MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: January 27, 2008

« January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008 | Main | February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008 »

February 2, 2008

Check out "Yes We Can," Pro-Obama Video

From ABC.

I have no idea who most of these extremely young people are, but I have it on good authority that they're big stars.

Update: Check out the video by clicking "continues inside."

These Guys for Colbert's New Black Friends: Negroes for Huckabee

A press release I received just now:

Black Conservatives Rally to Urge Mike Huckabee to Stay in Presidential Race
PRESS CONFERENCE
Monday, February 4, 2008
9:45 AM
National Press Club
529 14th Street NW, DC

(DC) – A broad coalition of black conservatives from across the country are holding a press conference to urge former Governor Mike Huckabee to stay in the presidential race for the Republican nomination until the Convention.

"Governor Huckabee should not be intimidated to stop his bid for the republican nomination," states Don Scoggins, veteran GOP activist and among other conservatives hosting the press conference. "The momentum of the grassroots that propelled this party into victory is behind Mike and will not stop fighting for him regardless of his bank account," also states Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment, a DC based national grassroots organization.

The concern of the group is the pressure that is mounting by republican talking heads to push governor Huckabee out of the race. The consensus is that Huckabee’s campaign was deliberately sabotaged by Fred Thompson in South Carolina to hone out a two man race between McCain and Romney in Florida. Polls still show Huckabee leading in many southern states, and competitive in others even with limited resources.

"Inside-the-beltway Republicans have lost touch with the increasing seriousness with which heartland conservatives relate to the traditional values agenda," states Star Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist and conservative activist. "More and more folks are feeling personally assaulted by the meaninglessness that is gripping our culture and believe that Mike Huckabee is the only republican candidate that embodies the moral clarity of the GOP ideals. The groundswell generating support for Huckabee’s candidacy understand that moral and economic health go hand in hand and should not be underestimated."

Numerous African American conservatives, many also veteran Republican Party activists, are scheduled to speak at the one hour press conference.

When: Monday, February 4, 2008 – 9:45 AM
Where: National Press Club (Murrow Room)
Who: Black Conservatives for Mike Huckabee

Talk about the Lone Rangers; already black and Republican but too conservative for their own party. I'm not making fun of them. Really. I'm just figuring they must be frustrated as hell.

Clintons Take Note: This is How Its Done

When an Obama adviser, retired Gen. McPeak, dropped the M (for 'misogyny') bomb on Hillary and said:

Obama "doesn't go on television and have crying fits; he isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60" -- references to Clinton's much-publicized show of emotion during the New Hampshire primary campaign and her speech after winning the contest in which she declared that she had "found my voice."

Obama did this.

Class, style, grace, and political savvy. I'm digging Obama more and more everyday.

Maybe the famed Clinton War Room should have focused on recovering from its own mistakes and not just on responding to attacks.

Blacks Can't Accept Clinton's Apology if He Denies He's Apologizing

According to CNN, Bubba is barn storming black churches to apologize for his...'misunderstood' comments while campaigning for his wife.

Two prominent African-American politicians plan to join former President Bill Clinton on a tour of black churches this Sunday in Los Angeles. Sources say one of the officials has described it as Clinton's "mea culpa tour" to the black community.

But that, apparently, depends on what the meaning of 'apologize' 'is':

A spokesperson for the Clinton campaign in California confirms the former president will be visiting African-American churches this Sunday, but disputes the notion the stops are intended to make amends with the black community before the state’s voters head to the polls this Tuesday.

"He's very popular with Latinos, African-Americans, it’s absolutely not a mea culpa tour," says Clinton California spokesperson Luis Vizcaino.

Oh dear. Here we go again. Bill can neither confirm nor deny that he's apologizing. Until he figures out which one will produce the desired results.

If he's going to hit the pews of black churches tomorrow, why aren't the "two black politicians" to accompany him named? Can it be that no one has volunteered yet and the winning chits haven't been called in?

Update: According to the Washington Post, Rep. Diane Watson, (D-CA) will be one of his detention hall monitors. Every other black official in California must be screening calls with a vengeance. Check out how hard she works to keep from using the word 'apology.'

Watson has assigned Clinton to write a letter to each congregation they'll visit on Sunday "explaining his commitment to civil rights and equal rights." She says the letter "is in development" but that "he knows what needs to be in it: He needs to renew his relationship with the South Central community."

Code words much?

Let's see if even one of the most ruthless competitors in the history of modern politics can pull this one out. Maybe Bart Simpson can take a line from Clinton's "I've been a bad, bad black President" letter to write on the black board in a future Simpsons opening sequence.

February 1, 2008

Circular Firing Squad Warning: Obama the Wonder Boy Had Better Get Out Ahead of the Impending Black vs. Hispanic Implosion

To date, the defining dynamic of the fight for the Democratic nomination has been race versus gender—which will the left symbolically end first? Race won, once Clinton's race-baiting went several bread crumbs too far. Major upheavals both likely and notwithstanding, the dilemma now facing both candidates, but especially Obama, will be surfing the coming tsunami between blacks and Hispanics, America's largest minority group. All that's at stake is the disintegration of the Democratic coalition.

