Logic

I woke up this morning to C-SPAN radio (no comments). More specifically, I woke up to hear a Hillary supporter parroting the line that Obama's "argument" that he has won far more states than Hillary is irrelevant because red states such as Wyoming will never vote for a Democrat come November, whereas Hillary has won the big blue states such as California and New York that Democrats historically have won and must win. She then asserted something to the point that blue states should therefore have more delegates, a horrible idea in my opinion that would enshrine the current divisions and disenfranchise Democrats in Republican dominated states. Obama seems to stand a better chance than the polarizing Hillary of flipping some formerly red ("purple") states such as Virginia and even making a strong enough showing in staunchly red states to force McCain (who is not embraced by social conservatives) onto defense. Leaving that aside though, the Clinton argument IS logical. Yes, the Democrats must win the Gore-Kerry blue states to stand a chance of victory, and yes states where Obama has beat Hillary such as Alabama and Wyoming will probably go for McCain in November. Clinton and her supporters buy into the almost wholly static red state-blue state divide (a very new phenomenon by the way) in which the only path to victory is flipping Ohio or Florida to the Democrats column, something Gore arguably and Kerry unarguably failed to do. Yet, as the Clintons and their supporters shake their heads knowingly and make this argument (oh the naive latte sipping trust fund Obama babies!), they either fail to see or hope no one else will see the logical implications of their assertion; namely that if there are red states that will not go blue, then there are surely blue states that will not go red. Therefore, barring some major meltdown, Obama would probably win the core blue states, and McCain would probably win the core red states. This is why IMO Obama's stronger appeal in the purple states is so compelling. With Hillary, Democrats could have the same Gore-Kerry map and lose again by a hair if the Ohio-Florida hail merry is thwarted (again). Obama offers an opportunity to pull in new states and thus opens up multiple paths to victory. Could Obama lose in November? Absolutely! But it won't be because California and New York vote for McCain.

Let Obama Be Obama

Apparently Wolfson qualified his statement by saying that by the convention Obama might be able to pass the "threshold" on national security to be a suitable CIC in waiting as Hillary's VP . This reasoning shows how little stock they really put in their own argument of Obama's unreadiness. If Obama is not ready today, what magical experience is he going to garner between now and August 25 that will make him suitable to the Clintons? Does lasting out a campaign against Hillary suddenly give him the national security gravitas they accuse him of lacking today? As a poor impersonation of the late Johnny Cochran said in Southpark: "That does not make sense!." Cue the diagram of Chewbacca...

Of Florida, Michigan and Cookies

The standoff over Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic National Convention is a lot like kids who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The decision by Florida & Michigan Democrats to move their primary ahead of South Carolina's against the decision by the DNC seems to have been based on two assumptions:
1) As in 2000 and 2004, the nomination would be won early, probably by Hillary Clinton, and as battleground states with large delegations Florida and Michigan should be in on the process. Not satisfied with their inordinate influence in November, the state parties argued (much as Hillary Clinton now has) that small states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina don't matter enough to hold such an important pole position in the party nomination contests.
2) Because they are so large and important in November, the DNC would fold and give in to their demands for fear of alienating voters before the general election.

Both of these assumptions were flawed. The open nature of the 2008 Democratic field with no incumbent of VP meant this year's nomination race was likely to last longer. This is especially true with the proportional awarding of delegates (not a feature shared by the Republicans) which has made it very difficult for any candidate to score a knockout blow, especially once the field was narrowed down to two strong candidates. The second assumption underestimated the cohesion of a more energized national leadership that is finally seeking to strengthen the traditionally weak American party structure at the national level, mirroring the increasing partisan cohesion in both Houses of Congress.

So, to my cookie jar analogy. After pushing their contests ahead, Howard Dean and the DNC made it very clear that their delegates would not be seated and the candidates duly agreed not to run in either state. Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jars, it was made clear that they could not throw and tantrum and use their considerable electoral weight to get their way. At this time, the state parties could have backed down and stepped away from the jar; all reasonable Democratic leaders realized the danger of alienating voters in Florida and Michigan and if the state parties had conceded and moved their contests back the whole conflict could have been swept under the rug. Instead, they stared straight into Dean's eyes and deliberately ate the cookies. They held their contests; in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot and in Florida both candidates (largely) ignored the state. Now that it appears the race could go on through April or even through the convention, Florida and Michigan are demanding to have their delegates seated because it wouldn't be "fair" to exclude their voters from the nominating process.

