Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, has written an opinion piece in The Washington Post titled Progressives Must Work to Retake the Supreme Court.
After having read the piece, I must say that Katrina shows a clear lack of understanding of the U.S. constitutional system. The U.S. Supreme Court is, by design, a reactionary institution whose function is to limit the power of the most democratic branch of government (Congress). And while, historically, there are instances of socially progressive Court decisions, by and large, the institution's primary function is to protect and promote the interests of corporate America. Just look at the current composition of the court: eight out of nine justices are pro-corporate individuals. These include Obama's appointments.
Also, the right-wing nature of the institution notwithstanding, if Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to be taken seriously she needs to be more candid about who she wants to retake the Court from whom; advocating for Obama's re-elections implies the socially liberal corporatists (Dems) v. socially conservative corporatists (Reps) dichotomy. If, instead, she means that the People need to retake the Supreme Court, then she should advocate electing a president by the people rather than by the corporations such as Obama.
Only when we elect a president who truly represents the people, we can talk about retaking the Supreme Court. Until then, the cries by the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel are simply scare tactics to make people vote for Obama and the corporate state. This is why in the current presidential election, I will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party.
(To those who chastise voters who vote their conscience rather than voting for the lesser-of-two-evils – itself an oxymoron, given Obama's pitiful record – I say this: if you vote Democratic thinking that the Democratic party is going to take your vote as anything other than a full endorsement of their policies, you clearly do not understand electoral politics. Because, make no mistake, after every election parties look at results very carefully, including those of smaller parties. Any spillover in any direction is assessed and, if considered worrisome, addressed by modifying the party's message to include those voters' concerns. If you don't believe me, just look at how much time both major parties spend courting the so-called independents.)
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Cornel West on Obama
First posted on Daily Kos on May 16, 2011.
In a interview with Chris Hedges published on May 16 on truthdig, moral philosopher and democratic intellectual Cornel West speaks openly about his feelings of disillusionment about Barak Obama. While feeling misled by the Obama phenomenon, West also says that he needs to take responsibility for "reading into it more than was there."
University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University Cornell West is no stranger to the now president of the United States, having done 65 campaign events in support for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. But after Obama was elected, he began to realize that things in Washington were not going to be as different as many of Obama's supporters liked to believe:
West continues:
Speaking about his sense of betrayal, West feels that Obama has been swallowed by the oligarchic mentality which pervades Washington:
Finally, while not excluding voting for Obama again as a last resort, West contends that perhaps the only hope for a better future rests in third party formations and grassroots movements as well as acts of civil disobedience:
In the end, Cornel West, has come to the conclusion that Barack Obama did not turn out to be the hope and change that most of his supporters around the world would have liked him to be. As noted earlier, West takes responsibility for projecting a lot of his hopes and aspirations onto a person who, after all, never pretended to be anything other than a centrist pro-corporate Democrat.
On the other hand, it is good that West and other intellectuals are waking up in light of the upcoming presidential election. Perhaps, this awakening on the left will force Obama and the Democrats to do something more than simply pay lip service to a base which has been mostly used and abused ever since Barack Obama has come into office.
In a interview with Chris Hedges published on May 16 on truthdig, moral philosopher and democratic intellectual Cornel West speaks openly about his feelings of disillusionment about Barak Obama. While feeling misled by the Obama phenomenon, West also says that he needs to take responsibility for "reading into it more than was there."
University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University Cornell West is no stranger to the now president of the United States, having done 65 campaign events in support for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. But after Obama was elected, he began to realize that things in Washington were not going to be as different as many of Obama's supporters liked to believe:
I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with Lieberman as his mentor. But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, ‘Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.’ And the same is true for Dennis Ross and the other neo-imperial elites. I said, ‘I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade. I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong.
West continues:
It became very clear to me as the announcements were being made that this was going to be a newcomer, in many ways like Bill Clinton, who wanted to reassure the Establishment by bringing in persons they felt comfortable with and that we were really going to get someone who was using intermittent progressive populist language in order to justify a centrist, neoliberalist policy that we see in the opportunism of Bill Clinton. It was very much going to be a kind of black face of the DLC.
Speaking about his sense of betrayal, West feels that Obama has been swallowed by the oligarchic mentality which pervades Washington:
This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment. We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.
Finally, while not excluding voting for Obama again as a last resort, West contends that perhaps the only hope for a better future rests in third party formations and grassroots movements as well as acts of civil disobedience:
We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful. It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties. Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.
In the end, Cornel West, has come to the conclusion that Barack Obama did not turn out to be the hope and change that most of his supporters around the world would have liked him to be. As noted earlier, West takes responsibility for projecting a lot of his hopes and aspirations onto a person who, after all, never pretended to be anything other than a centrist pro-corporate Democrat.
On the other hand, it is good that West and other intellectuals are waking up in light of the upcoming presidential election. Perhaps, this awakening on the left will force Obama and the Democrats to do something more than simply pay lip service to a base which has been mostly used and abused ever since Barack Obama has come into office.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Aetna™ Wants to Kill Me
It looks like the greedy bureaucrats at Aetna™ have decided that my life is worth less than their bottom line. My doctor has informed me that Aetna™ has denied my claim for a potentially deadly health condition. The reason: pre-existing condition. That's right. They acknowledge my condition to be valid, but since I've had it before I got coverage from Aetna™ they don't want to deal with it.
