Negative Reinforcement

Alan Minsky, the Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America, asks

why does the DNC (and, by extension, the establishment wing of the Democratic Party) refuse not only to address poverty but really even to acknowledge its existence...

This is not a new question. By Bill Clinton’s presidency the shift away from supporting programs designed to address poverty became official party policy, echoing the Republicans mantra of self-help. Of course, poverty rates remained more or less constant. During Obama’s presidency, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West launched their poverty tour because of the president and the party’s refusal to even say the word, let alone do anything about poverty. Similarly the on-going Poor People’s Campaign explicitly operates outside of a party that refuses to seriously address an endemic social problem that conservatively has many tens of millions of Americans in its grips.

He answers- in part- his own question by noting

The prevailing ideology of the past four decades, call it neoliberalism or market fundamentalism, embraced by the mainstream of both parties, offers no solution to American poverty. Rather, it tacitly accepts it as part of the landscape. So an alternative poverty policy will, by definition, fly in the face of Democratic establishment orthodoxy. In other words, we’re going to meet resistance.

There are additional reasons, of course, including a lesson of Democratic primary history. In 2008, John Edwards based his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee on recognition of "two Americas."  Although recognizing that race played a part, it was a message centered on acknowledging that the poor of any race have been left behind while the wealthy had become wealthier and even more powerful.

Even before the scandal of having had an extra-marital affair resulting in a child, Edwards had fallen behind both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and facing a seriously uphill battle.

The race came down to one candidate promising to make history as the first female president and one determined to become the first black president. The latter prevailed, winning both the nomination and the office itself, with millions of independents (and a few Republicans) inspired by a message of good feelings and intentions. Democrats felt a real hunger for change and placed their faith in Obama's rhetoric of "hope" and"change." 

Nonetheless, as Smiley and West realized, that hope was never realized as President Obama presided over an Administration that did little to address either economic or racial inequality. Strategically, he didn't have to. As Aaron Coleman recently pointed out, "whenever Barack needed to shore up his black base, he could summon a sermon or a Jay-Z appearance quicker than you could say 'Kwanzaa.'” (The latter also played well with his young white liberal base, the former with his middle-aged white liberal base.)

And so Barack Obama remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats (which a former speechwriter of his actually believes is a good thing).  For eight years, President Obama sat on his popularity and did nothing to close the gap between the two Americas. The gathering interest among Democratic officials, including presidential candidates, in addressing the racial wealth gap could not have emerged without a failure to pay any attention to it in the previous ten (and more) years.

President Obama, largely unmoved by the plight of poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans relative to the wealthy, is the one recent successful Democratic presidential aspirant. And he is beloved with the Party's voters. It is a lesson that- unfortunately- the Democratic Party, and its national committee, has learned well.

Share |

Game Plan

On Tuesday night, Lawrence O'Donnell (segment beginning at 18:43) interviewed Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Obama and Cinton.  Sperling noted of the Corporate Tax Cut Scam of 2017

This $1.5 trillion deficit increase is probably going to be larger when you actually take the gimmicks out. It could easily be closer to two trillion. So (Republican Tennessee Senator Bob) Corker says "well, let's put in a provision. It's kinf of like the whipping boy provision. If the corporate tax cuts don't bring in eonuth revenue, we'll raise taxes on middle-class Americans." Well, either that's not going to happen and it's a gimmick to give them cover for this huges deficit increase or it actually would raise taxes, actually when the economy is weak and make no sense at all.

Recognizing that obsessing over the deficit is bad policy (and probably bad politics), Charlie Pierce notes

The Deficit is about the fourth- or fifth-worst problem with what the Republicans are preparing to pass. Students will be hurt, so will the working poor. (God, Gene Sperling, enough with “the middle class.” When did Democrats decide that the poor were not part of the country?)

It took a while for Democrats to decide that the poor were not part of the country, enhanced by the realization that almost no voters care about the poor. But the lack of concern became evident in roughly late winter of 2008, when Party leadership and (admittedly) its voters decided that a primary race between three credible United States senators should be quickly winnowed to two of the individuals. (This was before the revelation about the sexual appetite of the other.)

The campaign would not be between one of the two candidates attempting to make "history" and the other candidate, John Edwards, who noticed two Americas, separate and unequal, wealthy and otherwise. It would be between the black male and the white woman, either of whose election would make "history," one ultimately doing so. Call it the prioritization of inherited characteristics over policy or something more pithy, but that was that.

The "two Americas," the rich set against the middle class and the poor, became the two Americas, well-educated and not, which worked out well for the Party in 2008 and boomeranged in 2016.

Nevertheless, it would be ironic if, while  suggesting policy should be more important for voters than race or gender, I would neglect arguably the most important policy implication of the Corporate Tax Cut Scam of 2017. Sperling continued

And I think what really is the concrn for so many people is that when they're raising $1.5 trillion deficit, you know, Lawrence,we know what they're going to do, the moment they do this, the  moment they make the deficit that much worse in the out years, they are going to go back and tell people they have no choice but to cut Medicare, Medicaid, maybe even Social Security. In fact,in their own budget, they have 473 in Medicare cuts and 1.3 trillion Medicaid. So when you look at what this is going to be, when you look at why this is going to be a bad deal for the middle class, it's not just that it raises their taxes, it's what they're going to do to make up for the debt increase they create, giving tax cuts for the top 1% and the largest companies in our country. 





Don't take it only from Democrat Gene Sperling. Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and Bush 43 administrations, concedes that while serving corporate donors is one objective of the GOP tax bill (hat tip to Steve M.)

.. The main reason is that a huge tax cut cements Republican policy into place even if Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House.

In fact, I think many Republicans know and expect that they may lose control of Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020. Their tax cut will ensure that the era of Democratic control will be brief and unpopular....

Republican deficit hawks, who are now AWOL, will suddenly reappear the moment Trump signs the tax cut. The media will be filled with reports from leading authorities about how the deficit endangers the country in a variety of ways, arguing that action must be taken immediately.

