This Palin would be a bit more qualified.

My left-leaning stomach churned as I read this morning that Barack Obama would actively expand Bush's faith-based programs, the same ones that bought off evangelicals and large swaths of voters, and promoted abstinence and anti-choice programs that have undeniably torn this country's social wounds.   This, and his timid stance on FISA and telecom immunity...

What is my candidate doing?

But Obama has a strange effect on me.  I can see that he's an intelligent, caring human being.  A politician, yes, and a smart one.  But he is also more of a statesman than Bush, and arguably even more than Clinton, with a built-in sense of responsibility that rivals the last four presidents. So his positions on issues I disagree with get my brain working... why, what, how could he possibly be thinking that these positions make sense?

And it doesn't take long for my brain to come up with beautiful, gray area solutions to these first-appearing black and white issues.  What's wrong with asking Christians to be actively charitable?  A few billion dollars to churches is much better spent than a few billion worth of bombs.  Plus, I feel engaged, and able to respond if Obama does something I dislike.   Is it delusion to think my government could listen to me?  It has been, in the hands of the current president, and the one before that, and so on.  But is it completely unrealistic? 

And I wonder if this is what Bush supporters did 8 years ago, overriding their gut, that this guy they liked might betray them?  But they gave him the benefit of their doubt, and the benefit of their vote, to be sorely disappointed about that a few years later....

I'm audacious enough to hope.  I was just hoping for a choice between the better of two goods than the lesser of two evils this time around.  Too soon?

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward."

Hillary Clinton, in her concession speech Saturday, said the right things, did the right thing, and did more.  She set up the proposed future of the name Hillary Clinton.

She could have ended up a pariah, an unspeakable name that would have sent shivers and shocks down the spine of many Americans for generations to come. By using division and combativeness in the 2008 primary, she brought the Democratic party to the brink of collapse, by tearing it in two.  In her concession speech, she brought it back together, by rallying the great majority of her supporters to Barack Obama's side.  As if there were sides to be taken.  For years to come, she will be remembered as the person who tore Democrats apart, only to put them back together again.  And the wound still needs time to heal.

But Hillary Clinton did something else in her speech Saturday.  She set up her own future.  She let the crowd, and America, know what she would be up to for the rest of her life.  She wants to be a historical figure in the fight for women's rights.

A great majority of her speech was dedicated to what she has accomplished by fighting in the primary for so long – that it would no longer be remarkable for a woman to run for president in a serious way.  That there is no room for prejudice of any kind in the United States anymore.  That staying in the fight is a noble, and essential act.

We shall see, over the years that will come, if her future deeds in the fight for civil rights, against discrimination, and as a model for women's power will reform her name, and how she is remembered in the annals of history.  One thing is certain, she's set her game with this speech, and now she intends to play it.

Like so many women of her generation, she has shown the talent for deep, strong, and visible transformation. In twenty minutes, she went from a symbol of unyielding, divisive ambition, to one of compassion, patriotism, and women's rights. 

In order to be depicted on money at some point in the distant future, she needs now to make that transformation stick.  Without real action, demonstrated will in this new fight for equality and civil rights, for universal health care, and leadership in our country's own deep, visible transformation, the current impression of her will not fade.

Indeed, in order for it to be unremarkable for a woman to run for president again, she needs to act now in this new role, to do as much for equality as Al Gore has done for global warming.  She needs to show she can be cherished by history without the presidency.  And, knowing many people of her generation who were faced with the necessity of their own personal transformation, I know she can perform that magic now.

I sent this through Harry Reid's website today, and thought I'd share it with you here.

Dear Senator Reid,

You are a fine elder statesman and do a great service to our country and your state.  I honor your  legacy.  I am glad I can write to you to say that your gently assertive, deliberative, and gentlemanly style of leadership has had its place in our government for many years, and still has a vital role to play.  Yet there is vast evidence that your style of governance is a mismatch for the kind of Senate leader we have needed, and will need during the coming years. You may not know this, but you're getting panned out here in the real United States, for your lack of action, for your complacence, ineffective pressure, and unnecessary compromise.