It wouldn't be fair to just put the blame on Aetna™. After all they simply do what predatory capitalists are supposed to do. That's why I also want to personally thank president Obama and the Democratic party. The reason being that the Health Insurance Reform provision that currently forbids shark insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing condition only applies to people under the age of 19. For everyone else, this provision will not kick in until 2014. You could ask yourself: if Obama could create a provision for everyone under the age of 19 with the stroke of a pen, why couldn't he do it for everyone else? The only cogent answer I can come up with is: cynical political calculation. Basically, most of the goods of the Health Insurance Reform – more apt a description than Health Care Reform – will not come into effect until 2014. It seems that the Democrats and Obama had the bright idea to stake the interest of those whose life hangs in the balance of the pre-existing condition gap against their own re-election hopes. Now that the American people can see the seriousness of the Republican repeal of Health Insurance Reform effort, they will dutifully vote Democratic in 2012 in order to preserve it.
This is a perfect example of what Alain Badiou defines as the essence of modern electoral politics in his 2008 book The Meaning of Sarkozy: fear, and the fear of fear – which in the US would translate as the fear of the Other as fomented by the Republicans, and the fear of the Republican fear as fomented by the liberal Democrats. (More on this topic at some future time).
Small caveat: this cynical political game is going to cost over 100,000 lives. That's because, according to a 2009 Harvard medical study, lack of insurance is responsible for the death of 45,000 Americans every single year. But here comes the rub which exposes the idiocy of the Democratic political calculation: there will be 100,000 less potential Democratic voters who will not be able to vote from their grave in 2012.
Finally, the icing on the cake. To supposedly alleviate this problem of insurance coverage denial because of pre-existing conditions, Obama and the Democrats have come up with the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Unfortunately the eligibility requirements state that "if you currently have insurance coverage that doesn’t cover your medical condition ... you are not eligible for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan." Basically, one is eligible the PCIP government plan only if the insurance company denies coverage altogether. But if the shark insurance company takes your money – i.e. gives you coverage or, more appropriately, the illusion of coverage – and then simply denies the specific claim related to the pre-existing condition, then you get nothing. That's because even if I were to cancel my illusory health insurance policy, I still would not qualify for PCIP since, technically, I was not "denied" insurance coverage. So, while the insurance companies are free to pocket people's premiums in exchange for crumbs, Obama and the Democrats can look like they are doing all they can for those with pre-existing conditions. Simply brilliant.
Long live the Corporate State.
It wouldn't be fair to just put the blame on Aetna™. After all they simply do what predatory capitalists are supposed to do. That's why I also want to personally thank president Obama and the Democratic party. The reason being that the Health Insurance Reform provision that currently forbids shark insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing condition only applies to people under the age of 19. For everyone else, this provision will not kick in until 2014. You could ask yourself: if Obama could create a provision for everyone under the age of 19 with the stroke of a pen, why couldn't he do it for everyone else? The only cogent answer I can come up with is: cynical political calculation. Basically, most of the goods of the Health Insurance Reform – more apt a description than Health Care Reform – will not come into effect until 2014. It seems that the Democrats and Obama had the bright idea to stake the interest of those whose life hangs in the balance of the pre-existing condition gap against their own re-election hopes. Now that the American people can see the seriousness of the Republican repeal of Health Insurance Reform effort, they will dutifully vote Democratic in 2012 in order to preserve it.
This is a perfect example of what Alain Badiou defines as the essence of modern electoral politics in his 2008 book The Meaning of Sarkozy: fear, and the fear of fear – which in the US would translate as the fear of the Other as fomented by the Republicans, and the fear of the Republican fear as fomented by the liberal Democrats. (More on this topic at some future time).
Small caveat: this cynical political game is going to cost over 100,000 lives. That's because, according to a 2009 Harvard medical study, lack of insurance is responsible for the death of 45,000 Americans every single year. But here comes the rub which exposes the idiocy of the Democratic political calculation: there will be 100,000 less potential Democratic voters who will not be able to vote from their grave in 2012.
Finally, the icing on the cake. To supposedly alleviate this problem of insurance coverage denial because of pre-existing conditions, Obama and the Democrats have come up with the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Unfortunately the eligibility requirements state that "if you currently have insurance coverage that doesn’t cover your medical condition ... you are not eligible for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan." Basically, one is eligible the PCIP government plan only if the insurance company denies coverage altogether. But if the shark insurance company takes your money – i.e. gives you coverage or, more appropriately, the illusion of coverage – and then simply denies the specific claim related to the pre-existing condition, then you get nothing. That's because even if I were to cancel my illusory health insurance policy, I still would not qualify for PCIP since, technically, I was not "denied" insurance coverage. So, while the insurance companies are free to pocket people's premiums in exchange for crumbs, Obama and the Democrats can look like they are doing all they can for those with pre-existing conditions. Simply brilliant.
