Yeah, celebrity endorsements are silly, I know. Apparently Jack Nicholson did a Hillary commercial a little while ago…
And someone came up with another Jack Nicholson “buyer’s remorse” commercial. Funny stuff.
Please, let this be over, sooner than later.
Or for Hillary, And Certainly Not for McCain, And Not Even For Ralph
By Wayne Price
Re-posted (with his in-direct approval) from here
Just thought I’d throw this out here; I really couldn’t have said it better myself. I know this won’t be popular on GMD, but I agree with it, and (agree or not) it’s an important, rational perspective.
In the United States, there has developed an enthusiastic movement of support for the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. Besides the large forces he appeals to, especially among young adults, he is overwhelmingly supported by the left: liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists. I appreciate the movement-like aspect of his popular support, yet I personally will not vote for him. I do not try to persuade individual friends, family members, and co-workers not to vote for him, but I would like to change their attitudes. It is typical of liberals, etc. that they start elections by declaring the Democratic candidate to be the “lesser evil” (which admits that he or she is an evil). But as the election gets closer, they become convinced of the great goodness of the candidate. (In psychology, this is called the operation of cognitive dissonance. After all, who wants to believe of oneself that we are supporting someone evil? So we persuade ourselves that the evil politician is actually good.)
Let me give some anecdotes about the real Obama. In the left-liberal journal, The Nation (2/18/08), Christopher Hayes wrote a pro-Obama article, “The Choice.” He recalled, “For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the Senate was a collective rallying cry….Young Chicago progressives felt…He is one of us and now he is in the Senate (p. 20).”
And yet…. “That’s not, alas, how things turned out,” writes this supporter of Obama. “Almost immediately, Obama…shaded himself toward the center….His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators (same).” This is a typical story of a young idealist becoming corrupted by playing the game of bourgeois electoral politics.
Hayes suspects that this was due to Obama having “an eye on national office.” But there were other corrupting forces. For example, Obama has boasted to campaign crowds in Iowa that he had passed a law to increase regulation of nuclear power plants. Specifically this was a response to the Exelon Corp. which had failed to inform the public about radioactive leaks at one of its plants. Senator Obama scolded both Exelon and federal regulators. He presented a bill to force nuclear power companies to disclose even small leaks. On the stump, Obama stated that this was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed. I did it just last year (New York Times, 2/3/08, p. A1).”
However, this was a lie. Obama had introduced such a bill, but it was repeatedly weakened until it no longer imposed any demands on the nuclear power industry…and then it was dropped. Obama never got any law regulating the nuclear power industry passed. Why did he cave in? The New York Times reports that Exelon was “one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money (same, p. A17).” Since 2003, Obama has gotten more than $227,000 from officials and employees of Exelon. Two of the top executives are among his biggest donors. Obama’s chief political strategist has been an advisor to Exelon.
In short, good intentions (I assume Obama had good intentions and that it was not a fraud from the start) were overwhelmed by the influence of big business. Of course Obama is a supporter of the capitalist economy. He hopes to be the top administrator of the capitalist economy. In no way is he anti-business, no matter how many unions endorse him. No doubt he would deny that there are necessary conflicts between labor and business. The bringing together of clashing forces is one of his central ideas. For example, rather than fight for a single payer health insurance plan – which would alienate the insurance industry – he proposes a health program which would include the insurance companies, providing them with lots of cash. But like his nuclear regulation bill, the insurance companies will do all they can to water down his original plan and then to kill it if they can.
Perhaps to most people, Barack Obama’s biggest appeal is his opposition to the Iraq war. Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton (let alone John McCain), he opposed the war in the beginning. But this does not make him an anti-war candidate. He proposes that most U.S. troops withdraw, but that a significant number (precise amount unspecified) will remain to guard U.S. personnel, to train forces of the puppet Iraqi government, and to “strike at Al Qaeda.” What he would actually do in the face of a collapse of the Iraqi government is anyone’s guess.