I ask that you remain a vocal and important leader in the Senate, but that you step down from the role of Senate Majority Leader.

The coming years will require swift, brash reforms, ones that will greatly reshape the government, and the public view of it.  Over the next decade, will see a great swell of civic interest, involvement, and scrutiny (something we already see with the current presidential contest).  That means that your back-room style of gentle pressure and secret compromises will come under the microscope, and your culpability in the state of our nation will be uncovered.  In this new era, those types of deals, done far away from the public they affect, will be frowned upon, even if they were "for the best", or "all we could do."

This new era will require those deals to be made publicly, and with the voice of the people behind them.  Think of the changes we've seen in the past five years alone – local campaigns and speeches make the national news, lists of contributors are easy to acquire, and following the money, once impossible, is now commonplace.  Things said in private are regularly leaked.  These are all good things, in my opinion, because they allow a more direct democracy to take place.  We watch because we care, because we want to know, and want to have a claim in what our government does in our name.  

As an adult entering the prime of my life, I feel this country is mine to steward. I, along with many others of my generation, will encourage an upcoming era of transparency and direct change that may seem quite unnatural to you.  This change is occurring now, and it will occur with or without your help.  I ask that you let this happen more rapidly, by stepping down from your leadership role.  

I know you have a difficult job with a fragile majority, but in reality, it is much simpler than you make it: what we need is honesty, transparency, and responsibility – for this war, for our debts, for inaction in the face of dwindling resources, and for this hostile takeover of the executive branch.  I realize that you may be incapable of taking that great step into responsibility and transparency in all your dealings, to be proactive with revealing what you have actually done or not done behind closed doors, which would involve implicating yourself in some of the tragic decisions and votes that have led us to where we are now.  That is why I ask you to step down so this necessary level of healing can begin swiftly, and without sacrificing your good name.

If you do take up this challenge, I ask you to consider who would be your replacement.  Here is my short list of suggestions, in order of my preference:

Joe Biden
Patrick Leahy
Chris Dodd

These fine gentlemen have served our country well, with unrelenting passion for the good of this nation.  And they are all more senior members of the senate than you.  I ask that you do the right thing, and step aside so that the Senate can have a great impact in shaping the nation that I will be living with for the next 50 or more years. Thank you.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, you get in here right now!


Your divisive talk is manipulating minds... and not just any minds – really susceptible and simple minds that believe what you say.  It is shameful to encourage people to get angrier and crazier about your lost cause.  You are doing that by suggesting this is anything like Florida 2000.  When you say:

We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000, when right here in Florida you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted, and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner.

This makes Obama as bad as Bush.  This asks your supporters turn the rage they have about the stolen election way back then and direct it at the candidate of hope and public support.


Your words are damaging Democrats. But these words are the most damaging.  They are not persuasive to the people that need to be persuaded (...supers...), they are inciting an uprising from your masses.  You need only convince a few maniacs that their ideas about Barack Obama are justified, to push them over the edge.  And you're hard at work convincing all your maniacs.


The people you have been talking to are mad that they have no power, and guess what, they have no power over this issue.  Your words are damaging and dangerous.


So you stop it, right now, missy!

As the GWB administration has proven, words can be used to spin anything into anything.  
- The latest Farm Bill, according to Bush, "lacks (farm) program reform and fiscal discipline."  So he will veto it.- CA Rep. Darryl Issa interrupts a hearing that affects emmissions standards in his state, by asking the chairman, citing rules and procedure, while Waxman questions a stonewalling EPA administrator.- John McCain enjoys the image of a maverick reformer who wants to change Washington, meanwhile the lobbyists running his campaign are swiftly exiting out the back door, and except for the main one, possibly the worst one, Charlie Black. "People will be thoroughly, more thoroughly, vetted," he claims.  Yet he doesn't act on removing Charlie Black.
The actions are the important thing in all three of these examples, and the myriad examples that occur in the news every day.  Why DOES McCain keep Charlie Black?  Why DOES Issa interrupt the hearing? Why DOES Bush veto the Farm Bill?
I ask all who read this to spread the idea that:
Words are no longer important. 
Actions speak louder than them.  Here's how you can contribute to a movement that will silence official lies and hold people accountable for their actions:
Declare you are no longer interested in the words from people whose actions have proven to contradict them.  
Point out the actions that bring a person's true intentions into question.
Question the words coming from the mouths of liars. When a lie is spoken, follow up by citing the evidence of their actions.  
When reporting a story, focus on the activities, rather than the statements, of the people involved.
Hold all statements to a basic standard of scrutiny.
Be prepared to rebut statements by knowing the actions a person has taken.  Bring them with you to interviews and press conferences. 