But taxes will be off the table because of the tax pledge. Therefore, all deficit reduction must come from spending cuts. And of course, defense cuts will be off the table. Therefore, the bulk of cuts will have to come from so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare because that’s all that will be left.

That would make the Corporate Tax Cut Scam of 2017 the culmination of Paul Davis Ryan's wet dream. It also would be the wet dream of his Republican Party, whose strategy always has been to make government fail, thereby undermining voters' faith in government, thus spurring demand to slash and burn the government.... such as programs of earned benefits, Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid.

Share |

All Race, All The Time

Charles Peters, closing out an angry, profane rant about the acquittal of George Zimmerman, finally got it right at the end when he quotes John Dos Passos:  "All right. We are two nations."

Of course, that nation isn't just white and black, or white and minority, or white and "people of color."  It is more complicated than that, as recognized by a presidential candidate five years ago who urged "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."

In retrospect, that candidate never had a chance, given that he was competing, as someone strategically disadvantaged by race and gender, against two candidates, either of whom was out to make history.   And, against all odds, he wasn't dividing the nation strictly by race.

Obviously, race is virtually nowhere in American society irrelevant, and the criminal justice system is no exception, though attorneys from both the state and the defendant last night told us otherwise. Nonetheless, Peters seems quite obsessed when he writes  

Some night very soon, if he so chooses, George Zimmerman can load his piece, tuck it into the back of his pants, climb into his SUV, and drive around Sanford, Florida looking for a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ punks who are walking through neighborhoods where he, George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, doesn't think they belong. He can drive around Sanford, Florida and check out anyone who is dressed in such a manner as might frighten the average citizen who has been fed a daily diet of "Scary Black Kids" by their local news and by their favorite radio personalities, and who is dressed in such a manner as might seem inappropriate to their surroundings as determined by George Zimmerman, crimebuster. He can drive around Sanford, Florida until he spots an a_ _ _ _ _ _ or a f_ _ _ _ _ _  punk and then he can get out of his SUV, his piece tucked into the back of his pants, and he can stalk the a_ _ _ _ _ _ or the f_ _ _ _ _ _ punk, the one who is in the wrong neighborhood, or who is dressed inappropriately, at least according to George Zimmerman, protector of peace. If the a_ _ _ _ _ _, or the f_ _ _ _ _ _ punk, turns around and objects to being stalked -- or, worse, if the a_ _ _ _ _ _ , or the f_ _ _ _ _ _ punk, decides physically to confront the person stalking him -- then George Zimmerman can whip out the piece from the back of his pants and shoot the a_ _ _ _ _ _, or the f_ _ _ _ _ _ punk, dead right there on the spot. This can happen tonight. That is now possible. Hunting licenses are now available and it's open season on a_ _ _ _ _ _ _, f_ _ _ _ _ _ punks, and kids who wear hoodies at night in neighborhoods where they do not belong, at least according to George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, crimebuster, and protector of the peace, because that is what American society has told George Zimmerman, and all the rest of us, is the just outcome of what happened on one dark and rainy night in February of 2012

Peters, in full hysterical mode, spelled out the full profanity in each case.   But both the virulence and the misguided nature (to be probed in a later post) of much of the response demonstrates how difficult it will be "to make the two Americas one."   We ought, furthermore, to recall the context of the encounter, described a month after the shooting by Amy Green in The Daily Beast:  

In attempting to understand Zimmerman’s actions, much attention has been called to the fact that Martin was black, and to the frequency with which Zimmerman, who is half-white and half-Hispanic, called police in the years leading up to the shooting. Twin Lakes is almost 50 percent white, with Hispanic and African-American populations of about 20 percent each.

Conversations with several residents, however, suggest that Zimmerman’s calls reflect a wider feeling of concern and distrust in the community. For years, Twin Lakes residents had been on edge—demonstrated by their decision last September to start a neighborhood-watch organization, which was initiated by Zimmerman himself. The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months—several of which, neighbors said, involved young black men. On Feb. 26, the odds were stacked against Martin: he was a young black man in a neighborhood that was feeling besieged by crime and blaming it—fairly or not—on people who looked like him.

Three weeks before Martin’s death another Twin Lakes resident arrived home to discover a kitchen window open and a laptop and gold necklaces missing. Two witnesses said they saw a young black man standing nearby, but they did not see the man break into the home, according to a police report. One witness said he believed it was the same man who had stolen his bike. The next day officers responding to a call confronted three black men and one white man on bikes near the neighborhood. The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home. The officers found the laptop in the man's backpack.

Last July a rental car was stolen from one townhome along with the car keys, which were inside on a dining room table. The resident awoke in the morning to discover her sliding glass door open. The car was eventually found abandoned. In August a PlayStation and videogames were stolen from another townhome. In September someone vandalized a townhome under construction. In December someone broke into a foreclosed townhome, stopped up a toilet and started the water running. According to a police report, the water flooded the bedroom and caused drywall in the garage to collapse.

During the months before he shot Martin, Zimmerman called police about once a month, said Kim Cannaday, spokeswoman for the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. He called about suspicious-looking people in the neighborhood, many whom, like Martin, he identified as black. Zimmerman also called to report a neighbor's garage door open and children playing in the street, asking that he remain anonymous so as not to offend other neighbors.

In all, police have records of 46 calls from Zimmerman since 2004, both to 911 and a nonemergency number, sometimes for reasons as mundane as reporting a pothole blocking a road, as he did in 2005. The sheriff’s office released the records after Sanford police detectives requested them as part of the investigation into Martin’s death, Cannaday said.

Cannaday said he did not believe that the number of calls Zimmerman made to police was itself concerning.

"I would not consider it excessive," Cannaday said. "That's typically what we encourage, is if anyone in the community sees something out of the ordinary, concerning, or suspicious, we would want for them to call."