But whether or not Obama will continue this particular war, he remains a supporter of the U.S. empire. This empire has military bases in approximately 150 countries and military alliances around the world. Despite its decline, it still dominates the international economy and drains wealth from every continent. Obama is for this empire , which he discusses in terms of the “national interest,” meaning the interest of the U.S. ruling class (including the executives of Exelon). Because he supports this empire, he is most likely to remain in this war and to get into other wars. In interviews, he has already said that he might bomb Pakistan and that he would consider military action against Iran.
Another major appeal is his race. Just by being himself, an African-American, he makes the point that it is possible for People of Color to rise in our society, even to be president. However, this distracts us from the real problems of U.S. racism. Most African-Americans will remain at the bottom of society, impoverished, last hired and first fired, and subject to police violence. This will not change by having a cool Black man as president. True racial change will require a social upheaval, not just the election of one person.
When pressed, many liberals and social democrats will admit that Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is a candidate of capitalism, militarism, and imperialism. But, they argue, he is far less of an evil than Senator John McCain. In McCain the Republicans have put their best foot forward. Unlike the inept Bush, he is intelligent and witty, a war hero, and he sometimes shows some humanity (as in opposing torture, before he caved). He is still hated by the far right, which does him credit. Yet for all that, he is pledged to carry on the Iraq war, if necessary for a “hundred years..” In general he will continue the programs of the vile Bush regime. It is important to oppose him. Since the U.S. population is far from ready to support a socialist (or anarchist) alternative, it is argued, we must support Barack Obama as the lesser evil.
In response, I accept that the Democrats, however evil, are indeed the lesser evil. I only doubt that the greater evil can really be defeated by supporting the lesser evil. After all, liberals, unionists, the African-American community, the women’s movement, the environmental movement, the GLBT community, etc., etc., have been supporting the Democrats for decades, generations. And yet the Republicans have moved more to the right, and the Democrats have also moved to the right (but remain just a little bit to the left of the Republicans). Lesser-evilism has not worked very well.
Instead of comparing the Democrats to the Republicans, I propose a different standard: What is necessary to save the country and the world from disaster. Does the candidate have a program which will prevent the economic crisis we are sliding into? Will he solve the danger of ecological/ environmental/ energy catastrophe? Will he reverse the spread of nuclear weapons before there is a nuclear war? To claim that Obama (or even Ralph Nader, the independent) reaches this standard is absurd.
No one person can be an effective chief administrator of a unit as large as the United States. On the other side of the coin, any one person’s vote does not make a difference, considering the size of the country. This is just too big a social unit. We need vibrant local democracies, political, economic, and social, more than we need an imperial president.
People argue with me: But what if everyone (or if a lot of people) had your (my) negative attitude toward elections or for supporting pro-capitalist candidates? My response is: Great! Then there would be a mass movement.
The gains of the thirties labor movement were won mainly through sit-ins in the factories as part of mass strikes. The gains of African-Americans in the fifties and sixties were won through mass civil disobedience and urban uprisings (“riots”). The struggle against the Vietnam war was fought through massive demonstrations, student strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the army.
The gains of most social movements have been won through non-electoral means, not by electing lesser-evil politicians. Independent electoral actions, such as that of Ralph Nader or the Green Party, have never been very useful. If successful (as in some European countries), they will also be corrupted by the pressures of electoralism, money, and the need to administer a giant capitalist government.
My goal is not to persuade individuals to not vote. It is to raise the idea of independent mass struggle. A single general strike in a U.S. city would do more to advance the struggle for freedom than any number of Obamas.
It is exciting to see the popular response to Obama, especially by young people. This lays the basis for a new New Left, a new wave of radicalization. But that will be based on recognizing the truth and telling the truth, as best as we radicals can see it – not by capitulating to the illusions which others still have. A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble.
