Able to keep their word. A test?

The major candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States agreed that because the Florida Democratic Party had violated Party rules in moving up their nomination primary that their delegates would not be counted at the National Convention in Denver this summer.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that winning Florida in the Fall would make winning the Presidency a whole heap easier for the Democratic Party and snubbing the state Party won't help in achieving that goal. But I also believe that the DNC was working hard (and ultimately failing) to keep the primary schedule from getting too front loaded.

All that said, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Edwards (recently departed from the race) all agreed to bypass the contest as the delegates would not aid the nomination of the Democratic candidate.

In the weeks after her shock in Iowa and then her thumping in South Carolina, Senator Clinton has begun urging her opponents to push for Florida's inclusion after all. They all rejected this approach. Clinton then campaigned and "won" in Florida yesterday. She gave a victory speech that made it look like she had just won the Kentucky Derby, Indy 500 and Super Bowl all rolled in one.

I believe it is incredibly disingenuous to make a commitment, give your word and then to go back on that word. The worst bit is celebrating a victory like that when you were essentially unopposed. And why was she unopposed? Because her opponents kept their word and their commitment to their Party. There will be time later to campaign in Florida. I imagine that the Dems will not be strangers in the Sunshine State.

So, if Senator Clinton can't keep her word to her Party, to her "friends", what makes you think she will honor her commitments to the American people?

As Tony Montana (Al Pacino) said in the movie Scarface: "I only have two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break 'em for nobody."

Something we all need to hear again...

An Endorsement That Matters

So there was a pretty high level endorsement for Barack Obama yesterday, but I will focus on that one later. Another endorsement that has come in that has received less coverage came in the form of an open letter to Senator Obama that was published in the New York Observer.

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

New York Times Endorsements

The all important (or not important at all) endorsements from the paper of record in this country were released today. Not surprisingly the Times endorsed New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race. It is also no surprise that they chose to endorse Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination.

What was interesting was the manner in which each nomination was couched. One could say in the Republican contest the choice was a no-brainer. The snub of Rudy Giuliani should come as no surprise, because journalists in New York have long known what the rest of us are learning; that he is nuttier than a fruit cake! The editorial board’s clear and long standing position on the separation of church and state made an endorsement of Mike Huckabee all but impossible. The only other possibility would have been Mitt Romney and the Times rightly caught the fact that a man as truly conservative as Governor Romney claims to be would never have gotten elected to lead Taxachusetts. His chameleonesque ability to stand for “whatever you want” is totally unappealing and uninspired.

If I had to come up with an overarching theme for the Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton I would have to say it was; “Hedging their bet.” Clearly the times like Hillary, but I think they are equally critical of her style as they are of Obama's newness. I found it interesting that they would say: “The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship.” Then they go on to say: “The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.”

To my mind these two points knock on the door of the central issue defining their major difference without daring to walk through it. Mr. Obama wants to change the tone of the debate. It is impossible to assess how rancorous the tone has gotten in Washington over the last seven years in a vacuum. The vitriolic way Democrats and Republicans have fought so bitterly over all manner of issues didn’t start in 2000. It has certainly gotten worse since then. I would argue that the political tone became particularly partisan after the election of President Clinton in 1992 and really fell apart after the 1994 midterm elections.

That isn't the sole responsibility of the Clintons. The Republicans are equally, if not more, to blame. But the Clinton administration was good at slinging mud and fighting. The Times hints at this when they say: “As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)”

I wonder if we can truly feel comfortable rolling the dice on the next 8 years. If we need to change the tone, do we want to look to the past to guide us? The Times, apparently, thinks we should. But then again, the paper of record marched in lock step with President Bush to war in Iraq.

What is the point???

All this debate about race and gender, are people missing the point? Obviously African-Americans and Hispanics face challenges that whites do not, but the single greatest challenge in America is being born into poverty. John Edwards is the candidate speaking most coherently on this issue.

