Updated: China Plans Tour For Select Journalists As Western Opinion Sides With Dalai Lama and Tibet

First, more news about brutality being used against protesters in Qinghai:

"They were beating up monks, which will only infuriate ordinary people," the source said of the protest on Tuesday in Qinghai's Xinghai county.

A resident in the area confirmed the demonstration, saying that paramilitaries dispersed the 200 to 300 protesters after half and hour, that the area was crawling with armed security forces and that workers were kept inside their offices.

The Beijing source said resentment at the paramilitary presence around Lhasa's monasteries prompted one monk at the Ramoche temple to hang himself.

snip

"It's very harsh. They are taking in and questioning anyone who saw the protests," the source said. "The prisons are full. Detainees are being held at prisons in counties outside Lhasa."

link: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK369654

After repeated headlines in the Western press about the Chinese government's censorship of the events in Tibet, authorities there have decided to invite a select group of western journalists to view places and events that support their side of the story:

The small delegation of selected foreign journalists landed in Lhasa on Wednesday afternoon for a three-day reporting trip expected to be tightly controlled and slanted toward China's version of the Tibetan unrest.

China has indicated the journalists -- the first allowed into Tibet since the unrest -- would be allowed to speak with victims of the violence and shown property damaged by rioters, but gave no assurances on reporting freedom.

link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMd6Zq7QlT12WpiRxAdLqC0x-SnA

It is unclear how much this public relations event will reverse - or even stem - the tide of Western criticism of China over their handling of the continuing protests.

For a sample of how much big that tide is, let's turn first to the European Union, which has issued a strong statement on the heels of Nicolas Sarkosy threatening a boycott of the opening ceremonies by France:

Geneva, Switzerland (AHN) - The European Union recently let out a series of criticism aimed at China regarding its violent crackdown and tight-grip rule on the region of Tibet. The collection of European nations called for the Asian giant to halt its forceful control over Tibetan protesters demanding the return of their exiled leader, the Dalai Lama.

At a meeting with the United Nations Human Rights Council, the EU expressed its disapproval of China's authoritative tactics on Tibet, while showing concern over the growing unrest and violence spreading throughout the region, as well as the Tibetan provinces in other parts of China.

"We urge Chinese authorities to refrain from using force against those involved in unrest and call on demonstrators to desist from violence," stated Slovenia's ambassador to the U.N., Andrej Logar.

link: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010443002

The Telegraph highlights Germany's calls for a dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama, is reporting that Britain is continuing its criticism of China's crack-down of the protests:

Britain also criticised Beijing, with an annual report by the Foreign Office highlighting Beijing's "violation" of human rights in Tibet.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said worldwide concern about the situation in Tibet was "justified and proper".

"There needs to be mutual respect between all communities and sustained dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities," he said.

link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/wchina126.xml

Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias is adding his voice to those calling for dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama:

"Nobody is asking for independence for Tibet," Arias said. "The Dalai Lama has never asked for that. What is at stake is preserving the autonomy of Tibet."

snip

Arias described the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader as a personal friend, and said he was disturbed by the scenes of violence in Tibet.

"I saw scenes on television in which Tibetans were busting up Chinese stores, which led to the army being called in and the death of innocent people," he said. "That just shouldn't happen."

link: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/25/america/LA-GEN-Costa-Rica-Tibet.php

Finally, Hillary Clinton has called out President Bush's "closet diplomacy" with China:

"I think that what's happening in Tibet is deeply troubling, and this is a pattern of the Chinese government with respect to their treatment of Tibet," she told reporters after a campaign event in Pennsylvania.

"I don't think we should wait until the Olympics to make sure that our views are known," Clinton said, while saying she did not have an opinion now on whether the U.S. team should not go to the games.

Clinton said President George W. Bush's administration should be more forceful about the Tibet issue.

"I think we should be speaking out through our administration now in a much more forceful way and, you know, supporting people in Tibet who are trying to preserve their culture and their religion from tremendous pressure by the Chinese."

link: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-7411430,00.html

Earlier this month, Barack Obama issued his own statement on the situation in Tibet, which can be found here: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYNrWbklSBpsRs1XZi1FyS8L0qrA

Please keep all sides of this conflict in your thoughts, prayers and meditations.