Olivia Bertalan said it was George Zimmerman's wife, in fact, who helped her to identify the burglar who stole her laptop. Bertalan didn't know Zimmerman well, but said he was helpful and "sweet" after the crime, inviting her to call them anytime if she felt afraid or needed anything.

Officers eventually identified the person who burglarized Bertalan's home as a neighbor. He was arrested but released because, as Bertalan understood it, he was a minor. Both he and the other man were black, according to the police report.

After the crime, Bertalan said, she was afraid to come home and find things missing. She and her husband got a dog, as advised by police.

"There was definitely a sense of fear in the neighborhood after all of this started happening, and it just kept on happening. It wasn't just a one-time thing. It was every week," she said. "Our next-door neighbor actually said if someone came into his yard he would shoot him. If someone came into his house he would shoot him. Everyone felt afraid and scared."

The crime and fear surrounding it do not justify the horrific killing of February 26, 2012, nor do they indicate whether George Zimmerman was in fact guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter.   But neither does Peters' remark that   

Zimmerman could have been back, standing his post, watching for a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ and f_ _ _ _ _ _  punks, the very next night, according to the original assessment made by local law enforcement. Instead, people who filled George Zimmerman's fevered definition of a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ and f_ _ _ _ _ _ punks roamed free, wearing their hoodies at will.

Ultimately, George Zimmerman was to have been found guilty or not guilty according to the law of the state of Florida which, unfortunately, is confusing, a factor which seems to have escaped almost everyone's attention (though not hers).  He could not be let off on basis of the fear sweeping the neighborhood, though it provides a glimpse into motivation.  Nor should he have been convicted on the basis of perceived (and unproven) racist inclinations, his interest in police work, or hoodie-phobia.

Share |

This Year's Twist On Class Warfare



Sometimes, at least occasionally, there is a leak from a fundraiser.   And when there is, it can be eye-opening.

In a video (below) obtained by Mother Jones of Mitt Romney at a fundraiser at the home of a wealthy supporter, Romney is heard saying

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Republicans- and John Edwards- are right:  there are two Americas.   But Romney believes that the individuals who inhabit the one are not quite American.   They don't accept traditional American values and instead "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them."

This is traditional GOP boilerplate language, and theory.   The portion of the nation which doesn't pay federal income taxes are the takers- parasites, really.  The producers, the job creators, have no use for them.   Whereas John Edwards merely acknowledged, as few politicians are willing, that the middle class is declining and power is vested in a few, the GOP meme is that some Americans are worthwhile and some are not.

We've heard this before, repeatedly from Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent from other talk show hosts spouting the Repub line.  Most infamously, however, we got it four years ago from the party's vice-presidential nominee, who stated

We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.

Different campaign and different gender; one elitist and the other a faux populism.   Either way, however, it boils down to the same construct, with one group meritorious and righteous, the other detestable and contemptible.   It's the old, ugly Republican class warfare, creating an artificial split and dividing Americans against each other.  Some kind of patriotism.

Share |

Of Edwards And A Critic


Following the decision of the jury in North Carolina to find him not guilty of one count while being unable to decide on the other five counts of the indictment, John Edwards issued a statement, though he did not answer questions.    Others may assess his sincerity in proclaiming love for members of his family or speculate about whether he will get involved in public service. Here, however, we evaluate the sincerity of an apology, which may be the most ubiquitous factor in modern politics.     In that portion of his remarks, the former North Carolina senator and presidential contender stated

I want to make sure that everyone hears from me and from my voice that while I do not believe I did anything illegal or ever thought I was doing anything illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong. And there is no one else responsible for my sins. None of the people who came to court and testified are responsible, nobody working for the government is responsible. I am responsible. And if I want to find the person who should be held accountable for my sins, honestly, I don't have to go any further than the mirror. It's me. It is me, and me alone.

Given that the jury was "hung," there is still a small chance that the Justice Department will try the defendant again, and Edwards therefore would have been (figuratively) insane not to have proclaimed his innocence of the charges.      Nor did he have to cross his fingers when he maintained "I do not believe I did anything illegal" because he probably did not.

Nearly everyone who issues an "apology" proclaims himself "responsible" and a public assumption of responsibility usually is unimpressive and virtually meaningless.

Not so, however, in this case.    Edwards preceded his admission of responsibility by asserting "I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong,"    Rarely does a public figure, politician or otherwise, actually admit he or she did something that was "wrong."    It is, at base, the litmus test of an apology.    Typically, an individual blames someone or something else or says he/she is "sorry" for how someone reacted to what was said or done.    The offender laments the impact- usually not the incident itself, and certainly not because it was WRONG.

Typical was the "apology" of former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik (as related here) who had to withdraw from consideration for the position of Director of Homeland Security under President Bush.     Mr. Kerik, who had neglected to tell White House representatives that he had failed to pay the required taxes for the housekeeper he had employed, said "I owe an enormous apology to the president for whatever distraction this may have caused.  This is my responsibility.   This is my mistake."

Kerik did not specify what "mistake" he was referring to- cheating the federal government, or simply keeping the information from the Administration.     He apparently believed he owed an apology to the Mr. Bush not because he did anything wrong but because it caused a "distraction."   And he did not acknowledge even having caused the distraction; instead, his remark was for whatever distraction it may have caused.

Edwards, however, was clear.    He did not give a pass to "everybody" who may have been caught up in it.    He specified "the people who came to court and testified" and individuals "working for the government."     Caught with his pants down (pun intended), Edwards could more easily have been vague.   But he was not, and thrice pointed the finger at himself:     "And if I want to find the person who should be held accountable for my sins, honestly, I don't have to go any further than the mirror.   It's me.   It is me, and me alone."    People who believe the decisiveness of the apology was for public consumption fail to realize that Edwards could have delivered a vaguer, more standard, apology to the same effect.