For all her bloviating about being the most informed, most qualified, most experienced candidate, with the ability to lead on issues; Senator Clinton is all too happy to slip away from the issues and engage in “politics as usual.” And even when discussing issues, Clinton’s approach seems to showing a shocking lack of understanding of the challenges that poor Americans face. Her plan to expand health coverage is to mandate that people buy health insurance, expand the patchwork of government plans, and take steps to make private insurance plans a little more “affordable” is pitiful. All the health care plans being pushed are pitiful. They are, at best, a continuation of the status quo policy of piecemeal action because our leaders lack the courage to fight for drastic and bold change.

An individual mandate plays directly into the conservative “individual responsibility” position. This is their bailiwick and the fact the Democrats have retreated to this point is a sad statement of how far from the solution we are. Health plans in Massachusetts, after the passage of the reform bill in 2005 (which includes an individual mandate) responded to requests to provide a plan with a “low” $200 monthly premium offered a plan with a $500 deductible and severely curtailed benefits. The companies said they could create plans that met any cost requirements, but would such thin coverage hold any appeal with consumers? How many poor people can afford $200 per month (that just covers one person, not a whole family)? How does a $500 deductible provide any incentive to go to the doctor early and engage in a preventative approach to health care that all public health officials claim is the best and most cost effective approach? We need to blow up the system and we need leaders willing to do it from inside the system.

Washington isn’t the problem. Rich people are! They become inherently uninterested in sharing with other people. Some may espouse liberal rhetoric, but they are inherently disinterested in putting their own well being and societal status on the block when looking for solutions.

Poor people, Hispanic, black, or white; are being left behind in this society. When Dr. King said: “…We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.” Poor people are also trapped in ghettos. Upward mobility becomes increasingly difficult the further down the socio-economic scale you go. Is there a glass ceiling for women? Yes! Is there still discrimination against minorities in this country? Absolutely! But I would argue that class discrimination is the worst, by far. Illegal immigrants from Central America are okay, as long as they are mowing our lawns or washing our cars, but as soon as their kids want to go to college or they want public health services, they are suddenly a scourge. To quote the increasingly annoying Bill Clinton: “Give me a break! This is the biggest fairy tale!” Talk about a red herring!

For all his powerful speeches on this issue, John Edwards is ultimately not the right guy to lead this fight. Our current system has created inequity of wealth and we need to change it, but it is simply not possible to force the type of change we need. Ultimately we may also be unable to finesse change, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like. In which case, we are in big, big trouble.

Some thoughts on "the dream"

I posted Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a dream speech” to this blog and have spent some time contemplating it over the past few days. I try to listen to the speech every year on the holiday in his honor. This year the speech was particularly thought provoking. As readers of this blog know, I have written extensively about the Democratic primary contest that is quickly becoming the Hillary and Barack Show.

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent person that stands for things that for the most part I can get behind. Race was injected into this contest based on comments made by Hillary and President Clinton. I think that their comments were taken out of context by people who wanted to inject a discussion of race onto the agenda. Those people, ironically, were “leaders” in the African American community. They were responding to shockingly bad journalistic coverage of these issues. The Clinton’s, whether intentionally or not, have been playing the race card. It is sad. In my mind it undoes so much of what they stood for. And, by pushing this debate, civil rights advocates may have doomed the first serious African American candidacy in the history of our nation.

Unfortunately, unless he can get back to his populist message, this debate all but torpedoes Barack Obama’s campaign. It is sad because a national discussion of race would be a good thing for our country. We need to continue the discussion of race. The leaders of the civil rights movement pushed race onto the agenda in the 1950’s and 60’s. They forced us to think about our own views and confronted us with the difficult reality of prejudice in America. Dr. King reminded us that “nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning.”

So where are we today? In 2008, many people want to believe that racism is behind us. Unfortunately it isn’t and in many ways it is worse now. In the 60’s racism was in your face. You often knew where you stood with people. Now it is incredibly taboo to discriminate based on race. That is why you have people telling pollsters that they would vote for a black candidate, but inside the voting booth, all bets are off.