UPDATE: Fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu gives his support to the Dalai Lama's calls for dialogue and nonviolence:

I wish to express my solidarity with the people of Tibet during this critical time in their history. To my dear friend His Holiness the Dalai Lama, let me say: I stand with you. You define non-violence and compassion and goodness. I was in an Easter retreat when the recent tragic events unfolded in Tibet. I learned that China has stated you caused violence. Clearly China does not know you, but they should. I call on China's government to know His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as so many have come to know, during these long decades years in exile. Listen to His Holiness' pleas for restraint and calm and no further violence against this civilian population of monastics and lay people.

I urge China to enter into a substantive and meaningful dialogue with this man of peace, the Dalai Lama. China is uniquely positioned to impact and affect our world. Certainly the leaders of China know this or they would not have bid for the Olympics. Killing, imprisonment and torture are not a sport: the innocents must be released and given free and fair trials.

I urge my esteemed friend Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Tibet and be given access to assess, and report to the international community, the events which led to this international outcry for justice. The High Commissioner should be allowed to travel with journalists, and other observers, who may speak truth to power and level the playing field so that, indeed, this episode -- these decades of struggle -- may attain a peaceful resolution. This will help not only Tibet. It will help China.

And China, poised to receive the world during the forthcoming Olympic Games needs to make sure the eyes of the world will see that China has changed, that China is willing to be a responsible partner in international global affairs. Finally, China must stop naming, blaming and verbally abusing one whose life has been devoted to non violence, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a Nobel peace laureate.

link: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/desmond_tutu/2008/03/statement_on_tibet_and_china.html

On Tibet, and the LA Riots

I have lived through one city-wide riot in my life: Los Angeles, 1992. In Hollywood it wasn't "ground zero", but you could see the rioters coming, block by block, up the long, straight road known as Normandie Ave.

Just as unpredictable as a wild fire caused by flinging a lit cigarette out of a car window, riots like this are nimble, incendiary events, fueled by the anger and frustration of a community that has simply had enough. Masses of people don't take to the streets, destroying everything in their line of site, and senselessly looting stores like Fredericks of Hollywood just to get that last, remaining fuscia-colored sized 42DDD bra and matching leopard print thong, without some reason other than a hankering for cheesy women's lingerie (and yes, plenty of these items ended up in tag sales countless weekends after the riots ended).

Something bigger is always at work...

That's why I had some LA riot flashbacks reading today's New York Times, and their account of how the protests started in Lhasa, Tibet.

First, the lack of immediate police response:

Foreigners and Lhasa residents who witnessed the violence were stunned by what they saw, and by what they did not see: the police. Riot police officers fled after an initial skirmish and then were often nowhere to be found. Some Chinese shopkeepers begged for protection.

“The whole day I didn’t see a single police officer or soldier,” said an American woman who spent hours navigating the riot scene. “The Tibetans were just running free.”

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24tibet.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=bee925aa2a543570&ex=1206504000

For those unfamiliar with the timeline of the LA riots, one of the most controversial parts was the fact that LA Police Chief Darryl Gates was at a fundraiser while the riots were underway and was roundly criticized for not keeping his eye on what was a potentially (and then actually) explosive situation.

In Tibet, it also seems the person who should have been manning the ship was engaged elsewhere:

Ultimately, the man responsible for public order in Lhasa is Mr. Zhang, Tibet’s party chief.

snip

Mr. Zhang also has an excuse; he was at the National People’s Congress in Beijing. When the violence started, Mr. Zhang had just completed a two-hour online discussion about China’s Supreme Court, according to a government Web site. It is unclear when Mr. Zhang was told of the violence, or if he made the final decision on how to respond.

In Los Angeles, where Darryl Gates was routinely criticized for encouraging over-the-top police tactics that violated civil rights, this initial lack of response led to a number of conspiracy theories, stating that Gates wanted the riots to initially spiral out of control so that he could justify more brutal tactics on the part of law enforcement in the wake of an out-of-control populace.

It would not surprise me if similar thoughts are quietly being voiced in Tibet and other sections of China right now.