Obama is running 3 to 1 behind Clinton among Latinos (25 percent of the electorate) in vote-rich California, for instance, with Super Tuesday looming. Similar realities confront him across America. If Obama wants to be the nominee—and survive his first term as Prez—he'll have to close that gap without alienating blacks, a tightrope I would happily ask my worst enemy to walk. What's the brother to do?

He's no doubt sincere in his sympathy for the realities that Hispanics—especially the illegals—face, and keenly aware of the politico-economic realities surrounding the hotbed immigration issue. He's also quite aware that blacks are—let's go with—'conservative' on (Hispanic) immigration and its consequences. He can gamble that they will give him the same pass they gave President Clinton over Sister Souljah, Lani Guinier and welfare reform but that's doubling down with your high school senior's college fund. That is not only true where black-brown collisions are overt (blacks displaced by brown, lower-wage workers) but also as Obama will be seen to simply be paying 'too much' attention to brown concerns, spending ‘too much’ time with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rather than the Congressional Black Caucus. You can diss blacks for John, but for Jose? Bet Obama wishes he could talk about black homophobia some more. Instead, hideously, he has to talk about this:

Obama's intention is to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on what are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with earned legalization.

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses, a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

Obama made the promise to Latino leaders to take up immigration reform in his first year after Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said his party might not raise the divisive issue again until the next president's second term, assuming a Democrat wins.

Latino leaders felt betrayed. For them, an immigration overhaul is a top priority in light of state and local crackdowns on illegal immigrants and federal raids in workplaces across the country.

Clinton has not made such a promise, saying only that she would make her best efforts.

Obama stalwartly took the dare on this knowing he won’t need to Ebay a crystal ball to figure out that what Latinos mean by "overhaul" and what blacks do are something close to polar opposites. And where jobs (and wage level in particular) are concerned, feelings can only run high, run deep and run personal. But for all the ink spilled on the black–Hispanic stand off, we keep missing the point.

It’s not about which group experiences or has absorbed the most racism; it’s not about which group suffers more. If we keep our heads, it’s much less serious than that. It’s pure interest-group politics, a reality which only confuses us because the king of all interest groups—powerful white men—culturally defined the term to mean 'illegitimate, unAmerican cabal,' i.e., every group but them. So, we spend time fighting about who's an 'interest group,' when we all belong to several, rather than how to navigate the natural chasms separating each. Each group, however much they overlap, cares deeply about its own problems while remaining more or less blasé about others’. In the case of blacks versus Hispanics, racism and skin color are the age-old distractions the powerful have always employed to keep the powerless at each other's throats when they have so much incentive to join forces. Because they have so much incentive. No group should have to apologize for looking out for itself, just as no group has the right to have its preferences made impervious to critique.

Clinton is merely going to triangulate to divine the path of least resistance for greatest gain and work for political Pareto optimality; she’s going to upset the traditional apple carts as little as possible. But if Obama is to live up to his visionary, trans-everything reputation, he has to do more than that. He has to elevate the discourse itself and sweetly force each group to 'come to Jesus' and take a good, hard look in the mirror. All, of course, while providing each a face-saving way toward the high road. You don't have to confess or testify. You just have to change. He has to make both groups—all groups—believe it's taking the high road when it's merely giving up unfair advantages or unreasonable positions.

There are fancier ways of saying this, but since offense can't be avoided with those determined to be offended, let's apply the KISS rule and save some pixels: Just as whites aren't much interested in black problems ("nobody gave my immigrant great grandfather—who didn't own slaves—special treatment"), blacks are shockingly unmoved by Hispanics' problems and vice versa. Blacks, quite reasonably, have little reverence for immigration and resent the most often repeated lie in America: "We are a nation of immigrants." Kunta Kinte did not come here to make his life better. So, while the non-slave-descended get all misty-eyed about immigration and can potentially be reached via arguments based on that shared experience, blacks remain aloof.

Latinos, conversely, don't much care about slavery and Jim Crow—look at what we've been through!—except as proof of racism and insofar as the latter affected them. Those experiences occurred through no fault of theirs, so why, they reasonably argue, shouldn't they, too, employ the same type of race-based proportional representation and affirmative action arguments that blacks have long made? Why indeed?

Blacks relied on enforcing the Constitution, an unforeseen, unthinkable argument which could not be forever denied, much to white consternation. Now Hispanics invoke the rubric of ‘civil rights.' Oh, snap! Until now, blacks haven’t been forced to accept that they really seem to have meant ‘black rights’. (Recall that Malcolm X and MLK found little traction among blacks for the transnational directions in which those two visionaries were moving.) Obama needs to make them answer the question: Civil rights or black rights? You can make the argument that the movement is inapplicable to immigrants (and gays), or only to illegal immigrants—so let's hear it.