Barack Obama tried very hard to make his candidacy about an American running for President as opposed to an African Americans running to be the first black President. We will know that we are past our racial divide when a black person can be elected without having to run as a spokesman for every black person in America.

I may very well vote for Barack Obama and I don’t care what color his skin or what his ethnicity is. I am drawn by his message of uniting rather than dividing Americans. I have determined that the President is head of only one of the three co-equal branches of government and so, in order to govern effectively, a President must be able to build consensus. For a candidate, like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, to say that they have a list of things that they are going to do on day 1 is arrogant. Arrogance in a President is almost never received warmly on Capitol Hill. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, several weeks ago wrote about the differences between the various policy plans advocated by the various campaigns. By and large, there is little difference between the Democrats on policy. As I have said, in the absence of major differences on policy we need to focus on vision, message and style.

Dr. King, in response to the growing popularity of groups like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, said: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.” Perhaps the Clintons, with their “fight, fight, attack, attack,” approach to politics, didn’t weren’t listening.

Let’s go through this quote again and change a few key words:

“The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the [Democratic] community must not lead us to a distrust of all [conservative] people, for many of our [conservative] brothers [and sisters (to make all the feminists happy)], as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom [, liberty and prosperity] is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.”

Sounds like it could be an endorsement of Barack Obama, doesn’t it?

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’” Is it still just a dream? Today, I think it is.

"I have a dream..." Thank you Dr. King!

Aug. 28, 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

"Experience" vs. "Change"

I had someone tell me that they were supporting Hillary Clinton for President, the other day. On the surface, this is the right answer. Senator Clinton is smart and stands for the right things. But she has three things working against her.

First, she has ZERO charisma. Does anyone get vaklempt when she speaks? She doesn't inspire, she doesn't evoke passion (unless you're a 65 year old woman).

Second, she represents the past. She and President Clinton want to recapture the spirit of 1992 and the eight years that followed. Those were good years. But they cannot bring them back. Nor should we want them to. The world is just too different now. I agree that she had a role in the things that the Clinton administration accomplished, but I believe it is disingenuous for her to claim those successes as the defining portion of her resume for President. She was the President’s wife. How is that acting like the feminist icon everyone claims she is?

Her resume for being President is comprised entirely of being married to a former President!?! YIKES! I'd like young girls to grow up knowing that their individual accomplishments are more important than who they marries in defining them.

When you break it down, Hillary Clinton's accomplishments consist of surviving a emotionally frigid family environment, graduating law school, coping with President Clinton's extramarital nonsense, being on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart (did you know that?), shady land deals in Arkansas (is there any other kind there?), and getting elected to the Senate in New York as a carpetbagger.

The third, and ultimately fatal, flaw is that she is divisive. Republicans feel about the Clintons, the way Democrats feel about President Dubya. Do we really need another 4-8 years of that? Isn't 16 years enough of half of America hating the other half and vice versa?

All this said, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of my Party (I'm a Democrat, in case that wasn't totally obvious coming from a guy from Amherst, Massachusetts), then she will have my vote and my support. But until that time I am supporting Barack Obama. He is also very intelligent; he has more experience as an elected official (8 years in the Illinois State Senate prior to going on 4 years in the U.S. Senate). Yes, he is young (but older than Theodor Roosevelt and John Kennedy when they were elected). I believe that the difference between Obama and Clinton's platforms (and Edwards' for that matter) are nominal and thus it becomes about style and personality. Clinton want to be a do-it-all President like her husband and Jimmy Carter before her, but these two men, while incredibly intelligent and capable have lists of accomplishments, while in office, that are limited. They needed to delegate, lead and inspire, instead of always act like the smartest person in the room (which they invariably were). We need someone more hands on than the current President, but more important we need someone with the wisdom and judgment to listen to advisors and then make the informed choice. I believe that Barack Obama is in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt and JFK in that regard. He has my vote.