Some people were not as impressed.    Arguing the former presidential candidate  has "so veered off into the land of creepy self-delusion," Howard Fineman contended on Hardball (transcript here)

I`m watching a car crash of craziness here. And I know there`s second lives in American politics. But the notion that he took this occasion to weave the story of his children, of all his children, including the one that he had with the mistress, that he was having relations with while his wife was dying of cancer, that he`s going to weave the story of those children into the story of the poor people of America and the world.

And thus I am going to be the pied piper leading the Americas and the children together in a new public role for myself, that was so beyond any level of self-awareness as to be almost pathological. Did I make myself clear? 

Failing to be clear never has been his problem.    It was back in November, 1999 that Fineman was psychoanalyzing another Democratic candidate.    Bob Somerby in November 2011 described Fineman then telling Brian Williams

The fact is, Al Gore has been changing his clothes and his persona in public ever since I’ve known him, which goes back 15 years, Brian. I covered his last presidential campaign in 1988. One day he was in the conservative blue suit, the next he was playing lumberjack at the VFW hall in New Hampshire. This is a guy who, because of his upbringing and his attitude toward politics and maybe something about his life story, just doesn’t seem always to be of one piece, doesn't really always know who he wants to be in public.

Fineman noted that Gore "had worn conservative suits to some events, and casual clothing to to others" but nevertheless "was played off as a nut.    Everyone who followed Election 2000 knows the spin which Fineman was offering.   Al Gore doesn't know who he is.   It was recited over and over by amateur shrinks..."

Two years almost to the day after Fineman joined in the media's effort to delegitimize the Vice-President, he would be far more generous to another public official, the successor to President Clinton.   Somerby quoted Feinman on msnbc.com gushing  

So who are the Bushes, really? Well, they’re the people who produced the fellow who sat with me and my Newsweek colleague, Martha Brant, for his first interview since 9/11. We saw, among other things, a leader who is utterly comfortable in his role. Bush envelops himself in the trappings of office. Maybe that’s because he’s seen it from the inside since his dad served as Reagan’s vice president in the ‘80s. The presidency is a family business.

Dubyah loves to wear the uniform—whatever the correct one happens to be for a particular moment. I counted no fewer than four changes of attire during the day trip we took to Fort Campbell in Kentucky and back. He arrived for our interview in a dark blue Air Force One flight jacket. When he greeted the members of Congress on board, he wore an open-necked shirt. When he had lunch with the troops, he wore a blue blazer. And when he addressed the troops, it was in the flight jacket of the 101st Airborne. He’s a boomer product of the ‘60s—but doesn’t mind ermine robes.

A heck of a judge of character, that Howard Fineman.    Also in November (2010), as the journalist began at The Huffington Post, Salon's Alex Pareene explained

You can always count on Howard Fineman for a clear distillation of whatever the new conventional wisdom is. Unlike those who seek to drive coverage, Fineman was always content to sway with the prevailing winds. Each election season, he announces that Democrats need to signal that they’re moderate centrists and fight back against the unions. He was equally enthusiastic about candidate McCain in 2000 and candidate Obama in 2008. He defines “the mainstream” as whatever the pundit class currently thinks.

This is not to suggest that Fineman is a mere hack or that Edwards was sincere throughout his remarks yesterday.     But the latter, who never should have been prosecuted, offered that most unusual of public statements:    a genuine apology.    And this isn't the first time Howard Fineman has suggested that a prominent Democrat is unstable.    Fortunately, in this instance it will not assist the election to the presidency of someone who so arouses him.





Share |

In Praise Of Coulter

Ann Coulter is a vile human being.      The woman who once 'joked' "I would comment on John Edwards but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot'" and later remarked "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist asssassination plot" is always up for something crude and nasty.    

But it turns out that Coulter is wise, in a way.      On the "roundtable" on ABC's This Week, Coulter said of speculation that Mitt Romney would tap Florida Senator Mark Rubio as his running mate

I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.]Rick PerryI want someone who’s been a bit more tested.

Ann at least recognizes someone who's not ready for prime time.     Moreover, Rubio already has been tested- and found to be a liar.     A year ago, we learned from The Huffington Post

Rubio's official biography stated that his parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover," a compelling narrative for a rising South Florida politician. In Miami and surrounding communities, Cubans and their politics have long been divided among the older generations who left the island after Castro's rise to power and those who migrated later for economic reasons.

The Post reported that documents showed that Rubio's parents left Cuba more than two-and-a-half years before Castro took power in 1959. Rubio insisted that his story was based on family lore, but his official Senate bio was corrected following the Post story to say the senator "was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban exiles who first arrived in the United States in 1956."

This ain't beanbag, and it's not a private issue of sex, which would have aroused much more interest and would have been much less significant.

GOP politicians got excited about Rubio not only because he's hispanic but also because of the narrative involving parents escaping Communist Cuba to come to the land of the free and the brave.    Rather, Marco's parents were refugees from the regime led by Batista, friend to (some) American politicians and, especially, Mafioso.      It stretches credulity to believe that Senator Rubio actually thought that his parents had escaped from Fidel Castro's clutches.   But it was a convenient falsehood for a young, rising politician.

Selection of Rubio would send a tingle up the leg of the mainstream media, which would contentedly imply that the GOP had proven that it is not the province of rich white men.      Of course, that would not be the point:    it still would be the party of the 1%, no matter the ethnicity of its presidential and vice-presidential nominees.      After a short time, further, it would dawn on the media that Cuban-Americans are not identical to Mexican-Americans or to Puerto Ricans.

We live in a country where, for the first time, we have a president who seems to believe that all young men of one race look alike.      Still, the Cuban experience in the U.S.A. is unlike that of any other people and reaction to a Rubio nomination would correspond far more to other factors, including to what would be a growing realization that he is not ready, in case of emergency, to be President.



Share |

The Candidate As President (Or The President As Candidate)

A segment of the left feels jilted by President Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama, who once declared himself a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans" and added “It’s something I’ve been consistent on,” has been treating the gay community like, oh, perhaps, abortion-rights supporters or advocates of genuine health care reform.