What we're witnessing here is the slow, agonizing death of identity politics, the scourge that white supremacy bequeathed America. Identity politics, just as did overt racism and white supremacy, is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. And it is collapsing in Hispanics’ favor. Damn logical and moral consistency. As blacks like to bitterly say in dismissing Latinos' (or gays') invocation of movement rhetoric, "Y'all weren't on the Edmund Pettus Bridge." True enough. Tough noogies. Unless blacks are ready to put an 'expire by' date on the "Letter From the Birmingham Jail."

Hispanics may be ‘free riders’ on the civil rights movement but they’re free riders who can’t be thrown off the bus without blacks admitting that ‘civil rights’ was as much a code word as ‘states’ rights’. If Obama does his job right, we'll soon get to see how the same black officials who fought for affirmative action, proportional representation on police/fire forces, civil government, political re-districting, etc. can dismiss the same Latino demand. Conservatives and the DLC crowd are dismissing Obama's Hispanic overtures as mere pandering. I say give the brother a minute. He may yet pander. But we need to give him some room to see if he's actually going to try to lead. MLK had a much harder job, but he helped America see the error of its ways. Let's see if Obama is his true heir. Let's see if he can make minorities see the error of theirs and avoid engaging in the same sort of soulless bigotry and greed their ancestors died to end.

Just as the discussions over Hillary’s laughter and tears, and Barack’s 'true' race and religion were heinous to endure, so shall be this discussion. But it must be had. Until we say these things out loud and confront ourselves, we won’t be able to realize just how untenable some of our sacred cows are.

Huckabee in San Francisco

Multiple corporate conferences dominated the lobby of San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel yesterday, and at first glance, one never would’ve guessed that the Republican candidate who had stormed to victory in the Iowa caucuses was in the house. I found the Terrace Room, where Mike Huckabee was addressing the small yet powerful group that is the Bay Area social conservative set, by following the screams of a Code Pink antiwar protester (dressed sharply in a business suit to match the well-healed crowd) being dragged out. As her cries of "Out of Iraq now!" faded, Huckabee turned back to the crowd and remarked that the beauty of America is that the protester was not going to be taken out back and shot. Laughter ensued: The audience might have been small, but it was boisterous enough at that point (and at other times) to make up for the empty seats at the fringes of the room.

After a cordial Q&A with his supporters, Huckabee made his way into the adjoining Vanderbilt room, where local media were decidedly less friendly. They focused on two issues about which most San Franciscans strongly disagree with Huckabee: gay rights and immigration. And for the occasion, the ex-Governor of Arkansas toned down his usually fiery religious rhetoric.

Asked if he had spoken to the mother of Ryan White, the young AIDS victim who was expelled from school at the beginning of the epidemic and around that time that Huckabee said that HIV/AIDS patients should be quarantined, he said that they recently had a very long phone conversation with Ms. White-Ginder. When the questions turned to gay rights, he came out strongly against firing someone in a government position based on sexual orientation (yet left the door open for the possibility of firing a gay church employee). These answers were obviously tailored to the assembled group, and this was probably the first time he has dusted them off and trotted them out in public.

When it came to immigration, though, Huckabee seemed less willing to play to the crowd, despite the fact that he was in California, where the economy is kept afloat largely by the contributions of undocumented workers in the state's massive agricultural industry. Faced with a question on how he reconciles his position on immigration with the fact that California would be crippled without immigrants, both documented and undocumented, he answered that the short term contributions of illegal immigrants to the economy were negated by the amount of money spent on them in the form of social services, specifically Medicaid, food assistance programs, and federal aid to schools. (The study that anti-immigrant conservatives cite to support this argument is, as Business Week points out, pretty problematic. It doesn't take into account the fact that "illegal households" often include American-born children; doesn't account for the fact that illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes that bankroll Social Security and Medicare, both programs that they are ineligible for; and doesn't address this study that shows that immigration in fact increases the wages of Californians across the board.)

Although Huckabee downplayed his usual social conservative zeal for the occasion, he didn't miss an opportunity to out-Reagan his competitors. Asked if it bothered him that he was no longer deemed a front-runner, he responded that "I've never been the pick of the establishment. I probably never will be. That's OK, Ronald Reagan wasn't either."

—Andre Sternberg

Arizona Republic Forgets About McCain's "Volcanic Temper"

This is what Arizona Republic's editorial board had to say about John McCain:

Arizona Sen. John McCain has staked much of his claim to the presidency on his character: his status as war hero; his service to his country; his commitment to a cause, his country, bigger than himself.

These are legitimate claims to support by McCain, and worthy of voter attention and consideration.

But there are other aspects of McCain's character, less flattering, also worthy of voter attention and consideration....Many Arizonans active in policymaking have been the victim of McCain's volcanic temper and his practice of surrounding himself with aides and allies who regard politics, in the words of his paid Arizona chairman, state House Speaker Jeff Groscost, as a "bloodsport."

...McCain often insults people and flies off the handle....If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is much there to admire. After all, we have supported McCain in his past runs for office.

But the presidency is different. There is also reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States.

