Liberal College Kid

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the nomination race, I have stayed basically undecided between the remaining Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton. That is, until recently.

As I discussed yesterday, the mood of this campaign has taken a decidedly negative turn, driven almost entirely by the Clinton camp. She and her advisers have decided that resorting to fear-provoking tactics is the best way to blemish Obama’s image, scaring the public into voting for her and her long history of “experience.”

I noted yesterday that this strategy is myopic on all sides, that regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee, whether it be Clinton or Obama, it will do no good in the long run. The logical outcome of this sort of campaign is one that bolsters McCain and harms his opponent.

Today, however, Clinton has taken it to a new level. Before, with the “three a.m.” ads and the general attacks on Obama, she and her campaign were unintentionally helping John McCain (at least I assumed it was unintentional). Perhaps just insinuating the she and Senator McCain were better suited than Obama to become president was not enough, because today she said it, flat out:

Look, I have said Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002.

And:

I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.

I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that, and you’ll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

What, exactly, is she trying to do here? Am I the only one that thinks she sounds like McCain’s running mate? It was bad enough when she was satisfied just attempting to destroy Obama’s image. Now, she not only questions Obama’s ability to handle national security, but bewilderingly, unnecessarily, brings up John McCain and showers him with praise and attests to his preparedness. Please, someone explain to me how this strategy is supposed to pan out? How can it possibly benefit her OR Obama? All she is doing is taking on McCain’s work for him, taking cheap shots at her fellow party member and coming up with handy attacks for the McCain campaign to use in the general election.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek.com showed, using a delegate calculator, that even in the very best of circumstances (Clinton winning every single state from here on out; some, like Pennsylvania, by staggering margins), she will still be behind Obama in the overall delegate count. If events pan out, even as positively for Clinton as they do in the Alter experiment, then the only way Clinton could clinch the nomination is through the influence of the superdelegates. Unless her advisers are completely inept, they must know this as well. Why, then, resort to this strategy of tearing apart the other Democratic candidate and boosting the image of the Republican? I cannot assume to know how the superdelegates will interpret her statements, but if any of them are concerned about the cohesion and strength of the party, they should be appalled. If I were a superdelegate, and a Democratic candidate were speaking like this, there would be absolutely no way I would support them.

The McCain praise is not the only shocking statement the Clinton campaign has made in the last 24 hours. Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for her campaign, today compared Barack Obama to Kenneth Starr (you all remember that name), because Obama continues to ask that Senator Clinton releases her tax returns to the public. (An interesting side note: while she was running for the Senate in 2000, Clinton made a lot of noise about her then-opponent, Rich Lazio, not releasing his tax returns… exactly what she now keeps putting off herself). Again, I cannot see how comparing Obama to Starr helps her chances in getting the nomination. Not only is the comparison a complete and idiotic misnomer with no basis in reality, it brings up an uncomfortable time for the Democratic Party. The public does not want to go through that again, and by calling attention to Starr in any way, Wolfson simply reminds voters how much of a lightning rod for right-wing criticism the Clintons are. When asked to comment on Wolfson’s statement, Senator Clinton, for some reason, refused to comment.

Finally, this news came out of the Canadian press today:

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada’s prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton’s campaign - not Obama’s - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

Apparently, the story about Obama giving the Canadians the “ole’ wink wink” (Clinton’s words), got mixed up at some point. It was, in fact, the Clinton campaign that reassured the Canadian government there would be no major changes to the the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement if she became president. And why not? It was her husband’s administration that pushed NAFTA into existence, and she has made plenty of statements applauding the agreement in the past. When Obama and his campaign denied ever reaching out to our northern neighbors on this subject, he wasn’t lying.

Woops. While this story was being published and reported incorrectly in the United States, Clinton was quick to criticize Obama over it, insinuating, most importantly to voters in Ohio, that he could not be trusted to stick to his word and reform or repeal the agreement if he becomes president. There is nothing more sickening then finding out that the entire time, it was really the work of her own campaign that she was rallying so strongly against. Even more disheartening is that the story and Clinton’s response to it almost certainly had a significant impact on the March 4 primaries, especially in Ohio.

All of these things ad up to make Senator Clinton and her campaign look pretty ugly. If she insists on lavishing John McCain with warm accolades and denigrating Obama (beyond what is necessary for a primary election season), then I do not see how Democrats, both within the upper echelons of the party and its every day members, can continue to support her. All of her recent actions and statements have seemed to suggest that she would rather see John McCain become president than see Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee.

Many of the political pundits and Democratic strategists are saying that this long and drawn out race for the nomination will be good for the party: it will further clarify the stances of each candidate; it will energize the party base; it will focus media attention on the Democrats while McCain’s coverage gets muted in the background. But none of that will matter if, after a nominee has emerged, Obama looks like a weakling on national security and a traitor to America, and Clinton looks like best friends with John McCain, and has isolated Obama’s enormous base. If she somehow becomes the nominee, how can she possibly expect the millions of young, dedicated Obama supporters to suddenly change heart and embrace her candidacy? If the Democratic candidates are really concerned about putting a member of their party in the White House next year, they both need to stay away from viscous personality-based attacks, and Hillary Clinton, if nothing else, needs to stop the love-fest with John McCain.

• Leave a comment... (3)

The race for the Democratic nomination will continue on. With her wins in Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas last night, Hillary Clinton has narrowed Obama’s lead in delegates to 96 (according to cnn.com). MSNBC cited a poll showing that most Democratic voters actually want the primary elections to continue between Clinton and Obama. It seems their wish has been granted.