Long live the Corporate State.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Obama: Old Wine In New Bottle
As I observe the moral implosion of the Democratic leadership, I keep thinking of an essay by Noam Chomsky commenting on the Clinton presidency. In the 1996 essay, titled "Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste," Chomsky expands on Paul Krugman's assumption that "bad ideas flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups." In this case, Krugman was talking about international economic development and specifically about New Zealand; but Chomsky extrapolated this conclusion and applied it to corporate capitalism in general.
In a way, Chomsky's insight presaged Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," and today, it is easy to see how Obama is simply continuing the regressive policies systematized by Clinton, and put on hyperdrive by Bush. In the essay, Chomsky restates Krugman's conclusion by saying that "the "bad ideas" may not serve the "expressed goal," but they typically turn out to be very good ideas for their proponents." The current health care reform bill is a perfect example of such bad ideas.
The left is understandably dismayed at the form this health care bill is taking, but if we look at its unfolding under the prism of Chomsky's and Klein's analysis, we can see how, in the end, it is all according to plan. Sure, the "realists" will tell you that this is the best thing we can get in the current climate, but their thinking is predicated on an old dichotomy that sees the Democratic party leadership in opposition to the Republican leadership.
Unfortunately, such dichotomy is all for show and nothing more. And all we really need in order to expose the theatrical aspect of this purported opposition between the Republican party and the Democratic party is the following picture:
This is not a portrait of people who disagree with each other. This is the portrait of five masters of the universe showing unity of mind and purpose.
Returning to the health care bill and Chomsky's analysis, he goes on to point out some regularities in the policies imposed by international capital onto unwilling populations around the world, the first being that:
The current health care bill will do just that: let the designers (the health insurance companies) come out quite well with the government mandating 30 million new customers to purchase unregulated products from a cartel of colluding private corporations. In this case, we the people are also one of the "rare" examples where we did sign a consent form in the form of a ballot. Unlike other countries around the world who have no say in what the World Bank tells them to do, we actually put the people who are screwing us, and the rest of the world, in charge.
The fact that the current bill does not guarantee any real form of competition in the health care system brings me to another point that Chomsky makes later on in the essay:
This is not only what is happening now with the health care bill, but also what has happened with the TARP bill and the rescue of big banks. The common term would be corporate welfare, or corporate socialism, or corporatism (can you say, fascism?). Maybe, but you get the point. International corporations are getting their way in the world, and while until Clinton the American people where under the assumption that this system also benefited them, now it is clear that those days were simply a rehearsal for what is coming to pass now.
Once these bait and switch techniques have been refined in New Zealand, Latin America, Africa and such, they can be applied to the much more sophisticated western populations. And so, today we see Obama and the Democrats touting this health care bill as a great thing, when they can't even look at the camera with a straight face because they know that this will only drive more people into bankruptcy and destitution. Matt Taibbi has done a great job in this regard by exposing Obama and the Democrats in "Obama's Big Sellout."
This type of attitude of our political class goes also to show their hubris. The Democrats believe that working people and progressives have nowhere to turn to, and thus they are confident that no matter how bad they behave, people will eventually hold their nose and vote for them as the lesser of two evils. As Chomsky points out:
AIG bailout, anyone?
This is exactly what is happening today, and while under Clinton it was still under most people's radar, and only perceptive people like Chomsky and some other few could see it, today is all done in the open, by dangling the specter of Depression in front of the American people. In the meantime, we are in a Depression; at least those of us who live in the real world. The real unemployment is probably close to 20% since the government, from Clinton onward, has been fudging the figures to the point that they are meaningless. The term jobless recovery is also something that is becoming an euphemism for the government bailing out the rich while letting everyone else hanging out to dry.
In conclusion, Chomsky's essay shows us how Clinton then and Obama now are simply new bottles for the same old wine. And if this wine tasted bitter in 1996, now it makes people want to puke. That's why people are getting mad, and throwing things at the likes of Bush and Berlusconi, or why there are clashed in Copenhagen as I write. People are sick and tired of vampire like corporations sucking them dry and they are speaking out. For this reason, while things seem to be going from bad to worse, and even though the political process is deadlocked, I see hope for the future. Not the Obama empty promise type of hope, but the hope that people are once more taking their destiny into their own hands as it happened during the Vietnam war.
On this, I'll leave the last word to Howard Zinn, who on Bill Moyers last week so eloquently said:
In a way, Chomsky's insight presaged Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," and today, it is easy to see how Obama is simply continuing the regressive policies systematized by Clinton, and put on hyperdrive by Bush. In the essay, Chomsky restates Krugman's conclusion by saying that "the "bad ideas" may not serve the "expressed goal," but they typically turn out to be very good ideas for their proponents." The current health care reform bill is a perfect example of such bad ideas.
The left is understandably dismayed at the form this health care bill is taking, but if we look at its unfolding under the prism of Chomsky's and Klein's analysis, we can see how, in the end, it is all according to plan. Sure, the "realists" will tell you that this is the best thing we can get in the current climate, but their thinking is predicated on an old dichotomy that sees the Democratic party leadership in opposition to the Republican leadership.
