Please Cut the Crap!

Thank You, Mr. President: The Public Option is Alive and Well

If I was more arrogant and self-absorbed, I might think President Obama is reading this blog.  Just about everything I asked for in my open letter was covered in his speech. And make no mistake; President Obama even made the best case for a public option that I've seen so far.

I know there's a lot of consternation on the part of many progressives about the speech last night. I've seen and heard more hand-wringing in the hours since this speech ended than I could ever have imagined. I even heard an argument that the current reform would "preserve the private insurance system intact," and simply give them 31 million extra customers, which is simply not true. For-profit health insurers don't make money through volume. They make money by NOT covering those who might cost them money, and by NOT covering as many procedures as they can get away with. If 31 million extra customers would make them more money, ask yourself the obvious question;

Why aren't the covering those 31 million customers now? And if those 31 million customers will represent such an incredible windfall, then why are insurance companies fighting reform tooth and nail?

A lot of the trepidation on the part of some progressives is somewhat misplaced. There was a full-blown endorsement of the public option in last night's speech, and an acknowledgment,from a very popular sitting president, that nothing less than full health insurance coverage will be acceptable. He not only insisted that access to health care is a right, but that everyone had a responsibility to buy coverage. Imagine a democracy in which rights and responsibilities are both important. Dare we dream?

An Open Letter to My President on Health Insurance Reform

(I will be on the Nicole Sandler Show to discuss President Obama's speech on health insurance reform tonight at 12 ET/9 PT http://airamerica.com/nights. Please check it out...)

Dear Mr. President:

 

Have you noticed that every time you're absent from the scene for even a short time, like taking a week of vacation, the health insurance reform debate gets out of hand, and more than a little nuts? There's a very good reason for this, you know; it's because this country needs leadership. We haven't had that for a while, and we're in deep trouble right now because of that. But you know that; it's why you ran for president in the first place.

 

I know what you're trying to do with the public. You're trying to get people fired up to participate in the system,  throwing out trial balloons designed to activate certain groups. Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well as you might think. If you want to find out what people want from you, ask them. If you want people to get behind you, then show leadership. If you show strong leadership on any issue, the people will get behind you and tell you how they want you to proceed.

It Really Is the Economy, Stupid -- This Time, Let's REALLY Change It!

You know, one of the greatest frustrations in being somewhat liberal is the tendency for others of my ideological ilk to demonize individuals, and to focus on specific people as "the problem."

Our economy is damn close to a total meltdown, and we're closer to being a Third World country than at any time in our history. In a system that purports to be capitalist, we the taxpayer are now expected to bail out these "Captains of Industry" to the tune of $1 TRILLION, just to prevent the collapse of the economy.

Let me make something clear here, folks. This is not the fault of a few select individuals; it's about ideology. This election represents a turning point for this country. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat, it's not about Obama, or McCain, or Bush and Cheney, or Palin. This election is about repudiating an IDEOLOGY; an ideology that has kept us stagnate since the far right took over the government in 1981, that has managed to make the economy look better than it was with a series of bubbles and an unprecedented amount of debt, and which has pushed us to the brink of economic annihilation.

A good economy makes things and sells them for a profit. A good economy provides good jobs for as many people as possible, and pays them enough to create a good life. A good economy encourages entrepreneurship.

We do not have a good economy, and we haven't for at least 35 years. We started to recover in the right way under Bill Clinton, because he guided programs that propped up the bottom rungs of the economy, and he encouraged manufacturing and increased trade. But overall, our economy has been shipping most good jobs overseas, pay has been largely stagnant since the mid-1970s, and the level of actual entrepreneurship is so low as to be frightening. And has anyone even begun to comprehend the amount of debt we hold as taxpayers? We'd better start thinking about it, because that debt has to be paid back at some point. And the higher that debt goes, the harder and more expensive it will be to borrow money later. And since we're currently counting on borrowed money just to make ends meet in the current right wing economic environment, that will eventually cause us serious problems in the near future. 

And no matter what the people on the right tell you, make no mistake; it's not liberal policies, or free-spending liberalism, that is causing our economic problems.

The culprit is a right wing Republican ideology, which takes money from the poor and hands it to the rich. They still push the completely discredited concept of "trickle down economics," even though it's been nearly 30 years, and the only thing that's "trickled down" to the poor and working classes is the urine from the rich fat cats who have made out like bandits on your dime, and who are proceeding to piss all over you.

This election is about returning us to an economic model that worked, and abandoning the failed economic policies of a generation of right wing Republican theory that has proven itself to be both economically and morally bankrupt. Again; this isn't juast about a difference between Obama and McCain;this is about  complete change in mindset; to making people count again.

When Did the United States Become a Nation of Pussies?

Today is the 39th anniversary of the day that American astronauts first set foot on the moon.

Think about that a moment. Within ten years, this great country was able to go from being unable to fire a rocket into space, to putting men into space, then creating a way for them to land on the moon, take off from the moon, and return home safely, six out of seven times.

Contrast that with today, 39 years later, when we're looking at taking 20 years to increase the average gas mileage of our cars to 34 miles per gallon, and lessening our use of "foreign oil."