However, as the candidates move forward they should tread carefully. Prior to the latest round of primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton’s campaign began running the now-notorious “three a.m. phone call” television commercials, which insinuated that Barack Obama would not be capable of handling emergency situations prudently if he were to become president. They play off the already-held belief among some voters that Obama does not have the experience, and therefore does not have the judgment, to take on the country’s highest office, especially during a crisis. This, as we all know, has been the crux of Clinton’s self-marketing over the last few months; namely, that she is “ready to be president on day one” and that Obama is not. The entire ploy seems to be working, and the notion that Clinton has vast, tested experience in executive positions has taken root in many voters’ minds, despite the lack of proof (recently when a handful of her top campaign staffers were asked to name a specific moment in which she was tested in the way she claims to have been, none of them could come up with an answer). But setting aside the question of whether or not Clinton really does possess the experience shes touts, its obvious that she and her campaign have become comfortable with employing a more hostile and fear-based strategy. Last night will likely serve to reinforce their belief in the efficacy of this sort of campaign, and they will continue on to Pennsylvania under the premise that in order to siphon votes away from Obama, they need to scare the general electorate.

Scare tactics and ads playing to the fears of the country are an insult to the intelligence of Democrats and the public in general. They assume that whenever we are given the choice between voting based on an instinctual need for safety and voting based on thoughtful, coherent decisions, our animalistic tendencies will always win. They are saying to us, “we know that you, the common people, are too stupid to understand the intricacies of what we do; so, just trust that if you vote for that other guy, you might have to die, but if you vote for me, you’ll always be able to sleep like a baby.”

In 2004, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for John Kerry, said:

If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Sadly, his wife and her campaign managers have begged to differ with the former president. In their desperation to retake the lead, they have subjected the voters to the same kind of fear-mongering that Bill denounced just four years ago. And, if they do not back off from these tactics, they run the risk of doing serious damage to the Democratic Party and its presidential hopes this November.

If the Clinton campaign continues to demonize Obama in this way, they run the risk of significantly tarnishing his image in the event he becomes the nominee. There are seven weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, more than enough time to cement the irrational belief that Obama is weak on national security into the minds of millions of voters; not just those in PA and the other upcoming states, but throughout the country. If she does not win the nomination, she will have created a perfect target for McCain to exploit against Obama in the general election. She endlessly informs us that her number one priority is that a Democrat (be it her or Obama) is sworn into the Oval Office next year, but her actions seem to betray those claims.

On the other hand, if these tactics do work, and Clinton does eventually clench the nomination, they will hurt her as well. We hoped that this year, the election could finally move past mindless rhetoric and visions of nuclear holocaust, and instead concentrate on real substance. Inevitably, McCain and others on the right will use fear to win votes - I don’t think anyone doubts that. But because Hillary has descended into this filthy world as well, she will not be able to call them out and show the public why it is irrational to vote out of fear, why they should resist those candidates who replace dreams with nightmares, and why she offers an alternative to this nonsense - because she no longer does.

• Leave a comment... (0)

“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and the obedience of the [U.S.] media.”

“The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or the modern corporation.”

-Noam Chomsky

Following the results of New Hampshire’s primary votes, it seems that John Edward’s presidential hopes are not looking good. It is infuriating, to me personally, that the whims of two states representing a tiny fraction of the American public can have such a substantial effect on the fate of the presidential race, and thereby the republic as a whole. But these frustrations, as much as I would like to now expand on them, are currently irrelevant, and should be reserved for a later date. What I do want to discuss, however, is what the Edwards campaign contributed to the general direction of the Democratic struggle for the presidency, and, vastly more important, the consciousness of the nation.

First of all: an indictment of the mainstream media. Throughout the last two years, as the candidates on both sides of the aisle have traveled around the country, the major news outlets in the United States (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, to name only a few) have depicted the Democratic race as a two-sided battle; namely, the battle between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. We would be foolish to think that this has not had a significant, if not vital, effect on the bid for the White House. The mainstream media is an incredibly powerful force. It has the ability to, and general does, shape our view of reality and world around us. The tell us who is a “viable” candidate and who is not (this, of course, is in reference to only one small aspect of the reality that the media shapes for us; the power they have extends far beyond campaigns and “politics,” in the strictest sense of the word). While anyone who considers themselves educated and enlightened acknowledges this fact, we must think further. Why is it that Edwards has been consistently counted out, considered a nearly hopeless candidate? Before you answer this question, try to disassociate yourself from everything you have been molded to think in the last year or two, everything that has told you that Obama and Clinton are strong candidates, and others like Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and even Paul are weak.

The easy answer is that all of the latter campaigns have been very short on money, some more desperate than others. Despite the fact that we live in a “democracy” (a word that, in my opinion, has lost much of its meaning over the last quarter-century), those that do not have adequate financial backing are doomed. This, perhaps, is one of the great tragedies that our nation has had to suffer, and, no doubt, will continue to suffer. But I hope, for the sake of our fate as a nation, that this is not your only justification for supporting a candidate: whether they have the financial assets necessary. Let’s ponder for a moment what having a large sum of money to support a campaign actually means. It means that those with the money will have the most television advertisements and radio commercials; they will have the most signs crowding the landscapes of our neighborhoods; they will have the greatest number of paid staff members to conduct activities like door-to-door recruiting and focus group organizing.

Those of us that claim to be on the Left should have an ideological discomfort with these facts. We tout our commitment to equality and fairness, and yet barely notice when the entire system of nominating a Democratic presidential candidate is blatantly unbalanced and favored towards those who have the most money. This is not to say that a candidate cannot rise from obscurity and become a serious prospect for the nomination. But, there are certain circumstances that must unfold in particular ways in order for this to occur. They must convince those in this society that have the most money to donate that they are justified in supporting them. This is what the Barack Obama campaign has done. The donors that are really necessary to the success of a campaign saw that his chances of winning the nomination were reasonable, and therefore pushed money his way. It’s an easily identifiable cycle.