Spearheading a boycott, AMERICAblog explains

There has been little, if any, pressure from the White House for votes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The administration continues to send mixed signals on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). And we've been told not to expect the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to even be considered until President Obama's second term. In the last two weeks alone, we were angered that the Obama administration continued to defend DOMA in the courts -- last June, the administration's lawyers even compared loving gay relationships to incest and pedophilia -- and we were saddened that the White House and the Democratic party refused to help us defeat anti-gay ballot initiatives in Maine and Washington state. LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House.

Until the Democratic Congress passes, and President Obama signs, legislation enacting ENDA, repealing DADT, and repealing DOMA, we ask you to join us in pledging to postpone contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign. This temporary (we hope) boycott is sponsored by AMERICAblog, and cosponsored by Daily Kos, Michelangelo Signorile, and Paul Sousa, among others.

Given that the most important (other than the the economy, generally the most pressing issue in the country) and contentious issue in the U.S.A. currently is health care- and the Democratic establishment has been pandering alternatively to Olympia Snowe and to conservative Democrats- a boycott over gay rights issues seems inappropriately timed. Or, rather, is obviously inappropriately timed.

Still, there is one Democrat who- somewhere- must be sympathizing with progressives who find that the promise of Barack Obama is, well, promise.

If you think like me, you probably thought that the following controversy was particularly trivial and irrelevant, cheapening the political discourse while we were considering election of the leader of The Free World. And that it must have come from Karl Rove or some other Repub hit machine. Not so. As Alex Koppelman writes in Salon

It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics; the bickering that none of us are immune to, and that trivializes the profound issues -- two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril," then-Sen. Barack Obama said last April, on the night he lost Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary to Hillary Clinton.

That sort of thing has been a consistent theme from Obama, both on the trail and while he's been in the White House, the message being that people should stop focusing on the small, silly things that characterize so much of politics, preventing actual substance from being part of the discussion.

In some ways, Obama and his team have tried to live up to that. In others, well, they're just as guilty as everyone else.

One of the sillier, more trivial stories from the presidential campaign, and perhaps the one that got people on the left most consistently riled, was what started out as a pretty short blog post by Politico's Ben Smith, who reported that John Edwards had been getting $400 haircuts. Though other scandals have since overshadowed memories of Edwards' 2008 campaign, it was a big deal at the time, and it stuck around for quite a while.

Well, now we know who was responsible for the distraction and the silliness that emanated from that story: Obama's campaign. Campaign Manager David Plouffe revealed the truth in his new book, writing, "We did much less of this [opposition research] than other campaigns did, but there were times we indulged -- it was our researchers who found John Edwards's infamous $400 hair cut expenditures.

The Willie Horton story- admittedly much more incendiary, cutting to the core of American attitudes toward race and crime- during the 1988 presidential election campaign at least came from the GOP side, notwithstanding Repub claims otherwise. The haircut matter, however, was a cowardly attack by one Democrat (uh, his operative) upon another.

Perhaps if President Obama and his current hit man, Rahm Emanuel, undermine the opponents of health care reform- Republicans and conservative Democrats- as he did an ideological ally within his own party 2-3 years ago, meaningful health care reform will be passed in this congressional session. If only.

Leno, Letterman, Stewart Not Threatened

Senate leaders and the White House have reached agreement on an $827 billion stimulus package, about which President

Obama said earlier in the day that further delay would be "inexcusable and irresponsible" given yesterday's worst monthly unemployment report in a generation -- 598,000 jobs lost in January and the national unemployment rate rising to 7.6 percent. And late yesterday, federal regulators announced the closures of three banks, First Bank Financial Services in Georgia and Alliance Bank and County Bank in California, raising to nine the number of bank failures this year.

Already, too many jobs being lost; too little credit extended; too few homes being sold; too many banks failing; too many businesses closing; and on and on. And Senator Amy Klobuchar (D.-MN.) gets up before the National Press Club and quips

"John Edwards is still talking about two Americas. It turned out to be the greatest pickup line ever."

So it is worth remembering about all the months wasted- first being deceived into thinking the economy was strong (see, Scarborough, Joe: autumn, 2007) and then railing over "socialism." And recalling a report of December 22, 2007 from Bloomberg News:

The federal government should help fund new light-rail lines, parking lots near mass-transit stations and other energy-efficient transportation projects that can get under way in 90 days as a way to stimulate the economy. ``Hard-working families across America are already struggling to make ends meet. ``Before things get worse, I urge Congress to take action immediately to strengthen our economy and create new jobs.''

He said the initial $25 billion (of $75 billion) would go for investments in clean energy such as wind farms and weatherizing homes and businesses; to train workers for new jobs in the clean energy field; for aid to states to avoid cuts in Medicaid, education and other services; and for extended unemployment benefits. (He) also called for a home relief fund to provide counseling and financial assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure. He also asked Congress to enact new legislation against predatory lending.


Not any Republican (obviously), Larry Summers (almost as obviously), Barack Obama, or Amy Klobuchar. But John Edwards.... more than 13 months ago. Fortunately, Congressional Democrats (other than Ben Nelson and a few others) now understand the enormity of the situation Mr. Edwards had begun to grasp back when one party thought the economy was just fine and the other party could offer no remedy. And thankfully it won't be long before the people of Minnesota will benefit from the addition of a truly effective Democratic Senator to the upper chamber in Washington, D.C.

The Economy, 12/07-11/08

Bloomberg News has reported that a committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private, nonprofit group of economists based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, declared on December 1 that the U.S.A. has been in a recession since last December. Bloomberg explains

Although a recession is conventionally defined as two quarters of successive contraction in gross domestic product, the private committee doesn’t require supporting GDP data to make a recession call. Its members focus on month-to-month changes in the economy.
The NBER committee defines a recession as a “significant” decrease in activity over a sustained period of time. The decline would be visible in gross domestic product, payrolls, industrial production, sales and incomes.