That sure is some tough straight talk from McCain's home-state paper. But it's from an editorial that ran in 1999. A few days ago, the paper published an editorial endorsing McCain. It said,

Anyone surprised to learn that The Arizona Republic judges U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona the best Republican choice for president in 2008 simply hasn't been paying attention.

In recent months we have extolled McCain's virtues and defended him against his many critics. In our judgment, McCain is the class of the GOP contenders, and we are proud to encourage his pursuit of the nation's highest office....

He gives his party integrity. And principle. They cannot improve on such attributes. And they should not try.

What a difference two election cycles make. The endorsement says nothing about McCain's "volcanic temper" and worrisome temperament. It seems the Republic has made its peace with McCain—especially since he became a front-runner. Or maybe its editorial board members believe his meds are now working.

Evaluating the Senate Stimulus Plan

The Senate stimulus package released this week is a solid improvement over the House/White House compromise plan. The primary reason is that the Senate proposal, tailored by Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana, provides low- and moderate-income working families with rebates that are the same size as the rebates going to families at higher income levels. The House package gave low- and moderate-income families smaller rebates than their wealthier counterparts.

Senator Baucus also raised the ceiling on the rebates. Whereas the House plan capped eligibility for the full rebate at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples, Baucus puts the caps at $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples. The rebates themselves are slightly smaller, however. The House plan gave individuals a maximum of $600 and couples a maximum of $1,200. The Senate rebates max out at $500 and $1,000.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Under the House bill, a mother with one child who works full time at the minimum wage would receive a rebate of $600, while a mother with one child and an income of $75,000 would receive a rebate of $900, and a married couple with no children and an income of $150,000 would get $1,200. The Finance Committee proposal [pushed by Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chair] would reduce or eliminate these disparities.

Another comparison is a little less flattering to the Senate plan. Under the House plan, a couple making a very comfortable $250,000 a year doesn't get a rebate. Under the Senate version, the couple gets the full rebate of $1,000. Giving the rich rebates is generally considered ineffective stimulus, because they are unlikely to immediately spend the of money given back to them (thus not pumping money into the economy, the purpose of any stimulus plan).

The Senate plan inserts another provision that is particularly progressive. It extends unemployment insurance for 13 weeks for jobless Americans who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. And job seekers who live in states with very high unemployment would get an extra 13 on top of that, for a total of 26 additional weeks.

Extending unemployment benefits is considered a key method of economic stimulus, because dollars given to the unemployed are likely to be spent immediately on necessities.

According to the CBPP, America's unemployed need help:

In January 2008, the overall unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, and the percentage of all unemployed workers who had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more was 18.3 percent. At the start of the last recession in March 2001, by contrast, the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent and the percentage of the unemployed who had been out of work for at least 27 weeks was 11.1 percent.

Dying for a Lawyer: Life on Alabama's Death Row

The nation's de facto death penalty moratorium continued last night when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened one hour before Alabama death row inmate James Callahan was scheduled to die. Since the high court decided to review lethal injection—the southern state's primary capital punishment method—in September, every scheduled execution has been stayed.

Along with Callahan, 194 people currently live on Alabama’s death row—more than any other state per capita. But what makes the situation in Alabama most dire isn't the lethal injection protocol being weighed by the Court; it's the lack of adequate legal representation available to the condemned. More than half of Alabama's death row inmates had trial attorneys whose compensation for out-of-court hours was capped at $1000, giving lawyers a financial disincentive to prepare a zealous defense. Even worse, Alabama is one of only two states in the country that don't provide legal representation for capital post-conviction appeals. Death row inmates who are indigent (and most are), don't stand a chance for relief unless they're lucky enough to get pro bono representation from groups like Equal Justice Initiative and the Southern Center for Human Rights. (Full disclosure: I worked at SCHR as an investigator.) So far five innocent people have been freed from Alabama's death row. Who knows how many remain because they lack a lawyer.

—Celia Perry

Cindy for Speaker?

A new, quasi-political party is aiming to form a "national coalition of peace candidates for U.S. House of Representatives" who will boot out Democrats and Republicans and then elect anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan as Speaker. Sound implausible? It is. But with Ralph Nader unveiling an exploratory website for yet another presidential bid this week, it's clear that third parties on the left see an opening: popular discontent with the inability of the Democratic Congress to end the war in Iraq. Don't expect many of these candidates to pull down more than a percent or two. Still, you have to wonder whether Nader or his acolytes would fare slightly better at the polls if Hillary Clinton--the Democratic bete noir of the radical anti-war movement--is the party's nominee for President. For more on this year's third party dynamic, check out my story on Sheehan's congressional race against Speaker Pelosi.

Ann Coulter Is Insane Over McCain, Supporting Hillary

Conservative elites are having their world turned upside down. They hate John McCain with a passion and yet he's their best chance to keep the White House. What do they do?

The clip below is illustrative. Sean Hannity appears ready to swallow his long-time criticisms of McCain and vote for him in order to keep a Democrat out of the White House. Ann Coulter (I know, I know, we're not supposed to pay attention to Ann Coulter) appears ready to... vote for Hillary?