Those of you who follow energy and environmental issues are probably aware of the EPA's recent ruling that nullified California's recent auto emissions rules which were much stricter than the ones passed recently by Congress. There's a lot of evidence that points to it being politically motivated, and the person at the EPA in charge was repeatedly told by advisers that it would not hold up in court, yet they went ahead with it anyways. I know, not surprising due to the pressure from the automotive industry that has a tight grip on Washington, in particular the branch led by former oilmen.
VPR is reporting that Congressman Welch has just sponsored legislation that would overturn the ruling:
Essentially the bill would overturn a recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency that denies a plan by California to put auto emission standards into place that are tougher than those imposed by the federal government.
The E.P.A. ruling also directly affects the state of Vermont because the Douglas Administration wants to implement the California standards here. The EPA decision is now being challenged in court.
Congressman Welch says the intent of this new bill is to override the E.P.A. ruling:
(Welch): “What we need to do is pass a law that makes very clear that California and states like Vermont that have joined them can implement their higher fuel efficiency standards you know this is something that has always been an environmental issue it's always been a health issue but today with the price of a barrel of oil reaching a record of 106 dollars a barrel it's also an economic issue.”
Welch also stated that its best chance of passing is as an amendment to another piece of legislation that has a chance of passing in Congress. Of courese, we can expect Bushco to fight this one. Tip of the hat to Welch for taking the lead on this one.
From the Times Argus today (emphasis added):
Obama may have Neil Jensen of Monkton to thank for his win here Tuesday night. Jensen, a web designer, began talking to friends about the Illinois senator in the fall of 2006 – long before he was even a declared candidate.
A meet-up of Obama supporters at a restaurant in Burlington in December 2006 attracted about 30 people, Jensen said. Soon, the monthly meetings began drawing more and more interested Vermonters – a base that the campaign easily tapped into when it began its groundwork this year in the state.
“Our goal at first was to help out in New Hampshire,” Jensen said. “But once it became clear that Vermont might actually be important in this, we shifted focus.”
High praise indeed! Congratulations, Neil. Don’t forget to send us a postcard from Pennsylvania (you are going to be driving down from Pennsylvania, aren’t you?).
There’ve been a few tense races for the Clinton campaign where they have nearly faced what would have been sold as virtual elimination. Two of those moments in particular have drawn special attention from the media, and given rise to great tensions among the netroots and activist set. There was Nevada, where the system faced legal challenges from Clinton supporters and where there were accusations of impropriety against Clinton-supporting caucus-goers after the fact. Most recently, there was Ohio, where Obama momentum was effectively squelched and reversed in the last 72 hours, leading to a surprisingly definitive Clinton victory amidst charges that her campaign was “going negative.”
What was the common denominator in the Clinton campaign’s popular vote Nevada victory and the across the board victory in Ohio?
The Hillary Clinton campaign today announced that veteran Democratic operative Robby Mook would serve as the campaign’s Nevada State Director.
“Robby is an outstanding organizer, and I’m thrilled he’s going to run our Nevada campaign,” said Clinton.
And here again, from HuffPo:
Rival candidate Senator Hillary Clinton is also deploying her most battle-ready field marshals to Ohio. While both campaigns have had skeleton teams in Ohio since January, now the big guns have unpacked their bags and set up their state headquarters in Columbus. They’ve also brought their entourage of top managers, field directors, GOTV staffers and consultants with media buys planned, along with scheduled campaign events and candidate appearances.
Behind the scenes of the Obama-Clinton race to capture Ohio’s 161 delegates, the biggest jackpot of states still in contention, it will be a killer match between each campaign’s point man: Paul Tewes and Robby Mook.
Mook’s resume is impressive; Deputy Field Director for Dean’s New Hampshire effort, work for Kerry and the DNC in states like Wisconsin and Director of the 2006 Coordinated Campaign in Maryland. What doesn’t get much mention is the fact that he’s a Vermonter who got his political feet wet working for the Democratic House Campaign back in the late 90’s, and working as the Statewide Field Director for the Vermont Democratic Party in 2002, where we were both jammed into a tiny, windowless box of a room as officemates.