The LA riots weren't caused by "the Rodney King clique". Indeed, no one man can create this level of public unrest, rather there are always underlying causes that are waiting for a moment in time - that lit cigarette flung out the window - to serve as the spark that ignites a pent up frustration.

In the case of the LA riots the frustration was one of a perception - justified in my mind - that in the matters of police brutality and judicial review there was a double standard that treated African Americans far differently from all of the other racial groups in the city. One year prior to the LA riots, a Korean shopkeeper shot Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old African American girl, dead in the back over a scuffle arising from a small bottle of orange juice. The shopkeeper, Soon Ja Du, was sentenced to probation, community service and a $500 fine by judge Joyce Karlin. This directly contradicted the jury's recommendation that Du serve a 16-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter.

This sentence, widely publicized and discussed in Los Angeles, solidified in the minds of many African Americans that they could not expect the system to give them fair treatment. The brutal beating of Rodney King and subsequent aquittal of three Los Angeles police officers from charges of police brutality was the spark that caused people to take to the streets.

Riots like these are spontaneous reactions to a building feeling of injustice and isolation. To say that one man can use his magic telepathy-telephone and will people to take to the streets is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

This eyewitness account is particularly telling (again, from the NY Times):

“This wasn’t organized, but it was very clear that they wanted the Chinese out,” said the American woman who witnessed the riots and asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals. She said Tibetan grievances exploded in anger.

A responsible government at a certain point will recognize the feelings that started a riot on this scale. Although the systemic problems of racial injustice are far from being resolved in our country, the initial steps of firing Darryl Gates and setting up the independent Christopher Commission to investigate the riots were positive steps in the right direction.

If the Chinese authorities truly want this conflict to end and peace to be restored, the first step on that path is a vocal acknowledgement of the grievances of those who engaged (and likely are still engaging) in this riot. Anything less will just allow the same feelings of isolation and injustice to fester, under the surface, until the next inconvenient outburst occurs.

Tibet: China Admits Protests Spreading After Footage Aired

...And Gordon Brown steps in to fill the Western void.

First, the footage. After this was aired on CTV in Canada and then picked up by other Western news outlets, China has formally admitted that the protests have spread outside Lhasa:

China has admitted for the first time that anti-Beijing protests have spread outside the Tibetan Autonomous Region, as security is ratcheted up.

Xinhua news agency reported huge damage to government buildings and shops after riots in Sichuan province on Sunday.

And officials said 24 people had been arrested after demos in the Tibetan city of Lhasa, and 170 protesters had surrendered to authorities.

Hundreds of troops have been seen pouring into Tibetan areas.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7306096.stm

The Dalai Lama gave a press conference earlier today, reiterating his intention to resolve the conflict peacefully, while reminding folks that he cannot unilaterally stop these protests (full video of the press conference can be found on the Dalai Lama's website, here: http://www.dalailama.com/page.218.htm ).

The Dalai Lama specifically stated that he is "...not seeking Tibetan independence, but preservation of Tibetan culture." He summed up the rhetorical back-and-forth between himself and the Chinese government (live blogging his comments - my apologies for any minor errors):

I think a hundred times, a thousand times I have repeated these things, so sometimes I jokingly tell people my side one mantra which to recite "we are not seeking independence, we are not seeking independence". This is my mantra which I repeat a thousand times on my rosary. Then the Chinese government side has their mantra, "Tibet is part of China, Tibet is part of China" which they repeat a thousand times. But the world isn't too convinced, is it?

In the middle of these dueling choruses worthy of Gilbert & Sullivan stepped in British Prime Minister Gordan Brown:

Mr Brown took the Commons by surprise when he informed MPs that Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Prime Minister, had told him in a telephone conversation yesterday that he was ready to enter into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, provided that he did not support the total independence of Tibet and that he renounced violence.

Downing Street said that the Dalai Lama had already satisfied both conditions in recent statements and that Britain believed that conditions were in place for talks to resume between Beijing and Tibet’s spiritual leader.

snip

During their conversation, for which diplomats on both sides had prepared for several days, Mr Brown also called on China to show restraint in Tibet. He told Mr Wen of his intention to meet the Dalai Lama.

