As a registered Democrat in your district, and as a progressive voter, volunteer and advocate for decades, I am appalled by the news that Representative Grijalva has decided to become an obstacle to health care reform that is a life or death issue to thousands of Americans.  Lets be clear: with 41 Republican votes now guaranteed to block all health care reform efforts in the Senate, and with Senate Democratic party moderates clearly indicating that they want to move on to other matters, it is delusional to believe that the current United States Senate could pass anything more progressive than the bill that is already in front of the House.  The choice is not between the Senate bill and some idealized bill that could make it out of a conference committee or further negotiations; the choice is clearly between the Senate bill and nothing at all.  By announcing his refusal to support the Senate Bill, Rep. Grijalva is declaring his support for nothing.  This is a betrayal of millions of Americans who go without health insurance, a betrayal of the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year because they cannot access health care, and a betrayal of all your progressive supporters who have volunteered their time and money to produce progressive change in this country.

Read more »

This is a cri de couer directed at environmentalists and liberal bloggers everywhere.  It's very hard to coordinate strategy with the huge amorphous blob that is liberal opinion and news.  But it's time for a change of strategy, and if you agree, spread this around.  We need to take this climategate leak seriously.  Just because most people you know understand that it doesn't change anything about the certainty of climate change science or make the consequences of global warming any less severe, you can't simply wish away the ugly picture that has just been painted of climate change scientists.  And we have to adjust to that.

Read more »

When Obama engages in acts of international diplomacy, he tries to communicate in a way that is diplomatic. 

And that is unAmerican.

George Will repeats two of the tendencies that have made the man such a pathetic hack in recent weeks: extensively quoting from a different columnist and essentially repeating his points, and outright lying about the positions of his opponents.  Here's will today:

"[Stuart] Taylor has also noted this from a Sotomayor speech to a Hispanic group: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Says Taylor, "Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' -- and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.'

Her ethnicity aside, Sotomayor is a conventional choice. The court will remain composed entirely of former appellate court judges. And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented -- understood, empathized with -- only by persons of the same identity."

Thanks Will for repeating points better made by somebody else.  The difference between George Will and Stuart Taylor is that I suspect the latter has actually read Sotomayor's speech where she made that controversial quote.  Will either hasn't read it, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.  If he had read it, he would have seen that Sotomayor says this about the ability of white people to understand people of the same identity:

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Sotomayor almost word for word rejects the very claim that Will attributes to her.  Again, I doubt that Will is intentionally distorting her views.  My suspicion is that Will read that crappy Stuart Taylor article, and wrote an entire column essentially extending it's basic message two steps further, without ever going back to the source material and checking to see if he was doing any semblance of justice to the views of the Supreme Court nominee that he was trashing. 

Why on earth is the Washington Post still publishing this trainwreck of a columnist?

Instead of a correction and apology, how about the NYT do a little of that public service that everyone says is so important to our democracy and spend some resources investigating the underlying claim.  Personally, I'm a lot less offended that Maureen Dowd failed to rearrange the dependent clause with the independent clause, or find some other slightly new way to express the same basic point that Josh made, than in the fact that politicians may have ordered human beings to be tortured in order to score political points. 

What we need is not less plagerism of Josh's original point.  What we need is more.  In fact, I'd love to see every journalist in the country plagerize Josh, especially in any interview of any Bush adminsitration official, from now until the day we definitively find out whether people were tortured to retroactively justify the Iraq war.  Do your jobs people.

I'm happy to see people beginning to ask questions about Diane Feinstein's weak track record and public statements on torture.  As the Wall Street Journal wrote last month:

Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object.  

Read more »

I mean really, who cares what Rick Warren said about the government of Syria. He's not being asked to become an adviser to President Obama's Middle East policy team.  Nor, I might add, is he being asked to give a sermon on his views of homosexuality, Proposition 8 or gay marriage.  He's being asked to give the invocation to Obama's Presidential inauguration.  The invitation is no more an endorsement of his political views than sitting on a board with Bill Ayers was an endorsement of bombing the Pentagon or becoming a member of Trinity United was an endorsement of damning America. 

It's become a formula for scandal in this country, and I hate it.  You take every person who endorses, or works with, or is honored by, a politician and pour over every single public statement they have ever made.  If you find something controversial, even if it has no connection to their relationship with the politician, you stick it to them and use it to characterize their entire worldview and personality - Rick Warren is the guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia, just like Jeremiah Wright is the guy who said god damn America.  God forbid that Rick Warren has ever said publicly that gays or Jews or Muslims are going to hell, a position that is more or less required by belief in the Bible.  A juicy quote like that is exactly the kind of thing that would light up the liberal blogosphere, even if the quote is taken out of context or is the result of a bad-faith interpretation of his comments.