Unfortunately, such dichotomy is all for show and nothing more. And all we really need in order to expose the theatrical aspect of this purported opposition between the Republican party and the Democratic party is the following picture:
This is not a portrait of people who disagree with each other. This is the portrait of five masters of the universe showing unity of mind and purpose.
Returning to the health care bill and Chomsky's analysis, he goes on to point out some regularities in the policies imposed by international capital onto unwilling populations around the world, the first being that:
[T]he designers seem to come out quite well, though the experimental subjects, who rarely sign consent forms, quite often take a beating.
The current health care bill will do just that: let the designers (the health insurance companies) come out quite well with the government mandating 30 million new customers to purchase unregulated products from a cartel of colluding private corporations. In this case, we the people are also one of the "rare" examples where we did sign a consent form in the form of a ballot. Unlike other countries around the world who have no say in what the World Bank tells them to do, we actually put the people who are screwing us, and the rest of the world, in charge.
The fact that the current bill does not guarantee any real form of competition in the health care system brings me to another point that Chomsky makes later on in the essay:
Free market doctrine comes in two varieties. The first is the official doctrine that is taught to and by the educated classes, and imposed on the defenceless. The second is what we might call "really existing free market doctrine": For thee, but not for me, except for temporary advantage; I need the protection of the nanny state, but you must learn responsibility under the harsh regimen of "tough love." Those in a position to make choices typically adopt the second version of free market doctrine, the one that has been a prerequisite to development, so the historical record suggests, though not a sufficient condition for it.
This is not only what is happening now with the health care bill, but also what has happened with the TARP bill and the rescue of big banks. The common term would be corporate welfare, or corporate socialism, or corporatism (can you say, fascism?). Maybe, but you get the point. International corporations are getting their way in the world, and while until Clinton the American people where under the assumption that this system also benefited them, now it is clear that those days were simply a rehearsal for what is coming to pass now.
Once these bait and switch techniques have been refined in New Zealand, Latin America, Africa and such, they can be applied to the much more sophisticated western populations. And so, today we see Obama and the Democrats touting this health care bill as a great thing, when they can't even look at the camera with a straight face because they know that this will only drive more people into bankruptcy and destitution. Matt Taibbi has done a great job in this regard by exposing Obama and the Democrats in "Obama's Big Sellout."
This type of attitude of our political class goes also to show their hubris. The Democrats believe that working people and progressives have nowhere to turn to, and thus they are confident that no matter how bad they behave, people will eventually hold their nose and vote for them as the lesser of two evils. As Chomsky points out:
[D]emocracy is a nuisance to be ignored as long as possible, and that free enterprise means that the public pays the costs under various guises, bearing the risks if things go wrong, while profit is privatized. And in pursuit of these ends, decision-making is to be transferred as much as possible from the public arena to unaccountable private tyrannies, and "locked in" by treaties that undermine the potential threat of democracy.
AIG bailout, anyone?
This is exactly what is happening today, and while under Clinton it was still under most people's radar, and only perceptive people like Chomsky and some other few could see it, today is all done in the open, by dangling the specter of Depression in front of the American people. In the meantime, we are in a Depression; at least those of us who live in the real world. The real unemployment is probably close to 20% since the government, from Clinton onward, has been fudging the figures to the point that they are meaningless. The term jobless recovery is also something that is becoming an euphemism for the government bailing out the rich while letting everyone else hanging out to dry.
In conclusion, Chomsky's essay shows us how Clinton then and Obama now are simply new bottles for the same old wine. And if this wine tasted bitter in 1996, now it makes people want to puke. That's why people are getting mad, and throwing things at the likes of Bush and Berlusconi, or why there are clashed in Copenhagen as I write. People are sick and tired of vampire like corporations sucking them dry and they are speaking out. For this reason, while things seem to be going from bad to worse, and even though the political process is deadlocked, I see hope for the future. Not the Obama empty promise type of hope, but the hope that people are once more taking their destiny into their own hands as it happened during the Vietnam war.
On this, I'll leave the last word to Howard Zinn, who on Bill Moyers last week so eloquently said:
[T]hink for yourself. Don't believe what the people up there tell you. Live your own life. Think your own ideas. And don't depend on saviors. Don't depend on the Founding Fathers, on Andrew Jackson, on Theodore Roosevelt, on Lyndon Johnson, on Obama. Don't depend on our leaders to do what needs to be done... [P]eople should defy the rules if they think they're doing the right thing.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Hillary Clinton: the Bicycle and Video Game Thief
I’ve been forcing myself to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt but after her victory speech in Kentucky I am afraid my patience has run out. Let me start by making one thing absolutely clear: the only way Hillary Clinton could even think about winning the nomination is to get the delegations of Florida and Michigan seated as is and to take the fight to the Convention. Her claim to the popular vote is simply bogus, since we don’t know how many people voted in many caucus states, and that’s all she’s got.
The first thing that struck me about Clinton’s hubris is what she said in regard to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination: “Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination.” Required by whom exactly? Until the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee changes the rules on May 31st, the official DNC delegate number requirement is 2,025. Under exactly what authority is she making this claim? Nobody's but her own.
