When It Rains, It Pours

Asher had a stomach bug all weekend.

Leah threw up on me this morning.

And then a bird shit on my head while I was walking to the subway.

What's next?

Primaries Prediction

On the Democratic side, it's going all the way to the convention. Clinton will have more delegates, but not the number needed to win the nomination. Edwards will play kingmaker.

On the Republican side, it's McCain.

In Defense of Senator Obama

A couple of days ago, Senator Obama gave an interview to a Reno newspaper where he said the following:

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Liberal press outlets like Democracy Now and the Huffington Post and certain activist friends have jumped all over this as an indicator that Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing:

They say when he mentioned "the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" he was referring to the civil rights and women's rights movements.

They say that Reagan was a union buster, and Obama's statement is tacit approval of such tactics.

They say that Reagan did more than any other President to roll back social progress in this country, which means Obama will also head in that direction.

Here's what I say: You're smarter than that, guys. Don't fall into the same decontextualized, gotcha mentality that drives political dialogue 99.9% of the time.

Obama was making an academic statement about an historical moment in this country where the confluence of public attitudes, political message and personal charisma caused our country to move in a fundamentally different direction. He was suggesting that the country is ripe for another such categorical shift, and that he is best positioned (because of his message and his charisma) to make that shift happen.

This is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post.

Obama is not anti-union.

Obama is not pro-corporation.

Obama is not anti civil rights/women's rights.

In fact, there's more in John Edwards' record than Obama's record to suggest that HE'S a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't think either of them are. I'm just sayin'.

Please, stop practicing the same gotcha politics that already hampers real discussion. And start thinking about this in a bit more rational terms. All three viable Democratic candidates agree what the big picture problems are in this Country. The nomination comes down to a question of style:

Do you think we need an activist to tackle our problems head-on? Then Edwards is your candidate.

Do you think we need someone to inspire us, which will give an Administration the political will to address our problems? Then, Obama is your candidate.

Do you think that we can triangulate our way out of our problems? Then, Clinton is your candidate.

Photo Break

In Defense of Senator Clinton

The opening segment of this weekend's On the Media broadcast touched on a subject that's baffled and frustrated me for sixteen years now - the media's Clinton coverage and the public's response to it.

For eight years, the mainstream press gleefully repeated false, ad hominem attacks against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Depending on the month, they were money launderers, extortionists, murderers, liars, cheaters, sexual/social deviants... the list goes on (after all, eight years is a lot of space to fill with false charges). And when they weren't parroting bald and baseless accusations, the mainstream press was making snide remarks about the pair's supposed politicking, about their private relationship, or about their theoretical hidden agendas.

Congress spent more than $80 million in taxpayer dollars investigating these charges, and never found a thing. Two special prosecutors overturned every single rock, and came back empty-handed. Did the press report that? Technically yes. But, it never made the kind of headlines that the accusations made, and the general public was left with, at worst, a sense of impropriety, at best, Clinton fatigue.

After Clinton left office, the press soldiered on with its attacks. Remember all of those reports about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and Air Force One on their way out? All false. Congress spent another few million bucks digging into that one.

Along with millions of other Americans who still supported President Clinton after his impeachment (approval rating of 73%), I asked myself, "what the fuck?!"

In 2000, Hillary Clinton became Senator Clinton, representing my great state of New York. In 2006, she was re-elected by a landslide, carrying many of the traditionally Republican counties upstate. Why? Because she listened, she worked hard, and she transcended false perceptions to get real things done for real people. She is, as anyone in or covering the Senate will readily admit, a workhorse and a Senator worthy of respect. Before her Presidential campaign began (and the media trash talking came back in earnest), she enjoyed a 72% approval rating, including half of the State's registered Republicans.

The average approval rating for a Senator is 53%.

Is any of that being reported during her Presidential run? Of course not. In the past few weeks alone, we've seen flat out repugnant mainstream coverage of the Clinton campaign.

During the ABC News debates before the NH primary, every major press outlet spun an exchange she had with Senator Edwards as an example of her being "shrill" or "losing her cool" or "getting angry." Anyone who actually watched the debate knew that hers was an excellent, even-keeled response to the empty-headed sound-byte politics of the moment. Don't believe me? Did you watch the debate?

When Senator Clinton showed emotion in the day before the NH primary, every single publication and broadcast spun it as her crying under pressure. The headlines were disgusting. "Hilllary Gets Teary," "Hill Weary And Teary," "Hillary's Soft Side: Cold, Calculated, Crying." Hey you - public: Watch the video and make your own call. I think it was a very real exchange (where ZERO tears were shed, by the way).