But there is another, more important reason that certain campaigns are focused on by the media, and others are ignored or portrayed as hopeless. For candidates like Kucinich and the libertarian - turned - Republican Ron Paul, its because their platforms and ideas are, rightly, considered radical. Suddenly the number one issue in the Democratic campaign (and even in the Republican one, to a lesser extent) is “change.” But can we honestly say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing policy shifts (if you can find any at all on Obama’s side (I know that they are there, but he rarely references them)) that are even comparable to the platforms of Kucinich? The worst part about the entire game is that huge numbers of voters have a feeling in their gut that people like Kucinich and Paul may be the only candidates playing straight, making a priority of honesty, not simply speaking from focus group and poll results. Paul, especially, is the only one of the Republican candidates who really understands terrorism in the Middle East and its causes, yet when he attempts to explain them during debates, the other men jump on him, ridicule him, condescend to him, and make him seem delusional. Even those of people in this country that are the most outspoken about terrorism, specifically that it is simply a manifestation of the terrorists “hatred of our freedom,” must know at some level this is fantasy, and that the a major cause of hatred against the United States is not jealousy or a disdain for democracy, it is a reaction to the imperialistic foreign policies that have been in place since the end of World War II. These candidates are counted out from the beginning, none the less, most importantly because the media says they are. The fact is, that in our culture of twenty four hour non-stop media, no matter how much you canvas a state talking about your ideas, the majority of voters are seeing you through the camera lens. The more politically active and focused members of the country will go out to hear candidates speak in person, the ones that have rational reasons for their vote and can clearly demonstrate why they are supporting one candidate over the other. But in reality, elections are swayed in one direction or another largely because of how voters “feel” about a candidate, not for any identifiable policy factors, and these feelings are a direct result of how the the candidates are portrayed in the media. Its not an obvious process, in fact, in many cases, it is the most sophisticated propaganda system ever implemented. We think that we are making these decisions for ourselves, and to some extent we are, but these choices are made based on ideas and images formed in our minds via the media.

Why, then, would the media choose to raise certain candidates to the status of “viable” while leaving the majority nearly out of the conversation? The answer seems elementary, but it is worth noting.

All the major news outlets in this country are owned by a handful of corporations: the television channels, the newspapers, the magazines, and many important websites. The reporters and journalists employed by these powerful conglomerates are often forced to report what they are told, to shape the issues and the reality of American life into the vision that their bosses have. The alternative is often the loss of their job (see the documentary The Corporation, one version is here.) Like any powerful force in the world, the owners of these conglomerates have certain interests that they must protect in order to achieve their own personal goals, which are generally the increasing of their personal fortunes or the appeasement of their stockholders.

From the beginning John Edwards, like the so called “second and third tier candidates”, was described by the media as a long shot, despite the fact that he was perhaps the second most recognizable candidate on the Democratic side (after Clinton, and before the rise of Obama’s celebrity status). As we have already discussed, if the media deems your candidacy hopeless, it usually is, both because many people will hear and see less of you and because opportunistic but well informed voters will latch onto a candidate that they believe is most likely to be elected (I include myself in this category: many times I’ve passed on supporting my first choice candidate simply because “they’ll never get elected.”)

John Edwards has been one of the most disturbing candidates to the owners of mainstream media and their friends. While all democratic candidates use rhetoric suggesting a dislike for corporate greed and corruption, those who own these interest know that this is probably just an empty platform with which to get elected. Whatever they may say, the major and now the only probable candidates, like Clinton and Obama, still take donations from lobbyists and wealthy corporation owners, hence insuring that they will be indebted to them and their influence once in office. Edwards, on the other hand, refused to take this sort of donation. Despite the enormous temptation to do so, he would not be bought off, and his campaign has suffered for it, both in their financial capabilities and their media portrayal. While reading posts and comments on the internet, I am surprised how many talk about how sincere they think Edwards is (to be sure, not all people think that of him). There are certain aspects of his campaigning that bother me, certain tactics used, like the many sound bites he produces, but these are, unfortunately, a necessary part of campaigning, and beneath them, myself and many many others can see the sincerity from which they stem.

The central idea of Edwards’ campaign has been resisting corporate influence and putting a limit on their powers in the government. This is exactly the opposite of what corporations that own media are interested in. This desire is most obvious in the case of the FCC and the recent loosening of monopoly-preventing regulations under the Bush administration. But it also extends to their friends whose fortunes and power would be threatened were Edwards to win the presidency. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, surely one of the largest and most influential corporations in the world. Edwards’ stance on limiting their ability to exploit cheap labor (which in many cases more closely resembles slavery), control the vast majority of the market, destroy the environment and produce harmful products is dangerous to their interests. Consequently, when NBC and MSNBC along with their related outlets have discussed John Edwards, it has been in language that distorts his image and reduces his chances of nomination, as I pointed out in one instance in an earlier post. And they are obviously not the only corporate giants afraid of Edwards. Most pointedly he has attacked insurance and pharmaceutical companies (who, on another note, Mitt Romney said were not the problem), two of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington.