Responding to the country's economic ills, a former U.S. Senator, according to Bloomberg, has recommended "a $25 billion package of investments in clean energy, job training and unemployment benefits. He said lawmakers should be prepared to allocate another $75 billion."

This sounds insufficient, but the idea came from John Edwards- in December 2008. Campaigning in Lisbon, Iowa, Edwards argued "hard-working families across America are already struggling to make ends meet. Before things get worse, I urge Congress to take action immediately to strengthen our economy and create new jobs." And when Edwards the following month attacked Bush's proposal hours before the President would unveil it at his State of Union Address on January 18 (with the other presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama, also criticizing the proposal), the spokesman for the Republican National Committee childishly remarked

John Edwards’ attacks are nothing more than desperation from a candidate frantically seeking attention. The tax refunds Edwards is so quick to discount may not cover more than a few of his haircuts, but they would be valuable relief for millions of Americans.

And so today Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke noted the economy “will probably remain weak for a time." If the recession continues another five months, it will be the longest downturn since the Great Depression.

Just another example, I guess, of the leadership vacuum of the last eight years.

Standard Republican Fare

In Sarah Earmark's speech at the Republican Convention accepting her nomination for vice-president, she described John McCain as

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either.

She went on to criticize Harry Reid and the Senate he leads (to strengthen her credentials as a partisan and outside-of-the-Beltway figure), then contended

Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

Palin claims, in a somewhat disjointed manner: 1) McCain is not "afraid" of "a fight"; 2) McCain is "the maverick"; 3) Obama is on "a journey of 'personal discovery'; 4) she herself is a "pit bull."

What is the message? The Democratic candidate is not quite manly.

This concept was explored this concept on June 15, 2008 in an opinion piece published by The New York Times and written by Susan Faludi, who noted

The attacks are already under way, as is evident if one enters the words “Obama” and “effeminate” into a search engine. The effeminacy canard lurks in Mike Huckabee’s imaginings of Mr. Obama tripping off a chair and diving for the floor when confronted by a gunman, and in the words of Tucker Bounds, Mr. McCain’s campaign spokesman, who depicted Mr. Obama as “hysterical.”

News media blatherers and bloggers are taking up the theme. On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Obama “kind of a wuss”; Joe Scarborough, the morning TV talk show host, dubbed Mr. Obama’s bowling style “prissy” and declared, “Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man”; and Don Imus, the radio host, never one to be outdone in the sexual slur department, dubbed Mr. Obama a “sissy boy.”

Obama is only one in a long line of Democratic presidential candidates to be characterized as effeminate. Glenn Greenwald wrote on July 17, 2007

For some time now, it has been commonplace for Democratic candidates to be depicted as gender-confused freaks -- Al Gore, emasculated with earth colors at the hands of the controlling Naomi Wolf; John Kerry, the wife-dominated, French windsurfer; Hillary Clinton, the domineering, emasculating, pants-wearing dyke; and John Edwards, the pretty, womanly faggot obsessed with his hair. One can make a strong argument, as some have, that those personality-attack themes have played a far larger role in the outcome of the last two presidential election than any substantive issues, and liberals simply have nothing close to the potency of the right-wing filth machine in advancing these gender themes.

I could whine about this being the real "sexism," as compared to the other, mythical, sexism claimed by the Repub Party and legitimized by the mainstream media. But the GOP has cornered the market on victimhood.

Saint McCain

The Sunday, 8/17/08 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources started with a fairly lengthy segment speculating on the sex life of a former Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate from North Carolina. This makes even more ironic, and loathsome, comments made on the next segment- about the presidential forum hosted by Reverend Rick Warren the previous evening at his megachurch in California- about a current Presidential candidate from Arizona. Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

PASTOR RICK WARREN, SR. PASTOR, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: What would be, looking over your life -- everybody's got weaknesses, nobody is perfect -- would be the greatest moral failure in your life? SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied, that I couldn't focus on other people. SEN. JOHN McCain (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My greatest moral failing -- and I have been a very imperfect person -- is the failure of my first marriage....

MASON: I don't know. I mean, I think McCain really did something extraordinary the way he answered that question, Howie. He addressed an issue that the campaign has been having a hard time figuring out how to deal with. They've wanted to confront it, it's out there on the Internet, it's something that Democrats are trying to use against McCain. So he put it out there, he acknowledged it. And he sort of inoculated himself against it. I think that's really going to help him. ...

KURTZ: Right. McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, but not necessarily before a national television audience.

Howie Kurtz is right! John McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, though not before a national television audience. And he still hasn't. The video played by CNN has the Senator saying "My greatest failing- and I have been a very imperfect person- is the failure of my first marriage."

"The failure of my first marriage." The cause of course, McCain did not acknowledge on this telecast, which would suggest that Julie Mason was merely awe-struck when she referred to "something extraordinary the way he answered that question," which the campaign is bravely "trying to confront" which the evil (unnamed) Democrats are "trying to use against McCain."

********************************************************

I think McCain's behavior during his first marriage is reason 101 of 100 reasons to vote against him. But in a program in which a former presidential candidate (who has admitted his affair) is excoriated, it seems odd to congratulate a current presidential candidate- who has never admitted living nine months with first wife Carol Shepp while dating Cindy Hensley- for acknowledging a failed marriage which is on the record and undeniable.

Saint McCain

There is no sense of shame or of irony in the Washington press corps. Consider these two comments about John Edwards (fresh off admission of extramarital affair with his campaign's videographer, Rielle Hunter) on Friday, August 8. The first is from David Gregory on "Race For The White House" and the second from Anderson Cooper on AC 360:

"With this hanging over Obama as kind of a skeleton in the Democratic closet...."

"There aren't many politicians who have an affair and then choose to run for President of the United States."