I know this is basic stuff.  I'm just fed up with sloppy journalism and intimidated, uninformed advocates giving in too easily to comments, words, and statements that have no bearing in reality.

The most interesting read of the day, for me anyway, was Michelle Cottle's collection of comments from inside the Hillary camp, citing the reasons why Clinton failed to secure the nomination.
The list is revealing on many levels – it should and will be a lesson to political science majors for years to come.
A few things about the article I find interesting...
...less realistic reasons given, which point to some staffers not even getting in hindsight why they failed:

I just think they should have really gone after [Obama] back in the summer and in the fall. (i.e. earlier and harder than they did)

...some comments that show a similarity to Neo-Con and Machiavellian thinking :

...it spoke to the character issue: The sense that she will say anything and do anything to get elected.

There was financial mismanagement bordering on fraud.

...polling memos that cherry-picked only positive polls when we were up and ignored polling when we were down.

Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate...

...they didn't know what they didn't know and were too arrogant to ask...

...and fundamental flaws:

There were so many consultants, instead of full-time staff.... too many people that had too much else going on on the side.

Running as an incumbent, as the inevitable candidate... in a time when the country is really hungry for change.

Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. 

Her people spent all of 2008 making lists blaming each other (but never themselves) rather than lists of solutions.

So just about every problem you could conjure occurred. But I would say there were significant problems that possibly only an outsider can see.  Here's my list:
1. Obama should never have been attacked.  Thinking that going on every offensive, and calling Obama her "opponent" for months and months is a good idea is just flawed thinking for a primary.  I'm no formal student of the craft, but even I know that attacks in campaigns do two things: A. they bring attention to your opponent, and B. they make you both look bad.  Negative campaigning from the front lines is a desperate battle – a scorched earth tactic that claws for a marginal victory, not the right choice of the "inevitable" candidate.I really think she could have copied Barack's hopeful message, agreed with him on everything, and beat him.  She did for a while, but in the end, fear took over, and, intimidated by his poise and position, the camp fell back on an attack mode. 
2. Her public image was atrociously false.  That she thought she had to be anything but her authentic self to win over Democrats was, in my opinion, her most visible blunder. So many of us wanted to like her, but as she continued to shapeshift, laugh inappropriately, and pander shamelessly, she lost those of us who just wanted Hillary. This is not just her failure, but I believe it's the failure of her generation, and the biggest difference between the old and the upcoming new wave of politics.  We'll see more politicians rise to the top through integrity and authenticity, as the unyielding, ever-national media coverage, hungry for gaffes and misstatements, continues to leave no room for liars, bigots, and hypocrites. National is the new Local.  Ask Macaca.
3. Mark Penn.  Now, I know this is a reason insiders agree on, but here's what I saw: a sweaty, ungroomed, fat pig of a man, with a whiny voice and combover, as The frontman spokesperson in those post-debate interviews.  Anyone who would give (well, promise, anyway) $5 million to such an obvious mess of a human being (just on appearances alone!) lacks considerable judgment.  The rest is said by her staffers.
4. Hillary never learned to speak to a crowd.  With a challenger like Obama, you gotta learn how to command a crowd.  She thought that monotone yelling into a microphone was the way to rouse the masses.  No – it's off-putting, unprofessional, and yes, SHRILL.  She should have been in training for crowds, and had people around her tell her she needed training.  
5. She thought that being a woman was enough...  and many of her strongest supporters still do.  But there are a great number of men and women, who pine for more women in power positions, and support all kinds of equal rights, who feel she is not the right person to be president.  She could have won them over.  Instead, she alienated these would-be supporters with cheap cries of victimhood, and uninspired rhetoric that simply drew attention to her gender.  Her words had little to get behind, because ultimately she is not a very likeable person, and she never saw that or endeavored to correct it. 
6. she doesn't know when she's beaten.  This is evident in her continuation in the race beyond all logic, but this flaw runs deeper and more fundamental.  Like a deer in the headlights, she pounds forward with inappropriate message. Her style is that of a steamroller – forge ahead at all costs.  It works when people are behind you, but when you're wrong it betrays a big character flaw: unconsciousness, or the inability to improvise, or to see a problem and right the ship.I had a sense that in all debates and interviews, her message was well-memorized.  Her answers were similar to a "choose your own adventure" book, where if question 5f is asked, respond with answer 2c.  She lacks Obama's (very rare, for a politician) ability to have a loose agenda in mind, backed by a strong self-confidence, to see him through an interview or debate.  We could all see him get better in the debates, too. That reveals a conscious effort to see one's self and to then improve that Hillary still does not possess.
In summary, it was just a disaster.  How fascinating. Obama's success and Hillary's failure are indicative of the same principle:  The New replacing the The Old ways in U.S. politics.  These are exciting times, to see such a sea change nationally, and to be there at the beginning of something that will shape the future quite positively.  
Well, thanks for reading.  I had fun writing this up.