So Clinton is more conservative than McCain, lies less than McCain, and is smarter than McCain? Is this some calculated Coulterian plot to undercut Clinton's support? Whatever. I'm just interested in Ann Coulter's head exploding on national television. Give it a month and it may actually happen.

Update: Dennis Hastert is joining the chorus of conservative voices against McCain.

Who Is the Real Most Liberal Senator?

So the National Journal's contention that Obama is most liberal member of the Senate has been pretty widely discredited across the internet. So who is the most liberal? A much more trustworthy rating system provides some answers here.

Something Strange Happened When Manila Banned Publicly Funded Contraception

From Salon:

...choosing between contraception and food for their children, multiple pregnancies after being told it would be dangerous for them to have more children, unwanted pregnancies forcing families into extreme poverty, abstinence leading to troubled marriages and divorces, backroom abortions, maternal deaths from multiple pregnancies, abortion deaths... you name it.

And, by the way, a violation of the Philippine constitution and a coupla international treaties, since Manila's ultra-religious mayor has right to issue such a decree. While the lawsuit aimed to end the ban winds its way through the legal system, poor women, poor families, will just go paying the price for other's opinions and religious beliefs.

U.S. National Guard and Reserves Face "Appalling" Shortfalls, Study Finds

CGItemp20515120188137368.239.83.80-68.jpeg

The war in Afghanistan was the subject of three independent reports, all released yesterday. Buried by the resulting coverage, a fourth report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, also published Thursday, warns that our non-professional soldiers—the ones shouldering much of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan—are stretched to the breaking point.

Until Iraq, the Guard and Reserves were long considered a "backup" force, a sort of safety valve that could be pulled in the event of an emergency. But the occupation of Iraq (not to mention the hot-cold Afghan conflict), have fundamentally challenged the nature of what is expected from America's citizen soldiers. It's no longer the one weekend a month sort of deal it used to be. Rather, Guard and Reserve units have quickly evolved into crucial operational components of how the U.S. military projects power around the world. Trouble is, investment of personnel and resources remains stuck in an earlier time, and it's a disconnect that threatens the viability of the current U.S. force structure.

The commission, created by the 2005 Defense Authorization Act, has a congressional mandate "to conduct a comprehensive examination of how the Guard and Reserves are used in national defense, including homeland security, and to recommend needed changes in laws and policies." To that end, yesterday's 448-page report lists 163 findings and makes 95 recommendations—all generally boiling down to fundamental rethinking of where the Guard and Reserve units figure into the larger puzzle. According to the report:

The future of the all-volunteer force depends for its success on policymakers' undertaking needed reforms to ensure that the reserve components are ready, capable, and available for both operational and strategic purposes... In reviewing the past several decades of intense use of the reserve components, most notably as an integral part of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the homeland, the Commission has found indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the need for policymakers and the military to break with outdated policies and processes and implement fundamental, thorough reforms in these areas. The members of this Commission share this view unanimously. We note that these recommendations will require the nation to reorder the priorities of the Department of Defense, thereby necessitating a major restructuring of laws and the DOD's budget.

Speaking yesterday at the National Press Club, Arnold Punaro, a former Marine general who led the commission's work, said that Reserve forces currently lack an estimated $47.5 billion needed for equipment repair and maintenance, the result of heavy wear and tear caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The commission report also notes that the Army National Guard has only 61 percent of the equipment it needs to be operationally ready.

As Lt. Gen. Charles Rodriguez, commander of the Texas National Guard, told the Dallas Morning News, "The old model of the Guard as a strategic force was no longer sustainable. Something had to change. Creation of the Guard as a reserve force, trained and equipped to serve missions overseas and [at] home, is the new reality. But it comes at a price."

January 31, 2008

Dem Debate: A Cordial Twosome in Hollywood

Tonight in Hollywood, with celebrities packing the seats of the historic Kodak Theater, anyone expecting a blockbuster debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was sorely disappointed. Neither made a bold play for the other's supporters. Neither took any chances. In general, both were civil, composed, and very impressive. One could argue that Obama won as a result, because he showed a national audience of newly attentive February 5 voters that he could match Hillary Clinton point for point. One could also argue that the calmness of the debate favored Clinton, who, as the frontrunner, avoided any incidents that could jeopardize her supremacy.

One could also argue the campaigns decided that, because the delegate count will be relatively close after February 5, they had no reason to go for broke and were content to leave the night as a wash.

There were moments, however, that rewarded close attention. Early in the debate, the candidates were asked a question about whether illegal immigrants take African American jobs. Obama, responding first, argued that there are systemic problems in the American economy that steal opportunities from minorities and the poor. To point to illegal immigrants is to make them a scapegoat. Clinton responded by pandering to downscale voters.

There are people who have been pushed out of jobs and factories and meat processing plants, and all kinds of settings. And I meet them. You know, I was in Atlanta last night, and an African-American man said to me, "I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation."