Corporations are not only afraid of the attacks they receive from Edwards, but also of who his most important supporters are. Edwards has been consistently backed by the major unions (the few that still exist) in a large majority of the country. It doesn’t take a degree in Labor-Industrial Relations to see the problems this could create for large businesses like Wal-mart that do not allow their employees to organize and pay them near poverty level wages in addition to providing little or no benefits. Raising the pay of these people and giving them health care and other benefits would cut deeply into the pockets of the Waltons, the family that owns the mega-giant corporation and whose members are among the wealthiest in the country. In fact, Wal-mart is the perfect example of all that corporate America has to lose under an Edwards presidency.

Edwards has not yet dropped out of the race. His determination to keep going is remarkable, although its prudence can and will be debated. Even if he does eventually decide to stop running, the impact that he has had on the tone of the campaign will be felt all the way to the popular election and hopefully into the policies of the next administration. Not since the early part of the twentieth century has there been a presidential election that has confronted the growing power of large conglomerate interests and the resulting social stratification it produces. The American public, largely thanks to Edwards, is more aware now, I hope, of all that is being stolen from them in order to line the pockets of the upper echelons of society. Hopefully those that bemoan the welfare state that gives assistance to single mothers (although it is not much) will start to realize that while these programs are cut, corporate welfare in the form of subsidiaries, tax breaks and policies that allow functional monopolies are growing. Both Obama and Clinton have already had to address this issue more than they would have if it would not have been inserted into the discussion so forcefully as is has been by Edwards, and hopefully they will continue to pay it the attention it deserves. Nearly all of the major problems in the United States today can be traced back to the skewed influence of the corporate world into public affairs, and this trend is becoming ever more important and visible. Whether or not Edwards goes on to win the nomination, a scenario that is unlikely now, this election season has been fundamentally altered by his presence, and all of us that believe in real, not just the appearance of, equality and fairness, have him to thank.

• Leave a comment... (10)

Well the vote is in, and once again I got it wrong…  Congratulations Hillary.
However, for those that think of the 2008 Presidential election as the Ballot Bowl, the results in New Hampshire should certainly make for an interesting run up to the next Democratic primary in South Carolina.  As of this writing, Hillary leads there by 8 points.

<Yeah, she should be smiling!>

The 2008 race is forcing Democrats to make uncomfortable decisions.  In the caucus state of Iowa I think two things combined to boost Obama over Hillary that didn’t exist in  New Hampshire.

First, the caucus creates a different kind of vote.  That is, the caucus is a public vote, where everyone present gets to see who you are voting for.  Democratic voters this year have their choice of a woman, an African American, a Latino, and a few white guys.  One can easily imagine how this could become the oppression Olympics in terms of what group is most deserving of a vote based on their minority’s past experiences.  In essence, voters are being asked if they would rather have the first female president or the first black president, not an easy choice.  It is especially a difficult decision when everyone else around you gets to see who you are voting for.  We have to ask the question, how much of Obama’s vote in Iowa came from people who wanted to be for a black candidate in front of others?  While this question and others like it make me extremely uncomfortable I think there may be something to this theory.  South Carolina is another primary state and Nevada is another caucus state.  If the results of those two follow New Hampshire and Iowa we will certainly have to give this theory some serious consideration.

Next, the caucus rules in Iowa require that people casting their vote for candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote switch to another candidate or not vote.  This means that lower tier candidates, which for the Democrats in Iowa included Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel all had to find others to vote for (except in just a few places where Biden and Richardson received more than 15% of the vote of those present).  We have to ask the question of who did the best when these candidates’ voters had to switch to candidates with more votes.  Kucinich was fairly outspoken in asking his voters to go for Obama as a second choice.  The rest of the candidates had to choose between Edwards, Clinton and Obama.  This election season both sides are talking about the need for change.  Clinton, clearly, represents not change but a return to the prosperous 90’s.  So, many voters likely moved to Edwards because of his emphasis on the middle class and to Obama based on their desire for change in Washington.

These two factors had no bearing in New Hampshire, though.  Women turned out in record numbers, but something else existed in New Hampshire that was missing in Iowa.  The New Hampshire vote was a primary, done in private.  No one to try and convince voters to change their vote, no one there to see who they were voting for.  This helped Hillary, more so than anyone else could have predicted.  Obama came into today projected to win New Hampshire by double digits, and left 3 points behind Clinton.  The exit polling didn’t show it though, early exit polls and even those later into the evening were showing Obama in the lead.  However, as the votes were counted it became clear that Hillary had won.

So why were the exit polls wrong?  If my theory holds true its the same thing that happened in Iowa: people want to be seen as voting for the African American.   Now its on to South Carolina for the Democrats where the African American vote is around half of the Democratic electorate.  Don’t think race will be a factor in this election?  Think again.

• Leave a comment... (0)

OK, so I didn’t get it right last time… But that’s water under the bridge. Let’s talk NH.

New Hampshire is a very different state than Iowa with 65% listed as Independents. This means that they can vote in either primary, but not both. The two big candidates with Independents are McCain and Obama which, I think, has a lot to do with why they’re polling ahead of the pack.  Why New Hampshire should matter?  The fact that Independents have a choice in which party to cast their vote means that it may be a good predictor about which way Independents will vote nationally come November.  See, early primaries do matter!!  On to business:

Democrats:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Kucinich

Its hard not to take Obama in this race. He polls well with Independent voters, he represents change, he looks strong coming out of Iowa, and to be honest the other campaigns just aren’t doing it for me. The Clinton campaign is struggling, slipping now to 29% in the last Reuter’s poll. Edwards also is not doing as well in New Hampshire as he would have liked, remaining in third place in the polling even after narrowly defeating Clinton in Iowa. Obama will take New Hampshire and the Clinton campaign will just have to hope that they can make some serious gains come Super Tuesday as the rest of the early primaries will more than likely go Barack’s way as well.

Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee
4. Paul
5. Thompson
6.Giuliani

McCain will take New Hampshire because voters are still convinced, no matter how many times McCain has supported everything Bush has done, that he is an Independent. A “maverick” as FAUX News has called him. McCain took New Hampshire in 2000 and he still has a strong presence there. He has also spent far more time and money in NH than he did in Iowa where he did better than expected. He has also now become somewhat of an underdog in the national race, which I believe will bring people out to vote for him. Romney beats Huckabee here only because New Hampshire doesn’t have the Evangelical vote that Iowa has. Don’t count Huckabee out of the nomination though. Right wing wackos who think the world is only 2000 years old have found their candidate and while Huck’s likely to finish third in NH he will likely rebound quite well in South Carolina.

As for the other candidates I think what happened to Kucinich is simply wrong.  Shame on ABC for excluding him from their debate.  This is not FOX, this is ABC and the fact that Dennis was left off the list of debaters tells me that ABC is endorsing candidates, not representing good journalistic view points and biasing the election.  I, for one, will not be watching any ABC news for a long time.

Paul will be interesting to watch in this race for New Hampshire.  This dark horse is likely to run on a Libertarian ticket once he’s out of the Republican race and that will cause some major headaches for Republicans, especially in Western states where much of Paul’s support lies.

Be sure and check back after the New Hampshire results for LCK’s analysis.  I know my predictions are a little on the safe side, it might be exciting to be wrong once again.

• Leave a comment... (0)

On Friday the Washington Post published its biweekly column by Michael Gerson, this time titled “Democrats in Denial.” Before we discuss the basis of the article and the claims made within it, a little about Michael Gerson himself.

Gerson is a former senior policy adviser to the Heritage Foundation, an important and influential conservative think tank. He left that position in 1999 at the bidding of Karl Rove who thought that Gerson would be a nice addition to the presidential campaign for George W. Bush. After Bush was elected, Gerson became one of his speech writers and eventually became the head of the White House speech writing group. If anyone were to doubt the effect that his work has had on the rhetoric and political language of the current time, they would only need reminded that, according to Gerson himself, he was the originator of the “smoking gun - mushroom cloud” image, the term “axis of evil” and that he was one of the most prolific speech writers for Bush (it should be mentioned that other White House speech writers have accused Gerson of exaggerating his contributions, although the point is that even if he did not come up with all of the memorable lines of this administration, he desires to have people believe that he did - which may be even more revealing). In 2006 Gerson left the White House, wrote for a time at Newsweek, and ultimately was given a column at the Washington Post.

Now that we are familiar with Gerson’s past and his obvious interests in defending the actions of the administration, policies that he himself helped persuade the American public to accept, let’s look at some of the claims made in his latest piece.

The mood of this article strongly suggests that it is a reaction to the events in Iowa last night; specifically, that such an overwhelming amount of independents and even Republicans came out to participate in the Democratic caucuses. Gerson seems angry about this, and would like to convince us that most of the platforms of the Democratic candidates are no better - in fact, much worse - than those of the Bush administration. First he takes on the Iraq war. Again, let’s keep in mind the “smoking gun - mushroom cloud” metaphor that convinced the world that the war was justified in the first place, a metaphor that proved to be meaningless.

Gerson says:

“In Iraq, coalition casualties are down significantly, along with Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside bombings and suicide attacks. Large sections of Baghdad have been pacified, and the military rolls toward Mosul. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in reeling retreat. And, most impressive, we have seen the first example of a large-scale Sunni Arab uprising against Islamic extremism. By one estimate, 30,000 former insurgents and tribal leaders are now fighting the enemy in Iraq, adding their surge to our own.

This progress is reversible, especially while Moqtada al-Sadr’s militias maintain the capability to mount their own mini-Tet Offensive. But Gen. David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy has succeeded with disorienting speed. Its combination of vision and competence will fill chapters in military textbooks.”

If the statistics Gerson is referring to are assumed to be accurate (this administration has been less than competent in compiling accurate numbers, especially in respect to the war where they have bet so much of their credibility. A key phrase here is “by one estimate” - almost certainly the highest estimate), then they do reflect that the surge may be working. And this is, at the risk of stepping out of the holy party line, a very good thing. We can debate the merits of the war as a whole, whether or not it should have happened in the first place, but if the surge is working, and therefore fewer Americans and innocent Iraqi’s are losing their lives, it should be congratulated. In this case, partisanship is not only irrelevant, it’s irresponsible. However, Gerson’s characterization of the surge as having worked with “disorienting speed” is an obvious exaggeration meant to insinuate that Petraeus completely blew everyone’s expectations out of the water. I also highly doubt that it will appear in future military textbooks. He wants us to believe that this has been one of the most impressive military undertakings in history, a claim that is almost laughable.

Next, Gerson says:

“In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal — the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory.”

One wonders how closely Gerson has actually listened to the Democratic Candidates. Now that the race has effectively been reduced to Obama and Clinton, with moderate hopes left for Edwards, only one of the candidates has pledged to pull out all combat forces by 2013 (Edwards). Surely, both Obama and Clinton would like the war to be over, and they would definitely take whatever measures necessary to achieve these goals. But no matter how politically advantageous it is for any of them to claim they will end the war immediately (which they really have not anyway), they all know that a complete, and in Gerson’s words, reckless immediate withdrawal would indeed probably be a bad idea, and none of them would actually do it.

So far, the column is nothing too spectacular, embodying what most people on the right and definitely everyone inside the White House already thinks. But then he turns his attention to education and the Orwellian No Child Left Behind.