The result of this is that we end up with a media - including the non MSM internet media - that is obsessed with hot button, emotional issues that provoke reactions rather than engage conversations.  This kind of reporting is a part of a political culture of outrage (outrage!!!!) that divides us as a nation.  And it feeds into the institutional needs of interest group politics, who always have a fundraising incentive to demonize the opposition rather than constructively engage with them.  This is one of the ways that the media is fueling the culture war.

The other thing this meme has done is discourage politicians from reaching out and listening to people across different segments of our society.  Hysterics over issues like this cause politicians to censor who they talk to, and vet all people they interact with to cover anything that could create a commotion.  It sucks.  I don't want politicians to only interact with people who are sanitized for public consumption.  The fact is, many of the most interesting people I know hold opinions on at least one issue that would be very controversial or out of the mainstream.  I definitely hold at least a half dozen opinions that would infuriate at least one interest group out there.  If anyone who holds such views is effectively removed from appropriate public consideration, we're going to end up with nothing but bland, inside the beltway politicians talking to bland, vetted, boring advisers and cultural and religious leaders.

I understand that many gay rights groups are upset and angry over the abomination that was Prop 8 in California.  I myself am angry and upset with the passage of Prop 8.  And I understand that the invocation is a position of honor.  But this attack on Warren is incredibly counter-productive.  Part of the problem that caused Prop 8 is the continued belief among many evangelicals and conservative Christians that legal equality for gay couples is an attack on Christian values or their own Christian lifestyle, an ignorance that was fed by Warren's absurd view that Prop 8 would lead to prosecution of anti-gay pastors.  Lashing out at Warren and suggesting that he cannot give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration is actually confirming this position in the minds of millions of conservative Christians across the country.  Warren represents tens of millions of people across the country, including unfortunately a majority of voters even in the blue state of California.  We are never going to reach any of those people by declaring that their views are beyond the boundaries of acceptable public discourse.  We might reach them, however, if we are able to move past the us versus them mentality that leads to persecution of gay couples and try to come together as a nation.

Rick Warren, for all his flaws, is an evangelical who sees that there is a major problem with the cultural divisions in America and wants to try to end those divisions.  We should be doing what Obama is doing: welcoming his attempt at conciliation, trying to find areas of common ground, and showing respect for the man, and not demanding a set of concessions (or preconditions) before we engage with him.  And we certainly be going out looking for more reasons to galvanize the left into hating him more. 

Everyone reading this already knows that the John McCain ad attacking Obama for supporting comprehensive sex education is complete and utter bullshit. But as we all know, the fact that it is utter bullshit has unfortunately little relevance to whether it will be successful. Moreover, we all know that Obama's defensive response to this will accomplish almost nothing, since in this election, it's always the attack that gets attention, while the defense gets ignored. Obama can't just play defense on this. He has to counter-attack. And the counter-attack has to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as the initial assault. Here's the statement: "John McCain has recently tried to make my support of sex education for kindergardeners an election issue. This is not an important or relevant issue in this election in any way, but since McCain brought it up, let me explain to you exactly what sex education for kindergardeners means. It means teaching children how to avoid sexual predators, and what to do if an adult starts touching them in an inappropriate way. And yes, I believe it is absolutely critical for children to learn this, even before they learn to read. Frankly, it seems to me that the only people who could possibly oppose this form of sex education are either idiots or pedophiles. John McCain is not an idiot. To my knowledge, he is not a pedophile. So I believe John McCain owes the American people an explanation for why he opposes this program. And I think John McCain especially owes the families who have been torn apart because a child lacked the information necessary to contact authorities after being raped or abused an explanation for why he believes children should not have access to this information." Say it like this and people pay attention and McCain looks like an imbecile.