It was an effective comparison between the two. While Obama was trying, perhaps in vain, to suggest his willingness to question conventional wisdom and his emphasis on telling "hard truths," Clinton said what was politically expedient and probably won more voters.

A similar situation came later in the debate, when Obama chastised the Hollywood executives in the audience for marketing violent images to children. Clinton smiled and added nothing.

The discussion on the war also crystallized the differences (and the similarities) between the candidates. Obama repeatedly emphasized that he was against the war from the beginning, when it was unpopular to hold that position. Being ready on Day One was fine, Obama said, but it is more important "to be right on Day One." While Clinton focused on the future—"What are we going to do going forward?"—Obama looked back long enough to call the war "conceptually flawed." "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." In the end, however, both candidates indicated that they want to get out of Iraq, and that may be all that voters take away.

But the candidates' performances during the Iraq portion of the debate may get overshadowed, in the TV media's replay of clips and sound bites, by a moment that was created by the mediator. After Clinton argued that those who supported the war in Iraq did so because of solid evidence, Blitzer asked, "You were naive to believe President Bush?" The crowd reacted with boos and jeers—one man actually shouted "C'mon, Wolf!"—and it appeared to be a revival in miniature of the pre-New Hampshire zeitgeist, in which voters not normally predisposed toward Clinton were willing to sympathize with her fight against an antagonistic media.

In all, however, it would be hard for anyone to point to a clear victor. It was a highly substantive debate that focused largely on the issues and let both candidates speak at length. Naturally, with two talented candidates each with over a year of campaigning under his or her belt, everyone (except Wolf Blitzer, perhaps) came off well.

Casualties of War Down in Iraq, Up at Home

Military officials announced today that Army suicides increased by 20% in 2007, and attempted suicides went up more than 40%. These grim statistics come in the wake of President Bush's final State of the Union address, during which he touted the troop surge as the answer to violence in Iraq. The president said, "high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down."

But with more troops serving and staying longer in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not surprising they come home carrying more baggage. Some are even bringing the violence home with them. Earlier this month, the New York Times revealed that 121 veterans of the two current wars have been charged with murder on U.S. soil. Many of the cases have been easily traced back to combat trauma and the stress of deployment. It goes to show that the aftermath of war is never confined to the war zone; it always hits home.

—Celia Perry

Be Still My Heart and Lower my DMV fees

Go ahead and laugh, but I think Vermont is on to something.

A bill is pending there to allow its citizens to opt out of driver registration fees - for life - if they agree to donate their organs when they die. At Vermont's rates, drivers would save $480 (depending on how long they live and drive) while another magazine noted that:

that there were 530,000 valid driver’s licenses in the state as of 2006. So, there are a lot of available organs – in Vermont alone – to help the nearly 1 million people on transplant waiting lists in the U.S.

While stolen organ-rackets may be an urban legend here, they're not in India and certainly not among China's executed prisoners. While the need is acute generally, African Americans in particular face an severe shortage of donor kidneys, for instance, which largely have to come from other blacks to be compatible. Unfortunately, they have a low donation rate. Until more states try such initiatives, we simply won't know what it takes to raise these rates. Imagine: just a few states could eliminate the need for donor waiting lists!

But now?

Sadly, store clerks are routinely surprised to see that I'm an organ donor when they check my driver's license and look at me like I'm either Mother Theresa or some freak-show, wild-eyed pagan. But initiatives like Vermont's might just get more of us out of our comfort zones and our life-giving hearts out of our dead bodies. We shouldn't have to be paid to do something so easy - though I will greedily accept the discount - yet such an unbelievable blessing to the suffering. But if it will save more lives (and stop the desecration of the Third world's living humans) - small price to pay. And an idea brilliant in its simplicity. Here's hoping the Vermont bill passes and that it's opponents get the pillorying they deserve.

Remember Afghanistan?

Afghanistan. In the 1980s, we sent in the CIA, gave weapons to the mujahideen, and defeated the Soviets. In the 1990s, we got out, allowed our erstwhile allies to kill each other, and sat by as the country was taken over by religious fanatics and terrorists. After 9/11, we realized our mistake, went back in, chased Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of their caves, and declared victory. Afterward, we invaded Iraq and once again forgot all about the place. But the pendulum still swings, and now, as before, our willful ignorance of that troubled country (if indeed it meets that definition) is coming back to bite us.

Or so conclude three separate reports released yesterday by the National Defense University, the Atlantic Council, and the Afghanistan Study Group (ASG). "Make no mistake," says the Atlantic Council report, "NATO is not winning in Afghanistan... Urgent changes are required now to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failing or failed state." The problem (and don't say you didn't see this coming) is that the war in Iraq drained political will, money, and military resources away from Afghanistan, allowing it to drift back into the very same chaos that first attracted Bin Laden to the sanctuary of its caves. According to the ASG report:

Afghanistan stands today at a crossroads. The progress achieved after six years of international engagement is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country. The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid, and without a clear and consistent comprehensive strategy to fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans.