“Democratic rhetoric on education is also an assault on reality. Attacking No Child Left Behind is a reliable campaign applause line — Hillary Clinton promises to “end” the law, because it is “just not working.” Actually, the imposition of educational standards and testing has improved math and reading scores and begun narrowing the gap between disadvantaged and affluent students.”

While Gerson is very correct that attacking the law is a great platform for a campaign, he reveals in this statement more than he means to. Why is it, I would like to ask him, that so many people feel so passionately against No Child Left Behind? Gerson condescends to the nearly the entire American public in his assertion that he knows more about what is or is not working in their own school districts than they do. People are angry about NCLB because they see what it is really doing. It is taking the focus off of real education, the kind that molds students into free thinkers and better members of society and instead concentrating solely on arbitrary test results. If a school fails to meet up to these pointless standards, then they do not get sufficient funding. There is a GLARING logical problem here. Shouldn’t those schools that are not meeting the cut actually receive more funding so that they have a chance of improving their programs? Instead, in the twisted mind of Bush administration members like Gerson, schools that are already disadvantaged and poor (a subject that requires an entire look of its own) are punished and their students are, well, there’s no other term for it other than “left behind,” hence the Orwellian, call it exactly what it is not, sense of the program. In addition, it would be nice if Gerson would provide us with some of the data that he interprets as showing that the gap between rich and poor (sorry, “disadvantaged and affluent”) students is closing. Surely, these incredible findings should be on the front page of every major newspaper, since they directly contradict what any respectable social scientist has found lately.

“There is an angry backlash against NCLB among some Democratic interest groups. Suburban districts resent being labeled as failures just because some minority and disabled children aren’t making progress. But that is the whole purpose of the law — to prevent districts from hiding the poor performance of minorities behind the success of other students. Such districts should feel less resentment and more shame.”

I kid you not, I gasped when I read these sentences. This, above anything else Gerson posits in this piece, is shocking. He doesn’t even make an attempt to conceal his racism. Disabled children?! School districts should be ASHAMED that their disabled students are not meeting up to George Bush’s standards?! No, Mr. Gerson, YOU are the one who should feel shame.

Whether it is intentional or not (and I would bet that at some level, it is), the real result of education policies like No Child Left Behind is to form students into the kind of intellectually numb, power yielding adults that fit so well into the corporate world, where idiotic targets and goals are now the norm as well. And those schools who do not mold enough of their students into this picture will simply have to fend for themselves. It has resulted in many schools being forced to abandon many of their usual and time tested curricula and only teach “to the test” in order to ensure that they don’t fall short. A shocking number of students entering college are entirely unprepared for the sort of real challenges that await them, because they will be required to actually think once in a while.

Gerson accuses the Democratic presidential candidates of being out of touch with reality. But obviously it is he who has become so indoctrinated with the Bush-world view, having spent many years shoving it down the American public’s throat, that he can no longer see reality. The policies that he helped articulate for the president are, in his mind, beyond scrutiny, even as their blatant failures are becoming obvious throughout the country and the world. Now that there is good evidence that the Democratic party is stronger than it has been in a very long time, Gerson and others like him will scramble to find reasons why they are not to be trusted and are incompetent liars. But the public is sick of the nonsense that is constantly spewed by the administration, and many of them can feel at a visceral level and see at a intellectual one that there is in fact substance to what the Democrats are saying. They are finding a vision that has been completely absent in the current administration. And when one of them is elected as president, Gerson is going to have to finally pull himself out of his own denial and myopia and see that it was partly his own fault, with his glaring lies and misconceptions, that the Democrats are back in power.

• Leave a comment... (1)

In my last post I said that if Hillary Clinton were to win the Iowa Caucus by more than seven percentage points (something which I hoped wouldn’t happen) the race would be all but over. As it turns out Barack Obama was able to win by almost eight . . .

So what does this mean as the country now turns its attention towards the New Hampshire Primaries that occur just a few days from now? Look for Obama to make a run at placing first in New Hampshire as well, thereby seriously hamstringing the Clinton campaign. The most recent New York Times poll in New Hampshire has Clinton leading Obama by 12 points (38% to 26%) however these numbers are misleading. The poll was conducted between the 13th and 17th of December (almost half a month ago). Obama’s prospects in New Hampshire likely improved before his comfortable victory last night due to the media’s coverage of the race in Iowa as too close to call. After his win last night it’s all but assured that these inflated numbers for Obama received another boost of 2-4 points putting him within striking distance of the Clinton camp, especially when the margin of error in the poll was +/- 5 points.

Obama could win in New Hampshire especially if he is able to continue his successful courting of independent voters. In Iowa Obama was able to rally the youth vote and was also able to secure the votes of on-the-fence Democrats. In New Hampshire independent voters can vote in either primary. Obama should be able to capitalize on his win in Iowa in order to swing a majority of this independent bloc his was next Tuesday.

If Clinton were to fall to Obama on her home turf her campaign would be in serious jeopardy. Finishing third (albeit a close third) in Iowa, a state she was supposed to win, looks bad enough but failing to win in New Hampshire, a state so close to her home state of New York, would look awful. While I doubt that she’d close up shop in the way that Joe Bidden and Chris Dodd did after their poor showing in Iowa, Clinton would be forced to go for broke in South Carolina. Hillary would have to win in South Carolina (a state where as of December 17 Obama had a one point lead over Clinton) and hope that she could then parlay that victory into victories in a majority of the states voting on Super Tuesday.

All this being said, if Clinton is able to win convincingly in New Hampshire (which she still seems quite able to do) would bring us back to square one. Obama would likely win in South Carolina and Super Tuesday would then decide who the nominee for the Democrats would be. New York and California will almost certainly fall for Clinton leaving Obama on shaky ground. In short, New Hampshire could be the make or break state for both Obama and Clinton, this should be an interesting couple of days.

