Democrats love chaos!

I have a feeling that Clinton will win tomorrow, but not by enough to make much of an impact in Obama's lead.

Here are the demographics of the major polls in Texas...



...and Ohio.




So now the question is; who is going vote? Are you in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, or Vermont? Get out there are do your duty.

A crack in her base...

The new New York Times/CBS News poll shows a sea change in the balance of support that is propping up Hillary Clinton's campaign.



This is a problem for her campaign. Is going negative the solution? I would imagine that those who have trouble envisioning a female Commander-in-Chief will not be swayed with Hillary's new bid to be Mother-in-Law-in-Chief.

Is this man a dangerous Islamic fundamentalist???

Hillary Clinton's campaign would have you believe so.



And then if you ask why this should invoke fear, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

Isn't this what elected officials do when they go abroad? Isn't it a good thing that they experience other cultures and are curious about the world. Even this is a good thing...



...Goofy, but a good thing. President Bush is a goof ball, but I guarantee that this endeared him to his hosts. Being willing to look goofy in the name of bonding is about the best piece of foreign policy of his Presidency.

The O-mentum is O-verwhelming!

Well, the debate was pretty canned tonight. Senator Obama seemed sick at the beginning and I think there was an opportunity for Senator Clinton to land one on his chin early and leave him reeling a bit. But ol' Tin Ear Clinton never misses a chance to miss a chance. She attempted to be genial, and that gave his DayQuil time to kick in.

Clinton is kind of stuck. She can't really attack Obama on policy, because they agree on 99% of the issues. Her only hope was to make him look bad, unprepared, or lacking in composure. But since he comes across as more Presidential than her, the attacks she launches invariably backfire on her.

Perhaps you saw Chris Matthews kicking Texas state Senator Kirk Watson-D from Austin around on the MSNBC the other night. I won't provide a link, but you can google it. Senator Watson was sent to represent Senator Obama as a surrogate on the air and flopped heroically. It was ugly. I should say that Senator Watson is my Senator and that I have met him in a professional capacity on a number of occasions. It was a shocking lack of composure from a guy who is generally very sharp on public policy. (Time to get off the mat Senator Watson!)

The blogs and media exploded in mocking Watson for his gaffe. He probably knew he had it coming. And to a certain extent he deserved it. How could you go on national TV so un-prepared? How could your policy staff not have prepped you better?

But in a stroke of luck, the campaign with no grace or professionalism (that of Billary) used this as an opportunity to poke fun at the Obama campaign. This undid any damage that Watson could have done to Obama in Texas. It only serves to show that Hillary will do anything to win, including mocking a fellow Democrat. She cracked a joke about it in the debate tonight, in Austin, Texas, in a room full of Senator Watson's friends (some of whom were siding with Obama and some with her). LOW CLASS!!!

In the end, the debate was essentially a draw, which in my book means Obama won. Clinton was unable to appear convincing on any points, until the closing when she seemed for the first time to acknowledge that victory for her is a long shot. She spoke eloquently about her passion and why she was working so hard.

I believe that she loves this country, but she is stuck on ideas and can't seem to grasp process. That is evident in how she runs her campaign. Why should we believe that it would be any different were she elected President. Clinton is right, being President is more than just speeches. But is also more than just ideas. It is about being in tune with the national mood. Is she so isolated by yes-men (and women) that she can't grasp that she is not in tune with our current needs as a country?

Any hack can string together sentences...

A Republican sent me this “policy analysis” and asked; “so, tell me what is wrong with this?”

I wrote a really long reply via e-mail on my “smart phone” and then the e-mail crashed. It was a very dispiriting moment, but I will soldier on and try to recreate the mojo that I had while punching out that e-mail while holding my napping daughter.

Let’s go back to the orginal question, so, tell me what is wrong with this? My reply is, I don’t even know where to begin. OK, yes I do. First off, I think that we need to review what constitutes a public policy analysis. Rule number one when analyzing a particular policy, in this case health coverage policy, the analyst must be free of preconceived notion and allow the data to direct the outcome.

Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh certainly have a preconceived notion and they don’t even try to hide it. Everything they say is absolutely true. So what’s wrong? Well, while they use fact to make their case, Zinser and Hsieh do so by using only half the story. The analysts methodically leave out key details that conflict with their outcome. It could be possible when conducting an analysis, with the incredible amounts of health policy data, that the analysis is innocently incomplete. Not in this particular case. Zinser and Hsieh actually tell half the story and omit key variables. As such, this analysis is half true. It is also half false. Thus it is not particularly interesting.