When World War II was declared, a factory in Detroit that made Ford automobiles was retrofitted to manufacture helicopters for the war effort, and was able to do so in the space of eight weeks.

Contrast that with today, when all American car companies claim they can't compete in the global market, and they have to shut down for years, just to be able to make cars that people want to drive, cars they should have been making all along.

During World War II, our leadership was able to mobilize the entire country to defeat the Nazis and Japanese Imperial Forces, two of the most formidable powers in the history of world, and helped defeat them within four years.   

Contrast that with today, when our leadership expects us to cower in fear at rogue actors who might strap a bomb to their waist and blow up everyone within a short distance.

What have we become? We're afraid of everything these days. How have we gone from "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," to the current attitude, whereby; we're afraid of terrorists, because they might want to "kill us for our freedoms;" we're afraid to switch to alternative fuels, because it might entail pumping something other than gas; we're afraid to try anything new, because it may not work?

When did the United States become a nation of pussies?

Stop Jerking That Knee and Become a Skeptic!

I can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I've heard from another liberal about something Barack Obama supposedly said that was apparently outrageous or scary or somehow out of character. Liberals are often absolutely hysterical over many of their perceptions of Obama's positions on issues, and their screeching can be heard all over the blogosphere.

But then a funny thing happens. I actually look up what Obama actually said, and I think to myself, "Is that all?" Basically, what I'm finding is that a lot of people are hysterical about information that isn't actually true. For example:

• Barack Obama isn't in favor of expanding faith-based initiatives because he just loves combining government and religion. He's not planning to send tax money to churches for their basic operations. In other words, he's saying it's possible to assist churches in helping the poor and the sick, without violating the separation between church and state.
• Barack Obama hasn't reneged on his promise to extract us from the Iraq occupation, just because he says he will continually re-evaluate, based on what military experts tell him. Keep in mind, Bush SAYS he's listening to generals on the ground, but he's not; he only listens to those generals whose opinions he agrees with. He's fired every military expert that said anything he didn't like, remember? Basically, Obama's talking about responsibility. We broke the country of Iraq, and we owe it to the people there to pull out, but to pull out in a responsible way, that results in the least loss of life possible.
• Barack Obama has not abandoned his desire for campaign finance reform. The problem is, there's a large contingent of people who think the only way to reform the campaign finance system is by public financing, and the fact that he decided not to finance his campaign using tax money is seen by many as tantamount to treason. It completely disregards the reality that many of us feel that the public IS financing Obama's campaign, and he's actually demonstrating a campaign financing structure that works and is strangely not controlled by incumbent politicians, which would be the case in a public financing scheme.

See, here's the problem...

Reframe This!

Here are a few statements that some of you may find surprising, but they are actually almost inarguably true:

• In their daily lives, a majority of blacks have far more in common with white evangelicals than they do most self-described white progressives.
• The debate over abortion was lost even before Roe v. Wade, when we allowed right wing radicals to frame the debate in a way that made it very difficult for us to argue the issue logically.
• The average American is more concerned with being able to make a living and keeping his family fed, clothed and educated, than he or she is with whether or not the government is tapping his or her phone.

Now, the above statements seem kind of random, but they're not at all. They all point to the number one reason why progressive politics has taken a backseat to neocon blather for the last 30-40 years.

The average liberal/progressive had no idea what the average person thinks, or why. And that, my friends, is exactly why we've been standing on the outside of politics, and wishing we had a better seat. While the right wing has been eating political steak for the past 30 years, we've been largely fogging up the glass as political outsiders.

Let's take each of the above statements one at a time and address them.

Demand Leadership This Time!

How far we've come in a lifetime.

I turned 50 a few weeks ago, and when I think about what's happened during that time, historically speaking, it makes me smile.

When I was little, and I had just learned to read -- I was about 4 or 5 -- and my dad took me to the bathroom at the beach. The hand painted sign on the door read "Men," but poorly painted-over, I could make out another one a little to the left; and arrow and the word "coloreds." That would have been about 1962 or 1963.

About eight or nine years ago, I was doing research for a lawyer at a law firm. I had to peruse real estate ads Baltimore newspapers from 1963. What I saw shocked me somehow, as advertisements for homes and jobs clearly read "No Coloreds!" and "Whites only!" and some even read "Coloreds only!"

I felt chills as Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee the other night. I watched the entire speech, and I was proud of my country. Say what you will about the United States, but there are still few countries in the world in which someone with his background could compete with a woman of Hillary Clinton's background for the leadership of the entire country.

And then I considered the fact that this country has been moving forward consistently, making significant social progress despite the fact that most of our leadership the last 40 or so years has been little more than pathetic.  Imagine how great this country could be with good leaders running the show.

The Right Wing is Correct! Democrats ARE Appeasers

You know, I hate it when a Republican is right about anything, but I have to agree with the latest talking point.

Let's start with the definition of appeasement:

-- to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles (courtesy of Merriam-Webster)

Based on that definition, the Republican talkers are right; the Democrats have tended to be appeasers for a lot of bad people for the last 15 or so, and it has to stop.

Look at the record if you don't believe me.