Since the votes were deeply flawed and biased against Obama, the only reasonable option is to hold a second contest. Dean and the DNC support this, even urge it, yet they wisely refuse to completely blow their hard won credibility and pay for the contests out of national funds, no matter how helpful it might be politically in November. Having eaten all the cookies and without really apologizing, the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties are now demanding that the DNC to buy more because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of their family (voters) who were denied them because of their own selfish stubbornness. Like any good parent, Dean recognizes that while it is not fair to punish those who did not break the rules, it is incumbent on the offender to make amends; the state parties should have to pay for the new elections necessitated by their misconduct and their obstinate refusal to change their plans once it was clear they would be punished.

The role of the Clinton campaign in this imbroglio is equally disturbing. Having agreed not to campaign in either state, Hillary nevertheless showed up in Florida for a "fundraiser" just before the primaries, posing for the cameras and justifying her "non-campaigning" by the silly argument that Obama had broken his pledge by running a national add during the Super Bowl that was shown in both states (where apparently football fans watch the same national channels as the rest of us). Despite her agreement to the disqualification of the state's early primaries, she has sought to use the flawed contests to her advantage, claiming "victory" and demanding that their delegates be seated if it helps her mathematically. This solidarity between the Clinton camp and the states is patently self serving and ironic since in is characterized by shared disdain for the "unimportant" smaller states (that have gone for Obama) and because they all got into their predicament by banking on a quick Clinton victory as indicated by early polling based largely on her name recognition. The Clintons weren't complaining when the media broadcast her inevitability argument and polls topped 50% for her, only when they dared to question her when it turns out she wasn't anointed after all.

should stick by its guns because in the longer term a stronger party will be necessary to preserve Democratic competitiveness as the In the short term, the best solution for all would probably be a new votes later in the primary season funded by the state parties. For both candidates and the party this offers a chance to increase legitimacy whatever the outcome of the process, even though the use of state funds on a second primary could hurt down ticket races. Hillary can try to re-enforce her strength in larger states while Obama surely hopes to do better than he did last time around where he couldn't utilize his considerable retail campaign skills. For the long term good of the party, the DNC should stick to its guns and preserve its newfound clout as it's RNC counterpart regroups after the Bush era. Finally, something should be done about this nomination system, which is patently broken. Hopefully the upshot of this year's chaos (from which the Republicans were not entirely exempt) will lead to a well crafted reform of the nomination system towards a more thought out one that strikes a balance between states of various sizes and regions. Then there will hopefully be enough cookies for everybody.

When Spin Becomes Rediculous

Wow, the chutzpah! The Clinton Campaign now claims that anything short of a "decisive" Obama victory in EVERY MARCH 4TH STATE will be a victory for Hillary regardless of the delegate gap which she has virtually no chance of closing in Tuesday's voting. Now, "spin," the art of putting the best face on news is a well honored political tradition and perfectly understandable for a campaign trying to sell their candidate to American voters. But, to be effective, spin must have at least some basis in common sense or reality. The trick is to persuade people to adopt your favored interpretation of events. When it loses even this connection it becomes ridiculous, hollow and little more than the worst kind of 1984 propaganda. The truth is Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner and (on the advice of Mark Penn) ran her campaign as a virtual incumbent. Obama has come from behind through his embracing a more hopeful and coherent message. Also, apparently, people like him more since the more time he spends in a state the better he does whereas Hillary seems to have the opposite effect when voters get to view her up close. The Clinton Campaign has not really adjusted much, instead attempting to belittle Obama's victories and blaming the media with a fervency of a Right Wing radio host. In the words of Maureen Dowd: "It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender."

Furthermore, the memo's claim that "the majority of [Democrats] have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date" is a red herring. Yes, Hillary has led amongst registered Democrats while Obama has often beaten her with the support of independents and steadily closed the gap. BUT, a look at the turnout and excitement and because of the very loose definition of party registry and identification (not to mention the need for independent support to win in November!), for all intents and purposes the independents who voted for Obama are Democrats. In the end, if they vote for him in November what does their label matter? The Clinton Campaign’s charges might as well be an admission of surrender in November and reflects a very similar mindset to that which propelled George W. Bush to two very narrow victories: bring out the base in your core states and ignore the rest, a 50%+1 strategy.

