Archive for the 'President' Category

Those defending the Democratic debate on Fox News are getting sillier by the minute.

D. Taylor, Secretary–Treasurer of the 60,000-member Culinary Union called on those who have focused on Fox to look at the larger political picture. “Nevada was chosen as an early caucus state because of its diversity.

Nevada has lots of blacks, Asians, and Latinos. Hence, Democrats should go on the alll-white Fox News Channel instead of media venues frequented by that diverse population. It's that kind of brilliant thinking that has made the Nevada Republican Party so dominant in a state which should be far more competitive.

It's increasingly clear that Nevada didn't deserve to be moved up in the calendar. They apparently don't understand that Democratic caucuses have nothing to do with the Republicans watching Fox News.

They think that being on Fox News will win over converts, apparently unaware that the pundit heroes of those watching Fox News (Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Bennett, etc) will mine the debate for hours and days for ways to bash those Democrats. Who will viewers believe? Evil Democrats, or their favorite Fox talking heads?

This is on Dean and Reid, who are happily legitimizing the right-wing's favorite propaganda outlet. And it will be on any Democratic candidate that decides to appear at the debate.

Remember Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs? I wrote about him last week:

[O]ne can’t help but get a little cynical hearing Obama talk about “changing the tone” and all that bullshit, while hiring a well-known smear-meister best known for his work trashing other Democrats.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical.

Obama repudiated the hardball tactics of his own staff. And he made it seem he was clueless about a major story dealing with his own campaign.

In a front page New York Times interview published Friday, Obama suggested that his marching orders to stay on the high road were ignored, quite a public flogging.

Obama, in his two-week old campaign, is offering himself as the antidote to a cynicism he asserts is poisoning U.S. politics. One of Obama's stump lines goes something like this: His rival in the Democratic primary "is not other candidates," he says, "it's cynicism."

Gibbs and Wolfson mixing it up is campaign business as usual. The back-and-forth, however, exposed Obama to a risk -- being called a hypocrite.

Obama decided not to handle matters internally, however.

"I told my staff that I don't want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we're spending time talking about issues," Obama told the paper. He added, "My preference goinard is that we have to be careful not to slip into the game as it is customarily played."

Now Obama's desire to retain the high ground may not survive the heat of combat the closer we get to the primaries. But it was baffling to get down in the muck this early in the process.

Still, Obama didn't smack down Gibbs private, he did so publicly, in about the highest-profile publication in the country (and its front page).

That's called "sending a message".

(p.s. I'm still cynical, but receptive.)

It's important to remember that as much progress as we seem to make, the long-term struggle is by no means over nor even close to being finished.

We have worked hard to build a movement to do battle against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. That machine has chewed up and spit out countless Democrats, rendering them a hollow shell of what they used to be. For decades, it was easier for a Democrat to go along with the right-wing agenda than to face the wrath of the combined might of the right-wing Mighty Wurlitzer.

Then we bloggers came along, and Air America, and ... well, that's it. We're laughably small compared to what the Right can throw at our side. But we're growing and have shown Democrats that there's reward for standing for strong progressive principles. We have shown that we can also deliver some measure of pain to the other side. We've shown that the political and media landscapes are changing, and that we no longer have to pretend that Fox News is a serious news operation.

The best thing Barack Obama may have done this young primary season was to freeze out Fox News after their "Madrassas" smear of him. I don't know if he's still cutting them off, but fact is, he sent an unmistakable message -- he'll only deal with legitimate news operations, and Fox News ain't one of them.

This was a huge step forward. Fox News is unabashedly movement oriented -- focused on promoting Republicans at the expense of Democrats. Every decision they make, from top to bottom, is predicated on that very simply mission.

But they cannot exert serious pressure on media narratives unless it creates some semblance of respectability. Its so-called "fair and balanced" nonsense. It's much easier to ignore Newsmax as partisan dribble. But when reporting news, any "serious" news operation gets deference by its peers. And Fox News has taken advantage of that deference to promote some of the worst smears against Democrats. Yet for years, Democrats have helped fuel this right-wing propaganda arm by appearing on their various programs, lending it an air of legitimacy.

But I suppose politics is about measuring baby steps. And the Nevada Democratic Party's decision to give Fox News rights to one of our field's debates sets back much of our hard work.

Would Republicans hold a debate on Air America? Would they live blog on Daily Kos? Only if they were idiots. But apparently, that very simple notion eludes our top Democrats.