This analysis attacks “universal health insurance” as a policy program. This is almost idiotically off base. Universal health insurance is not a program, it is a goal. To achieve universal coverage there are many different approaches that could be pursued. Zinser and Hsieh call universal health insurance “socialized medicine.” This is what conservatives do when they can’t attack something on its merits. They try to create fear, in this case they go back into the vault to try to wake up the dormant fear of communism that is hibernating in the hearts of Americans. It rings hollow. What they are actually attacking is a national health system like they have in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Japan, to name a few.

The “analysts” rightly point out that the current system is broken. They also rightly point out that it is not a free market approach. But make no mistake about it, a free market approach will not move towards significantly expanding health coverage. This betrays the fact that the authors are not interested in moving towards universal coverage.

Zinser and Hsieh say that the current system is crippling American businesses. They are right, but the business community (led by the giants, GM and GE) fought hard in the 1950s to block an organized labor proposal to move towards some form of national health insurance. They were afraid of handing too much power and influence to the [communist] unions. Are you sensing a theme here?

Simply shifting the financial burden from employers to employees will not expand coverage. Working men and women have enough stress making ends meet. What would make us believe that they could or should become health care consumers that are well enough informed to be discerning. Health technology, as the authors point out, has become incredibly complex. People ought to be able to rely on their doctors to steer them towards the most cost effective care alternative. This is a system known as managed care. Managed care failed because people chose alternative plans (like PPOs) which offered them the opportunity to bypass the primary care physician and see a specialist, even in cases that could have been handled by PCPs at a lower cost.

Managed care only works when it is the only option. That is why care in the United Kingdom is half the cost for the same health outcomes. In Scandinavia, if you are rich, you can still bypass the system and go to private clinics, but most people choose not to. Care is prioritized and managed care is truly managed. Here that is called rationing by critics. But in actuality it is allowing doctors to determine severity of cases and triage based on priorities. A quadruple bypass surgery for an 80 year old is not as important as when the patient is 50. This may seem cruel, but it cannot really be refuted. Is the national health system approach perfect? No, it is not. At times people do have to wait for important tests and procedures.

But let’s be honest; the ship sailed on a national health system in the United States a long time ago. There are too many entrenched interests and too much money in the current system to do away with it all. I won’t even dare to dream. The eventual solution will likely be some sort of public-private partnership.

This could be a great debate topic in this year of politics. The solution could be crafted by uniting the liberal goal of equality and inclusiveness and conservative goal of individual responsibility.

But unfortunately only one side has showed up to the debate and won by debate. John McCain’s health policy platform focuses on controlling costs and increasing competition without getting specific. This is like nibbling around the edge without taking a bite out of the apple. Controlling costs and creating competition are certainly topics that need to be addressed, but they alone will not fix our system.

The authors of this “analysis” want a level playing field and free market solutions. That would be nice, but the playing field is not level. Free market solutions are not the best approach to ensuring that the least of us catch a break. This “analysis” is like watching the first half of the Godfather but then skipping the second half.

Do you have any race cards? Go Fish!

Still think the Clinton campaign isn’t playing the race card? Read this!

Recipe for disaster?

Republicans face an interesting challenge that could spell doom simultaneously for Democrats and the values conservatives clinging to the extreme right fringe. It has not gone unreported that the right wing of the Republican Party are less than thrilled with the idea of Senator John McCain as the GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh has said that it will destroy the three legged platform that Ronald Reagan created. It should be noted that Limbaugh (should we call him gas bag?) has equal disdain for the former governor of Arkansas. Ann Coulter has said that if McCain gets the nomination, she’ll vote for Hillary Clinton (probably not an endorsement that the good Senator from New York wants). Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, the list goes on and on. Why do these people hate McCain (and Huckabee for that matter?). Liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us would absolutely never call either of these guys liberal. These two politicians are conservatives. They are not ever moderates. Make no mistake about it. But I will tell you this much; I don’t hate these guys.

Rush, Ann, Sean, Laura and the rest of the angry heads dislike McCain and Huckabee for one simple reason; neither of them are political partisans. They are not rigidly dogmatic. They don’t accept that one has to kill the enemy to win.

In that regard, a President McCain or President Huckabee would be bad for business for these fear mongers. Imagine a conservative president that doesn’t want to destroy anyone or anything that presents an alternative approach. I can respect these guys even if I could never vote for them.