• Democrats looked the other way as an out of control right wing court in a heretofore democratic nation demanded the votes of tens of millions of people in a supposed democracy not be counted, despite the fact that they knew they existed.
• Democrats stood by and watched, and even assisted, as the legislature of a formerly democratic nation passed a draconian  bill that gave their government the authority to invade people's privacy rights at will, and its rogue leadership gladly signed it and gleefully enforced its harshest aspects.
  
• Democrats sat back and allowed the government of a heretofore democratic nation to take prisoners without probable cause, hold them for an indefinite period, without due process or access to counsel, based on the leader's personal judgment that the person being held was a danger to, well, someone.
• Democrats have stood by and watched as the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation asserted its right to torture people based on their whim, and to ignore all domestic and international legal restrictions on such torture.
• Democrats stood by and watched as officials at the highest levels of rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation revealed the name of a covert agent, working for the public, in the interest of greater national security.
• Democrats have stood by and allowed the leader of a formerly democratic nation has repeatedly signed bills passed via the democratic process, and included a statement that said law would not apply to him, if he didn't want it to.
• Democrats have allowed a rogue political party to block any law they don't like, and to block any sort of oversight of the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation.
• Democrats allowed the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation to pack its court system with ideologues, who are far more bent on circumventing the democratic process and imposing their rogue ideology on people, rather than applying existing democratically crafted laws.
• Democrats have not actively attempted to stop the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation from spying on its people at will, under the guise of their own protection.
• Democrats sat back and watched, and many even participated, as the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation invaded another sovereign nation based on false pretenses and outright lies.
• Democrats continued to sit back and watch, as it became clear that the rogue leadership of this formerly democratic nation had no plan beyond bombing the hell out of the country and taking over its  economic infrastructure, and the lack of planning resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
• Democrats sat back and allowed the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation to plunder that country's treasury repeatedly, by handing over hundreds of billions of tax dollars to "contractors" who had given them lots of money to get them in power in the first place.
• Democrats have continually allowed the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation to borrow more and more money, to pay for the war started by the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation, and have done nothing to actually end the occupation of a country with a democratically elected leadership, by that same rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation.

These are just a few examples of Democrats appeasing the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation. They have the power to stop this rogue leadership, and to even remove it from power. Instead, they continue to make concession after concession to this rogue leadership, and have done so repeatedly for almost 15 years, under the guise of political expediency.

The far right is actually right this time. Democrats MUST stop their appeasement of the rogue leadership of a formerly democratic nation, because it's costing lives and trillions of dollars. And they must stop it now. Democracy is too precious to allow this rogue leadership to continue abusing its people and its democratic processes to the extent that have been able to. The people of this formerly democratic nation should be encouraged to take back their democracy, and this appeasement by the Democrats must stop, and stop NOW.

Bill Clinton's Lousy Defense of Hillary's Health Care Debacle

This little clip from CBS News shows Bill Clinton going off on an Obama supporter, defending his wife with regard to her work on health care. Watch this...

Now, let me start off and say that this heckler is actually technically wrong about part of what she said. Hillary did work her tail off for about a year on trying to fashion a health care plan just like the one they touted during Bill Clinton's campaign. So, she doesn't remember that very well.

That said, though, the fact of the matter is, she's right about her main premise; they promised health care and didn't deliver. Put simply, the Clintons blew it, especially Hillary. She developed the plan in secret, talked to very few people outside of the industry, didn't get input from all circles, and allowed the far right to redefine it as a "tax and spend pork project" that wasn't much better than what we already had. She did everything wrong when she developed and then tried to sell that plan. And worse, though the crisis in health care continues to this day, she never brought it up again, even after six more years in the White House, and now almost eight years in the Senate. The last time she brought up the issue was in 1994, when she didn't get her way, and her proposal was killed.

In other words, while the heckler's exact details were wrong, her basic premise was not. Hillary Clinton worked hard for about 14-15 months, in secret, with little to no input from the people who would have been most affected by a national health care plan. She pushed the plan with a "my way or the highway" mentality, which turned most people off. She didn't sell the program well at all, and when the right wing attacked her on it, she gave up and sulked about it, never to bring it up again, until 14 years later, when she's running for president.

Her performance on national health care is one of the main reasons it's very difficult to support Hillary in this. She says she's a fighter, even after she's spent the last 14 years licking her wounds on health care, and she swears she can take on the right wing better than Obama, even after the right kicked her ass on health care, to the point that she gave up for 14 years.

Stop Worrying About Attacks on Obama

I am finding it increasingly frustrating to watch pundits this year, and that includes the ones I really like. I think the problem comes from the fact that everything they discuss comes from a perspective that doesn't seem to realize that the political metric in this country has changed drastically over the last four years.

For example, on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, there was a discussion of the GOP's desperation this year. Rachel Maddow, whom I love and respect more than just about anyone in the media at the moment, speculated that one possible way the Republicans might go after Obama might be to play dirty; to play gutter politics with him, because such politics, as played by Hillary Clinton, seemed to throw him off his game.

Now, like I said; Rachel is amazing. She's incredibly intelligent, and she has decent political instincts. But even she doesn't seem to see the incredible sea change that is happening in politics right now. This is the biggest movement we've seen since probably 1932, yet the people who are supposed to be watching this and reporting on it for us don't seem to see it.