Endorsements, but not by me...

A man that I truly admire endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. John Kerry may not bring tears to people’s eyes with his oratory, but he has a gifted mind and a vision of America, past and present, that must be respected.

That is the second high caliber endorsement following Bill Bradley’s nod last week.

Where are you Mr. Gore???

United we stand, divided we fall...

Here is an interesting perspective on feminist support for Hillary Clinton. My reaction is that it is interesting that Barack Obama is not expected, by the African-American community, to run as a "black man" but rather just as a man (interestingly Obama has been reviled for not being black enough, an interesting response to the son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student). I wonder why we place emphasis on the difference between race and gender. Obama has refused to play the race card and therefore isn't castigated for not talking about "black issues". Whereas the Clinton campaign is all about the feminist/gender issues and uses it quite effectively. In that respect I agree with this assessment of Clinton and her run for President.

We do have sexism issues to grapple with, but "traditional feminism" is confrontational, whereas traditional civil rights advocated are hopeful. Gloria Steinum is about what she never got and should have but was denied because of her gender. Martin Luther King Jr. was about what was possible, what we could overcome if we could come together and make it happen as one. One approach brings together and one divides. As I have said in baby-boomers view change and conflict in terms of “us against them.” This is probably born from watch Martin Luther King die for wanting to bring us together. That type of scar doesn’t heal easily. Though to hear Hillary Clinton give LBJ credit for that change is LAUGHABLE! LBJ was the man in the chair when everything came to a head. To his credit, he had the courage to sign the Civil Rights Act even though he knew it would doom his Party in the south for a generation. Well, guess what. The generation is just about up and Barack Obama’s voice is about bringing people together.

Hillary Clinton gives good lip service to bringing people together, but if the last Clinton administration (which she professes to have been a large part of) is any indication, her record indicates that she is a divider. The Clintons are divisive. In 2000 Americans voted for a “’uniter’ not a ‘divider’.” I think we did that because the previous 8 years had torn us apart. Partisanship of ideas is a good thing; it is what our founders envisioned. Debating ideas is as American as apple pie! Partisanship of ideology is fanaticism and it runs against the grain of what we stand for in this country.

The seven years since the end of the Bill Clinton era have proven that we have to be much more skeptical of people who tell us that they want to bring us together because the Bush administration has been more divisive than Clinton’s (and I didn’t think that was possible). False hope is what the Clintons tell us to fear. I for one am tired of fear and those who exploit it to get power. I am tired of people who divide us into groups (liberal and conservative, rich and poor, black and white, man and woman, minority and majority, Christian and not), who exploit differences to gain power from some at the expense of others. Differences exist, but I refuse to see the world in myopic “this or that” terms. The world is far more complex. Diversity of ideas is a good thing. We need Gloria Steinum as much as we needed Martin Luther King. We need neo-conservatives as much as we need pacifists. We need Christians as much as we need atheists. But inside all of that we need respect for difference of opinion, and there is far too little of that on either side right now. Respect for differences; isn’t that what feminism and civil rights is all about?

A second opinion on last night's take...

Thank you Maureen Dowd!

Uncanny...

An unpopular perspective.

I posted this reply to a blog posting by Adam Lebor on Jewcy.

I wanted to write this in light of the fact that President Bush is making his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Adam,

Thanks for your original post and this thoughtful response. One would like to believe that peace in the Middle East is possible, but responses like these serve to make me skeptical.

I am half Jewish, though I do not practice the religion. I won't pretend to be a great defender of Jews. I believe that there must be room in this world and that region for a Jewish homeland, safe and secure. But I reject the notion that Israel's interests are automatically America's interests. Absolutely not. If that were the case, we should just make Israel the 51st state and be done with it. They are an independent nation and where we agree we should support one another. Where we differ, we must be allowed to express that without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. But that doesn’t happen in America. If you purport that there is a potential “different way” the chorus of condemnation rains down upon you (apparently even if you are Jewish).