If either of these candidates gets the chance to run against Hillary Clinton in the general election they can and probably will win. Don’t get me wrong, Clinton’s policy positions are better, her policy platform is better thought out from an economic and public policy perspective. She will likely eat both of these guys for lunch on policy in the debates. Ever compare the issues section of a Democratic candidate to those of the GOP candidate pages? Take a look…

http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

vs.

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

On public policy: check Mate, Dems win!

So if she is better on policy, why would Clinton likely lose? Clinton could do the job on a day to day basis, if we put aside the fact that she is boring and inspires no one. It isn’t because she isn’t tough enough. Clinton is up to the fight. She is right, she won’t get Swift Boated by the right. But that won’t matter. What matters is that Senator McCain can run to the middle knowing that he doesn’t need to rally the Republican base. The opportunity to vote against her will be enough to turn out the base. Ann Coulter isn’t voting for Hillary, Rush isn’t sitting this out. Don’t be fooled. This is a carefully orchestrated effort to by these angry heads to promote McCain’s independent appeal. The heads realize that Supreme Court Justice appointments are at stake. As good for business as it will be for them, the base can’t wait 4-8 years to be back in the White House.

Clinton has very little appeal among independents. McCain will clean up the middle and even if the conservative right turnout is low, it won’t matter. I just don’t see how Hillary can win.

Does that mean Senator Obama can definitely win? No it doesn’t, but this post isn’t about him!

There is a potential perfect storm on the horizon. Can the Democrats avoid it?

Don’t forget the petition

We need to make it clear that the Superdelegates are secondary to the members of the Democratic Party.

Don’t forget to sign the petition. Please send the link to the petition to as many people as you can. We need this one to spread around.

The Lieberman-Warner "Global Warming" Bill

More proof that Joe Lieberman sucks! (Like we needed anymore)

McCain's answer to will.i.am

Very funny piece of satire!

Superdelegates Run Amok

This is a petition that I created today in anticipation of problems that are being anticipated in the nomination process for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Read and sign the Petition and e-mail the link to as many people as you can.

Been a while...

I had to write a ten line poem to enter into a contest to pick the most Beat of the Beatniks. The contest is in conjunction with the exhibition of One the Road With The Beats at the Harry Ransom Center from February 5^th until August 3^rd.

This is what I came up with. Not particularly beat. But I am wearing khakis, jack purcells and a black long sleeve. That is pretty beat, if it isn't Beat.

Am I a Beatnik?

The wind hits my face with an ice cubes smack.
I taste the city on the tip of my tongue.
I smell her sweet stench in my flaring nostrils.
I exhale her in a puff of steam.
The city, she looks good.
The bright sun tears screamingly my unshaded eyes.
Buses rumble past, but I don't hear.
My heart open to the possible.
The city, she looks good
to me.

Ouch and Mega Ouch!

From a reader J.C. on the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder Blog:

Barack Obama: "change we can believe in"

Hillary Clinton: needs a can to leave change in.

Another one bites the dust...

I guess the news is reporting that Mitt Romney is finally going to stop wasting his children's inheritance and quit the race. You have to love/hate Drudge. He really does get stuff first.

No Money Mo Problems!!!

Hillary and Bill Clinton have loaned her campaign $5 million of their own money. They have said that they would go up to $20 million. In addition, key Clinton staffers have decided to forgo salary. This is bad news, made worse by the fact that Obama raised $32 million in January and $5.8 million since Super Tuesday.

This is a horse race and one of the horses is running on three legs.

The Big "MO"

The results from California were surprising to see in light of Obama’s surging momentum. How did it happen that she won so big? It was a combination of winning the Latino vote handily, low African-American turnout and the strangeness of voting rules that combined to quell Obama’s “mo.”

Here is a good summary on the voting rules in California from a Slate blog called Trailhead:

“Most polls from the past few days showed Obama gaining on her, and one or two even projected he would win. But judging from the voting results, he was too late. The state of California allows voters—not just seniors and absentees, but anyone—to cast an absentee ballot by mail. As a result, more than 3 million Californians voted early this year (one elections official put the number at 4.1 million). And judging from polls in previous weeks, they voted largely for Clinton. If Obama was actually gaining in recent days, the vote totals may not reflect it.”

Early voting starting in California a few days after Hillary Clinton’s comeback win in New Hampshire (it is true, they can spin anything, including making the presumptive frontrunner a comeback story).

