Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Obama disses Giulliani!

If you insist on reading a diss into Michelle Obama's "run your own house/run the White House" comment then isn't it more likely that it was a diss on Rudy Giulliani?

Here's the even fuller quote:

That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is he a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can'’t run the White House. So, so we’'ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he’s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I’'m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don’t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that’s why we’re doing this. We’re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

Note the use of "he" in the initial part of the quote. Since Hillary is not a "he" then Michelle, if she was referring to a candidate other than her husband, must have been referring to another male candidate. Which candidate has the worst reputation when it comes to "managing their own house"? Rudy Giulliani!

I still think this comment was never meant to be a diss on anyone and was simply a comment about her own family. But the Rudy interpretation certainly fits the facts better than the Hillary interpretation.

But that wouldn't be as delicious a story would it?

A word of caution

First there was the distortion of Michelle Obama's comments to make it sound like she was attacking Hillary Clinton.

Now we have distortions of Hillary Clinton's comments to make it sound like she is endorsing the surge.

I think it behooves us all to remember that the media loves to hear certain types of stories and will sometimes go out of their way to distort facts in order to write those stories. Some reporters would love nothing more than a catfight between Hillary and Michelle. So they are on the lookout for anything that might even suggest it. Some reporters would also love to report "leading Democrats support Surge". So they will distort any positive comment a Democrat makes about Iraq into being said full-throated surge.

There are going to be localized moments of positive movement in Iraq. These will happen eve if nothing is changed in our actions. Acknowledging that should be allowed without it being distorted into an endorsement of Bush's Iraq strategy. But the media won't allow that.

So we have to be aware of this dynamic and respond appropriately. And that includes NOT jumping on these stories as if they were true without first double-checking.

Look before you leap

Here's a lesson in how not to go with our first reaction when hearing a news report that pisses you off.

As some of you may have heard, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama, has been called out in some reports for allegedly taking a swipe at Hillary Clinton's personal life. Here's one such report:

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part "to model what it means to have family values," adding "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

Now I had heard that the Obama campaign denied that this was a swipe at Hillary, but I couldn't see how it could be interpreted any other way. If she wasn't criticizing Hillary then who exactly was she criticizing. And if she was criticizing Hillary than it was a pretty stupid criticism since the Clinton's ran the White House just fine while they were in the midst of their family troubles.

Thankfully I didn't leap on this and post about it because this is a classic example of where context matters. Here's the full quote, as released by the Obama campaign:

"Our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime."

She was talking about her own family!

The reporter who originally highlighted this either wasn't paying attention or just wanted to find some excuse to manufacture a "cat fight" where there wasn't any. Because only that could excuse taking what was an obvious comment about her own family and turning it into an attack on someone else.

And don't get me started on the news channel (can't remember which one) who headlined this story last night with the chryon "Oh no she didn't!"

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Primary Orders

(inspired by Open Left:: For Folksy Primaries)

I've felt for some time that the order of primaries should be based on the degree to which the states were divided in the last Presidential election. That means that the state with the closest margin of victory should hold the first primary next time around, the next closes margin of victory would be second, and so on... Which means, of course, that Ohio would be #1 this time. Imagine the kind of primary season THAT would be!

Democracy is messy

Digby unearths a treasure in the google cache: a diatribe by a writer for Family Security Matters named Philip Atkinson. I have never heard of either FSM or Atkinson before, but apparently this group has on its board such right-wing luminaries as Barbara Comstock, Monica Crowley, Frank Gaffney, Laura Ingraham and James Woolsey. Please read it to get a sense of the pure bat-shit nature of some of the people we are fighting and be ready to pick your jaw off the floor after reading things like this:

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Now, I will concede completely with the notion that this person and anyone who publishes his shit should not be allowed within 200 miles of the levers of power. But even in a dung heap like this there is a glimmer of something important that needs to be comprehended, a lesson that needs to be learned.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

In its simplest terms this assessment is correct. Democracy, rule by popular majority, can produce truly awful policies if leaders simply do what is most popular. The popular opinion of the majority can sometimes be truly, astoundingly wrong.