A few other reflections on the results from Iowa:

- Remember when I said Edwards could slide into an abyss never to be heard from again because he was courting tried and true Dems? Yeah, about that . . . sorry

- I had thought that Bill Richardson could make a legitimate run at 3rd place, I’m not sure I could have been more wrong on that front.

- Huckabee took Mitt out behind the woodshed and had his way with him. Beating Romney by almost 10 points in a state that Romney had worked for over a year and sank millions and millions of dollars into is a statement win for Huckabee. This victory has far less repercussions than the Obama win though because Huckabee’s base of Evangelical voters isn’t present in New Hampshire in numbers anywhere near those in Iowa. However, Huckabee does have an anti-tax message that voters in New Hampshire will be receptive too and perhaps the argument that Romney changes positions on the issues whenever it’s politically convenient will be enough to make for a close race next Tuesday on the GOP ticket.

• Leave a comment... (0)

It is a great night for America’s youth. The results coming out of the Iowa caucuses show that people of college age do indeed have the potential to sway the direction of politics in the United States. Barack Obama, who now seems to be the clear winner of the Democratic caucus, benefited the most of the upper tier candidates from this monumental surge of youthful participation.

As I write this, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are receiving virtually the same number of delegate votes and jockeying for a second place finish in Iowa. Obviously, both of their campaigns will be disappointed with anything but a first place win, but the sting will be most acute for Clinton. With the record amounts of money raised, enormous efforts in advertisement, and the overall name recognition that she has enjoyed, this result is dismal at best. Clearly, many of the voters of Iowa are not prepared to support a candidate who represents the picture of establishment status quo, corporate sympathy and Washington insider rhetoric. Even, gasp, women preferred Barack Obama this time.

Despite the promising results of this initial caucus for the youth of America, I must admit my disappointment that Edwards did not finish in first place. Amazingly, he did not carry the union or low income housing area votes, which are normally his strongest holds. But he did manage to achieve what now seems like a second place win, a fact that the mainstream media is already ready to forget about. They have already attempted to frame this outcome as a further extension of the two-campaign fight between Clinton and Obama and to count Edwards out once again. This should be no shock to anyone aware of the interests held by those who own the major media outlets of the country, those who ultimately decide the way in which these stories are shaped and reported. They do not want John Edwards to become a more viable candidate in this campaign. He is the only candidate to refer to the War On Terror as the fallacy that it is. He is the only of the top three Democrats to completely boycott donations from big business. Clinton openly accepts the money and therefore the political influence of Corporate America. And while she claims that she wants to reform health care in a meaningful way, she receives financial backing from major pharmaceutical and health insurance companies: surely the last groups in this country interested in making health care more affordable.

As the reporting of votes wound down and it became clear that he would have a slight lead over Clinton, Edwards gave a powerful speech. Rather than comment on the substance of his words, on the vision that he was attempting convey, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann instead attacked Edwards for not explicitly congratulating Obama and made it seem to all who were watching that this was effectively the end of Edwards’ campaign. This is entirely untrue. There are still 49 states left to hold primaries, and as we saw this evening, the results predicted by polls and self-righteous pundits are not as accurate as they would have us believe. He has proven that he is just as promising of a candidate as Hillary Clinton, if not more so, and the quickness with which people like Olbermann and Matthews dismiss him is shameful and a bit shocking. Olbermann in particular frequently criticizes the overbearing role that the opinions of his peers has on the public perception of the candidates, and yet engages in the same sort of favoritism.

The media does love Barack Obama, and their endorsement of him, I think, is a good thing. Although my personal first choice (as I’ve surely made apparent by now) is John Edwards, Obama is a great candidate and this win is a fantastic indicator of the state of both the country and the Democratic party. Iowans came out in record numbers to support him and the other Democratic candidates, most of which embody the ideas of real, not just rhetorical, change. Currently he is making his victory speech, and is showing as clear as ever that he is an incredibly powerful orator and a highly intelligent and inspiring man. The energy surrounding him is awe inspiring, and this energy is a direct result of his enormous support from young Americans, who came out for him overwhelmingly in Iowa. Although it has not dominated his campaign to the point it has for Edwards, Obama does have many strong populist ideals and the presence to make them possible, which is what real Americans want and need.

All told, I am very excited about the results. It has just been reported that 57 percent of voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama; they were clearly the most important demographic in the Iowa Democratic caucus. Our generation has often been characterized as one of the most apathetic and apolitical in the history of America, and these assumptions have been shattered tonight.

• Leave a comment... (3)

Tonight will mark the real beginning of the 2008 Presidential race. Finally, we will have something to go off of rather than speculation and polling. That said, I wanted to provide one last bit of speculation from liberalcollegekid.com before the caucus results start coming in.

Before I get into the candidates, however, I think its important that we give Iowa the respect it deserves. While Iowa is seemingly a red state, in 2004 Kerry won 49% of the vote. The state is almost split in half and with all of the unrest and unhappiness in regards to Iraq, Iowa may prove to be a blue state come November. This, of course, flies in the face of Democrats who will claim that Iowa has no business determining who the next President will be. Onto the predictions:

Republicans:

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain
4. Giuliani
5. Paul
6. Thompson
7. Tancredo

I see this race being very close between Huckabee and Romney, however, I think Huckabee takes Iowa. Huck’s Evangelical message will resonate with the strong Christian vote in Iowa. As Huckabee himself put it, people in Iowa would rather vote for someone they could have worked with than someone who looks like they could have laid them off. Romney also has to struggle with his flip flopping on social issues now that he is running for the Republican nomination. I think McCain is going to be the big surprise in Iowa, however, and even just a strong third place showing will bode well for him leading up to New Hampshire next week. Finally, Ron Paul may prove to be a spoiler. Paul is very popular with rural America, a group that Iowa certainly has a lot of.