Obama generates excitement and promises greater national competitiveness outside of core Democratic areas, even bringing formerly red states like Virginia into play. In contrast, Hillary’s huge negatives and the almost visceral hatred of her by Republicans and independent conservatives not only will boost their turnout and unity around McCain, but locks her into a strategy of just seeking a few more votes around the margin than Kerry won in 2004 in order to flip one or two states. Now that the Republicans have all but chosen John McCain as their nominee, it is vital that the Democratic nominee can attract independents amongst whom the maverick Arizona Senator is generally popular. At the end of the day, if Obama is able to change even this aspect of our politics, then it will be change worth having.

Mendacity (It's Been a While!)

Senator Obama visiting Kenya

President Bush with Saudi King Abdullah

Senator Clinton Kissing Suha Arafat (Who attacks Jews using the blood libel)

After the Clinton campaign's underhanded and clumsy attempt at fear-mongering in distributing a picture of Senator Obama in Somali garb, the attack has been picked up by the Republican party which is far less circumspect about it. They are using it to attack Obama's support of Israel. As a supporter of Israel and a Jew who seeks to stay informed beyond pictures, I find this both insulting and silly. A picture can be worth a thousand words, or perhaps none at all when placed in the context of standard courtesy and good diplomatic tact when American leaders visit other countries. So, the Clinton campaign continues is promise to "vett" Obama by using the tactics of shadowy insinuation that they apparently have learned from decades of "fighting" the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In doing so I fear they have come to embody many of the traits that they so disdain in their opponents. Thus, when it comes to 2008 and the future of the Democratic Party and the United States, I feel it is time to bid them (and the horse they rode in on) a fond farewell. Their day is past and hopefully the people of Texas and Ohio will convince them of it.

What Weapons?

The release of a new intelligence assessment stating that Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 is groundbreaking on many levels.

First, it shows how much weaker the Bush administration is today compared to during the lead up to the Second Iraq War. We all remember talks of bullying and selective use of intelligence to bolster the WMD threat from Iraq, most notably by former proliferation Tzar and UN-Ambassador John Bolton (who also bullied analysts regarding intelligence of other members and fellow travellers of the "Axis of Evil"). That the intelligence community has now done such a 180 even as we negotiate for tougher sanctions is a promising indication of greater independence, coordination and de-politicization in the intelligence services. Nevertheless, the abrupt and unexpected about face on such a sensitive and prominent issue should lead to a major auditing of our intelligence assessments in general.

Second, barring any "incidents," this report should undermine any conceivable rush to war before January 20, 2009. There was a clear momentum on ratcheting up threats towards Iran, this more or less takes a needle to that balloon. HOPEFULLY this will lead to a more long-term and nuanced policy that will seek to aid (however indirectly) the internal forces seeking to change Iran and do away with the belligerent and xenophobic regime there.

Finally, this is a huge short to mid-term victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He now claims "victory" in his conflict with Washington and vindication of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. This is taking things a bit too far considering the continued lack of transparency of that program and the potential duel-use of the technologies it is developing. In the long term, however, we can hope that the lowering of tensions and a (again hopefully) more nuanced and diplomatic "sticks-and-carrots" approach to Iran will undermine Ahmadinejad and his hard line allies since the President has relied on his populist anti-Americanism and nuclear defiance to shore up his popularity, especially as he engages in crack downs on civil liberties and freedoms.

Iran is a threat to the region. In our relief that it's claws are perhaps not as sharp as we had feared, we should not grow complacent. Now is the time for a more robust strategy on containing Iran's regime and hopefully fostering an atmosphere where, over time, Iran can embrace liberal values and take its rightful place as a respected member of the international community, respecting its citizens and at peace with its neighbors.