The mistake people like Atkinson make is in forgetting that the opinion of the strong-arm ruler can also be truly, astoundingly wrong.

The sublime beauty of Democracy is that it requires that, for the society to survive, both the majority and the leaders must come to a consensus on what is the best course of action. A populace can engage in this kind of conversation as long as it is well educated, well informed, and lead by leaders who know how to engage them in that conversation.

The genius of the founders of America was in acknowledging that there was no such thing as a perfect form of government and that the best government could only be achieved when the system was structured such that it would require such a conversation to take place. This is why, for example, they deliberately divided the power to run the military (the Commander in Chief) from the power to decide how its considerable might should be extended (the Legislature). The system was designed to induce conflict between the branches, not eliminate it. Because it was only when the branches conflicted that they could hope to come to a consensus. If there was no conflict then there would be the strong temptation to simply avoid the discussion altogether and rule by fiat.

This is why it is essential that Congress not abandon its role in holding the Executive accountable. It is precisely in times of present danger (War) that consensus through conflict is essential to determining the best way forward.

Otherwise we will be left with decision making that is truly, astoundingly wrong.

Monday, August 20, 2007

When Saddam kept missing deadlines...

...we invaded his ass.

Just wondering what's taking the Senate Dems so long...

Grilling Smith

I've been thinking about the idea of using the impeachment of Gonzalez as a hammer against Smith. Force him into the difficult position of having to defend Gonzalez. Imagine the scenario:

Q: Senator Smith, do you believe that Alberto Gonzalez can continue to function effectively as Attorney General?

A: (Hedging noise, but maybe, if pressed, an eventual acknowledgment that Gonzo is damaged goods)

Q: If you have lost faith in the Attorney General, would you call on the President to have Gonzalez step down?

A: (More hedging and twisting, followed by a grudging agreement)

Q: But what if the President refuses to remove the AG? Would you support congressional efforts to have him removed from power? Including impeachment?

A: (gasp. wheeze.)

Would be entertaining to watch

President != Daddy

What Digby Said

Short version: The President swore to "Protect & Defend" The Constitution. The Constitution is what gives Us, The People, the power to protect and defend ourselves. The President was never meant to be our daddy.

Impeaching Gonzalez

Below I said that impeaching Gonzalez should be a minimal position for the Democrats. Well, Adam Cohen has a timely article in today's NY Times on just this topic.

Impeaching Mr. Gonzales has moved beyond the hypothetical, now that Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, and five other prosecutors-turned-representatives have introduced a resolution to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Congress is wary, and not only because of post-Clinton impeachment hangover. The grounds set out in the Constitution are vague, and the Democrats do not want to be seen as overreaching.

Members of Congress should keep in mind, however, that the founders gave them the impeachment power for a reason — and Mr. Gonzales’s malfeasance is just the sort they were worried about.

The Republicans, by their frivolous impeachment of Clinton, have damaged the functionality of the tool of impeachment. By impeaching Gonzalez, the Democrats could restore the integrity of that tool.

Your not likely to find many people (outside wingnut circles and the West Wing) who would disagree that Gonzalez should not longer be Attorney General. How then could the usual suspects argue against impeaching him if Bush refuses to fire him? They will argue that an impeachment will simply further poison the waters in D.C., but are they seriously going to suggest that keeping a liar and incompetent like Gonzalez in charge of our justice system (and, with the gutting of the FISA law, responsible for overseeing warentless wiretapping) is better than the rancour that would come from an impeachment proceeding?

Perhaps its time we re-establish some standards for acceptable behavior in our government officials?

Besides, whose to say that the impeachment proceedings would last long enough to be that rancourous. If the Congress were to demonstrate serious resolve on this matter, Gonzalez may just leave of his own accord. That's the opinion of Mr. Cohen.

If the House began an impeachment inquiry, Mr. Gonzales would most likely resign rather than risk the unpleasantness of the hearings, and the ignominy of being removed. Congress should think of it as a constitutional tap on the shoulder, to let the attorney general know that the time has truly come for him to go.