President Clinton, stumping for his wife last week, called the media meme of Obama's steadfast and vocal disapproval of the Iraq War "a fairy tale." Senator Clinton, in a separate conversation, noted that Martin Luther King Jr did not achieve civil rights reform on his on, that he had a partner in President Johnson. Immediately, the media spun these two remarks as racially coded, which set off a maelstrom of anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Black community. Bullshit, all of it. Listen to the full quotes. Listen to the context. You will see.

I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's Presidential aspirations. But the media's consistent disrespect and appalling misrepresentation of her campaign are causing me to re-examine that. She *has* been an agent of change for 35 years. She *has* served my state of New York well. She *has* earned the respect and admiration of her Senate colleague on both sides of the isle for the work she's done there. She *has* been tested on the international stage. Why am I - and so many others who seek a more progressive platform - so dismissive of her?

In my case, I think it sadly boils down to what I've been writing about here: A President has to unite. A President has to inspire. A President has to achieve. And as long as the media continues to go full bore against Senator Clinton, she will never, ever have the opportunity to do this. She will always be fighting false charges. She will always be refuting ridiculous and irrelevant attacks - or ignoring them and seeing her silence dominate press coverage. We cannot have a leader that's hamstrung like this.

What's Wrong With John Edwards

Okay, Pinko et al, here are some not fully-baked thoughts on Edwards and why my loyalty will likely lie elsewhere when the time comes:

When in the course of modern American politics has populism or righteous anger ever netted anything more than disappointment? Jennings Bryant was a failure. For all of his trust-busting talk, Theodore Roosevelt fell far short of his promise. Debs never got more than 6% of the popular vote in his runs for President. Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down before they could effect change. Nader has become at best a gadfly.

On the other hand, look how far LBJ got by working the system, MLK got with his platform of non-violence, and so on. Hell, look what Reagan netted with his inspirational, inclusive rhetoric.

No Wonder I Was a Teenage Stoner

I grew up watching stuff like this:



See if you can tell who the guy is at around 27 seconds.

Here's another one with him entering at about the one minute mark:



And, for good measure, a few other classics from my formative years:

Debate Thoughts

Here are some random thoughts about last night's Presidential debates on ABC:

One pot shot at Romney was enough. The rest just made the shooters (esp. McCain) look stupid.

Despite the statement above, someone should be measuring Romney for his coffin. The guy's finished.

Ron Paul was the only grown-up on stage during the Republican debate. I'm not one of those Paul-ites by any stretch, but the man is refreshing and intelligent. He's not beholden to the politics of fear, nor is he bound by theocratic ideals. Too bad he's against public education, and public everything else for that matter.

Why is Fred Thompson in this race?

Did anyone count how many times Guiliani mentioned 9/11?

Someone made Huckabee do his homework on foreign policy. Finally.

Senator Clinton had the best answer when it came to questions of nuclear proliferation.

Obama looks Presidential. And sounds it, too. Loved his response when Clinton unloaded all the oppo research: "That's a legitimate policy dispute we have. There's no need to go distorting each other's records." Talk about deflecting.

All pundits' comments about Clinton's "shrill" response to the Obama/Edwards double-team are bullshit. She *has* been getting her hands dirty with progressive issues for 35 years. She *has* been around the block. And her response was not shrill; it was very crisp, and exactly what was called for.

Despite the statement above, I still don't think she's got my vote, the nomination, or the Presidency. There's too much bad blood with the media, too much fatigue with the public, and too little, well, inspiration there.

Iowa

Tonight at 7 pm CST, Less than 250,000 citizens in Iowa will set the tone of the 2008 Presidential primary races.

I love everything about the Iowa contest - From the living room candidate forums to the caucus itself, true, citizen-fueled democracy is in effect.

FDR had his proverbial fireside chats, but in Iowa, campaign stops include actual fireside conversations, where serious candidates come into your neighbors' homes, sit down for tea and cookies, and address serious challenges posed by real Americans. Some of them like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd might not make it out of Iowa, but will go down in history like Webster and Clay (well, maybe Cabot Lodge, Vandenberg and Wagner) for their contributions to our country. And Iowans will have a chance to speak one-on-one with them. Others, like Romney or Clinton are ivory-tower politicians, buttressed by billions of dollars and rarely available to us common folk. But you might run into them at the pizza shop in Iowa.

The caucus is also a phenomenon, a true public sphere. Everyone in your neighborhood packs into a school gym and declares allegiances in plain sight. Arguments are made. People are persuaded. And at the end of it all, winners emerge.

We shall see what happens.