Clinton doesn’t stand a chance at winning the nomination. She and her supporters claim that there is still a possibility in the mathematical realm. Of course there is, but there is a difference between “can” and “will” (a nuance that also applies to her campaign slogan). This is how people are enticed to play the lottery: “you never know.” Yes, you do know. You can win, but you won’t because the chances of victory are so infinitesimal that they are not even worth considering. And this brings me to the second thing that struck me from her speech last night.
If Hillary Clinton knows (as she does) that she won’t win the nomination, why is she still running? Why is she misleading her supporters saying that she can win when she knows she won’t? Why does she continue to ask for money? What are her aims? No one knows but her. But there is one thing I do know: Hillary Clinton should stop bragging about “Dalton Hatfield, the 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support [her] campaign.”
Dalton Hatfield is just one kid, and I applaud his commitment to the Clinton campaign, but does he know that Clinton won’t win? Right, not can’t, but won’t. Did his parents tell him that? Did Hillary Clinton tell him that? Of course not. And how many kids like Dalton are going to be pushed to emulate him and donate their bikes and video games to Clinton? How many single mothers will be compelled to donate money to her campaign instead of putting food on the table under the illusion that their candidate could still win?
Clinton should be straight with her voters and tell them the truth, instead of continuing to ask kids like Dalton to give up their toys for the lost cause of a candidate whose net worth is over 100 million dollars. And if people decide to keep giving her money after that, that’s their prerogative. What will she do next, ask retired people for their social security checks? There is something very wrong and immoral about this, and the only logical explanation I can think of, is that Hillary Clinton is simply a petty bicycle and video game thief.
The first thing that struck me about Clinton’s hubris is what she said in regard to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination: “Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination.” Required by whom exactly? Until the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee changes the rules on May 31st, the official DNC delegate number requirement is 2,025. Under exactly what authority is she making this claim? Nobody's but her own.
Clinton doesn’t stand a chance at winning the nomination. She and her supporters claim that there is still a possibility in the mathematical realm. Of course there is, but there is a difference between “can” and “will” (a nuance that also applies to her campaign slogan). This is how people are enticed to play the lottery: “you never know.” Yes, you do know. You can win, but you won’t because the chances of victory are so infinitesimal that they are not even worth considering. And this brings me to the second thing that struck me from her speech last night.
If Hillary Clinton knows (as she does) that she won’t win the nomination, why is she still running? Why is she misleading her supporters saying that she can win when she knows she won’t? Why does she continue to ask for money? What are her aims? No one knows but her. But there is one thing I do know: Hillary Clinton should stop bragging about “Dalton Hatfield, the 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support [her] campaign.”
Dalton Hatfield is just one kid, and I applaud his commitment to the Clinton campaign, but does he know that Clinton won’t win? Right, not can’t, but won’t. Did his parents tell him that? Did Hillary Clinton tell him that? Of course not. And how many kids like Dalton are going to be pushed to emulate him and donate their bikes and video games to Clinton? How many single mothers will be compelled to donate money to her campaign instead of putting food on the table under the illusion that their candidate could still win?
Clinton should be straight with her voters and tell them the truth, instead of continuing to ask kids like Dalton to give up their toys for the lost cause of a candidate whose net worth is over 100 million dollars. And if people decide to keep giving her money after that, that’s their prerogative. What will she do next, ask retired people for their social security checks? There is something very wrong and immoral about this, and the only logical explanation I can think of, is that Hillary Clinton is simply a petty bicycle and video game thief.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Obama's Road to the White House
By taking George Bush and John McCain head on in the national security debate, Barak Obama is clearly emerging as one of the savviest politicians in recent history. I must admit that it was kind of fun watching Bush and McCain reacting like deer in the headlights as they were trying to figure out what hit them. Even the media has had a hard time keeping up with Obama’s unexpected moves, which goes to show that he has a much deeper understanding of the political arena than his opponents are ready to admit.
In a way, Obama is like a young, and agile boxer touting a slow, over the hill champ whose only chance of winning the match is a well placed knock out punch. So far, Obama’s agility and unpredictability has allowed him to deflect and sometimes utilize whatever is thrown at him to his own advantage and by doing so, he has shown the American people that a different America is possible, and that a young politician such as himself can indeed take on the entrenched Washington consensus and prevail.
The recent tit for tat on national security between Obama and Bush-McCain is a clear case in point. National security has been in the Republican domain for quite some time and for reasons that are not self evident, the Republican Party has cemented itself as the champion of national security. In election after election, the Republicans have been able to put the Democrats on the defensive whenever the issue comes up. But things may very well turn out differently this time around given Obama’s strategy to take the issue on early in the game.