Wow.  Barack Obama's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel and the Jewish community should prove to many that Obama's reconciliatory mind will be an asset to Middle East relations, with an understanding for conflict resolution insofar unheard of from a U.S. president.   

I look forward to a new era of Middle East talks, with nuanced, intelligent answers coming from my president like these:

It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

---

...there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal.

---

...The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this....

---

...my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now....

---

[Israel's] incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it.

Here's my short list of who to not pick for Obama's Vice president.

1. Wesley Clark.  Pluses: white, military, anti-war, foreign policy experience, Hillary ally.  Why not: He's respected, but not widely liked.  While he was supreme allied commander, he's not someone the working-class white high school graduate type has ever related much to.  He adds to an "elitist" image, with a wispy, small, business-owner, book-writer millionaire lifestyle.  And for being a military bigwig, he's awfully effeminate and purty-eyed.  I think he would creep out the more brusque midwesterners, by rousing some "just funny" feelings "about the guy".  Plus, he's short, and Obama's tall.

2. Hillary Clinton.  Pluses: half the Dems like her, instant band-aid, policies in line, dream ticket.  Why not: The fantasy would quickly wear off, and the white house would get mighty crowded.  HRC is not the second-fiddle type.  She's an attention hog, an Alpha Dog.  She would command a vice presidency that would make Dick Cheney blush for lack of subtlety.  She would undermine an Obama policy mandate and often play naysayer role that would impede progress the way Obama would like it done.  To break fully with "the old ways of doing things", Obama best leave her behind.  A lot of true blue Obamanauts would really appreciate that level of political sincerity.  He's got two big handfuls of truth right now, and he best not spoil a good thing. 

I could also see her big money connections conspiring for an Obama coup to put her in charge.  It's not a pretty scenario, but I see Hillary-as-veep as dangerous to Obama as an assassin's bullet.  As an optimist, I think we're beyond actual assassination in this country, and have evolved into the more manageable and subtle world of political assassination – smears, scandals, and undermining.  There are a lot of big special interests Obama may very well be going after, and those interests will find solace in traumatizing, or similarly shattering the hopes of the masses that Obama is working hard to inspire into civic involvement.  The few and powerful keep that power by maintaining an uninformed and dejected citizenry.  The less people paying attention or knowing what's going on, the better for them.  They have backed Hillary in a big way.  A quick fix to make all this hope go away would be to oust Obama and get her in the seat.  With all the love and good feeling going on, we best not forget how fragile this democracy is.  A lot changed after 1963.