The formal reaction from China was one of dismay, however. China’s Foreign Ministry urged Britain to understand the Dalai Lama’s “true face” and offer him no support, the Xinhua news agency reported. A ministry spokesman said: “China is seriously concerned about the message. As we have repeatedly pointed out, Dalai is a political refugee engaged in activities of splitting China under the camouflage of religion.”

link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3587093.ece

Any good operetta needs its villian, and China it trying to cast the Dalai Lama in that role.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground remains uncertain as western journalists and international observers are still denied access to the areas where the protests are occuring.

Please keep all sides of this conflict in your thoughts, prayers and meditations.

UPDATED (2x): Police Conduct House-by-House Searches In Tibet As Protest Spreads

From today's Wapo - I've highlighted a chilling part of their report:

Vowing a harsh crackdown, Chinese police conducted house-to-house searches in central Lhasa Monday and rounded up hundreds of Tibetans suspected of participating in a deadly outburst of anti-Chinese violence, exile groups and residents reported.

The large-scale arrests and official promises of tough reprisals suggested the Chinese government has decided to move decisively to crush the protests despite calls for restraint from abroad and warnings that heavy-handed repression could taint next summer's Olympic Games in Beijing.

The Tibetan regional governor, Champa Phuntsok, said detainees who show remorse and inform on others who were part of the week-long unrest would be rewarded with better treatment. But Buddhist monks and other Tibetans who participated in Friday's torching of Chinese-owned shops and widespread attacks on Han Chinese businessmen would be "dealt with harshly," he told a news conference in Beijing.

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031700575.html?hpid=moreheadlines

The BBC updates its coverage of the spreading protest:

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Sichuan province, rights groups say seven people were killed when security forces opened fire on Tibetan protesters in the city of Aba on Sunday.

And in Machu, Gansu province, a protester told the BBC a crowd of people set government buildings on fire on Sunday.

Groups of people also took down the Chinese flag and set it on fire, replacing it with the Tibetan flag, he said.

Smaller protests were reported elsewhere in Gansu and Tibet.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299965.stm

Please contact your senators and congresspeople and ask them to open Tibet to foreign media: http://support.savetibet.org/site/PageServer?pagename=How_To_Help_Lhasa_Protests

UPDATE: Another sign of trouble reported to the BBC by a Tibetan outside Lhasa:

The situation feels very tense and there is a heavy military presence. I saw large convoys moving towards Lhasa.

There are all kinds of rumours going around but it is difficult to know what to believe.

My family and friends are all very, very worried and fearful of the unknown and what might happen in the coming days.

We are very worried about arbitrary arrests. We believe that the people recorded on CCTV will get arrested but I fear that others will be arrested.

We are all very worried about the lack of western people and journalists in and around Lhasa. I have not seen any myself in the past day.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7300312.stm

The presence of western journalists and international observers is a deterrent to human rights abuses. Everyone, please contact your senators and congresspeople.

UPDATE 2: The BBC has an interview with a Tibetan Buddhist nun who served time in Chinese prisons. This is a must-read to understand the potential human rights abuses that may be happening in the ground, now or in the near future:

The penalties at Drapchi were severe. Ms Sangdrol was forced to suffer beatings with iron rods and rubber pipes, electric cattle prods on the tongue, knitting and spinning until her fingers blistered, and six months in complete darkness while in solitary confinement.

There was also extremely unpleasant hard labour.

"For instance, we had to use night soil on the garden... You have to take turns to go down to the latrine and pass up the waste. When the bucket is pulled, inevitably it splashes and spills everywhere and it will go into your mouth," she said.

She still suffers headaches and kidney and stomach problems as a result of her treatment.

But, she said, "the mental torture was worse".

"We had to denounce his Holiness the Dalai Lama and were not allowed to engage in religious practice."

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4618775.stm

Updated - Protesters Dead in Tibet, Dalai Lama Calls for International Investigation

The city is in complete shutdown. There is no atmosphere whatsoever on the streets because there is a curfew and the streets are totally deserted.

This evening we have heard a few sporadic blasts once every few hours.