Everyone reading this already knows that the John McCain ad attacking Obama for supporting comprehensive sex education is complete and utter bullshit. But as we all know, the fact that it is utter bullshit has unfortunately little relevance to whether it will be successful. Moreover, we all know that Obama's defensive response to this will accomplish almost nothing, since in this election, it's always the attack that gets attention, while the defense gets ignored. Obama can't just play defense on this. He has to counter-attack. And the counter-attack has to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as the initial assault. Here's the statement: "John McCain has recently tried to make my support of sex education for kindergardeners an election issue. This is not an important or relevant issue in this election in any way, but since McCain brought it up, let me explain to you exactly what sex education for kindergardeners means. It means teaching children how to avoid sexual predators, and what to do if an adult starts touching them in an inappropriate way. And yes, I believe it is absolutely critical for children to learn this, even before they learn to read. Frankly, it seems to me that the only people who could possibly oppose this form of sex education are either idiots or pedophiles. John McCain is not an idiot. To my knowledge, he is not a pedophile. So I believe John McCain owes the American people an explanation for why he opposes this program. And I think John McCain especially owes the families who have been torn apart because a child lacked the information necessary to contact authorities after being raped or abused an explanation for why he believes children should not have access to this information." Say it like this and people pay attention and McCain looks like an imbecile.

This is a great exchange for Obama:

First, a shadowy 527 group with an Orwellian name (American Issues Project) airs this already infamous commercial linking Obama to Ayers and Ayers to terrorism.

Calling Ayers a terrorist is like calling a cub scout a soldier, (and man did they have to stretch to find a narrative connection between Ayers and 9/11) but let's put that aside for a sec. The ad is run by a guy who used to work for the McCain campaign as a consultant until June 2007 and then quit. I wonder why someone would sign on as a consultant for an election campaign, and then quit 7 months before the first votes are cast?

Obama responds with this ad, which I think appropriately puts some perspective on the importance of Bill Ayers in this election.  Notice, why is John McCain talking about the sixties; Obama attributes it entirely to him. It's about damned time.

McCain's response is fun to read:

That they've made a strategic decision to air a commercial about William Ayers is perplexing. I don't understand it, but put that aside. The ad is misleading. It states the McCain campaign is running an ad on the issue and it's not. This a pattern of attacking from a platform of disingenuousness when Obama accuses his opponent of attacking when he's not, in an attempt to disqualify the issue from the debate. Here's Obama's problem with regard to Ayers. When he was asked directly, Obama described Ayers as just a guy who lives in his neighborhood. We know that's not accurate. Before we get to the place where we can ask, "Why does Barack Obama have a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?" we have to ask, "Why is Barack Obama not being forthcoming about his relationship?" This is what he has to realize: He's a candidate for president of the United States of America. He's not in a state senate race where he can disqualify all his opponents from running. He's deluding himself if he doesn't think his relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist who was part of this viscous, crack-pot group will give the American people pause. If he does, he's being very naïve. And he's being misleading. It says a lot about Barack Obama. John McCain is not running an ad on Ayers and William Ayers was not just someone who lived in his neighborhood.

Who, us? Make an issue of Ayers? Nah, couldn't have been us - that was the guy who used to work for us but then quit to work full time making negative ads about Democrats for the same people who fund our campaign. Nothing to do with us, right?

Three basic points in that paragraph: first, we're not attacking Obama on Ayers. Second, it's legitimate to attack Obama on Ayers. Third, this is now an attack on Obama about Ayers. When campaign strategists have to spin that hard, it's because they know that nobody is buying their central argument.

Also, what a horrible piece of writing. "This is a pattern of attacking from a platform of disingenuousness." Yikes.  Very apparent to me that they did not have a prepared response to this, because they did not expect Obama to turn around and hold them accountable for their 527s. Of course, Obama doesn't have to worry about being held responsible for 527 groups operating in his name, because he's already essentially shut those groups down.

Take heart, Democrats, remember how Obama got here: he's a very good tactician. 

Hillary,

I promise, if you drop out today, I will forgive you for everything that has happened during this campaign.  I will tell all my Hillary supporting friends that the horrible things I said about you were just the result of the heat of an election campaign.  I will no longer harbor a secret longing to see a Ned Lamont arise to challenge your Senate seat.  I will never again mention any of the wretched, divisive, unfair, and inaccurate things that you've said during this campaign.  I will even give you a pass on your Iraq vote and your Kyl-Lieberman.  Just drop out now.  It's time.  Leave with some dignity, and you can return to the Democratic party in good standing.

--The activist base.





Rec if you agree.