Yesterday's release of the ASG report (produced by the Center for the Study of the American Presidency, which also wrote the Iraq Study Group report) has temporarily revived Afghanistan in the eyes of the press, which in recent days has pumped out a series of "where are they now"-type reports about the country.

The occasion was also marked by a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning, at which the report's principal authors, Marine General James L. Jones and Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, testified to their deepening concern about the prospects of Afghanistan spiraling out of control. The situation there is a "growing crisis," said Pickering, who warned of "weakening resolve" among NATO partners amid escalating violence.

The Bush administration (which maintains a somewhat rosier view of things) was represented at the hearing by State Department officials Richard Boucher and David Johnson. Under questioning from Senator John Kerry, Boucher acknowledged that bombings have increased (77 suicide bombings in the last six months, versus just five in the preceding four years), but claimed that things are otherwise "improving." Despite increased violence, he noted, the Taliban remain incapable of taking and holding territory. "They've failed," he said.

It certainly doesn't feel that way in the south of the country, where NATO allies are bickering over who should deploy combat forces to take on the resurgent Taliban. Violence in southern Helmand Province is up 60 percent on the year, on top of a nationwide uptick of 27 percent. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned recently that unless NATO can deploy another 1,000 soldiers to Kandahar Province (Helmand's neighbor to the east), he will withdraw Canada's troops; his nation has been shouldering a large portion of the fighting in the region and has lost 78 soldiers and one diplomat since deploying in 2002. So far, no other NATO country seems willing to share the pain, although the Germans are debating increasing their troop presence in northern Afghanistan.

For it's part, the U.S. military is planning to send in another 3,200 Marines in anticipation of a third-annual Taliban spring offensive.

It would appear we face yet another choice in the eternal question: should we care about Afghanistan? Given what happens when we ignore the place, the answer should be obvious. But Senator Richard Lugar knows that even obvious truths sometimes escape us. "At some point... our NATO allies, maybe even of the American people, our constituents, will say, 'We've done enough. These folks are on their own.'"

Obama: #1 Most Liberal Senator?

According to the National Journal's nonpartisan ratings, released today, Barack Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007. This raises a number of issues for the senator from Illinois.

First of all, we should point out that the numbers are ridiculous. According to the NJ press release, "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes." So he took the liberal position less frequently than Clinton did, and less frequently than a number of senators. But because he was out campaigning, he only returned for big, divisive votes where the Democratic Party needed him. He only cast one vote against the liberal position, meaning he was usually content to skip votes where he would be voting against his party. As B.B. points out, "a senator who takes the 'liberal' position 95 times out of 100 is somehow less liberal than his colleague who takes the liberal position 48 times out of 50." In years past, when Obama voted as many times as a normal senator, he was the 10th and 16th most liberal senator. That is likely a truer representation of his politics. Does anyone really think Obama and Joe Biden are more liberal than Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders (a socialist)?

And let's not forget that John Kerry was identified by the National Journal as the most liberal senator of 2003 just as Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. (Probably because he missed votes due of campaigning, as Obama is doing now.) Not a bad system for publicity, huh?

But regardless of how legitimate the numbers are, Obama has now been tagged. Will Hillary Clinton use it against him? That would be awfully low—first, she's just as liberal as he is, and second, a Democrat should never try to sink another Democrat by using right-wing talking points about the "L word." But John McCain or Mitt Romney will use this against Obama, assuming Obama is the nominee. How does he respond?

He can say, "You know what? After eight years of sheer horror, we need someone with an ideology as far from President Bush's as possible. The more liberal the better!" That might warm some hearts around here. But Obama may not want to undertake a project to rehabilitate the "liberal" image in the middle of his presidential campaign. But he can't throw liberals under the bus, either, because there are an awful lot of committed lefties who are going to vote in the remaining Democratic primaries.

It's a tough position to be in. In all likelihood he'll say something like, "My campaign is about moving past these labels that seek to put our politics into small boxes."

But regardless of whether or not Obama is the most liberal senator, and regardless of his choice of response, let's make one thing clear. Obama is not a centrist. He was never centrist. He is a uniter. He does reach across the aisle. But he always do so in pursuit of progressive ends. That's why Obama's presidency has greater upside (to borrow a sports term) than Hillary Clinton's. If it does everything Obama promises it will (no sure thing), it will transform the Democratic Party the way Reagan transformed the Republican Party, and get millions of new people behind progressive goals. (It could also get stuck in neutral by a President Obama's desperate need to seek out common ground with an unwilling Republican opposition in Congress.)

And PS — This line from the NJ press release is awesome: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score."

Martin Luther King Responds to Hillary Clinton on Social Change

Earlier this month, this statement of Hillary Clinton's got lots of attention:

I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.

What's gotten less attention is what Martin Luther King himself thought on this subject. Chris Rabb points out that King wrote this in an article published in January, 1969 after his death:

The past record of the federal government, however, has not been encouraging. No president has really done very much for the American Negro, though the past two presidents have received much undeserved credit for helping us. This credit has accrued to Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy only because it was during their administrations that Negroes began doing more for themselves. Kennedy didn't voluntarily submit a civil rights bill, nor did Lyndon Johnson. In fact, both told us at one time that such legislation was impossible. President Johnson did respond realistically to the signs of the times and used his skills as a legislator to get bills through Congress that other men might not have gotten through. I must point out, in all honesty, however, that President Johnson has not been nearly so diligent in implementing the bills he has helped shepherd through Congress.