By forcefully and successfully rebutting Bush’s allegations of appeasement Obama has taken the hubris of the Bush Administration and turned it onto its head by calling the Republican tough posturing for what it is: empty rhetoric without results. And while this has been clear to the American people for quite some time, the Democratic party and its leaders had yet to muster the political courage and confront the Republicans the way the junior senator from Illinois did: by showing Bush what it means to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
Obama and the Democrats understand that the Democratic Party currently stands with the American people on every single domestic issue. But instead of taking the safest route, which is to run on historically strong Democratic issues, Obama is beginning to show a much bolder strategy that is taking the Republicans, the media, and some Democrats by surprise. With his offensive this early in the race Obama has sent a message to the Republicans that he is not afraid to take them on their turf. And this was so unexpected, that it has forced McCain to side with Bush against the reality of the recent overtures of his own Administration towards North Korea.
It is within this context that we can now begin to understand the general strategy of the Obama campaign. On issue after issue, from the decision to bypass the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, to the “now you see it, now you don’t” flag pin, it is clear that Obama is toying with the conventional wisdom in a sort of game of cat and mouse. Instead of following in the footsteps of previous Democratic candidates and carefully tiptoe around opinion polls, Obama has taken his political game to a whole new level where nothing is taken for granted and where everything is up for grabs.
The Republicans are beginning to sense this as they desperately try to prop up Clinton against Obama. Never mind that it was only two months ago when they were doing exactly the opposite, convinced, as they were, that Obama could be used as a spoiler against Clinton. But now that they have the Obama iceberg in full sight, reversing the engines won’t accomplish much. At this point, their only hope is for Hillary Clinton to carry her quest for the nomination to the convention, or something tantamount to her political suicide.
Given what’s at stake in this election it would be hard to believe that Clinton’s sense of entitlement would be blind to the point of jeopardizing the very real prospect of a Democratic controlled government with all that it entails. After all, an Obama victory would simply mean business as usual unless he can keep his promise and change how business is done in Washington.
He is on a good start.
In a way, Obama is like a young, and agile boxer touting a slow, over the hill champ whose only chance of winning the match is a well placed knock out punch. So far, Obama’s agility and unpredictability has allowed him to deflect and sometimes utilize whatever is thrown at him to his own advantage and by doing so, he has shown the American people that a different America is possible, and that a young politician such as himself can indeed take on the entrenched Washington consensus and prevail.
The recent tit for tat on national security between Obama and Bush-McCain is a clear case in point. National security has been in the Republican domain for quite some time and for reasons that are not self evident, the Republican Party has cemented itself as the champion of national security. In election after election, the Republicans have been able to put the Democrats on the defensive whenever the issue comes up. But things may very well turn out differently this time around given Obama’s strategy to take the issue on early in the game.
By forcefully and successfully rebutting Bush’s allegations of appeasement Obama has taken the hubris of the Bush Administration and turned it onto its head by calling the Republican tough posturing for what it is: empty rhetoric without results. And while this has been clear to the American people for quite some time, the Democratic party and its leaders had yet to muster the political courage and confront the Republicans the way the junior senator from Illinois did: by showing Bush what it means to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
Obama and the Democrats understand that the Democratic Party currently stands with the American people on every single domestic issue. But instead of taking the safest route, which is to run on historically strong Democratic issues, Obama is beginning to show a much bolder strategy that is taking the Republicans, the media, and some Democrats by surprise. With his offensive this early in the race Obama has sent a message to the Republicans that he is not afraid to take them on their turf. And this was so unexpected, that it has forced McCain to side with Bush against the reality of the recent overtures of his own Administration towards North Korea.
It is within this context that we can now begin to understand the general strategy of the Obama campaign. On issue after issue, from the decision to bypass the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, to the “now you see it, now you don’t” flag pin, it is clear that Obama is toying with the conventional wisdom in a sort of game of cat and mouse. Instead of following in the footsteps of previous Democratic candidates and carefully tiptoe around opinion polls, Obama has taken his political game to a whole new level where nothing is taken for granted and where everything is up for grabs.
The Republicans are beginning to sense this as they desperately try to prop up Clinton against Obama. Never mind that it was only two months ago when they were doing exactly the opposite, convinced, as they were, that Obama could be used as a spoiler against Clinton. But now that they have the Obama iceberg in full sight, reversing the engines won’t accomplish much. At this point, their only hope is for Hillary Clinton to carry her quest for the nomination to the convention, or something tantamount to her political suicide.
Given what’s at stake in this election it would be hard to believe that Clinton’s sense of entitlement would be blind to the point of jeopardizing the very real prospect of a Democratic controlled government with all that it entails. After all, an Obama victory would simply mean business as usual unless he can keep his promise and change how business is done in Washington.
He is on a good start.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
And the Winner Is: John Edwards
The political significance of yesterday’s endorsement by former presidential candidate John Edwards goes well beyond the 19 delegates he carries. As a matter of fact, his timing couldn’t have been more precise. Edwards was able to score an important victory in regard to the direction of the Democratic party as it gears up for the general election. In a way, even though he was forced to withdraw his candidacy once it was clear that the corporate media was not going to give him an equal opportunity given his populist message, he came out as the real winner in the titanic battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It seemed clear to me that both Obama and Clinton understood that Edwards’ endorsement would come with a high price tag. After all, both Clinton and Obama represent the centrist current of the Democratic party and, for this reason, it is no surprise that they are the last two candidates left standing. With a pattern all too familiar to the American people, these almost politically indistinguishable candidates began battling each other over issues of no consequence to the voters: flag pins, pastors, race, and gender; and while Obama has been leading Clinton by over 100 delegates for the past few weeks, he has been unable to shake Clinton off his tail and begin to emerge as the clear and undisputed nominee.