Now consider this report from latimes.com about the relationship of Ronald and Nancy Reagan with a famous senator from Arizona:

In a written statement, she described McCain as "a good friend for over 30 years." But that friendship was strained in the late 1970s by McCain's decision to divorce his first wife, Carol, who was particularly close to the Reagans, and within weeks marry Cindy Hensley, the young heiress to a lucrative Arizona beer distributorship.The Reagans rushed to help Carol, finding her a new home in Southern California with the family of Reagan aide Edwin Meese III and a series of political and White House jobs to ease her through that difficult time.McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley."I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Anderson Cooper must know of this. He must have heard that John McCain and Cindy Hensley dated for nine months while John was married to his first wife.

This does not- not by a long shot- disqualify John McCain for the presidency, and the extramarital affair occurred twenty years before Mr. McCain first ran for the Repub nomination for president, unlike McCain's recent effort to have Cindy participate in a semi-nude beauty pageant (pickle competition optional, presumably). But it does demonstrate that David Gregory lacks perspective and Anderson Cooper, objectivity. And the sexual instincts of a politician who is not a United States Senator and will not be President of the United States apparently are less newsworthy than those of a United States Senator who might become president.... when that man is John McCain.

Getting It Right (Left)

Now that he has become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama is learning fast. Campaigning in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008, Obama declared "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills." That brings to mind a remark from The New York Times of 4/29/08:

Mrs. Clinton said at a rally on Monday morning in Graham, N.C., that she would introduce legislation to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and use the revenue to suspend the gasoline tax temporarily.

And in Ohio on June 13, Obama proposed that the payroll tax, 6.2 percent split between employee and employer be applied also to all wages above $250,000. (Annually adjusted for inflation, it now applies only to the first $102,000 of wages.) This "doughnut" concept was advocated by then-Presidential candidate John Edwards, who at the presidential debate of 9/26/07 at Dartmouth College in New Hamsphire, asserted a little over halway through the debate:

....what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000, because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000, $115,000 a year. We don’t want to raise taxes on them.
But I do believe that people who make $50, $75, $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.

A secular Sunday prayer: may the new, populist Barack Obama perservere, thrive, and apply these concepts to his presidency.

Missed Opportunity

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, writing on May 15, 2008, argues

Put simply, had Reverend Wright been introduced to voters a few days before the Iowa caucuses, odds are Barack Obama would not be a hair's breadth away from clinching the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

And even if we assume Obama could have managed to hang on and win Iowa after the appearance of his good reverend, which is debatable, it's a near certainty he would not have won as many primaries and caucuses by as many votes around the country as he did in January and February.

In other words, it would be a totally different ballgame.

How did this happen? The easiest answer, which fits nicely with what we know about Clinton's subsequent mistakes, is that the campaign was guilty of laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance.

Bevan cites this New York Times article of 3/5/07 in which Jody Kantor noted that Mr. Obama cited the 2/22/07 Rolling Stone article entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" in rescinding the invitation to Jeremiah Wright to deliver the invocation at the Senator's announcement on 2/10/07 of his presidential candidacy. Bevan attributes Clinton's failure to raise the issue of her opponent's hysterical pastor to "laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance."

But that is only part of the story. Before the campaign began and in its nascent stage, Mrs. Clinton was viewed as a candidate very popular with the party's base of blacks and feminist women, but with huge negatives among the general voting public. Therefore, most of us believed, Clinton benefited by the presence in the race of not one, but two (Obama and John Edwards), legitimate and viable candidates. And so did her campaign.

Before long, however, the New York senator lost to Mr. Obama the support of blacks and young women, feminist or otherwise, and, to a lesser extent, the liberal wing of the party. Then Edwards dropped out of the race, leaving one plausible candidate. And as time went on (especially with the onset of the Wright story) Clinton became the candidate with a greatly reduced base- the default candidate, the choice of voters appalled, alienated, or outraged, by Obama. (Her support among the "white working class" is hard to rationalize otherwise.) Clinton is now the "other," more acceptable and less inspirational, candidate. So it's hard to recall 2007 when she was concerned about Edwards and by the possibility that, as a candidate with enthusiastic support among some and hardened opposition by others, she needed to avoid a one-on-one battle with a candidate, who would be the "anybody but Clinton" option. Therefore, the Clinton campaign disregarded the one issue which would have turned off enough voters that Obama would not have won that caucus, and likely would have finished third. And with New Hampshire, been finished off.

The Two Withdrawals

I find the most interesting aspect of the withdrawal from- technically, suspension of- the presidential campaign of John Edwards to be the distinction between the former North Carolina senator and the former New York City mayor.
When Rudolph Giuliani on January 30, 2008 ended his bid to become the Repub presidential nominee, he said little of interest and nothing of importance, other than to take the politically safe course of endorsing John McCain, who had the evening before become the overwhelming favorite to capture the nomination. Not surprising, though, because Rudolph became the poster boy for expediency. Once a mayor who was partial to abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control, Giuliani as a presidential candidate stood for nothing of the sort, and instead promoted what he claimed would be the largest tax increase in American history, a sure vote-getter in a Repub primary, dominated by those most fortunate and not coincidentally most likely to benefit from a further drop in income tax rates. (Still an easy position to take in a Repub primary- note John McCain never missing an opportunity to tout his born-again support for making permanent the Bush give a leg up to the rich tax cuts.)
And John Edwards? He leaves the race on 1/30/08 saying Senators Clinton and Obama "both pledged to me and, more importantly, through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency. This is the cause of my life, and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause." And to those who might have doubted Edwards' sincerity during his run, consider the statements of both Obama and Clinton upon Edwards' suspension. (Clinton: "John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate;" Obama: "John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news.") All point to the former candidate's emphasis on ending poverty, a concern rarely voiced by any politician on the national level (or, probably, on any other level) for, oh, probably the last couple of decades. (Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey are dead.)
So whom are we left with? Two candidates right on most issues, with relatively little difference between them, one emphasizing her gender, the other emphasizing generational differences. If this distinction and appeal sound somewhat inimical to the idea of real, progressive, change, you've been paying attention.