What really tells me how far Robby has come is this quote, also from HuffPo:
Mook and Marshall are naturally good managers. And they work at being good managers. They see it as a major ingredient to winning–something that makes campaigns work.
With all due props to Robby, that’s half right – and in being half right it sells Robby short. In my opinion, Robby is far from being a natural manager. His clarity of understanding on what needed to be accomplished and how to get there was always spot-on (refreshingly so) – but the guy was constantly second-guessing himself and lacking self-confidence in managing staff in his first outing as a boss. Hell, I was often worried about him, and more than once wanted to go shake the hell out of a couple of his field staffers who seemed to be exploiting his unsteadiness.
No, the fact is that Robby has clearly become a good manager through focus, determination, hard work and smarts. You know – the hard way. And on his way, I suspect he’s learned an awful lot more about how to win than a dozen “naturally good managers” could possibly walk through the door with. By November of ’02, he’d had to knock a couple heads to get staffers in line, and I suspect that was only the briefest prologue to the lessons he went on to pick up in New Hampshire, Wisconsin and elsewhere, before becoming a Clinton campaign powerhouse and cementing his reputation and future in the business once and for all.
So congrats from me, and I’m sure from all your other old buddies from the old days. You’ve earned it, and I have no doubt that this is only the beginning…
Beyond the appeals to race and gender, there is another dynamic at play in this primary fight. A struggle to define what kind of people the Democratic party speaks to.
This primary fight is certainly about the politics of identity. To ignore that would be silly. The reaction to photos of Obama in African Dress proves that many see the Clinton Campaign as saying that America is not ready for a Black President. This primary fight is about Race.
And this primary fight is certainly about Gender. A post by Monica Guzman at Seattle PI lead me to a Washington Post Article in which some feminist leaders claim that:”There are some people who promote Barack Obama because they want anybody but a woman. Would they like a white man instead of a black man? Of course. But they’ll take a black man over a woman. I never thought, in 2008, that we’d still be dealing with this.”
(This has been a debate over at Green Mountain Daily for sometime- with NanukFC challenging male bias every step of the way.)
But there is another dynamic going on here. The press, in it’s attempt to see around corners, has given us a lot of demographic information about the two camps. In addition to race and gender, we learn that the Obama camp is dominated by the young, the educated, the technically connected and savvy- people well able to compete in a global, and technology driven economy. Clinton, on the other hand, finds her support among those who are dependent on the “old” economy- blue collar and service workers- according to an article on CBS News, these are the people who respond to Hillary:
Clinton surely knows that as she promises to lower the costs of going to college, offering debt relief for people who graduate and go into teaching, or nursing, or law enforcement. “And I want to say something about all the other people who don’t go to college,” she adds. “You know, most people don’t go to college and graduate. And these are the people who build the buildings that we live and work in. They keep the economy going. They do most of the jobs in our society. I want to pay more attention to you.” She promises job training and community college programs.
At the same time, we’ve seen, recently on Green Mountain Daily, an anti-Clinton you-tube screed called: “The Clinton Hillbillies“. Which lampoons Hillary as a carpet-bagging fake, and, by inference makes the point that her supporters are a bunch of beer drinking, tobacco spitting in-bread morons.
This race is dominated by the question of who will get the historic honor of being the first (X or Y) to be the first (X or Y) President in American history.
But on another level, I’m wondering if we are witnessing the Democratic party making a choice about which type of American we want to serve and help- and, if so, I’m wondering if it’s possible to enlarge the tent again?
cross-posted at http://rip-and-read.blogspot.com/
Per the Rutland Herald:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review Entergy Nuclear’s “fitness for duty” program during an scheduled security inspection after the second violation in the past six months.
An administrative assistant whose job duties include testing Entergy Nuclear employees at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for possible drug and alcohol use was suspended for two weeks after she was found to exceed allowable alcohol limits, according to the NRC.