And there is one more advantage of an impeachment inquiry: the Supreme court has already ruled that, in the case of criminal inquiry or inquiries related to impeachment proceedings, claims of executive privilege are moot. Bush would rather Gonzalez leave to "spend more time with his family" than risk having to expose how they really work.

And if Bush doesn't care enough to finally fire Gonzo, the Republicans certainly won't be happy being saddled with him going into the 2008 election.

? vs. Gordon Smith

Oregon is "blessed" this coming election with one of the top-tier Senatorial elections with the coming expiration of Gordon Smith's present term in office. We will be getting a lot of attention (and a lot of money) thrown our way. We will also be getting a lot of mud.

I remain uncommitted on the question of who should run against Smith. I donated money to the draft DeFazio effort a few months back and was disappointed when he didn't jump into the race. I was despairing for a while that no serious contender would be found for Smith's seat. Despite predictions that Smith is vulnerable, I still think that claims that he is an easy knock off are naive at best.

I wasn't all that impressed by Steve Novick when I met him. I'm sure he has a stellar background and would make a much better Senator than Smith. But he didn't wow me. I couldn't help but feel that his was a candidacy that would quickly turn our top-tier race into an also-ran. I just didn't feel that Novick would be taken seriously as a candidate.

I have yet to meet Jeff Merkley but what I see so far impresses me. Probably what impresses me most is that the last session of the Oregon legislature achieved some impressive progressive victories. As is so clearly demonstrated by the more lackluster performance of the national lege, just having a Democratic majority in both houses is no guarantee that great things will happen. It also requires a strong leadership that knows how to marshal the forces available (and, admittedly, a Democratic Executive who will sign onto most of the legislation you are trying to pass). Jeff Merkley corralled one of the Houses impressively towards some major victories, even managing to bring some Republicans along for the ride.

If we have a Democratic President in 2009 and retain our majorities in both houses, then progressive legislation will take progressive leadership and Merkley shows that he has that kind of leadership.

Other things to like about Merkely:

* His web site proudly proclaims himself a "Democrat for U.S. Senate". Its hard to build positive brand identification when the brand isn't advertised.

* He endorses impeaching Gonzalez. The question of impeachment, with respect to Bush or Cheney, is still up in the air for a lot of Democrats. But I think removing Gonzalez from power should be a minimal position of the party.

(Note: this isn't an endorsement of Merkely. Just my opening foray into this race. Endorsements may come later, but it is much to early to commit myself right now.)

Hillary gets it

Hillary Clinton, with the "gift" of having suffered 15+ years of Republican attack politics, understands something that a lot of Democrats (surprisingly) still don't get (youtube):

"The idea that you're going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they're through with you, I think, is missing what's been going on in American politics for the last twenty years."

This is in response to recent comments from Obama that he would be the better candidate in the general election precisely because his negatives aren't as high as Clinton's (also in response to Karl Rove's recent comments about those same high negatives). Clinton "gets it" in a way that Obama does not: there is no such thing as a Democrat that the Republicans can't vilify.

This is the mistake Gore and Kerry made in their respective runs. Gore thought, since he wasn't Bill, and because he had such a Boy Scout reputation (at least when it came to that topic), that he was safe from attack. The Republicans ended up painting him as a serial exagerator and an arrogant wonk.

Kerry thought that his war record in Vietnam would protect him in his run against a war time President. The Republicans ended up painting him as a coward undeserving of the medals he received.

It's this sense of naivete from Obama that has always made me hesitant to support him. I love what he is saying. I love how he is saying it. But I can't avoid the impression that he thinks he has some kind of special immunity from attack that other Democrats don't have simply because he wants to elevate the conversation. When I look at Obama I can't help but think, "lamb to the slaughter".

I have plenty of problems with Clinton. I still think she plays it too safe. That she wants to dance through the minefield when what we really need is a bulldozer.

But naivete is not one of her problems.