Fit To Print

The Clinton Brand of Politics

Yuck.

5 comments March 26th, 2008

Race, Under Fire

A faithful reader called me just in time this morning, so I was able to watch the last half of Barack’s “racism speech”, and then read the entire text online.

My father teaches classes on diversity and racism, largely in the context of early childhood education, but also touching on more general aspects. He is one of those people who can’t help but bring their work home with them, so these are issues I have been exposed to and interested in for a long time.

It’s not really cool to rail against racism anymore. Affirmative action is on the decline, as are the careers of many once-prominent civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Some white liberals are still talking and thinking about these things, but largely in unproductive laments that the world isn’t perfect, or gratuitous idolization of the oppressed.

Of course, 1 in 15 black men are in prison and a lot of people are afraid the coked out Muslim will be their next president, so there is a slight chance that all is not perfect in Melting Pot, USA. What’s more, detailing this blatant reality in anything other than a perfunctory acknowledgment is supposedly untenable politically for any black politician who needs a lot of white votes. But nevertheless, Obama gave a courageously honest assessment of race today in America, with MLK-like calls for unity in the face of adversity. He spoke of the needs and desires of middle and working class Americans of all colors as bonds stronger than the exploited chasms between them. Obama also addressed concerns about his pastor, Wright (the reason he gave the speech in the first place), strongly criticizing some of Wright’s words, but refusing to disown a man who has taught him so much. You really should just read or watch the speech, because I’m having a hell of a time describing it.

If people can paint Obama as an angry black man, or as having close ties to alleged angry black men, this election is all over for him. So the outrage over Wright’s comments is serious stuff. That Obama was willing to repudiate the comments but still express his appreciation for his pastor, and broaden the subject to a much more meaningful discussion of race and class, speaks volumes about his character.

I’m deeply cynical about the state of the world, the country, politics, never ending lists, etc. But it is awfully hard not to feel proud of a politician who repeatedly acts the most courageous when he is under the most pressure and in the greatest political danger. Obama’s path to the White House relies on the best instincts of people trumping their fears and cynicism. It may prove to be an overly ambitious strategy, but it is enticing enough to make any other approach look wholly unappetizing and unfulfilling.

6 comments March 18th, 2008

Bush On The Front Lines

Given the Administration’s insistence on applying revisionist history to events just a few months old, it’s nice to see Georgie making a more plausible attempt at sprucing up the history books, by picking a subject that’s at least not from this decade. It’s this kind of attention to the detail of the lie that endeared Bush to the hearts of a majority near majority of the voting public in the 2000 election.

1 comment March 16th, 2008

Trouble in Mayberry

Karl Rove gave a $40,000 speech at the University of Iowa on Monday. Turns out he may have been underpaid, as CNN reports he was heckled throughout his talk, and at one point, two students had to be removed for attempting to perform a citizen’s arrest on Rove. At the end of his speech, one student asked if they could have their $40,000 back. Rove said no.

In other news, while George McGovern is offering his tepid endorsement for Hillary Clinton, his 3 daughters, 1 son and 10 grandchildren are all working for that Obama fella. McGovern revealed this on Democracy Now!, with Amy Goodman, in a discussion where he also compared Eliot Spitzer to King David. Good stuff. You can watch or listen to free Democracy Now! archives online, here. Check it out. It’s like an edgy Jim Lehrer News Hour.

4 comments March 15th, 2008

Ron Paul For the Win

I don’t know if you all have been following the FISA debate on the Hill, but today the House voted for a surveillance bill that, for the most part, doesn’t grant immunity to the telecom companies. It’s a pretty remarkable turnaround from what was a very unlikely outcome just weeks ago. Many progressives see this as a sign of great things to come. I’m skeptical, but if Congress is going to start standing up to the President, we could be in for a fun few months.

Pelosi and the House Leadership did a great job of “shepherding” freshman Democrats, as mcjoan puts it, and keeping them from getting scared by Republican robocalls in their districts and Department of Defense ads saying they are supporting the terrorists.

This victory didn’t come without the support of a crucial Republican; one Ronald Paul. He was the only member of his party to back the bill. To be fair to Paul, though, he thought they were voting to bring back the gold standard.

1 comment March 14th, 2008

Why, Is That The Economist You’re Reading?

Economist Dani Rodrick points out what I had been feeling about The Economist for a while. It’s a bit too ideological, but you read it because they act so knowledgeable about the whole world. But when you read articles on issues you are familiar with, you are less than impressed with their representation of the facts, and it makes you wonder about their reporting on all those nooks and crannies in the world you don’t know about. Ezra Klein concurs, having this to say:

I had the same experience. The Economist is wry and knowing and worldly and made me feel very smart. Except on issues that I actually knew something about, in which case it made me feel very annoyed. And eventually, made me very worried, as The Economist is one of those magazines that’s read aspirationally, by people who want to be wry and knowing and worldly, and is thus taken more seriously than most publications. A lot of the folks I knew who read The Economist seemed to be reading it in order to learn how to have The Economist’s opinion on things…

I agree completely. I knew a girl with a subscription to The Economist who mentioned how often people are impressed when they see her reading it. She is exactly the kind of person who would enjoy showing off her hip rag, while at the same time being genuinely awed at what a great magazine it is! I think people view The Times in much the same way. That is, it is read with the assumption that this is what the clever experts have to say, so there is little need to second-guess their opinion, one should merely either attempt to pass it off as one’s own, or name-drop the source to show how learned and well-read one is. I still think The Times is a great paper, but they damn well know they have this reputation and they use it as an excuse to be lazy and arrogant.