It certainly would be interesting if a reporter were to read this to Hillary Clinton and get her response on what, if anything, she disagrees with King about.

Hope for Obama on February 5

Over at the Economist's Democracy in America blog (no, not these guys), they point out that Obama tends to outperform polling pretty substantially. Check out their chart at right. In four of five states where the Democrats have held primaries—including Florida, where Obama didn't campaign—Obama's actual results have beaten the polls by 6, 12, 13 and 10 percentage points.

That means he could seriously surprise people in the February 5 states where polling shows him within striking distance: Alabama (-10), Kansas (-5), and New Mexico (-7). That said, the polling in the February 5 states has been very spotty. The most recent Rasmussen poll out of California has Obama trailing Clinton by just three, while the most recent CNN poll has him getting walloped by 17. That's a phenomenon you see in Connecticut, Arizona, Colorado, and a number of other places. But here's one thing you can take to the bank: when polls are averaged, which they are at pollster.com, Clinton has huge leads just about everywhere.

Eat Burger, Waive Right to Sue

Mandatory arbitration agreements forcing people to give up their rights to sue are now standard fare in everything from cell phone contracts to Hooters’ employment agreements. But the owner of an East Texas Whataburger has apparently taken arbitration mania to a new level. Every public entrance to the burger franchise displays a sign informing people that simply setting foot on the premises means that they are giving up their right to sue the company for any reason, even if, for instance, they get a little e coli along with their fries. Instead, customers will be forced to arbitrate their claims before the American Mediation Association, an organization that seems to consist of three lawyers in Dallas hired by the Whataburger (part of a 58-year-old fast food chain deemed a “Texas treasure” by the state legislature).

Attorney Dan Sorey spotted the sign in early January while in Kilgore investigating the scene of a motorcycle crash for a case. The Whataburger offered an ideal vantage point to study the intersection where the crash happened. Sorey says when he went in, he told a befuddled cashier that he didn’t think that the arbitration notice was enforceable, that anyway he wasn’t agreeing to it, and, “I need a taquito and a coffee.” He says he sat down, watched some traffic, and ate his taquito. “I didn’t choke, I didn’t burn myself, and I didn’t sue ‘em,” he reports. Sadly, while we suspect there is a good story behind the signs, the Whataburger franchise owner did not respond to requests for an interview. We'll just have to assume that the signs are the product of one too many late-night talk-show jokes about McDonalds' coffee lawsuits.

REALLY Bad News Day for Hillary Clinton

Check out this collection of stories from around the web.

First, there's a crushing ABC News story about Hillary Clinton's inaction during her tenure with Wal-Mart.

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers....

"I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

The story reports that video of Wal-Mart's many private board meetings never shows Clinton reacting to the other board member's vicious anti-union statements. The story also reports that Clinton's main effort on the board, improving conditions for female workers, accomplished little. Further, the story says that Clinton will keep $20,000 in donations from Wal-Mart executives, and that former President Bill Clinton has regular private meetings with Wal-Mart's current CEO.

Then there is David Broder who writes in the Washington Post that Barack Obama is the Democratic frontrunner, despite Hillary Clinton's polling leads in many February 5 states. Broder points to establishment Democratic opinion trending toward BHO.

The advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama — thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president.

The New York senator could still emerge from the "Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to clinching the nomination...

That establishment that is heading Obama's way? That's the one the Clintons have owned for nearly two decades. Think we're done? Oh, no. More after the jump.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Zeldin compares the questionable but ultimately insubstantial legal work Clinton did for Jim McDougal in Arkansas that was later investigated by Kenneth Starr to the legal work Obama did for "slumlord" Tony Rezko that Clinton is now using as an attack line her stump speeches. After discussing the truly insignificant nature of the Rezko situation, Zeldin writes:

No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.

I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty — a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction — she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically.

And heavens, we're still not finished. The New York Times reports that Bill Clinton went to the Kazakhstani president and vouched for a Canadian businessman named Giustra seeking inroads into Kazakhstan's uranium mining business. In a simple quid pro quo, Giustra later made a massive donation to Clinton's charitable foundation.

The monster deal [that Giustra signed with Kazakhstan] stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world's largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

It may actually be a good thing for Hillary Clinton that all of this muck came out on the same day. There's only so much oxygen for news stories to breathe. At least one of these is going to wither and die without much attention.

Update: Whoops, thought we were finished. Also out today, news that Obama has raised a stunning $32 million in January, an amount which "roughly equals his previous best three-month fundraising haul." Howard Dean raised $51 million during his entire campaign in 2004.

Posted by Jonathan Stein on 01/31/08 at 7:55 AM | | Comments (81) | E-mail |