3. Ron Paul.  Pluses: anti-war, populist message.  Why not: The pages are totally different, folks.  This is a pipe bomb in pipe dream clothing.  Ron Paul is widely disliked.  He is deeply liked by a very small group of people who are looking for an underground club to be part of.   Libertarianism and progressive liberalism are like distant relatives at a reunion.  The first few minutes, you find some common ground.  Then, halfway into a conversation, you realize how glad you are to live far, far away from this person.  Plus, he's got Racism tattooed all over him for some old, nasty business.  Baggage, people.  Major baggage.

4. Dennis Kucinich.  Pluses:  truthful, progressive, experienced, a champion of good ideas.  Why not: on a surface level, he would add weirdness, and give people more reasons not to vote for the Democratic ticket in the more undereducated states.  He is not widely known, and eccentric.  He would not unite the big tent. However, Kucinich is a great man, and deserves to be a force for maintaining the change Obama could initiate.  That's why I think he would make a top-notch supreme court justice, and I hereby put that out there in the good old blogosphere.

Well, there's my short list.  Next time I have insomnia, I'll write up my GOOD choices.  Thanks for reading.

Doing my routine blog surfing, when out of nowhere, all up in my business are half a dozen action-posed teens blocking my view of TPM posts.  Then they all get sucked up into the banner ad at the top of the page – a Circuit city banner for some sort of Wii commercial... I don't even know.  I didn't care to look.

Circuit City, no one shops at you, you get aggressively bought out by Blockbuster, and you're a crappy store – a corner-crowding denizen of trashy, half-abandoned strip malls. 

The answer to this sinking ship is to assess how you can win customers.  How you can improve on meeting an ever-evolving consumer market.  The answer is certainly not to get even more annoying and in my face with pathetic attempts to get my attention.

This strategy is like one from the annoying dorm roommate who you're forced to be around, but can't stand.
This is not the savvy marketing activity of a national chain.  You sell electronics.  This should be easy.  I go to Fry's all the time.

Listen, I'm a marketing consultant, and if you hire me to do some brainstorming in some of your more important teams, maybe we could come up with something to turn your company around dramatically.  Honestly, it may be too late.  Blockbuster, not so great a move picking this one up.  That's a lot of decrepit real estate.

But here's a free tip:  blog-blocking, with snappy, teen, Wii-playing poseurs does not work in your favor.  It severely diminishes my already very low opinion of you.

Tuesday night, the MSNBC crew, including Russert and Matthews, talked last night extensively about how this primary is wrapped up, thanks to the razor thin Indiana results.  No path, no argument, no money train for Hillary. 

Perhaps it's because Hillary will need to lend herself more money very soon, and they see ad revenues on this plot line drying up... I don't mean to be too cynical – I like most of these guys on MSNBC – but with a conglomerate, biased-to-themselves media environment, it's best to have a clear head about these things.

That said, I feel really great hearing my t.v. say it's over. 
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

And that it's over for Hillary.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh.....

And that she and Bill would be backing Barack heavily if that be the case (implied in her speech)
Wheeeeeee....!

Thank you Indiana!!! 

Stephen Colbert's "Formidable Opponent" segment is, in my view, one of the more brilliant comedic bits of the 21st century, and in this installment he takes on the question of electability.

For all the craziness going on, I don't see Hillary pulling a Lieberman.  Anymore.  I went there once, in my paranoid, desperately critical mind, that she would be so maniacal and bent on winning at any cost. 

But not anymore.  This will play out through the primaries, and she'll be forced out by her peers.  She'll have been given the support of nearly half of her party's followers.  She'll have given it a full court press – a strong, old-politics dirty alley brawl of a try.

But then she will bow to the side, and eventually campaign for Barack Obama when the time comes.

The press will play the story of her pulling a Lieberman, and use her words against Obama in a ploy to keep the illusion of a broken party.  And there will be healing necessary.  But Hillary will not dump on her party.

Hillary isn't evil.  She's incredibly compassionate, determined, and calculating.  Her calculations have been wrong, unfortunately.  She listened to the wrong people, took the wrong advice, and said too many wrong things.  She turned a presumptive nominee standing into an unpalatable disconnection with the public, and with her own base.