I also notice that other bloggers keep beating me to the punch on stuff like this (Rodrick’s Post). Then I have to feel guilty about posting on what was supposed to be an original discovery.

2 comments March 14th, 2008

Pelosi vs. Bush: Grudge Match

I was going to start this post off with another of my favorite boring clichés like, I wonder what’s gotten into the water on Capitol Hill, but it turns out we know what’s gotten into the water there. Anyway, perhaps because she realizes Democrats will need to do something to distinguish themselves from Republicans, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started to do a little bit of truth-telling.

A few days ago she rightly pointed out that Hillary questioning Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief probably kayoed hopes of a “dream ticket” between the two. Now she’s saying that just as Bush was wrong about having a good reason to bomb Iraq and knew it, he’s wrong to say that stripping telecom immunity from the House surveillance bill will make America less safe. And he knows it. That’s almost the kind of toughness and honesty one would like to see from the House leadership.

It’s important not to get too excited about these signs of life, but having Democratic majorities in Congress offers tremendous opportunities to control what is debated coming up to the election, and bring Bush and the Republican’s mistakes to the forefront.

1 comment March 14th, 2008

Prostitution and Politics

Well, it looks like Spitzer was a bit of an asshole, even without the whole prostitute thing, but sometimes it takes an asshole to get things done. David Paterson (who some of you may know as Butchie from The Wire) looks like a pretty progressive replacement, and Spitzer certainly stamped his own ticket out of Albany, but I can’t help but think we lost a tough as nails defender of good causes.

A lot of bloggers have been talking of how prostitution should be legalized, and I was working on a response to this. The only case for legalization that makes sense to me is the idea that it would make it a safer enterprise for the women involved. Nicholas Kristof pokes some ship-sinking holes into that theory in his column today. Basically, most prostitutes were both molested as a child, and forced into this line of work. Legalization in other countries has made pimping out minors easier, and doesn‘t address the fact that prostitution just isn‘t a desirable career choice for women with the mental wherewithal and economic opportunities to do something else. Read the piece.

I’ve also been wanting to do a follow-up post on the Clinton tactics this campaign, specifically with regards to Geraldine Ferraro. Josh Marshall basically said what I wanted to say.

A few more thoughts:

Sexism may be more prevalent than racism. But it’s a different animal. Hillary’s hate mail reads: “you’re a bitch”. Obama gets “Die nigger” letters. The presidency is way too important to be determined by who’s had to overcome greater prejudice and institutional obstacles to get to where they are. But if Clinton is going to bring it up, it’s certainly a pissing contest she’s bound to lose.

Hillary Clinton does not owe everything she has to her husband. But his political career has given her the national spotlight, name recognition and opportunity to run for U.S. Senator without first working her way up the ladder. She’s proven a remarkably adept politician, but she’s only been given the chance to prove herself because of who she married. I actually buy the idea that she has the best experience of what it’s like to be president since she was actively involved in Bill’s administration. But no one elected her to that role, she didn’t earn that right by decree of the voters.

I’m glad Hillary has worked so hard for the public good, and I’m glad she is a Senator. But it is beyond delusional for an affluent white woman to continually play the role of martyr and insinuate that this upstart black man hasn’t paid his dues and couldn’t hoe a tough row if he had a whip at his back.

2 comments March 13th, 2008

Oh, Politics

Well, Clinton’s last-minute negative campaigning seems to have given her a big boost, and she did about five points better than I expected in both Texas and Ohio. The one time I try not to be pessimistic. Damn. The delegate count remains about the same, although she got a lot closer to Obama in overall votes received this primary season, which may end up being significant.

Michigan and Florida are thinking of holding do-over primaries in both states, which seems like it might be the most democratic solution of all the choices. At the very least, this keeps the Clinton camp from arguing that we seat a Michigan delegation for a primary that didn’t even have Obama on the ballot. The math really isn’t there for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates under any scenario, so now it seems she’s playing to make it close, claim momentum from the end-of-the-season primaries, and ask superdelegates to push her over the top.

4 comments March 6th, 2008

Early Results

Obama wins in Vermont. A sizable victory there could offset any Clinton gains in Ohio, which is still too close to call.

Update 4: Clinton has a nice double digit lead in Ohio, with Texas now neck and neck. Most large cities have yet to report, and that’s where a lot of Obama’s base is. I think he’ll close Ohio to within 10 and win in Texas, which based on where he was in the polls a few weeks ago, seems pretty good. The press of course, is calling this a Clinton comeback.

Update 3: John McCain just said, “we are the captains of our fate” in his victory speech. I don’t know if know if Long John McCain really wants to be making voluntary pirate comparisons for the voters. Aye lads, vote for ol’ McCain and together we’ll plunder the Iranians. Argh!

Update 2: Well not only did Vermont vote for Obama, but Brattleboro Vermont voted to arrest Bush or Cheney, if they were ever to set foot there. I understand the argument against doing this kind of thing, but in a perfect world, these guys should be arrested. In a less than perfect world, there should be sane pockets of the country that at least think they should be arrested.

Update 1: Clinton is doing pretty well in Ohio, but Obama is dominating early voting in Texas. Looks really hard for Clinton to pick up any delegates at all tonight, and if Obama wins Texas, that makes her “he can’t win big states” argument a little less solid.

6 comments March 4th, 2008