And not just in Nevada. Howard Dean has endorsed the effort as a way to, um, let Fox News talking heads make fun of Democrats to a large audience:

But the Nevada party organizers -- and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox's reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN. And one whose believability is much higher with Republicans than Democrats, according to a 2005 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

First of all, the number of people who watch cable news is tiny. O'Reilly's show draws just a bit over 2 million people. Not exactly the masses. Cable news is literally just a couple of notches above the blogosphere in terms of overall audience. And I don't say that to puff up the blogosphere, but to deflate cable news.

But more importantly, why do you think conservatives watch Fox News? Because they worship at the altar of their pundit heroes -- Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, John Gibson, and their special little friends like Bill Bennett, Ann Coulter and the like.

That's who the viewers tune in to hear. That's who they trust.

So logic would dictate an easy answer to this question --

It's not a trick question.

So where does that leave us? The genius at the Nevada Democratic Party who negotiated the agreement with Fox is stepping down, so he doesn't give a shit what people think. It's no longer his problem.

Harry Reid is playing stupid and passing the buck, wondering why anyone would think that he, the highest-ranking Democrat in the land, might have any influence in his own state of Nevada. Don't look to him for leadership on this. He's apparently perfectly happy helping legitimize Fox News. Apparently, he has no problems with them trashing him like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Howard Dean has forgotten his own battles with Fox, and is now eagerly helping legitimize the right-wing's smear machine. Perhaps there's a limit to how long one spends in DC before they lose common sense.

So it comes down to the candidates.

The second- and third-tier candidates are desperate for any exposure, and won't turn down the debate. But a couple of the top-tier candidates have complained about the heavy debate schedule. So once again, here's a chance to clear up some of that calendar for more productive endeavors.

Skipping this debate will have a second positive effect -- gratitude from lots like me who don't appreciate Democrats bolstering the enemy's smear propaganda machine.

Damn. This is impressive:

Barack Obama excited at least 15,000 people at Auditorium Shores on Friday with vows to unify the United States behind high hopes for change, including bringing U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by March 2008.

Organizers say 20-22,000, but even the 15,000 mark is pretty darn impressive. No one else in the field, not even Hillary, is competing with those numbers.

At this point four years ago, us Dean people were ecstatic over Dean drawing 3,000 in Austin, and that was considered huge at the time, much bigger than what anyone else could manage. 15,000 is mind-boggling.

Obama's ability to draw a crowd is generating headlines. And as long as Obama continues to ridicule Cheney as he so richly deserves, the crowds should continue to grow.

When talking about Kucinich, I usually leave it at "ugh". I've found that much kinder than actually getting into Kucinich's record. But his supporters are OUTRAGED(!) that I would be so dismissive, and they DEMAND(!) I explain myself.

Honestly, it would be better for your guy if I didn't. But since you all insist...

1. Kucinich has never proven broad electoral viability. How many presidents have been elected straight from the House of Representatives? Kucinich could gain respect by running and winning in something a little more competitive than an urban 58 percent Kerry district.
2. Did you know that Kucinich was once ardently anti-choice and anti-stem cell research? From a 2002 Nation article:

   One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

   His transformation to being pro-choice happened literally overnight -- a week after he announced his 2004 presidential bid. One moment he was virulently anti choice, the next he was a staunch defender.

3. "Department of Peace"?

   We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars.

   Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control.

   "Higher evolution of human awareness"? "Transform consciousness"? "Paradign shift"? What the hell is this crap? I expect this kind of crap out of Deepak Chopra (or Tom Cruise), not a serious presidential candidate.

   And by the way, the "Department of Peace" already exists. It's called the "U.S. Department of State".

4. The stuff above isn't even the worst -- check out this stuff from Kucinich's keynote address to something called the "Dubrovnik Conference on the Alchemy of Peacebuilding":

   Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

   Clearly, Kucinich resides in a higher plane of existence than I do. But my plane is on the planet earth. I want my president to reside here as well.

5. The 1999 book The American Mayor by Melvin G. Holli, ranked Kucinich the 7th worst mayor in the nation:

   Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's "boy mayor" had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months in office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978 - the first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office. Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed that he had met Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nutcake." After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called "Dennis the Menace", as seventh-worst.

   This survey spanned mayors in the United States between 1820 and 1993. Notching the "7th Worst" slot was a serious accomplishment.