The right wing is dead.

There, I said it. They're dead, politically speaking. Gone. People simply aren't buying that crap anymore. It probably would have died sooner or later as part of the natural cycle of politics, anyway, but this is happening sooner than anyone expected, precisely because of the Bush Administration.

The right wing spin machine really doesn't work as well as media pundits seem to think, anyway. Just because media talking heads buy some line of right wing bullshit, doesn't mean voters do. The reason the Democrats had such a long down period was because they allowed the volume of the right wing drown out all logic and reason. Those days are gone. In the six years between January 2001 and January 2007, when the Democrats took back the House and stopped the hemorrhaging in the Senate, the  far-right-led Republican Party certified themselves as absolute losers in the minds of most of the American people.  They will have no influence in the 2008 election -- none.

On the surface, I know it looked as if the right-wing-style smear machine utilized by Hillary Clinton was working against Barack Obama, but that's only if you don't look so closely. So, let me get out my magnifying glass and show you the picture a little more clearly.

As those who have been reading me for a while know, I have been saying for years that we Democrats (and especially so-called "progressives," but that's another column for another day) are our own worst enemy, not the wingnuts in the Republican Party. You also know that I have absolutely nothing but loathing for most of the leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC. I think they are some of the stupidest people on the planet, with no political common sense whatsoever. Their entire strategy involves taking the "centrist" position on everything, and working hard not to say anything that might piss someone off. Their idea was to move the entire party to the right, because the country had moved to the right. Everything about them was conservative in nature, including their ridiculous strategy of only running candidates in races they had a chance to win. They wrote off half the population, and assumed the other half would always be on board. make no mistake; it is possible for a Democrat to win in the South, without carrying an assault rifle and locking his chastity-belt-wearing daughter in the local Baptist church, while he or she goes out and pickets the local Planned Parenthood office and beats up a few gays on the side. But it takes more political finesse than the DLC has ever demonstrated.

As a result, most of the DLC's untoward influence, most Democratic candidates who ran from 1986 to 2004 represented a series of milquetoast political platforms. They suppressed their Democratic and/or progressive tendencies to such a degree that they didn't seem to stand for anything. And let's get something straight here; voters care less about what you believe in, than that you believe in something.

That's one aspect of this. Look closely, and you'll see that you'd have a difficult time telling me what DLC-backed candidates such as Dukakis, Gore and Kerry (and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton) ever stood for. The 2008 Al Gore would kick George Bush's ass; so what changed between then and now? NOW, Al Gore stands for something; he's a force for change on global warming and social justice. The reason Democrats keep losing elections is NOT as a result of the negative campaigning coming from the right! Negative campaigning doesn't work unless the person being attacked is susceptible to attack. and only those with perceptibly weak characters can be done in by a negative attack.

So, why did the negative campaigning seem to work on Obama during the primary season? Why did he seem to be thrown by it? The simple answers are, it didn't and he wasn't.

There is a good corollary to this situation in our recent past, and it has to do with Ralph Nader. I will  always blame Ralph Nader for making the 2000 election close enough for the Supreme Court to steal for the GOP. But it's not because of the number of votes Nader received. In fact, under different circumstances, Nader could have received 10% of the vote or more, gotten the Green Party what it was looking for, and we still would have had President Gore and not President Bush.

Ralph Nader attacked Al Gore far more vehemently than he attacked George W. Bush. FAR more. He undermined Gore almost every chance he got. It was a politically stupid strategy to begin with, but it also resonated with the moderate voters who always decide elections. The reason is simple; whether you agreed with his politics or not, Nader had credibility with most people. People believed what he said. So, when Rove would call Gore a liar in 2000, and Nader would follow up by agreeing with Rove, he was actually boosting Bush's credibility by a huge margin. Now, as I have said; Gore ran a lousy DLC-style campaign, and seemed to lack the courage and passion he demonstrates these days. But he still could have won, had Nader not undermined him at every turn. If Nader had sided with Gore against Bush far more often, Gore would have won in a landslide, and the Green Party wouldn't have to fight for a spot on the ballot now.

Hillary Clinton is effectively the "Ralph Nader" of this primary season. She has credibility with Democratic voters. So, when she lied about Obama regarding NAFTA, and when she piled on/weighed in regarding Reverend Wright, it had a much more pronounced effect in the media. And Obama hesitated to respond, because one of the cardinal rules of Democratic Party politics has always been that you attack your primary opponent on the issues, but you never kneecap them, or offer the Republicans ammunition for November. Look more closely; when McCain attacked him on anything; the response by the Obama campaign was immediate and forceful. When the attacks came from Clinton, he worked it out a little more quietly. In other words, what he has demonstrated is a deftness at knowing when to respond and when not to; something that no DLC candidate has ever mastered before.

There is absolutely no comparison to be made between the attacks on Obama coming from Hillary Clinton, and the ones that will inevitably come from the Rovian wing of the GOP. Attacks coming from Clinton have been doubly disappointing, because she knows she has credibility, and she knows he can't respond the same way McCain could. The ones from Rove will be lame and not have any credibility at this point in time.