The wall is bad. Settlements are bad. Pursuing policies that punish all Palestinians for the crimes of extremists is bad. The Israeli people want peace, many are willing to give a little to get a little. But it won’t happen as long as the United States pursues a policy of “Israel first, second and last.”

The United States should continue to work aggressively to ensure that the state of Israel continues to exist. We should strive to help our friends in Israel acquire security and peace. But as others point out here, we must also combat the abject poverty that allows extremist ideologies to flourish in the neighboring countries. This malevolence that exists in the Islamic world towards the U.S. and Israel has as much to do with envy as anything. They see that we "have" and they "have not" and they resent us for it. They should resent their leaders, but they are repressed by their leaders and swallow the propaganda whole.

I don’t apologize for the extremists. The poverty and oppression they suffered does not excuse their hateful ideology. But I also do not believe that analyzing the situation and trying to understand the roots of that hatred is tantamount to condoning or excusing. I believe that it is the first step in developing an effective strategy for combating that ideology.

Does anyone truly believe that an ideology was defeated using violent force? Ideologies are defeated by attacking their root cause. Israel is not the cause of this hatred. Poverty and oppression are. The solution won’t be easy and it won’t happen overnight, but methodically working to undo those root causes will be good for the United States, good for the people in the Islamic world and ultimately good for Israel.

Lastly, let’s put to rest this bogus notion that Barack Hussein Obama is in some way a Muslim. He was born of a Kenyan father and white American mother raised by white family in Hawaii (the least extremist place on Earth). He only saw his father once after he left the family. A name does not a Muslim make.

So, let the attacking begin…

"A place called Hope"

As I have said before, it will take an extraterrestrial situation for this blog to endorse a candidate. This is not the place for endorsements. To paraphrase Chris Dodd in Iowa before departing the campaign; it would be incredibly arrogant of me to assume that people would listen to me and my opinion on who they should vote for.

That being said, I am prepared this evening to rant. I am disappointed by tonight’s results. I am a person that believes that change is necessary if we are going to successfully tackle the giant challenges that face us as a nation and as a world. Nothing gets accomplished in the polarized world of right vs. wrong, left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, African American vs. Woman, good vs. evil… the list goes on and on. I reject the old paradigm of bi-lateral politics.

No, I am not going to vote for a third party candidate. I take my civic duties way too seriously to flush them down the toilet on the Natural Law Party.

I hold the Baby-boomer generation responsible for obstructing change today. I am tired of the children of “the greatest generation”. This is a group of people who are still fighting the war between the hippies and the squares, those who went to Woodstock and those that didn’t. They are still debating the Vietnam War, and they are still licking their battles. They are a generation scarred with the wounds from the brutal assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, the impeachment of Nixon, and the loss of innocence in Vietnam. I have a message for you soon to be retiring boomers! Enough already, we know you failed to change the world for the better, but that should not diminish our optimism. It is the unspoken creed of this nation that you shall leave this country improved for the next generation. And the baby-boomers are the first to violate that sacred pact. Where is your Declaration of Independence, your manifest destiny, your suffrage movement, your New Deal, your Brown vs. Board of Education, your Great Society? You failed us. And your bitterness about it is palpable. You have left us a government that is broken and a politics that is divisive to ensure that it is difficult to fix. You are not wholesale useless, but more often than not your generations leaders are all hype and spin.

Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight was canned ham. It was tired, cliché driven drivel. Someone needs to explain that you can’t represent change for 35 years. You get 4 years MAX. I am tired of the war room mentality of this posse. Don’t get me wrong, Bill Clinton was a good President and a great politician. But I want a great President and a good politician. His combative nature of “us against them” divided this country. He doesn’t bare sole responsibility for it. The Republicans were indignant that Bubba was better at playing the game than them and they made him pay for it. They felt that he stole the White House from them and they went after him from day one. But instead of fighting for the hearts and minds of the American people, instead of engaging in a war of ideas; he engaged in a war of ideologies. And we, the people, lost!