So here is my question: Who has the momentum coming out of Super Tuesday? I look at the states that they won.

Obama won in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and his home state of Illinois.

Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and her home state of New York.

When I look at these things I see something striking. Clinton won states that Democrats always win. You have to figure that Oklahoma is essentially off the table in November. Arkansas was a win because she used to deign to love amongst those people. Tennessee was a bit confusing, so we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she had some crossover appeal.

Otherwise she won New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Does anyone think that the eventual Democratic nominee won’t carry those states? Clinton won Arizona which is on the long march to solid blue state status. And yes, she won the Golden State, but I think that this victory is muted for reasons outlined above.

Obama, on the other hand won the south. These are states that Democrats have not counted on winning since LBJ put pen to paper and signed the Civil Rights Act over 40 years ago. I posit this. Does anyone think that these states should be off the table if the Republicans nominate John McCain?

In addition, Obama won the mountain west. Why does this matter? Well, the Dems have decided that this portion of the country is so important that they are holding their national convention in Denver this summer. Yes, Latino voters in California went to Hillary big time, but what about Hispanic voters in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. It seems entirely plausible that he will win New Mexico too, though the election officials needed a power nap there, so we won’t have a result until later today.

Lastly, Obama won Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas and Missouri. Is there anyone who thinks that Dems have a chance if they can’t win the weathervane state of Harry Truman? Kansas? When was the last time Kansas voted for a progressive? The answer is 1976 when they voted for the “anybody but the guy who pardoned Nixon” Jimmy Carter. Minnesota used to be a safely Democratic state, but I believe Democrats ignore the state at their own peril. Obama apparently won the Scandinavian dairy farmer vote by winning Minnesota and North Dakota.

So, who has momentum? That is hard to say. It is probably the campaign with the better spinners. If I were Obama’s advisor (and contrary to my ranting, I am not) I would spin looking forward instead of backwards. Coming up this weekend is Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington (and the U.S.V.I.’s so as not to ignore the utterly irrelevant). I think Obama has a clear advantage in Louisiana and Nebraska and the educated and affluent Democratic population in Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia would seem to favor Obama.

We will have to wait and see though. Predictions are not all that useful. The best way forward is to keep on working. Nothing is decided. If you like Obama, if you like Clinton… get out and vote! If you like McCain, Romney or Huckabee… go ahead and take a nap.

On a side note, I love hearing Clinton supporters interviewed. It is not unlike hearing New York Giants fans interviewed. As some supporter spouts the talking points, trying hard to inject the word change into the stale prose as many times as possible, I wonder to myself if this is what Hubert Humphrey’s supporters were saying in 1960?

This gives me chills...

Ladies and gentlemen, the grass roots have spoken!

Is Rush Limbaugh right?

Is it possible that John McCain once considered joining the Democratic Party? According to an article in The Hill Senator McCain's advisor approached Democratic leaders on this subject.

Is this an attempt to torpedo McCain's run to the Republican nomination by Democrats who see Mitt Romney as an easier opponent? Possibly. A very smart move. Now the question is, are there enough Republicans that are skeptical of McCain to make a difference.

Credit where credit is due...

I don’t often say nice things about Hillary Clinton on this blog. As I have said before, I believe that she is an incredibly bright and capable woman who is on the same side of most issues as I am. I have also said that if she is the nominee of my Party, I will vote for her. That said, I do not want her to get the nomination. With the exit of John Edwards, it looks like I will have to vote for Barack Obama. I was likely going to vote for him anyways, but now the decision is easier.

That said, I must give Senator Clinton credit for a truly dynamite answer in last night’s debate. It is an answer that speaks to the public policy analyst in me. This is from the official CNN transcript:

CUMMINGS: Well, we've got a question on this that's come in on politico.com, and it echoes, I think, a message that you all might be fighting up against if Mitt Romney turns out to be your opponent come the fall. We've talked about McCain, now we have Romney's strengths to address.

Now, Howard Meyerson (ph) of Pasadena, California, says he views the country as a very large business, and neither one of you have ever run a business. So, why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?

CLINTON: Well, I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business. It is a trust. It is the most complicated organization. But it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country.

A man of conviction exits stage right...

John Edwards gave a very moving speech today as he suspended his Presidential campaign. I think the former Senator from North Carolina will find his way into the next Democratic cabinet. He would make a very strong Labor Secretary.