One of the few defenses that I've heard of ABC's awful performance last night is that there is no need to ask policy questions, because all of the major policy questions have already been asked. According to this line of thinking, further policy questions would just lead to a repetition of the same statements from the same two figures. Of course, it's hard to see what new was discovered about Jeremiah Wright or flag lapels because of the idiotic questioning last night. But as a service to future debate moderators, off the top of my head here are some policy issues that I do not believe have been addressed in any of the debates, by either candidate. The mods for the next debate can feel free to take as many of these as they want. And feel free to add your own! Off the top of my head, some questions that I don't believe have been answered: To HRC: How would you enforce your health care mandate? To both: How would you instruct our intelligence officers to interrogate terrorism suspects? To both: Under what circumstances would you seek a prosecution for Bush officials for torture or conspiracy to commit torture? To both: do you support protecting telecoms from prosecution for participating in warrantless wiretapping? To both: How would you convince China or India to agree to binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? To Obama: how do you plan to reach out to evangelicals given your abortion record? To both: on abortion, do you support: parental consent requirements? a ban on partial birth abortion? spousal consent requirements? funding for international organizations that support abortion? To HRC: if you were the nominee, how would you win back the support of the black community? To both: how would you begin to pay off the national debt? To both: what would be your strategy to support development in the third world? To both: how can the U.S. best promote peace between the Israelis and Palestinians? To both: how can the U.S. best promote democracy in China? To both: what is your plan to control the spread of nuclear weapons, especially from former Soviet states? To both: would you join the International Criminal Court? To both: what steps would you take to promote human rights internationally? To both: do you support increased regulation of the internet? To both: do you support mandatory minimums for drug crimes? To both: do you support increased penalties for possession crack relative to cocaine? To both: do you support legalizing medical use of marijuana? To both: what is your plan to improve inner city education? To Obama: how has living in a Muslim country as a child affected your understanding of America's role in the world, or in our relationship with the Muslim world? To HRC: can you name some specific ways that your administration would differ from your husband's administration?

Steven Stark has been an unreadable shill for Clinton this entire election, and this latest column is is worst effort yet.  This sentence in particular got to me, and we've seen this basic meme flot up a lot in conservative circles:

"But what Obama will never be able to explain away is why, of all the people in the world who could inspire him on a weekly basis, he chose the one who was known to exclaim, "God damn America," and preached a gospel not particularly distinguished by an appeal to everyone's better nature. Alas, we are judged by the company we keep -- as well we should be, when the company is a chief spiritual advisor."

This is a really stupid understanding of what it means to be a member of a religious congregation.  People don't "shop around" looking for the minister who most closely matches their theological or political beliefs.  Sure, they generally look for people who believe something close to their religious beliefs, but that's the least of what it means to be part of a congregation.  What keeps people in different churches is the relationships they build with people, especially the relationships that they build with their ministers.  Those relationships aren't just commodities that you can casually compare to other relationships in other churches; Reverend Wright isn't delievering a spiritual product in a way similar to the way McDonalds might deliever a food product or a politician would deliever a political viewpoint.  A good minister attracts people to his congregation by building strong relationships and trust with his congregants.  A good minister isn't trying to convince people to believe in a set of theological beliefs.  A good minister is trying to work with people, get involved with their lives and direct them towards God and a Christian life.  That's the essence of what it means to participate in a religious congregation. 

Whether you agree with your minister on political matters, and to a great extent even whether you agree with your minister on theological matters, is a secondary consideration.  Just look how ridiculous Stark's second clause is: "of all the people in the world who could inspire him..."?  What does that even mean?  Being inspired isn't something that just automatically happens when you are in the presence of someone who trades in inspiration.  Who knows how many people in the world could have inspired Obama.  This one, Jeremiah Wright, did, in a way that Obama describes very well in his memoir.  And in my experience, that is actually an extremely rare phenomenon, and not something to be casually discarded because of a political disagreement. 

Also, who is Steven Stark to judge that Jeremiah Wright "preached a gospel not particularly distinguished by an appeal to everyone's better nature".  Somebody who has watched a 30 second clips of the man?  Barack Obama actually knows the guy.  He actually has seen the guy in the community.  He actually has a relationship there, and when he talks about who Reverend Wright is, he actually knows what he is talking about. 

Some of this stuff is starting to border on religious prejudice.  The prophetic tradition of Christianity has often expressed itself in terms of scathing damnations of the government and mainstream society, from Jeremiah's condemnation of the Israelites to Luther's thesis to Calvinist fire and brimstone.  The God Damn Ameica for being racist fits pretty comfortably into that tradition, and it isn't that dissimilar to several speeches by Martin Luther King.  The religious tradition of black liberation theology is an important and valuable contribution to the American religious scene; black churches that are influenced by black liberation theology had a huge influence on the civil rights movement, and form some of the most important groups fighting poverty and alienation in inner city communities.  No, the movement, like it's individual members like Jeremiah Wright, is not perfect.  Yes, it is often too extreme, too dogmatic, and too self-righteous (but what religious group isn't?).  But being a member of that religious tradition should not disqualify you from public office, or make you any less of an American.