6. He used his 2004 run for president to score dates. Luckily, he's married this time around so we'll be spared that pathetic display of desperation.

Kucinich fans -- I had no intention of writing any of this.

You should've let me leave it at "ugh".

Update: One good point people have made is summarized in this comment:

I'm not a Kucinich fan either, particularly, but some of this is IMO a little unfair. I tend to think he's just utterly unelectable on a national scale in this country, but he should be as free to talk about his "faith" as everybody else is, in theory, right? I mean, you can mock new-agey stuff -- it's pretty mockable in some ways -- but if you back off, is it really any sillier than any other set of faiths?

Here's the difference -- Kucinich is using his "faith" as the basis of his "Department of Peace". In other words, he's trying to inject his faith into the public sphere.

And that's not something I'm willing to tolerate, whether it comes from the Religious Right or from our side.

People are free to talk about the source of their values. But I believe strongly in the wall between church and state.

A reminder -- this isn't a list of my favorite or preferred candidates. I don't have any so far. It's my take on where these candidates sit in the race today. My long-term prognostication remains -- I think Obama will win this all by the time votes are counted. But what do I know?

Last month's rankings: 1) Obama, 2) Edwards, 3) Clinton, 4) Richardson, 5) Clark, 6) Kerry, and then everyone else.

THE TOP TIER

1. Hillary Clinton

Her announcement rollout was masterful. She leads in the national polls which, while not indicative of much, is helpful for fundraising and media buzz purposes. She leads all early New Hampshire polls and several of the Iowa ones (though numbers are all over the place suggesting that no one knows how to poll these early states, this far out).

Iraq is already giving her fits, and will present a long-term problem for her campaign. But for now, most people are blissfully unaware of her Iraq record.

2. Barack Obama

He has parried off the early attacks skillfully and is getting a great deal of traction on Iraq. He's drawing thousands to his rallies, hinting at a Dean-like popular phenomenon in the makings. He's got huge support in the Facebook world, and is he's neck and neck with Edwards in the Daily Kos straw poll showing strong and growing netroots support.

Oh, and the money will be there. Lots of it.

3. John Edwards

Boy, that blogger stuff wasn't his campaign's finest hour. They betrayed a lack of preparation, foresight, and basic vetting. They were pushed into "bunker" mode by the rantings of Bill Donahue, giving little confidence they'd be able to withstand a serious attack from the VRWC. Then, the campaign leaked like a sieve -- were the bloggers fired or not? Then, the campaign did the right thing and held tight on the bloggers, but didn't tell them they shouldn't blog elsewhere. A couple of days later, the bloggers resign anyway, giving the right wingers a scalp.

The good thing is that this happened so early that it won't register as even a blip in a few months. And hopefully the campaign learned some good lessons out of this.

Otherwise, the Edwards campaign appears to have been overshadowed by the battle of titans between Hillary and Barack. It's not a bad thing for Edwards to see the two front runners beat the shit out of each other while he safely stays out of the fray.

THE SECOND TIER

4. Bill Richardson

Put aside his hokey desire to have the candidates make a pledge to campaign only positively (those things never survive the heat of battle), Richardson is quietly building up support and raising money. In the dKos straw poll, he's the only candidate to gain every one of the last five polls. (Of course, when you start at 1 percent, that's easier to do...)

Of all the announced candidates, Richardson has the greatest potential to break into the top tier.

THE REST

5. Tom Vilsack

Coming out in favor of social security price indexing was rather odd for a Democratic candidate.

But he's the former governor of Iowa, so that might count for something.

6. Joe Biden

His announcement week was a nightmare.

7. Chris Dodd

His remarks at the DNC and AFSCME cattle calls were generally well received.

8. Dennis Kucinich

Ugh.

9. Mike Gravel

I'm not sure what Gravel thinks he's bringing to the table that isn't being covered by other, viable candidates.

10. Wesley Clark

He's not even in the race, has no operation, and his public profiles is fading as the rest of the field takes center stage. This is the last time I include him in either the straw poll or cattle call unless he announces. He's bleeding support in the Daily Kos straw poll as people lose interest and move to other candidates. Given that his big mistake in 2003 was wait too long before entering the race, it's crazy to think that he's going to make the same mistake again (and the race is definitely accelerated this year). So I'm starting to assume he's not going to run.