Early to the Game

This from bloomberg.com:

The federal government should help fund new light-rail lines, parking lots near mass-transit stations and other energy-efficient transportation projects that can get under way in 90 days as a way to stimulate the economy, John Edwards said today..... (he) called on Congress to approve a $25 billion package of investments in clean energy, job training and unemployment benefits. He said lawmakers should be prepared to allocate another $75 billion in the event of a recession.

``Hard-working families across America are already struggling to make ends meet,'' Edwards said. ``Before things get worse, I urge Congress to take action immediately to strengthen our economy and create new jobs."

But here is the point: this is from a December 22, 2007 report- several weeks before the rest of Washington figured it out.

Reagan Admiration

In the Democratic presidential debate of January 21, 2008 in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton alleged of Barack Obama "the facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years" and stated "you talked about admiring Ronadl Reagan."

The Illinois Senator responded "you just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda."

As reported here, Obama had said "I think it is fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there the last 10 or 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." That is actually true, and does not constitute praise of those ideas- which were bad ideas challenging sane, sensible conventional wisdom.

But Obama went further, stating "what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to." His statement about Reagan, however, did not include criticism of the latter's policies and constitued fulsome praise. As quoted by the New York Times' Adam Nagourney (who, incomprehensibly, does not believe the comments were favorable), Obama asserted

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Note phrases "changed the trajectory of America," "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," "tapped into what people were already feeling," a man who brough "clarity....optimism....a return to that sense of dynamism....and entrepreneurship that had been missing." High praise, indeed, for the Repub icon.

There is one additional problem. The Illinois Senator noted in the debate that Clinton herself had praised the 40th president in an excerpt from Tom Brokaw's new book, "Boom! Voices of the Sixties." She is quoted as saying "when he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.”

Thus, as our primary/caucus comes up, if John Edwards no longer is a candidate, we have the choice between an admirer of President Reagan and an admirer of President Reagan. But a little perspective: if they are to be believed, virtually every Repub candidate idolizes the anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-egalitarian former president.

Quote of the Week

"Ronald Reagan emasculated the middle class in this country."

Former Representative David Bonior, now John Edwards campaign chairman, commenting January 17, 2008 on MSNBC on Barack Obama's recent remarks (in an interview given to the Reno Journal-Gazette) apparently praising former President Ronald Reagan

The Irrelevance of Iowa

There may be a lesson, or two, in John McCain's defeat in the Iowa Repub caucus. The Arizona senator finished fourth, slightly behind a candidate (F. Thompson) who often seeems disinterested in the campaign. Yet, he's the favorite to win the New Hampshire primary today, if only by a small margin, at which point he would be considered the favorite to be the non-evangelical, non -(faux) populist, the mainstream alternative to Mike Huckabee. And the media would put pressure on Mitt Romney to win the Michigan primary, suggesting that failure to do so would spell defeat in his bid for the nomination.

A victory today in New Hampshire would not propel McCain to the nomination, but would do more than keep him in the game, and that despite- or perhaps because- he virtually ignored Iowa.

And Hillary Clinton should have bypassed either Iowa or New Hampshire. If the New York senator had downplayed the significance of the Iowa caucus and concentrated her efforts elsewhere, Barack Obama (presumably) would have won big in Iowa- which he did, anyway, thereby demonstrating Clinton's vulnerability and weaknesses. (And John Edwards, one-on-one with the "Barack Star," might have blocked the big victory.) Coming out of Iowa, with Obama's big margin, Clinton should have harnessed her funds and energy, avoided New Hampshire, and gone elsewhere. This is hindsight- but a powerful organization should have seen this coming. Further, Clinton supporters, including Terry McAuliffe just this morning on MSNBC, have been saying since Iowa that the campaign never considered that state a particulary strong one for their candidate- with some indication that this has been a long-held fear. Avoidance of the caucus in Iowa would have, if nothing else, blunted the emphasis on Barack Obama as a giant-killer in a state with few delegates but a tremendous impact on media exposure and momentum.

Candidate Wishes

With the approach of Three Kings Day (or, Epiphany) and the Iowa caucuses, it is time to look at the gift wish for Thursday, January 3, 2007 of the major Democratic and Repub Presidential candidates. Here we go:

Hillary Clinton- a first place finish; otherwise, second place to John Edwards. Edwards is not nearly as well-financed as Obama, and the media will spin an Obama victory as "historic."

Barack Obama- a first place finish; otherwise, second place to Edwards. (If Clinton wins here, she may be unstoppable.)

John Edwards- first place, anyway he can get it legally and ethically; and with hopes that Obama then finishes second. (There must be a reason Edwards has made it clear that he prefers Obama to Clinton, and that Edward's chief strategist Joe Trippi takes every opportunity to criticize the campaign of Hillary Clinton- but not of Barack Obama.)

Mitt Romney- first place- and a fourth place finish for John McCain, his chief rival in New Hampshire (and with the non-evangelical wing of the Repub Party)

Mike Huckabee- a first place finish by a sufficient margin to overcome media hostility to a GOP candidate who apparently believes that greed is not the highest value to aspire to.

John McCain- third place, so that the other Establishment Republican (F.T., see below) experienced in the ways of Washington comes in only fourth; and an Obama defeat in the Democratic primary so that independents are not attracted to Obama in New Hampshire (but do vote in the Repub primary for the Arizona Senator).

Fred Thompson- third place- and first place for Romney, so the other Southerner doesn't come in first. If- a big "if"- Thompson survives Iowa and New Hampshire and Huckabee is weakened, he has good shot at winning in critical South Carolina.

I would make a prediction. But it would be coming from someone who believed that the New York Giants (10-6) would scrap to win five games this season, the Baltimore Ravens (5-11) would compete for the Super Bowl, and no team could go undefeated in the National Football League. So I'll spare everyone.