Bill Clinton did some great things as President, but he could have done so much more if he could have just kept his eye on the ball. He cared, he represented change in 1992. But anyone who thinks that the ideas of 1992 still represent change are either insane or 632 million years old. I love Bill Clinton and in 2000 I would have voted for him again. I respect the work that he is doing around the world and the efforts he is undertaking to be activist in his post-Presidency. He is, in spite of all his failings, a good hearted and honorable man. But he is also a dirty politician. He hates losing and he isn’t below a cheap shot to win. I understand that they believe in their cause, but to what end. Do they really think they can end the gridlock? Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are chomping at the bit. It will be the 1990s all over again.

We are gambling that she is as good as him. We already know she isn’t half the politician that he is. She lacks all of the natural talents that made him great. She is dull, unoriginal, uninspired, wonkish, overrated, and utterly bland. She has a tin ear and a lead tongue.

Some might ask if I have a problem with a female President. I do not. I would have no problem with a female President, just not this one. I also feel very strongly that voting on gender is pathetically myopic. I believe you vote for issues and when you realize that the platforms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are basically identical you then move on to personality. In that regard, Clinton is miles behind her competitors (not to mention John McCain and Mike Huckabee). As I have said in the past; what is the point of electing a female President if she has to strip away her femininity to win? That isn’t feminism. In fact it is incredibly sexist.

Anyone who thought it was going to change this country (including myself) was being utterly naïve. Change is hard, very hard. The status quo is easy and it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The reason change is difficult is because the young voters of this country are lazy and apathetic (not hard to understand considering their parents). What is it going to take? What’s going to get you up off the sofa? Put down the bong. Pause the Nintendo Wii! Real issues are being decided and you are leaving them up to your parents and grandparents. The bluehairs are the past. My friend believes it will take reinstating the draft (I have never been totally against that idea). The young vote carried Obama and Edwards in Iowa, but then they thought the job was done. They don’t understand the process and that is probably because they never had to take a civics class in High School.

The reason that the only thing that gets reformed is Medicare and senior services is because that is what the boomers care about. In their own viral way, they don’t really care about what resources are left when they are gone. It is up to young voters to stand and be counted and say enough is enough to this obsolete focus on the old at the expense of the young.

The Clintons want you to believe that you can’t change the world just by hoping for it. But remember when they “still believed in a place called hope.” They say we can’t change this broken system without being from the system.

I won’t endorse anyone but I will say: “Yes We Can!”

Five Words to describe the Democrats

Five words to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton:
1. Bellicose
2. Unoriginal
3. Forced
4. Uninspired
5. History

Five words to describe John Edwards:
1. Combative
2. Compassionate
3. Crusader
4. Dogmatic
5. Long-shot

Five words to describe Barack Obama:
1. Hopeful
2. Inspiring
3. Idealistic
4. Progressive
5. Naïve

Five words to describe Dennis Kucinich:
1. Whimsical
2. Overwhelmed
3. Helpless
4. Simplistic
5. Obstructionist

Barack Obama's Victory Speech from Iowa...

Don't just read the speech, watch it. It was really quite impressive. It was particularly impressive in light of the bad speeches given by Clinton and Romney and totally average speeches given by Huckabee and Edwards.

Link to the speech

“They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.”

The speech, as prepared for deliver, appears in full after the jump.

They said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.

I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done

I’ll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

And I’ll be a President who brings our troops home from Iraq; restores our moral standing; and understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

Tonight, we are one step closer to that vision of America because of what you did here in Iowa. And I’d like to take a minute to thank the organizers and precinct captains; the volunteers and staff who made this all possible.

I know you didn’t do this just for me. You did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

I know this because while I may be standing here tonight, I’ll never forget that my journey began on the streets of Chicago doing what so many of you have done for this campaign and all the campaigns here in Iowa – organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better.

I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay, and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer; when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united; you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long – when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill; a young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq; who still goes to bed each night praying for a safe return.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball people...