It is a bit long, but I would urge you to read the speech. I have pasted it below:

Thank you all very much. We're very proud to be back here.

During the spring of 2006, I had the extraordinary experience of bringing 700 college kids here to New Orleans to work. These are kids who gave up their spring break to come to New Orleans to work, to rehabilitate houses, because of their commitment as Americans, because they believed in what was possible, and because they cared about their country.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters.

We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can -- so that history can blaze its path.

We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

(APPLAUSE)

This journey of ours began right here in New Orleans. It was a December morning in the Lower Ninth Ward when people went to work, not just me, but lots of others went to work with shovels and hammers to help restore a house that had been destroyed by the storm.

We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us.

We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.

We came here to the Lower Ninth Ward to rebuild. And we're going to rebuild today and work today, and we will continue to come back. We will never forget the heartache and we'll always be here to bring them hope, so that someday, one day, the trumpets will sound in Musicians' Village, where we are today, play loud across Lake Ponchartrain, so that working people can come marching in and those steps once again can lead to a family living out the dream in America.

We sat with poultry workers in Mississippi, janitors in Florida, nurses in California. We listened as child after child told us about their worry about whether we would preserve the planet.

We listened to worker after worker say that, "The economy is tearing my family apart."

We walked the streets of Cleveland, where house after house was in foreclosure.

And we said, "We're better than this. And economic justice in America is our cause."

And we spent a day, a summer day, in Wise, Virginia, with a man named James Lowe, who told us the story of having been born with a cleft palate. He had no health care coverage. His family couldn't afford to fix it.

And finally some good Samaritan came along and paid for his cleft palate to be fixed, which allowed him to speak for the first time. But they did it when he was 50 years old.

His amazing story, though, gave this campaign voice: universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. That is our cause.

(APPLAUSE)

And we do this -- we do this for each other in America. We don't turn away from a neighbor in their time of need. Because every one of us knows that what -- but for the grace of God, there goes us.

The American people have never stopped doing this, even when their government walked away, and walked away it has from hardworking people, and, yes, from the poor, those who live in poverty in this country.

For decades, we stopped focusing on those struggles. They didn't register in political polls, they didn't get us votes and so we stopped talking about it.

I don't know how it started. I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people, from the fathers who were working three jobs literally just to pay the rent, mothers sending their kids to bed wrapped up in their clothes and in coats because they couldn't afford to pay for heat. We know that our brothers and sisters have been bullied into believing that they can't organize and can't put a union in the workplace.

Well, in this campaign, we didn't turn our heads. We looked them square in the eye and we said, "We see you, we hear you, and we are with you. And we will never forget you."

And I have a feeling that if the leaders...

(LAUGHTER)

... if the leaders of our great Democratic Party continue to hear the voices of working people, a proud progressive will occupy the White House.

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and, more importantly, through me to America that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

(APPLAUSE)

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as president of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their presidency.

This is the cause of my life. And I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account. She struggles to be able to do it. But she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do.

And I spoke to some of the people who were there. And as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us."

Well, I say to her, and I say to all those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to say this. I want to say this, because it's important.

With all of the injustice that we've seen, I can say this, America's hour of transformation is upon us.

It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad. It may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn't have the right books for your kids.

It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard.

But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you once again.

And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible: one America -- one America that works for everybody; one America where struggling towns and factories come back to life, because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil; one America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college, they will be honored for that work; one America where no child will go to bed hungry, because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty; one America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care; one America with one public school system that works for all of our children; one America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end and brings our servicemembers home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

(APPLAUSE)

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a mill worker is going to be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

And I want to thank every one who has worked so hard, all those who have volunteered, my dedicated campaign staff who've worked absolutely tirelessly in this campaign.

And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen, literally, in the last few days -- those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota, who came to me and said, "Don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice."

I want you to know that you almost changed my mind. (LAUGHTER)

Because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause is our cause.

Your country needs you, every single one of you, all of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause. We need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you.

Don't turn away, because we have not just the city of New Orleans to rebuild, we have an American house to rebuild.

This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf.

The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead.

It goes on for daycare workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country.

And the work goes on for 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans who go to sleep every night under bridges or in shelters or on grates, just as the people we just saw on the way here today.

Their cause is our cause. Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.

Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible. Because it's time for all of us -- all of us -- together, to make the two Americas one.

Thank you, God bless you, and let's go to work. Thank you all very much.

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…