Democrats:

1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards
4. Richardson
5. Biden
6. Dodd
7. Kucinich

The Democratic race may be even closer than the Republicans, because of the caucus system the Democrats use, in which candidates with less than 15% of the vote must choose another candidate. This means that supporters of the second tier candidates may be forced to join up with one of the big three. Voters for Kucinich are likely to go with Obama, Biden and Dodd supporters will likely move to Clinton, and obviously some people will also move to Edwards. It is important to remember that Edwards finished second in Iowa four years ago at 34%. His populist message resonates with Iowans who are hurting under the Bush economy. All that said, I still think Hillary takes this one. She has the older vote with her, and no matter how much I want to believe that young people will come out and caucus, old people are who really vote every election.

This election and next week’s in New Hampshire will likely see the candidates list shrink. Among those likely to bow out quickly are Thompson and Tancredo on the Republican side and Dodd on the Democrat’s side.

Be sure to check back tomorrow for LCK’s reaction to the Iowa caucus results.

• Leave a comment... (2)

I hear it over and over again, from political rallies to neighborhood bbq’s, “I just can’t support Hillary Clinton.”  This is customarily followed up by someone who is now instantly supporting her who makes the case for, “What’s not to like?  She was for universal health care in ‘94?”   And thus the divide is created and the several liberals convened have something to debate.  This is troubling to me, and I’m worried the Democrats aren’t worried enough about what’s happening in the party.

<! Kind of looks like a Fight Night poster!>

I want to first put in my own thoughts about Hillary.  First the positives, she has a long history of supporting progressive measures; most notably, her support for universal health care in the 90’s.  Since this time she has continued to support gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, combatting global warming, universal pre-K education, and a whole host of other domestic issues close to the hearts of Democrats.  In short, there is a reason she has been elected as Senator from New York twice, and it’s not just on name recognition.  I have jokingly said of Hillary that while she may not have the right stance now, once the majority of the party views things a certain way she will adapt her position to reflect that of the party.  The more I think about this statement, however, the more I think I’m being absolutly serious.

Hillary’s support for the war is one that is personally troubling for me.  That said, I honestly feel as though she has no choice in the matter and had to respond the way she did.  Here’s why:  Hillary is a woman playing in a man’s game.  She needs to everything in her power to not come off as weak or feminine, and there’s nothing more nurturing or motherly than not wanting Americans to die in a phony war, right?  Regardless of where she was personally on the matter, she had to vote the way she did on the war because of the political reality in this country facing women.  Namely, in order to play with the boys, Hillary had to support the boy’s war.  She is also responding to the fact that the Democrats are perceived as being more lax on terrorism than the Republicans, something I truly don’t understand.  Having a city attacked while someone was mayor does not make them an expert on terror.  Especially when more lives were lost to rescue workers working in horrendous conditions at ground zero then were lost in the actual attacks from the planes.  Oh, and the fact that Giuliani spent more time at Yankee stadium in September 2001 after 9/11 then he did at ground zero.  I’ll buy that he’s a Yankee expert, no question.

However,  the media and it’s right wing message paint Giuliani, Bush, and the Republican idiots running this country as if they were the foremost experts on terror.  Even though the average 20 year old history major could tell you more about the Middle East than the Decider could, this is the reality we live in.  Because of this, Hillary must come out as strong against terror to the point that she’s a downright hawk! As unfortunate as this is, it truly may be what is best for her campaign, only time will tell.

Many Democrats also feel as though the race is over, that Hillary is already going to get the nomination and that the other candidates are just wasting their time.  This brings me to my only fear about a Hillary canidacy: she’s worth voting against.  The religious right in this country, especially the evangelicals don’t have a clear candidate.  To be frank, no one on the Republican side comes close to the crazy required of him to get real support from evangelical voters.  You have to say stuff like, “God wants me to be President.”  However, if there’s one thing the religious right hates more than Roe v Wade its the Clinton’s and their adulterous liberal ways.  All jokes aside, I do think the Republicans could mobilize to the point that they aren’t voting for someone, as much as they are voting against Hillary.  In this regard, I think she’s the only candidate for the Dems that this is the case.  Is this enough to not give her the nomination?  I don’t know.

We often forget just how progressive Hillary is, because she tries not to show it.  She also comes off as not having a guiding philosophy.  By this I mean something like Hope from Barack Obama, Peace from Dennis Kucinich, the transformative power of the American Dream from Edwards.  However, I will make the case that Hillary does have a guiding philosophy that she can’t talk about because of the political consequences.  That philosophy is this:  what should she do as a woman?  Hillary has taken a progressive stance on nearly every social issue, why?  Because she has a deep ceded belief in human rights, civil rights, and the ability for government to make the lives of the people it represents better.  She is a politician to her core, but I do see a universal theme to her, something I didn’t see from Kerry in 2004 and something Gore kept hidden (Global Warming) in 2000.  There’s more to Hillary than many of us think, and more toughness than I think any of us will ever know.  And so my fellow liberal America bashers (wink at Bill O), take a long hard look at the issues and then decide just how anti-Hillary you are.  I think most will find, as I have, that she may just be the right person for the job, and the time has long passed that our nation’s highest office should be run by a woman.

• Leave a comment... (2)