 

This is why my response to the potential of attacks by the Rovians in the  Republican Party is pretty much "bring it on." The right wing has discredited themselves, and the American people are ready for change unlike they have been for quite some time. And we finally have a candidate in Obama, who transcends the DLC's triangulation on every issue, which has resulted in the "strangulation" of the Democratic Party for the last 22 years. This is a guy with very strong character, who knows what he stands for, and isn't afraid of telling you. he doesn't change his story constantly, based on the group he's talking to on a certain day, and he speaks to people as if they're not morons. The more people get to know this guy, the more they will like him, and be inspired by him, and the more they'll roll their eyes when the far right tries to smack him with the Reverend Wright stick.

A Plea from Michael Moore: PA, END THIS THING!!

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

April 21st, 2008

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Clinton Blames Democratic Activists, Not Her Lousy Campaign

The Huffington Post has some audio that should pretty much seal Hillary Clinton's fate, if not with primary voters, then with the Democratic base in November, as if it was going to get that far.

Essentially, Hillary thinks she's losing because of Democratic activists. No kidding. Here's what she said:

Moveon.org endorsed (Obama) -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down. We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.

Huh?

Do I even have to state that this is total crap?

Here is a woman who was the presumptive nominee for about three years, whom Democratic activists were absolutely stoked about. She had everyone excited; the thought of going back to the relative prosperity of the Clinton era, and having a woman in charge, as well. Seriously; any success she's had thus far is due to those Democratic activists, including MoveOn.

She had the thing in the bag, but then she did what her predecessors, Gore and Kerry, did before her; she listened to the DLC, and put her principles on a shelf, not thinking that her principles were actually the key to becoming president.

Barack Obama is presenting us with a message of hope, and rather than embrace that and run with it herself, her people told her to contrast herself with it.  Just as I can tell you the exact moment that Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 (when he held up the Health Care Security Card), I can pinpoint the exact moment when Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination. It was when Hillary and Bill Clinton attacked him for speaking about "hope."

That, in a nutshell, was flat stupid.

Sometimes -- and this may come as a great shock to the Democrats running Hillary Clinton's campaign -- you do better by embracing your opponent and building upon his or her theme. You don't diss hope, for Chrissakes! You embrace hope. And in a year when people are hungry for vast change, you don't sell your goddamn "experience." I mean, if I hear "Hillary will be ready on day one!" one more time, I'm going to hurl.

I think MoveOn is a great organization, and I have been a member for at least 6-7 years. I don't agree with everything they do, such as the "Betray-us" ad, but then, if you agree with everything that anyone does, you pretty much have to be braindead yourself. I was a little surprised when they endorsed Barack Obama, to be honest, but I have never seen them do anything that was "anti-Hillary." If Hillary Clinton thinks that merely being pro-Obama is the same as being "anti-Hillary," then she might think about joining the delusional Joe Lieberman on the dark side.

Hillary Clinton will be packing it in within the next week or so, but she only has herself to blame, not Democratic activists. Activists were mostly in favor of a Clinton presidency early on. See, here's the funny thing; when Obama first announced, I thought it might be too soon. I was thinking he'd be better off waiting until 2012 or 2016. But throughout primary season, I was torn among Edwards, Obama and Clinton, and would have been happy with any of them (or Biden, Dodd or Richardson, for that matter).

I am now a huge Obama supporter, not just because he speaks to voters like adults, and speaks to our better nature, but also because Hillary Clinton has disappointed me. She's better than her campaign, and she should have fired every damn one of them after Iowa.

Hillary Clinton lost for the same reason Gore and Kerry both lost. They didn't lose because of the right wing hit machine; they lost because they forgot who they were, and what they stood for. Hillary, who married "the man from Hope," forgot what got her where she is in the first place.

And  that is not the fault of either Barack Obama or MoveOn.

Busting Some 2008 Election Myths

Okay, where do I start?

Let’s start with the fact that the right wing really has a lot of Democrats cowed, to the point that we seem to have lost all reason, and it’s scary, to be honest.

Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination for president, and he’ll coast to victory in November, unless he’s caught with a hooker in David Vitter’s apartment, with Larry Craig watching from the adjacent bathroom; or worse, he suddenly loses his nerve and starts taking marching orders from the DLC (the so-called Democratic "Leadership" Council tends to lead Democrats right over a cliff.)

What is it about us liberals that we obsess over each individual tree, and forget that we’re standing in a forest?

I’m here today to explode a couple of myths. And I mean destroy them. I’m not going to throw out a bunch of raw data at you that you can wonk over obsessively. I am just going to state some bald facts that can’t actually be denied, if you can manage to look at things objectively. You ready?

Myth #1

The media determines how people vote.

Look folks, this is an easy one. Most of the people reading this blog are news junkies. Hell; I tend to be one myself at times. The difference is, I balance my news junkie tendencies with some perspective. The fact of the matter is, far more people listen to NPR than Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But even if you combine all of the ratings from all of the news programs, and all of the circulation of all of the newspapers, and all of the hits from every news web site, you come up with one inescapable conclusion; most people don’t watch the news most of the time.