She thought she had to be tough and nasty to win... from the beginning, she thought she needed to show a masculine, strongarm style, a style that isn't really in her heart.  She voted for an unnecessary and brutal war, and the potential for another one.  She's pissed off Iran.  She's lost some close allies, as they increasingly see her tactics and rhetoric as destructive.

There was something I saw in her pathetic gasoline trip pander-play... something in her eyes, in her voice, something that told me she knew she was out. Her heart is not in this thing anymore.  How many days has it been since we saw her shrilly shout to a crowd, or chastise either of her opponents with her own voice?  She's been absent for the past week, at least, in the eyes of the news.

There are many of us who wanted to like her, who gave her an honest shot.  My wife wasn't one of them.  I remember hearing her early on about how she just didn't like her, and feeling like it would take a while to convince her that Hillary was worth a vote. 

But over time, I stopped liking Hillary, too.  It was her incredible falseness – the persona that she donned in attempt to win.  Comparing that to a genuine person like Obama, my choice was clear. 

That she's being fake now is calming me to believe she will not destroy what Obama and the DNC have built, in the end.  In her heart, she is a great patriot, and a person who cares about the people of this country.  She will calculate that there is no more wind in her sails, and 2012 is better than nothing.  She's playing this now for the next fight... the one she will pick when the opportunity presents itself. 

I love how little news Barack Obama's Fox News Sunday interview made today. MoveOn got in a melodramatic tizzy, Sargent here got kerfuffled, McCain got the excuse he was looking for to run his ad, but other than that, this is the least explosive interview with Fox a Democrat has pulled off in aeons. It should be noted that Sargent and MoveOn both got an earful from posters that their takes on his appearance there was anything but a calculated, diplomatic success. 
Good going, Barack!

I consider myself a progressive liberal, and an avid Obama supporter.  I am sorely concerned about this nation and this planet, and look for signs every day of a turn-around, to a solid and redeeming future.  I cringe when one who I think is on my side of issues and concerns flubs, lies, or turns over in the face of the powers that be, or gets blindsided to the detriment of our fragile democracy.


Having said that, my assessment of Obama's appearance with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was this:  He did well. He fluidly answered all questions without a "gotcha" moment, and actually did what he has been saying he would do: bring both sides together and change the divisiveness of politics as it is now.


People commenting that Obama didn't "take on" Fox in a meaningful way, and unduly "legitimized" Fox, fail to understand the strategy and tact involved in a nationwide political campaign.  Obama needs to introduce himself to a nation.  Going on Fox and pointing a Clintonian finger in Wallace's face with sniping accusations of Fox's coverage of him would have been a massive mistake.  Not only would it have been completely out of character with Obama's message of a purple nation, but it would have been fuel for drama in an already saturated political circus.


Obama scored big on Fox.


Remember that the people watching Fox everyday already legitimize Fox in their minds... Fox to them is a reliable source for news.  In that medium, Obama showed himself to be an intelligent, calm and unifying character, to some who would otherwise be painting him as a Muslim underground agent, an angry black man, a typical politician, take your choice of stereotype.


Knowledge is power. Known things are less scary.  It is more difficult to make things up about a person if you have experienced what he or she is like in a sustained setting, like an extended interview on your favorite Sunday night news show.  Obama introduced himself to a lot of people who were - and many who still are - scared of him because they don't know him.


Being a progressive liberal, and an Obama supporter, I see very little to fault him with on this interview.  He faced tough questions, retreads of Wright, his liberalism and questions about what he liked about Republicans.  Like a fish being hooked, he took the bait and flopped into the boat.  Then with his artful understanding of diplomacy, he made friends with the fishermen, and even suggested another fish (McCain) they might want instead of him. In the end, they threw him back.


Now, I know nothing about the hashing out of his interview that happened before and after this interview, which I'm sure was typical Fox noise.  But Obama won some hearts and minds tonight that he didn't have before... no doubt about it.