Throwing Stones

Attacks by Hamas security forces in Gaza upon Fatah supporters gathering to commemorate Yassir Arafat are an instructive reminder of the continued violence in the Gaza strip. Particularly interesting is the justification used by the Hamas security forces for indiscriminately opening fire on the crowd, killing at least five people and wounding over thirty: that protesters were throwing rocks at security compounds. This is particularly interesting in this context because of the frequent use of children by Palestinian terror groups (like Hamas) to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers. When Israeli's respond with tactics designed as non-lethal (rubber bullets, tear gass, etc.), the same "leaders" who sent the children out in the first place condemn the self-defense of soldiers and go on and on about Israeli cruelty. Clearly, when Hamas is the target, such niceties are not observed and metal-bullets are used liberally to break up crowds from different factions. I can only imagine that pictures of Arafat smiled down benevolently upon the violence that is the legacy of his decades of false promises and failed leadership.

God's Light and Congressional Scrutiny: The Best Disinfectant

Finally someone is seriously looking into the huckster shams of TV's most outrageous "give me money and God will love you" televangelists. Even better, the person asking them to report their finances to Congress is Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa. Hat's off to Mr. Grassley on this one and at least no one can turn this into a "Democrats hate God" issue. Hopefully, this will expose how these snake oil salesmen (and women) use the promise of salvation and good fortune to attract huge "donations" to their ministires to fund their lavish lifestyles. Now if only the despicable Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church would slip up somewhere so that they could be legally called to account...

Back Up

So I just saw that I haven't posted since October 10th and I feel really bad about it. I guess everyone needs a vacation...er going to work at least. I'll try and get back on the horse ASAP, there's a lot to talk about. Might try more of a free form, stream of consciousness format, not always linking to stories and trusting you the reader to track down more info. But that'll probably make me nervous, so I'll end up linking anyway. I'll try to get on it Monday.

SCHIP...For the Kids

So I've been following this debate over SCHIP. President Bush and the Republicans want an small increase in funding that will essential index inflation but not cover any more children, the Democrats want to expand what they see as a successful program to provide health coverage for some of the millions of children not covered by health a. Republicans cry "SOCIALISM!" and point out that expanding government coverage too much will drive up premiums for all Americans as younger (generally healthier) people with resulting lower premiums are not there to balance out aging Americans with higher premiums. Democrats had a 12 year old boy, Graeme Frost, who was covered by the program when he and his sister were badly injured in a car accident, but President Bush still vetoed the bill. Republicans then began to attack attack the boy and his family and Rush et. al. jump on the bandwagon of. Their attacks, as usual, are based on a partial interpretation of the facts and chest-thumping hyperbole. Defenders of the family have easily poked holes in their attacks, but since Dittoheads are not well known for seeking information outside of Rush's daily show this will probably not really matter. Rush went so far as to link his attack on the Frosts to his recent attack on anti-war veterans, proudly standing up for his TRUE AMERICAN values (which don't generally include free speech and reasoned debate).

Anyway, that's sorta my recap. What I find funny is that in all their hand wringing about the dangers to the insurance industry, Republicans have glossed over the problem of uninsured Americans that currently number 47 million and growing. They offer no real alternative to the Democrats' incremental policies, and so far their Presidential candidates have not put out comprehensive health plans to deal with the problem. Whatever one thinks about the Democrats plans, whether they be too much or too little, a band-aid for a broken system or creeping Socialism, the debate should start with acknowledging the problem. By ignoring the problem on ideological grounds, the Republicans seem to be leaving the issue of healthcare and insurance solely to the Democrats. They might regret this abdication in 2009 if there is a Democrat in the White House and a larger Democratic majority in Congress.

The Official Line

For those of you who saw all or parts of Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday, here is the official IRNA (Iranian State News) release about the speech. You can decide for yourselves whether this assessment reflects reality. Hopefully the Iranian people can get around the restrictions against "un-Islamic" programming and access a complete recording of their President's speech and his "introduction" by Columbia's President Bollinger. Unfortunately, if they are unable to do this then I fear this exercise in "free speech" will only serve Mr. Ahmadinejad's purpose of bolstering his support at home through political theater and propaganda and the glowing interpretation of IRNA.

The Inconvenient Truth

I just finished watching Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling speech at Columbia University about, well, science and truth and this that and the other. Basically it was an hour of padding in which he said nothing and gave all of his standards tropes despite harsh criticism from the University's President Lee Bollinger. The most telling and unscripted moment came when he was asked about the execution of homosexuals in Iran. His answer was novel to say the least (click link to see video).