People vote based on their own self-interest. The media can have some input into what those self-interests are, but the vast majority of people vote based on what a candidate says regarding what matters to them the most.

Now, the far right has been masterful at getting certain people – their so-called “base” – to vote against their self-interest, in favor of the legendary “God, guns and gays” agenda they’ve been pushing for years, but these people make up an ever-shrinking minority in this country. These are people who watch Fox News because they need validation for their beliefs. They tend to not be very bright, and they don’t actually care what the “news media” has to say.

But – and this is very important – they make up a very slight minority.

Look at it this way. At his peak, Rush Limbaugh could boast of nearly 20 million listeners (that is not 20 million separate people, by the way), and in 1992, his first candidate, pat Buchanan got killed by George H. W. Bush, and when he flipped to Bush, Clinton killed the incumbent president. Four years later, his popularity still very high, Bob Dole also got killed by

Clinton

.

I know what you’re thinking; the right wing media had a hand in the Republican “Revolution,” didn’t they? Well, no, they didn’t, which I’ll get to when I bust another myth.

Here’s a little experiment to try, news junkies. The next time the media pounds on a major story, do a little survey of your non-news junkie friends, and ask them what they think of that particular issue. You’ll be shocked at what you find, because most of them won’t know what you’re talking about. Not only that, but they will also be very receptive if they’ve heard a little something and you correct the record for them, if that’s necessary.

Don’t obsess over the media’s influence on everyone else, just because you’re obsessed with the media. Don’t panic; counter it, if it’s wrong.

Myth #2

Negative Campaigning Works.

This is the one that just plain drives me up the wall, folks, mainly because it’s not true at all, but also because it perpetuates negative campaigning.

I remember one of my first political experiences was doing volunteer work with a liberal Republican when I was in my teens. We had a long conversation about strategy, and he explained to me that one of the Republican Party’s main strategic maneuvers was to piss people off enough to keep them from voting. You see, the GOP has always been a minority party, so to even the playing field, rather than puffing themselves up, and taking populist positions on issues, they bring the other candidate down. They talk about everything but the issues, and personally attack their opponents mercilessly. But their intent is not to injure the other candidate. Their intention is to make people disgusted enough to not even want to show up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

If Hillary Clinton wants to know why she’s losing so badly, she can look inward, because it’s her negative campaigning that’s killing her. Negative campaigning has not swung any elections. In fact, I’ll go even farther. I’ll submit that it’s not even the reaction to the negative campaigning that swings elections. Going negative can only work if it’s believable, if it sticks, and if it’s relevant.

What gets people elected, folks, is the ability to convince the electorate that you care about them, and that you stand for something. The main reason Democrats keep losing elections is because Democrats have stopped believing in that which made Democrats the majority party in the first place. Since Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in the 1984 election, the Bob Shrum idiot wing of the Democratic Party took charge, and we’ve been losing ever since.

You see, Shrum and his ilk at the DLC think that Republicans won in 1980 and 1984 because of ideology, which is just simply stupid on its face. Jimmy Carter lost because of economic circumstances in play at the time, and Walter Mondale lost in 1984 because Reagan was immensely popular because of his moderation on many key issues. The geniuses in charge of the Democratic Party for nearly 20 years adopted a strategy whereby they try to copy everything the Republicans do. They triangulated on every issue, and tried as hard as possible to not stand for anything, for fear of pissing someone off.

Negative campaigning can only “work” in a vacuum, folks, and that’s what we had for 20 years in the Democratic Party. Michael Dukakis wasn’t done in by the Willie Horton ad or the picture of him in a tank. He could have beaten George H. W. Bush just by standing on principle. Al Gore didn’t lose because they said he invented the Internet; he lost because he didn’t stand for anything at all; he tried to be all things to all people, and rather than point with pride at his accomplishments, he ran away from them. Seriously; can you imagine today’s Al Gore not beating Dubya to a pulp in the 2000 election? And John Kerry didn’t lose in 2004 because of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bull; he lost because it wasn’t possible to look at John Kerry and feel inspired.

The exception to the DLC rule is Bill Clinton, by the way. He won because he ignored the DLC, and inspired people anyway. He was bigger than the DLC, and didn’t have to follow their marching orders. But even with the powerful

Clinton

, note that he still never received more than 50% of the vote, and in 1992, Ross Perot did pose a real threat, because Perot, like him or not, stood for something that people could relate to.

Barack Obama will be attacked this summer and fall; of that, there is no doubt. But here’s the difference between him and Hillary Clinton; Obama has made it clear that he stands for something. He has demonstrated remarkable integrity, and he tells you what’s on his mind. Therefore, the negative campaigning can’t possibly work. The right wing will smear him with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, but people know that Obama is not a wild-eyed radical. They’ll call him a Muslim, but people know he’s a devout Christian. They will throw dirt at him, but the more people get to know him, and the more they get to listen to him, the less chance there is of the dirt sticking.

One more thing; if negative campaigning worked, then why has the GOP been unable to elect any more than a bare majority in Congress? It’s pretty much all they run on; one would think they’d have a veto-proof majority by now.