Iowa Caucuses tonight, here is my take:

When I say that they are done, I don't mean that they will drop out, but I that I think their chance of winning the nomination is done and over with.

GOP:

· Romney, needs to win Iowa to hold on in NH, if he doesn't, he's done...

· Thompson, not only done, never got off the ground

· Huckabee, could win Iowa, but won't even rate in NH, May play in South Carolina, but has little money to carry on for long without winning in Iowa... done

· Giuliani, idiotic strategy... done

· McCain, can't win, but certainly the most qualified of the bunch. He'll win NH if Huckabee wins Iowa and he gets over 10% in Iowa

· Ron Paul, hilariously done

Dems:

· Edwards, needs to win Iowa, or he's done

· Obama, probably needs to win Iowa, or he'll do his best Howard Dean fizzle. Obama is banking on a notoriously myopic and flakey group to carry him and they let Howard Dean down four years ago in Iowa. He could win and it would not surprise me, but I am skeptical of the young vote until they actually deliver. They have not delivered since McGovern in 1972.

· Hillary, will win NH if Edwards wins Iowa and she doesn't flop in Iowa. If Obama wins Iowa, she might be done. She might win Iowa, but I wouldn't bet on it. She will stay in for a while, but I don't see her winning anything if she loses both Iowa and NH. Dems tend to be all over the map, but they like to back a winner and like Kerry in 2004, if Obama wins both Iowa and NH, that's the ball game. If Edwards wins Iowa it will be harder for him to grab NH. NH would then be a toss up between Obama and Clinton, it depends on who comes in second. They both have the money to fight for a while, but Clinton has deeper pockets.

· Biden, good man, smart man, running for Secretary of State, done

· Dodd, good man, smart man, done

· Richardson, good man, smart man, possible VP candidate, done

MICHAEL MOORE ON THE FENCE: 'I am not endorsing anyone at this point'

Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March – four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Sen. Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Sen. Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do – and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Sen. Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil – including the root of global warming – is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

Zinger of the day and more on today's debate...

In today's Des Moines Register debate the moderator asked Senator Obama: "With all of the Clinton advisers on your campaign, how are you going to offer a clean break from the past?"

Hillary Clinton laughs loudly and then says: "I'd like to hear the answer to this..."

Obama pauses momentarily then lands the knock out blow by saying: "Well, Hillary, i look forward to you advising me as well."

Hillary Clinton wasn't laughing anymore after that.

I enjoyed the debate quite a bit today. I particularly enjoy hearing from Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson. None of these three men will win the Democratic nomination, but at each debate they have hammered home the fact that their collective experience on the issues, their fundamental understanding of the challenges we face. They may not end up as President, but it is nice to know that they are out there working hard for us.

Clearly, that last paragraph was loaded. I was purposefully pointing out that the three front runners in the Democratic primary as well as all the Republican candidates are simply not as well qualified. If public policy knowledge truly dictated who the next President would be then we wouldn't have to endure this putrid poor excuse for a beauty pageant.

I am not looking forward to seeing John McCain in the swimsuit portion!

A revolution of thought…

Do Americans need more money in their pockets (i.e. a tax cut) or do we just need to stop buying so much crap. This country faces serious challenges in the next decade. We face declining revenue due in part to reckless tax cuts as well as increased interest payments on all our outstanding debt to foreign creditors. As a nation, we have failed to offset this decline in revenue. This is primarily because our political leaders lack the courage to stand up to the various interest groups who fight tooth and nail for their piece of the pie (AARP, NEA, and Chamber of Commerce, I am looking at you). This is all occurring at a time when we face an increasing demand for our social safety net programs. Programs like Medicare, which will be placed under incredible financial strain with the impending baby boomer mass retirement. Other programs like Medicaid and SCHIP will also feel the squeeze due to the swelling ranks of Americans who lack health insurance. All of this reckless finance is occurring while the United States is pouring grotesque sums of money into the black hole that is the United States military. All so that we can prop up a dysfunctional regime in Baghdad under the guise of security.

