So can we ask then, do you intend to keep on military personnel who disagree with you?  Or will you continue to follow the policy of George Bush in removing those who hold a different view than yours despite their clear understanding of the situation?  Admiral Fallon, the most recent casualty of Bush logic, was removed because he expressed a view different than both McCain and Bush on Iran and the situation in the Middle East.  This man was one of the few voices of reason and understanding, and lost his job for it.  The Bush administration trashed the legitimacy of another respected military figure, Colin Powell, and when he began to criticize the intelligence agencies, call for intelligence reform, and note that there would be no WMD's found, he was fired.

Americans hate to lose.  Baseball, basketball, football, video games, and wars.  Defeat, surrender, failure.  Win, Triumph, Success.  

Last month, PEW found that 48% of Americans thought the military situation in Iraq was going well.  An equal number thought the opposite.  49% support bringing the troops home, and 47% support keeping troops in Iraq "until the situation is stabilized."

Obama frequently says, "We have to change the mind-set that got us into this war."  He's right.  We also have to change the mind-set that views the wars of today as victory/loss, triumph/failure.  The war in Iraq holds no comparisons to the wars of past centuries.  War is no longer waged by opposing sides lining up on fields and shooting to see who can stand longer.  And yet many still operate under the same mind-set that defined victory then.  
We have to change oversimplified and idiotic views like this, that continue to assert we are 'winning'; and views like this that state "defeat is unthinkable."  Chuck Hagel has recently expressed the need to stop thinking about war in such simplistic terms.  He's spot on, and I hope he continues to shout it from roof tops.  

I wonder sometimes if all this win/lose, never surrender talk is the psychological reparations of a generation who still laments the outcome of Vietnam.  It sometimes seems to be no more than an expression that say, "We can't lose two big wars in a row!"  In fact articles like this, which headline with "No More Vietnams: This time, let's finish the job" only serve to reinforce that view.  

Historians often revisit the story of Vietnam, in trying to understand "where we went wrong."  Many parallels have been drawn between the war in Iraq and the one in Vietnam, and surely, just as many people have tried to refute those parallels.  As with all historical analogies, it isn't an exact one, but to refute any comparison because of some differences simply is not logical.  I stumbled across this piece from American Thinker, "Why Vietnam was Lost."  Certain parts struck me.

The enemy in Vietnam, whose leader Ho Chi Minh stated early on, 'You can kill ten of my men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.' This determination was never seen for what it was until it was too late. Like the Japanese at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the only way to defeat the enemy, it was belatedly understood, was to slaughter every last one of them. This was not something we were prepared to do.

It really seems no different than those in Iraq who believe that by dying they are heros, sacrifices for some greater cause.  How can you effectively combat that without killing every one of them?  Is that ever even possible?  

Douglas MacArthur famously said that in war, 'There is no substitute for victory.' He also warned Kennedy not to fight a land war in Asia. Vietnam was lost because it was a war fought under terms that would not permit victory. The critical lesson of Vietnam is that any nation can lose a war it is not prepared to win. In the modern age you must have the will to win any war you fight, even if it means using immoral and unacceptable means. This is a hard thing to say, but nonetheless true.  It is a lesson that must be taught, reiterated, and understood —— for it is why, even with all our imposing power and overwhelming technical superiority, we need to be extremely wary of any call to arms. History teaches that America will not, 'pay any price, and bear any burden.' We are truly our own most threatening and lethal enemy.

The veterans of Vietnam deserve the thanks and honor of this nation. They did not win a war. They did do their duty. Let us honor them by understanding the truth of what happened. And sustain our appreciation by promising to never again pledge our blood and treasure to a cause we are not willing to win.

I won't even comment on this, I think it speaks volumes for itself.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly made the case for pulling out troops because we are in a war "we can't win."  She's not wrong.  But it's a dangerous case to make to a country that hates to lose.  The sane argument can and should be made by both Democratic candidates: by reframing the war, by reframing the definition of victory, and by rationally explaining why and how to all 300 some million of us who can,  I can only hope, listen to reason.  

If we cannot do this, by the time we get to November one of the biggest divisions will be over the war.  I know that all the media keeps telling us the economy is the "biggest" issue, and no doubt it is.  But the media's love of lists and scales has created a false assumption: that we cannot have more than one issue that is of the utmost importance to us.  If we cannot do this, the GOP will quickly and deftly paint the Democrats as "waving the white flag," "giving up," "backing down," "throwing in the towel," "emboldening the enemy," and whatever other ridiculous notions they can find.  They will seek to underscore their claims with every picture they can find of Senator McCain as a soldier and POW, and will be quick to point out that the Democratic nominee has no military experience.  

These are already being invoked.  If we're not careful, it's an idea that will creep into the American psyche and it will be difficult to overturn.  If you need proof of this, just see McCain's latest ads, here, here, and here. And here. We might mock them, but they are well put together and chock-full of vivid imagery.  Meanwhile, we're harping about superdelegates and convention rules.  The Democrats, and I mean all the Democrats, from us on the boards to the members of the House to the Presidential candidates themselves need to begin to show the American public that we need to re-define how we think about Iraq, that the path that needs to be taken isn't a clear choice between winning and losing. 

It's becoming increasingly evident the platform on which McCain will be running on.

Here's his new ad.  Tell me, after watching it, does anyone have any idea what he wants to do as President?  Anything?  

Time's recent article, "Still in It to Win It," created a bit of a stir for Senator Clinton's definite assertions that she will not be dropping out of the race, that she intends to carry as long as need be.  That was unsurprising to me.  I didn't expect her to drop out, nor do I think she should, on a few conditions.  (But that's fodder for another post.)  But the article left me unsettled, for one passage that was overlooked in the rush and roar of the rest of it.  