Negative campaigning not only doesn’t work, but with the death of the right wing, it will begin to have the opposite effect now. There was a reason Richard Nixon never brought up John F. Kennedy's Addison's disease, and why none of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's opponents brought up his polio. Because of the esteem the public held those two candidates when they ran, anything negative might have had an effect opposite that intended.

Myth #3

The “Long” Primary Campaign is Bloodying Obama and helping McCain

Oh, please.

This is only a long campaign because the main candidates started stumping back in 2006. This is how a campaign is supposed to be; contested by two very strong, very qualified candidates. If Hillary Clinton would have stopped taking advice from the DLC clowns in charge of her campaign after they screwed the pooch in

Iowa

, and made this about issues, rather than personality attacks, it would actually be an even closer race, and she wouldn’t be tarnishing her image to the extent that she has. If she was talking more about issues that people actually care about, such as the economy, the price of gas, global warming and the occupation in

Iraq

, she probably wouldn’t have lost a majority of primaries, and she might be close enough in the popular vote to make a case to superdelegates to go her way.

But the “long” contest is actually good for the Democratic Party in the long run. The more they are out in front of the American people, the more voters get to know about Obama, and the more they’ll like him. (They could also like Hillary more, if she would stop campaigning as if she was Republican.) All of this hand wringing over how this will effect the general election is for naught. First of all, see Myth #1; the only people paying really close attention to every detail are the people who haven’t voted in a primary yet. Second, the election is more than six months off; Americans don’t have six-month attention spans. If you think they’re going to remember everything that happened today when they’re ready to vote in November, then you’re not paying close attention yourself.

But there’s a third reason, and it has to do with another myth…

Myth #4

Voters vote for a Candidate Based on his or her Positions on Issues.

While news junkies and self-proclaimed activists all obsess over every candidate’s position on every issue, and worse, claim to know exactly what voters will vote on in November, most voters make a decision on a, well, less-psychic set of criteria. The reason they want a candidate who stands for something is precisely because they don’t know what the issues will be, and they’re looking for someone who seems to be able to handle anything thrown at him. They want the candidate to seem competent to handle everyday tasks (especially after the current regime), but they also know that some unknown issue may come down the pike at some point, and they want to know the candidate can handle that, as well.

I know this goes against the grain of a lot of progressives, and way against the grain to news junkies, but this is the way things are. Most people are just too busy to spend a lot of their time researching a candidate’s views on every single issue, and besides; every person has a different set of issues that are important to him or her; it’s not possible to find a candidate that agrees with you on everything. And let’s face it; no one in his right mind believes that any politician will do everything he or she says during a campaign; you want someone in there who cares about the country, and will work in its best interest.

That’s enough myth busting for now, but expect me to explode more of them.

In summary, keep in mind that the right wing is done. It’s over. It’s kaput. The campaigning that you’ve been seeing in the last 5-6 election cycles is dead. Sure, they’ll try to get at Obama in the general election, but it won’t work. Keep that in mind, and enjoy a vigorous election season for a change.

Stop Blaming the DEMOCRATS! Updated!

Jesus, people! Will you please stop blaming the Democrats for not being able to end the occupation?

Look, I will be the first to admit that there are mealy-mouthed Dems out there, and there are some who act like Republicans a lot of the time. But on Iraq, the Democrats are (mostly) performing admirably.

Let's start by bursting a bubble. I did this in a precious post, but I need to reiterate, because people are just not learning.

First of all, there are not enough votes to end funding for the Iraq Occupation. It's that simple.  And if you would put down your signs, shut your yaps and pick up a goddamn newspaper, you'd know why.

Remember a couple of years ago, when Democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, and Republicans in the majority wanted to kill the filibuster altogether to stop that from happening? We wrote our congresspeople and shouted and screamed and marched, and we won, didn't we? We got to keep the filibuster, so that Democrats could stop those pesky Bush judges from taking office.

Well, remember you uncle telling you, "Be careful what you wish for"?

We can pass bills in the House all day long, and in fact, Democrats have passed a lot of bills through the House. The problem is, when it comes to Iraq, Democrats don't have a real majority, and even if they did, they need SIXTY votes, not 51!

Yes, I said we need SIXTY VOTES, people!

You can WANT the Democrats to do all sorts of things, but without sixty votes, they can't do any of it.

Republicans -- you know, the same ones who pretended to want to kill the filibuster a few short years ago -- are setting records with regard to the filibuster. No one else has even come close. And that means EVER. In history. If the Republicans keep filibustering at the rate they are, they will have filibustered more bill than the last two Congresses COMBINED. So far, they have filibustered 51 times, including the Webb Amendment, which would have simply made the rules fair for military personnel serving in Iraq; the same amount of time at home as over there. (I'll talk about this more later, of course.)

That bill had 56 votes in favor of it, people! And it FAILED! What does that tell you?

Seriously... put down your sign for a moment, take a deep breath and think. If a bill can't pass with 56 votes, doesn't that suggest that we need more votes than the 50 we have? Must I remind you, also, that it's actually 49+ Lieberman? And that 56 was for a bill that shoud have been a stone cold cinch for anyone who actually gives a damn about the troops.