So let me get this straight: the woman responsible for making sure people at VY aren’t doing such thing as, say, drinking on the job, has been, well, drinking on the job.
This is the sort of thing that makes me all twitchy.
AP's Lisa Rathke reports today that superdelegate Billi Gosh of Brookfield is standing firm in her support of Hillary Clinton. Her position comes despite the fact that Obama won in every county of Vermont.
“The Obama train was steaming down the track and we have derailed it,” said Billi Gosh, of Brookfield, national committee chairwoman.
Is this a case of a superdelegate going her own way, no matter Vermonters vote? Your thoughts?
When I was a science geek kid, I remember being fascinated by the life and death of stars – especially their deaths, and the strange, exotic things they would turn into when they collapse in on themselves. One piece that caught my eye at the time was the nature of the force that stops the collapse of a star like ours after its death, leaving it a tiny, squished together neutron star or white dwarf.
The force is called “degeneracy pressure.” This is a simplistic example, but imagine crushing a ball of paper in your hands tighter and tighter. There’s a point at which, even though you’re stronger than paper, you can’t squeeze it any smaller. The compression itself creates a counter pressure that will not allow the particles to be crushed down any further. I think there’s a analogy here for what could play out as the Democratic Party’s 2008 electoral future if things continue the way they’re playing out.
The Clinton campaign had to get ugly to stop Obama. And there’s every indication that she’s more than willing to get uglier. She’s embraced right-wing style fear of terrorism narratives in her ads, painting Obama as a shifty flip-flopper on Iraq and NAFTA (with the speculated collusion of Canadian conservatives on the latter, and despite her own badly mixed messages on the issues), playing up his connection to an Illinois political fixer (despite her own family’s storied shady political and financial specters) and has even been suggesting that McCain may be more qualified to the top spot than Obama. Now there are even charges of a replay of the “race card” through the darkening of his image on her website, a la the Time magazine “OJ” treatment.
And, of course, it works. They know what all of us who have ever worked in politics know (well, with the exception of a steady subset of political pros on the left who are in perpetual denial) – people always decry negative campaigning, but they always – always – respond to it. If the negativity seems to be working against you, you just need to crank up the volume a little higher. The simple fact is, it virtually never fails.
But the hidden danger is always cynicism. A level of disgust that pushes down turnout slowly and steadily, cycle after cycle. However, in this instance, Clinton is courting a real danger that the process won’t be so glacial. Obama is bringing in new voters like no one has ever seen. If she ends up beating their candidate with pure sleaziness, its going to feel like a demoralizing game of whack-a-mole to many first time voters dipping their toes in a pool they’re so often told is fixed and corrupt.
And it’s not just the new folks. Obama’s support among the more regularly voting left may simply find that there’s a point at which they can’t be crushed down by sleaziness any more. This is what the Democratic establishment needs to be most worried about. Voters are castigated for (ridiculously) suggesting that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, as it’s clear that even a Dem hawk like Hillary Clinton would be far less likely to get us into another Iraq-esque war than John McCain. Obama supporters who suggest that they may have a problem voting for Clinton will be chastised on the one hand, but on the other hand will be asked to look at the process intellectually, recognize the clear distinction, swallow hard and vote for Clinton.
But people are not computers, and all the castigation and reasoning can not change that fact. If Clinton wins with a scorched Earth strategy that stomps this thing into the gutter, there will be many voters who – as a result of a sort of psychological degeneracy pressure that simply doesn’t allow them to be further crushed down past a point certain – will simply be emotionally unable to make a choice to reward her with their vote in November. It may not be rational, it may be frustrating, maybe even self-defeating, but people are as much creatures of emotion as reason, and all the castigating in the world won’t change that simple reality.
And if we’re to call ourselves a “reality based community,” we need to look this reality square in the eye, like it or not, and find a way to deal with it.