Clinton believes Obama's support is largely a mirage--a bunch of true believers whose passion might help him cinch the nomination, but that may prove an insufficient bedrock for winning a general election when the spell might be broken by tough questions about national-security credentials, economic-policy plans and rich experience. She can't stop from shaking her head in disbelief when longtime friends who are elected officials inform her that they are going to endorse Obama and were chiefly convinced by their children's enthusiasm for his candidacy.

This bothered me, for several reasons.  First of all, it again gives the impression that the large numbers of young voters that are turning out in support of Senator Obama are somehow delusional.  A mirage?  An illusion?  I don't think so.  And the disbelief at those who have been convinced by the "enthusiasm of their children"?  It is a dismissal of their voices, in my view.  It is not as if we are convincing them by running around with pom-poms shouting "Ra, Ra, Vote Obama!" in all our wide-eyed naive glory.  I too, have convinced both my mother and step-father to support Obama.  With the help of my siblings, I did it with a reasoned presentation of facts, backed up by evidence, and employing our ever useful ally, YouTube.  And that is something to shake your head in disbelief over?  I think not.  
This is nothing new.  The media has long cried over the fact that the youth vote never turn up, and now that the youth vote has even quadrupled in some places, in the primary, no less, some of them shake their heads at us as if to say, "Ah, the foolishness of youth."  I can't tell you how many times I heard from my stepfather in the course of our political discourse, "I've just been around longer," "I remember McGovern in 1972," "They've said this before," and so on and so on.  And even with all that, we finally convinced him.  And he was headed toward being a McCain voter.  

Well, I resent the implications made by many that we are naive in our support of Obama, as if we are jumping into the "hype" with blinders on, with no clear understanding of politics, positions, or proposals.  In fact, I may later make the argument that the younger half of the population who is voting is arguably better informed than the older half.  But we all know the adage, "With age comes wisdom."  I am reminded of H.L. Mencken's quote, "The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom."  

I thought of this because we are approaching the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination.  While most Americans know him as a revered figure in the battle for civil rights, what more often gets forgotten is that he was just 39 when he was killed.  It reminded me that many of the great leaders, the great minds of history have in fact been quite young.  

MLK was 34 when he gave the speech, "I Have A Dream."  Malcolm X was also 39 when he was killed, Bobby Kennedy was 42.  Ernest Hemingway wrote "A Farewell to Arms" when he was 30.  Dickens wrote "Oliver Twist" when he was 26.  Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence when he was just 33.  Einstein developed the theory of special relativity in a paper written when he was 27, and won the Nobel Prize when he was 42.  Steinbeck was 35 when he wrote "Of Mice and Men", 37 when he wrote "The Grapes of Wrath."  James D. Watson made his first breakthrough in DNA research when he was 25, and when he was 34 he won the Nobel Prize with Crick and Wilkins (who were both 46 at the time).  Thomas Paine was 39 when "Common Sense" was published.  Shakespeare was believed to have written Macbeth when he was between 39 and 42; Hamlet between 35 and 37.  Michelangelo began painting the roof of the Sistine Chapel at 33, after he had completed the statue of David at the age of 29.  Isaac Newtown began compiling his Laws of Motion when he was 24.  Google was developed by two 25 year olds.  Microsoft was founded when Bill Gates was only 20.  Mickey Mouse was created when Disney was 27.  And Jonas Salk was 41 when the polio vaccine came out.  

In 2004, as we all know, Bush won.  Who delivered him that victory?  Certainly not the youth vote.  In fact, the under 30 crowd is the only age demographic that Bush did not take a majority of.  54% of that demographic voted Kerry.  53% of 30-44 year-olds, 51% of 45-59 year-olds, and 54% of over 60 year-olds voted for Bush.  Now that's wisdom in action.  

Last July, headlines announced, "Clinton slams Obama as "irresponsible and naive."  Her exact statement was that his comments on foreign policy and meeting with leaders of 'rogue' nations was "irresponsible and frankly, naive."  Some of course agree with her, while others, such as myself, find that while perhaps historically she would have been right, at this time in our country,  a different approach is needed.  

And so, it seems as though the idea of naivete has become associated with Obama's campaign, his supporters.  He is naive, and we are naive for supporting him.  Perhaps some of his supporters are.  Perhaps some of Clinton's supporters are, and McCain's as well.  After all, we are the country that watches American Idol more than any other, with over 26 million viewers.  The only news show to appear on the list, 60 minutes, has less than half that at 11 million viewers.  In 2007, People magazine had higher circulation than Time or Newsweek.  According to a recent PEW study, only 69% of Americans can name the current vice president.  68% know we have a trade deficit, 76% can identify the party that currently controls the House.  A whopping 93% of Americans can identify Arnold Schwarzenegger (where have those other 7% been?), while only 15% can identify Harry Reid.  More people could identify Beyonce than Nancy Pelosi.  

So yes, it is an unfortunate fact that there are people out there who are uninformed.  But it is a mistake to dismiss any opinion of the young as naive just as it can be a mistake to dismiss the opinions of the young for being out of touch.  Instead we should applaud voters of all ages who have taken the time to learn about the issues, to become involved in the process, to evaluate the candidates and make an informed decision.  

Obama bowls in Altoona...badly.  (You'll have to click on Obama Road Trip on the left and it's under there.)

JoPa decides not to meet Clinton, but his son likes Obama.

Richard M. Scaife praises...Clinton.  

Obama is ahead in fundraising from PA donors.  

A look at the blue-collar vote.  And one at seniors in Cambria County.