Clinton’s 41 point win in West Virginia this past Tuesday helped to further solidify the media’s short “short term memory” narrative of Obama as the candidate unable to win over white blue collar workers. Under such circumstances, Obama had an important and uncomfortable choice to make: stay the course and risk taking the battle to the Convention floor (something that would practically guarantee a loss in November), or give into John Edwards’ demands and bring on board the one ex-candidate who is still getting a sizeable chunk of the vote at the ballot box (7% in West Virginia).
The timing of Edwards’ endorsement couldn't have been better as it overshadowed Obama's somewhat embarrassing loss in West Virginia. And aside from confirming Obama's maneuvering capabilities this decision has finally shown that he is capable of doing what he’s been claiming to be best at: negotiating. He set aside some of his nebulous rhetoric, which had been causing him some trouble with part of the Democratic base, for Edwards’ clear and unequivocal stand on health care and poverty. Edwards, on the other hand, was wise to wait for a clear winner to emerge instead of blindly throwing his support behind Clinton (which seemed likely at some point) thus ensuring that if the Democrats win in November, he will be a major force in shaping the policies of the next presidency.
All in all, it’s a big win for Obama, Edwards, and why not, Clinton as well. It goes to show that Clinton’s tenacity has paid off by forcing Obama to espouse some of the ideals of the progressive wing of the Democratic party which are still resonating in the ballot box months after John Edwards decided to withdraw his candidacy. Edwards’ side of the bargain was to soften some of his rhetoric towards corporations but it’s only a matter of time before the Democratic base catches up to it.
Hopefully, by 2012.
It seemed clear to me that both Obama and Clinton understood that Edwards’ endorsement would come with a high price tag. After all, both Clinton and Obama represent the centrist current of the Democratic party and, for this reason, it is no surprise that they are the last two candidates left standing. With a pattern all too familiar to the American people, these almost politically indistinguishable candidates began battling each other over issues of no consequence to the voters: flag pins, pastors, race, and gender; and while Obama has been leading Clinton by over 100 delegates for the past few weeks, he has been unable to shake Clinton off his tail and begin to emerge as the clear and undisputed nominee.
Clinton’s 41 point win in West Virginia this past Tuesday helped to further solidify the media’s short “short term memory” narrative of Obama as the candidate unable to win over white blue collar workers. Under such circumstances, Obama had an important and uncomfortable choice to make: stay the course and risk taking the battle to the Convention floor (something that would practically guarantee a loss in November), or give into John Edwards’ demands and bring on board the one ex-candidate who is still getting a sizeable chunk of the vote at the ballot box (7% in West Virginia).
The timing of Edwards’ endorsement couldn't have been better as it overshadowed Obama's somewhat embarrassing loss in West Virginia. And aside from confirming Obama's maneuvering capabilities this decision has finally shown that he is capable of doing what he’s been claiming to be best at: negotiating. He set aside some of his nebulous rhetoric, which had been causing him some trouble with part of the Democratic base, for Edwards’ clear and unequivocal stand on health care and poverty. Edwards, on the other hand, was wise to wait for a clear winner to emerge instead of blindly throwing his support behind Clinton (which seemed likely at some point) thus ensuring that if the Democrats win in November, he will be a major force in shaping the policies of the next presidency.
All in all, it’s a big win for Obama, Edwards, and why not, Clinton as well. It goes to show that Clinton’s tenacity has paid off by forcing Obama to espouse some of the ideals of the progressive wing of the Democratic party which are still resonating in the ballot box months after John Edwards decided to withdraw his candidacy. Edwards’ side of the bargain was to soften some of his rhetoric towards corporations but it’s only a matter of time before the Democratic base catches up to it.
Hopefully, by 2012.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Clinton and the Rule of Law
For the past couple of weeks, I was amongst those Obama supporters who was trying to mend with Clinton supporters. I strongly believed that Clinton would, after WV, begin to prepare for a graceful and honorable exit which would be carried over the remaining contests. After all, Obama has almost secured the nomination as he leads Clinton by every single available metric.
With her speech in WV, Clinton clarified her position in regard to the rules of the Party. Before and after the primary, Clinton and her surrogates, went all the way in what should be rightfully called a disregard of the internal rule of law of the party. Basically claiming that the rules must be changed, that the millions of voters who have already voted don’t count, and that the elected pledged delegates don’t count either.
What seems to only count for Clinton is the popular vote of some but not all contests (after all many caucus states don’t divulge their numbers) and the superdelegates. This is because those are the two only metrics that she can hope to change in her favor.
While it is true that Clinton and her surrogates have stopped the direct attacks on Obama, they have not stopped (and actually increased) their attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations as well as the will of the majority of its voters thus far.
The Clintons and their surrogates keep moving the goalpost as they see fit and they must have a lot of clout within the upper echelons of the party since no one (where are you Howard Dean?) is telling them they should stop their extralegal attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations.