Walking around Nairobi the past couple of days wearing an Obama '08 t-shirt was a heady experience. Literally, I couldn't go three seconds without someone yelling out a supportive "Obama!" chant, or shaking my hand, or outright hugging me on the street, or joking about the absurdity (in their eyes) of a white person supporting a black candidate. Many people talked about how seeing the support for Obama among many whites in the United States had great symbolic significance for Kenya, a country in which the "democracy" is still effectively "vote for the member of your tribe". That way of thinking of course is responsible for the recent post-election violence in the country.

Anyway, I wanted to share one other comment made to me by the manager of my hotel in Nairobi, which I thought was interesting. He said that he has talked to many people who have stayed in his hotel over the past couple of months from all over Africa, and all of them are extremely excited about Obama, despite the loyalty that many Africans feel towards the Clintons (especially Bill). He said that what Obama represents to Africans is the possibility of Africa becoming a place known for more than genocide, repression and HIV. That generally, the west only pays attention to Africa during situations like the crisis in Kenya, or the disaster in Zimbabwe, and represents Africans only as either perpetuators or victims of violence and disease. In Obama, my hotel manager said that for the first time, an African might become important and famous, not for something he has contributed to Africans (like say Mandela) but for something he has contributed to western countries. He believes Obama as President of the United States would send a signal throughout the continent that African people have something to offer, and he expressed hope that would have wide-ranging and long term effects on the way Africans see themselves.

He was certainly very optimistic, but I thought it was an interesting opinion. Obama has to walk a fine line in terms of African politics, but I do wonder whether he would have a postitive impact. Right now, it is easy for the corrupt thugs of Africa to rail against the international community as nothing more than new forms of colonialism, a view that justifies despotic and corrupt governments. If the international community was led by a second generation African, I wonder whether people would be less accepting of that kind of ideology.

I'm starting to change my mind about the "Obama needs to get tough and attack Hillary" meme. For one thing, this view is in response to the "Hillary got a last minute surge of support because of negative ads in Ohio and Texas" meme, and I'm not sure that's actually accurate. When you look at focus group data on the red phone ad (sorry I can't remember where I saw this) undecided voters actually had a strong negative reaction to it. I have a different explanation for the sudden Hillary surge in the days before Texas and Ohio: the media started writing her obituary. People in the Democratic base have been rooting for Hillary for almost 16 years now. For all that time, her successes have been the successes of the party; Democrats have been identifying with her accomplishments and failures, in the same way that we identify with the accomplishments or failures of, say, David Ortiz. That identification I think is strongest among people who don't pay that close attention to politics, Democrats who look at politics through an "our team" versus "their team" lens, and especially women, who on a very personal level identify with Hillary's struggles as a woman trying to be successfull in a man's world.

What's happening now is like a bad breakup between Clintons and Democratic voters. You know the way you can want to break up with a girl, think it's the right move, have someone better lined up - and then all of a sudden, once you're actually halfway through ending it, you start to think about how great they were, how you had such great times together, etc. A solid percentage - I think a majority - of Democrats want to move on past the garbage of the Clinton years. But once it starts to seem like that is actually happening, once Hillary starts to fade a bit from the public spotlight, the story becomes "The End of Clinton" and voters immediately sympathize with her and her support rises. That's what happened in New Hampshire, and I think to a lesser degree that's what happened in Ohio and Texas.

I know people are going to say that I'm trying to explain away Hillary's support, and I suppose in part I am, but I do have some respect for the value of loyalty. I don't personally feel any, because I never liked the Clintons, but I respect the fact that some people do.Another way of putting this I suppose is "buyers remorse" or doubts about Obama. But I don't think the doubts really are about Obama. I think the doubts are about leaving Hillary behind.

If I'm right about this, then the last thing Obama should do is go negative. In fact, Obama should do the reverse; he should show respect and admiration for Hillary's time of service, which is really showing respect and admiration for Hillary's supporters. Maybe even take a shot at somebody for making sexist charges against Hillary. I don't think he has anything to lose, because I don't actually think Hillary has a shot at the nomination at this point - I think superdelegates are ultimately going to decide this thing, and they are going to decide it for Obama. They know he is in the interest of the party.

Of course, if I'm right, then the last thing Hillary should do is continue to go negative, which is the lesson that she learned from those victories.