Now do you get it? Having a bare majority in the House is great. Having a bare majority in the Senate is purely frustrating, especially when you have a Republican Party that is as ideological and fearful of the gang in the White House as this group. I don't know how many Republicans' puppies and families Darth Cheney has threatened, but the fact of the matter is, they have demonstrated, at least thus far, that they will go off a cliff for their party. I mean, John fricking WARNER voted against the troops on the Webb Amendment. Just after Darth Cheney paid him a visit, too, so you have to wonder -- what the hell does the White House have on these guys, that a retiring Senator will go down with their ship? There is something more going on here than meets the eye, especially when it comes to the spending bills. I have a sense that the Bushies are threatening to do things that would actually harm the troops; you certainly can't put it past them. In the case of this bill, what if Cheney started threatening to make their tours three years? In the case of the spending bills, what if the Bushies told them that they had enough money to keep the occupation going until they leave office, but that they would "pretend" there's a shortage of money? Can you put anything past these people?

We have to work harder to get as many people on board against this war as possible. Instead of pissing and moaning about the goddamn Democrats, make sure people know that it's STILL the goddamn obstructionist Republican Party that is gumming up the works here. If it has to do with the Iraq occupation, they are filibustering it, and there are simply not enough votes to invoke cloture. Instead of going all around the country screaming epithets at Nancy Pelosi, go after the REAL bad guys, the Republicans. Especially the ones like Warner, who talk a great game about ending the war, but when it comes to actually voting for it, they wimp out.

I think the Democrats are actually to be commended for putting the Republicans in the position of having to filibuster a record number of times. Stop ragging on them about not getting anything passed. Instead, make sure we have a Democratic president and a 60-vote Senate, and stop these people.

Update (in response to many of the comments I'm getting...)

What do we imagine will happen if and when "the Democrats" do what you want, and suddenly cut off the funds, anyway? Does anyone imagine that they have used every bit of the money that has been appropriated thus far just to Iraq? Have you noticed that pretty much every dollar that has been sent to Iraq has come in the form of an "emergency" appropriation, apart from the defense appropriation? Do we have a full accounting of that money? Do we know how much they have? In other words, how do we know that cutting off funds will have any effect on the occupation itself?

 

The short answer is, we don't. These are really crafty people, folks; not the bunch of hicks and hayseeds they pretend to be. There are a few things to think about here; the first is the fact that most of the work being done in Iraq is being done under contract, and while Congress can cut off any further money, they can't cancel the contracts, because the contracts are with the Department of Defense. Like I said, there could be quite a bit of money already available to keep paying them for some time after Congress cuts the money off. Plus, there is Iraqi oil money, and the Iraqi oil company is being run by Americans, after all. And did I mention that there has been a discretionary fund built into the defense appropriation for quite some time, and that for years, the treasury has been ordering plane loads of cash and shipping it to Iraq?

 

So, here's the conundrum Democrats find themselves in. Imagine, if you will, that there is a possibility -- knowing these people, a likelihood -- that there is a significant cash reserve available, to keep the occupation going for quite some time. If the Democrats lead the charge to cut off funds, who is most likely to be hurt? Well, the only way they can assure that no money is going to Iraq is to kill all defense appropriations. Keep in mind that anything else will be filibustered to death by the Republicans in the Senate. They can't pass a bill that provides money for soldiers, but nothing else. They can't pass a bill that provides money only for withdrawal, and nothing else. They would have to filibuster and kill the entire defense appropriations bill.

 

Imagine being a Democrat, excoriated for years by the right wing, and you then cut off all defense appropriations during the "war on terr'rrrrr." Can you imagine a Democrat willingly doing such a thing? Are you crazy? Hell; it would be political suicide. And if anything resembling a terrorist attack happened at that point in time, the GOP would be back so fast it would make your head spin.

 

The bottom line is this; there is only so much the Democrats can do. They are speaking out, but the media's too obsessed with OJ and Britney to pay attention. And there is only so much they can do, when their majority in the Senate is pretty much an illusion, for all intents and purposes.

 

Be realistic.

New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy - New York Times

This is an interesting article on the increasing populism inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats have finally hit on a theme that will smack Republicans on their puffy white asses, to be sure.

There's one throwaway line in the piece that really bothers me, however...

Link: New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy - New York Times.

On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.

Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

Populism is hardly new in the Democratic Party. Al Gore vowed to fight for “the people versus the powerful” in his presidential campaign seven years ago, and Republicans have long accused the Democrats of practicing “class warfare.”

This demonstrates the problem with the whole "fair and balanced" concept as practiced by today's journalists, and Robin Toner is actually one of the better ones. Not every analysis has to have input from both sides, you know. If you're discussing the Democrats, it's actually quite alright to leave the Republicans out of it. Yet, the compulsion to carry "both sides" of everything, always and without fail is so strong, that we're left with an incongruous statement like the one made above.

Republicans' complaints about "class warfare" have never had any sort actual factual basis, so why even bring it up? Their definition of "class warfare" is point out that there are rich and there are poor; what, exactly, does that have to do with the concept of populism? No one's saying we should make the rich poor, nor are we saying that we should make the poor rich. We are about equal opportunity, and creating a society that is humane and moral to the least of us.

The Republicans themselves engage in "class warfare," not Democratic populists.