On Meet the Press last Sunday, talking about the FL and MI delegations, Terry McAuliffe said that "the rule is 50 percent" and that he would be content with 50% of the delegations from those states seated. Now, two days later, they want 100% of the delegates seated as is, even though Clinton herself said back in December, that these primaries "will count for nothing".
Their rationale is that we need 50 states in November but they don’t seem to care about the fact that they might end up with 25 states if they keep pushing their unorthodox efforts and drive away a large chunk of Obama supporters in the process.
Since there is no logical explanation for Clinton’s refusal to play by the rules, the only possible explanation is that what we are witnessing is a pure and simple coup attempt by the Clintons and their surrogates. Now that they cannot win by the rules that they themselves have helped to lay out and that they have accepted at the beginning of the process, they feel it’s ok for them to demand that the rules be changed as they see fit in order to make the math work in their favor.
They now claim that they could win the popular vote but what they are not saying is that they are only referring to those states that hold primaries. Clinton knows very well that some caucus states don't release their popular votes results so, while with one hand she acts as the champion of democratic voters by demanding that FL and MI be seated, on the other hand she is openly trying to disenfranchise the voters of those states where caucuses are held.
Clinton has already passed the point of no return by openly declaring that the number of delegates needed to win the nomination (2,025) is null and void and that the new number should be 2,209. By doing so, she has done great damage to the integrity of the primary process. Clinton and her surrogates have clearly espoused the belief that the end justifies the means and they will not stop their attempts to win the nomination at all costs.
And so we find ourselves in this Orwellian land of double speak where Clinton pretends to be the champion of democracy and the popular vote while she’s openly and directly undermining the democratic process since her only path to the nomination is for the superdelegates to overturn the the will of the pledged delegates.
Clinton has taken a very dangerous route because if she believes that the Obama supporters will sit idly by and let her destroy the integrity of the electoral process of the Democratic party she’s highly mistaken. This was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, the year when the people throw out the Republicans because of all their failed policies. Instead, because of the thirst for power of one person, we are more and more likely to witness a civil war within the Party that will cripple it for years to come.
Way to go Mrs. and Mr. Clinton.
With her speech in WV, Clinton clarified her position in regard to the rules of the Party. Before and after the primary, Clinton and her surrogates, went all the way in what should be rightfully called a disregard of the internal rule of law of the party. Basically claiming that the rules must be changed, that the millions of voters who have already voted don’t count, and that the elected pledged delegates don’t count either.
What seems to only count for Clinton is the popular vote of some but not all contests (after all many caucus states don’t divulge their numbers) and the superdelegates. This is because those are the two only metrics that she can hope to change in her favor.
While it is true that Clinton and her surrogates have stopped the direct attacks on Obama, they have not stopped (and actually increased) their attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations as well as the will of the majority of its voters thus far.
The Clintons and their surrogates keep moving the goalpost as they see fit and they must have a lot of clout within the upper echelons of the party since no one (where are you Howard Dean?) is telling them they should stop their extralegal attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations.
On Meet the Press last Sunday, talking about the FL and MI delegations, Terry McAuliffe said that "the rule is 50 percent" and that he would be content with 50% of the delegations from those states seated. Now, two days later, they want 100% of the delegates seated as is, even though Clinton herself said back in December, that these primaries "will count for nothing".
Their rationale is that we need 50 states in November but they don’t seem to care about the fact that they might end up with 25 states if they keep pushing their unorthodox efforts and drive away a large chunk of Obama supporters in the process.
Since there is no logical explanation for Clinton’s refusal to play by the rules, the only possible explanation is that what we are witnessing is a pure and simple coup attempt by the Clintons and their surrogates. Now that they cannot win by the rules that they themselves have helped to lay out and that they have accepted at the beginning of the process, they feel it’s ok for them to demand that the rules be changed as they see fit in order to make the math work in their favor.
They now claim that they could win the popular vote but what they are not saying is that they are only referring to those states that hold primaries. Clinton knows very well that some caucus states don't release their popular votes results so, while with one hand she acts as the champion of democratic voters by demanding that FL and MI be seated, on the other hand she is openly trying to disenfranchise the voters of those states where caucuses are held.
Clinton has already passed the point of no return by openly declaring that the number of delegates needed to win the nomination (2,025) is null and void and that the new number should be 2,209. By doing so, she has done great damage to the integrity of the primary process. Clinton and her surrogates have clearly espoused the belief that the end justifies the means and they will not stop their attempts to win the nomination at all costs.
And so we find ourselves in this Orwellian land of double speak where Clinton pretends to be the champion of democracy and the popular vote while she’s openly and directly undermining the democratic process since her only path to the nomination is for the superdelegates to overturn the the will of the pledged delegates.
Clinton has taken a very dangerous route because if she believes that the Obama supporters will sit idly by and let her destroy the integrity of the electoral process of the Democratic party she’s highly mistaken. This was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, the year when the people throw out the Republicans because of all their failed policies. Instead, because of the thirst for power of one person, we are more and more likely to witness a civil war within the Party that will cripple it for years to come.
Way to go Mrs. and Mr. Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)