This incredibly myopic view completely ignores that for the [false] perception of physical security (from those crazy Jihadists) we have triple mortgaged and then refinanced our economic security. The United States used to be the largest creditor in the world, but we are now the largest debtor. We borrow $800 million annually from Japan, South Korea, and even more disturbingly, China.

What is the solution? Well, Rudy Giuliani would tell you that everything could be solved with a few well placed corporate tax cuts. I am dubious. Fred Thompson would say that the solution is to simply tell baby boomers that the Medicare benefit that they had banked on will be unavailable because we can’t afford it (everyone burn your bras!). Ron Paul would say that the United States needs to close all bases around the world, adopt an isolationist foreign policy and then with the savings we will be able to shore up domestic programs. As ridiculous as all those solutions are, and they are, it is nothing compared to what is coming from the donkeys. Arguably this election cycle is idiot-proof for the Democrats. There has almost never been a more sure bet then 2008. Anyone who has watched any of the Republican debates knows that this crew of mental midgets doesn’t stand a chance on policy mostly because they willfully and proudly disdain public policy. Public policy, to the Republican presidential candidates, as synonymous with “Washington insiders thinking they know how to use your hard earned money better than you.”

This brings me to the point of this blog posting. Perhaps the Republicans are right! No, I have not fallen down and hit my head. I am quite alright. I am standing on one foot, touching my nose and saying the alphabet backwards. What I mean is, maybe Americans hate the idea of working hard only to turn around and pay a tax for that hard work. The taxation of income was first enacted in the United States in July 1861. Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about USD 10,000 today). In 1894 a tax act was found to be unconstitutional and the collection of income taxes was halted. This event led to the ratification of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. But I digress.

It has become the stated practice to place the largest portion of our taxation on production. Perhaps we should shift away from that paradigm. Why do we tax something like hard work that we want to promote? Perhaps in a time when our planet faces serious challenges from over consumption of goods and production it is time to instead place the tax burden on consumers. There are a number of ways to do this and they should all be discussed out in the open without fear of hateful vitriol and assertions of being a “tax and spend pinko.”

One potential shift would be to implement a Value Added Tax (or VAT) like many European countries successfully have. The VAT is levied on the added value that results from each exchange. A traditional sales tax is levied on the total value of the exchange. A VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer. This would be very effective in making the supply chain of many products more efficient (eliminating endlessly inefficient layers and middlemen). It is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone other than the person who actually bears the cost of the tax (namely the seller rather than the consumer).

Another approach is the much hyped carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on sources of carbon dioxide emissions. It is an example of a pollution tax. This type of consumption tax has two key aspects that make it an attractive alternative. First it creates an incentive for consumers to purchase products or utilities which are carbon neutral. Second, this tax targets a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income).

The solution that I envision would probably include both. We could either severely cut the income tax and implement these tax alternatives to offset the revenue loss, or we could eliminate the income tax altogether and make the consumption tax the major method of collecting revenue for government services. It should be said that Mike Huckabee has proposed eliminating the federal income tax with a national sales tax and has been laughed out of the room. The press coverage has portrayed this idea as a sign of insanity.

This isn’t a perfect solution there should be debate about whether this approach is too regressive, but in the end the goal of these taxes is to bring to light the amount of consumption we engage in as a society and the extent to which that consumption is destroying our environment.

Our leaders need to have the courage to speak truthfully and openly about the very serious economic challenges that we face. That will not happen until the American people realize that we are collectively (rich and poor alike) sitting in a boat, drifting towards a huge waterfall and our reticence about even discussing tax policy is akin to throwing the oars overboard. If we don’t, at the very least, have the conversation we are doomed to second tier status. Then this country, which has for over a century stood as an example of entrepreneurial “can-do” spirit will cease to exist and will be replaced by a nation that panders to the lowest common denominator, debates triviality, and preys on fear to achieve power.

I am not optimistic.