With an audience that, judging by the applause, was pretty mixed between those supporting and opposing his "viewpoints," this answer drew the only audible boos and for sure the only laughter (his joke about "retarded" world leaders wasn't a crowd pleaser). Unfortunately, given the hostility of the current Administration and its supporters towards gay rights, Ahmadinejad's assertion that homosexuality does not exist in Iran will probably not be taken to task by our government even though it is the most clear, concise and obvious lie he told the gathering and also the easiest to disprove. Perhaps James Dobson will try to get in touch with the Iranian President to discover how they have achieved such a miracle...

Here is a link to a site with resources regarding the persecution of homosexuals in Iran, including graphic pictures of the execution by hanging of two young gay Iranians whose existence President Ahmadinejad denies.

Ends, Means and Liberal Democracy

In the spirit of my last post, I just wanted to post a link to this thought provoking article from the Economist that introduces a new series about the balance between civil liberties and security in the age of terror. I'm not going to repeat Ben Franklin here because so many others have, but his warnings about trading liberty for security come to mind. The issue is of course a very difficult one, however I think this article offers a compelling counter-argument against the "security first" arguments that have become so ubiquitous since September 11th.

Trust Them

The Bush Administration does have reasonable justifications to push for updating surveillance laws; no one can deny that technology has drastically changed since the original FISA laws were passed in the 1970s. That said, the consistent resistance to any forms of oversight for these controversial programs displays the stubborn adherence to secrecy and expansion of Executive power that has typified this Administration. Yes, perhaps there needs to be greater resources for those who oversee surveillance, but as a whole the system was not "broken" and the Administration has never offered a compelling reason to forgo the oversight vital to the protection of civil liberties. President Bush likes to say that we just don't have time to go through the niceties of oversight; yet by all accounts the FISA Court has historically been very very flexible in granting warrants, even retroactively when necessitated by events and only very seldom denied a warrant request. Democrats are willing to move forward given sufficient safeguards, yet the administration stubbornly clings to its assertion of Executive privilege and threatens dire consequences to American safety if they are not given everything they ask for. As always, the Administration implies that opponents of unlimited Executive power are indirectly endangering American lives and aiding terrorists.

In the end, it seems that the Administration is simply loath to grant any oversight authority to the other branches of government. That is a threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances, which most Americans traditionally think is a pretty good idea even if Vice President Cheney considers them quaint. Then there is the Republican Party, the party of small government who for the last six years has rolled over repeatedly whenever this Administration has asked us to trust them and trust government with unprecedented powers of surveillance and extra-judicial detainment of American citizens. The maintenance of our civil liberties should not be a partisan issue, just as protecting Americans should not (and I truly believe isn't) despite the veiled accusations leveled by the Administration and its most ardent supporters at any who question its methods or competence.

Don't Mention the War

Why is it so "shocking" that Alan Greenspan asserts that the Iraq War "is largely about oil"? Is this really news to anyone? This is another example of slippery language; many have and will (Drudge did in his link) misquote the Maestro of Wall Street saying that the war was "for" oil, a more controversial claim, while acknowledging that it is "about" oil should be a no brainer. Realistically, if Iraq did not have oil we really would not be involved there (or in the rest of the Middle East for that matter); the region is of such vital economic and strategic importance to the US because of the black gold under the barren sands. Now there is valid criticism to be made that the evidence of Saddam's WMDs was massaged (at best) and already unraveling before the invasion, but, again without oil would we really have believed Sadaam had the resources to fund a robust weapons research program? Oil is why the US intervened in Iraq while Mugabe still perpetrates his crimes in Zimbabwe. It's also why you hear more about Darfur, ironically as Sudan's increasing oil exports affords its genocidal government the shield of Chinese political protection. Reasonable people can disagree about the mix of the ever-evolving cocktail of "reasons" for the invasion of Iraq and about the failure of the Administration to stick with one or the other, but it is unreasonable to assert (as many of the Administrations supporters now do) that the war is not in any way "about" oil and was all about freedom, flowers and democracy. Well, those and mushroom clouds.