Right now, I'm looking at buildings that are burnt out. The city is absolutely burnt to cinders. It's trashed.

snip

Our current hostel is in a safe area, in a kind of 'green zone' as people are calling it. The worst of the violence was in the centre and east of the city.

Some tourists who were in the east were forcibly removed from their hotels and hostels. Police turned up today and tried to forcibly remove all of us to a hotel further out west.

snip

The electricity in our hostel is out even though all the buildings nearby have electricity. You sense that it might be because they know tourists with cameras and email accounts are here and could contact the outside world.

From an eyewitness account in Lhasa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299642.stm

After confirming reports of 80 people being killed in riots in Lhasa ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16cnd-tibet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world ), His Holiness the Dalai Lama has labeled China's current actions cultural genocide, and is calling for an international investigation. In this exclusive interview with the BBC the Dalai Lama criticizes China's traditional use of violence to handle the conflict in Tibet, noting that this is now the second generation protesting Chinese rule:



The Dalai Lama is not calling for an end to the protests.

Meanwhile, the BBC is reporting that protests have now spread to Sichuan province:

The clashes in Aba, known as Ngawa in Tibetan, happened around 1200 local time on Sunday, according to Kate Saunders of the International Campaign for Tibet.

"The lay people and monks seem to have joined together in a protest... which was focussed around the police presence in the town," she told the BBC.

"According to reliable reports the police opened fire," said Ms Saunders, who is in London but said she had indirect phone and web access to eyewitness accounts. "We know there have been deaths."

Accounts of how many people died differ, but she said the most reliable eyewitness source put the toll at seven.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299597.stm

The New York Times highlights the differences between the demands of the protestors - complete independence - and the Dalai Lama's "middle way":

“We the young people feel independence is our birthright,” said Dolma Choephel, 34, a social worker active with the Tibetan Youth Congress and who gathered Sunday morning at a demonstration outside the gates of the main town temple. “We understand the limitations of the Dalai Lama’s approach. What we got after six rounds of talks — this violence?” She was referring to the six negotiating sessions between the Dalai Lama and Chinese authorities since 2002.

snip

The Dalai Lama, for his part, seemed unfazed about the dissent among Tibetans over full independence versus greater autonomy. Even his elder brother, he recalled, had admonished him many years ago for not advocating independence from China. “ ‘My dear younger brother, the Dalai Lama,’ ” his brother told him. “ ‘You sold out the Tibetan legitimate right. Like that.’ ”

The Dalai Lama described dissent as “a healthy sign of our commitment to democracy, open society.”

Chuckling, he added that the idea might come as “a surprise to our Chinese brothers and sisters.”

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16cnd-tibet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=world

Audio of the entire press conference is available at the Dalai Lama's official website: http://www.dalailama.com/page.214.htm

News agencies are reporting that the Chinese authorities in Tibet have called for the protestors to turn themselves in on Monday.

Keep both the Tibetan and Chinese people in your thoughts, prayers and meditations.

Update (h/t to davidseth at DocuDharma): please visit the International Campaign for Tibet for ways to get involved: http://support.savetibet.org/site/PageServer?pagename=How_To_Help_Lhasa_Protests

On Race, Gender and Reconciliation

It was a brilliant summer day in Atlanta, and the lumescent, blue sky lifted my already risen spirits as I was planning my wedding. A coworker and I were shopping for wedding dresses in an upscale suburb, both of us dressed in the standard uniform for such an event: sweats and sneakers. My coworker carried the look off with much more chic than I, with her tall frame, warm brown eyes and rich, espresso colored skin giving her the natural grace of a woman for whom sweats is a weekend indulgence.

Me? I just looked a little dumpy.

We had just hit our first shop, a cozy, new business run by a mother/daughter team. The dresses, and brides, and bridesmaids, and friends, and female relatives filled the tiny store with a joyous, bustling excitement. My coworker found The Dress, and insisted to me it just had to be The Dress, and after I tried it on still was talking about The Dress when we hit our second shop.

The second shop was a bigger establishment, with large windows, and floor to ceiling mirrors, teaming with mostly blonde-haired, mostly blue-eyed, uniformly petite, white, female staff. As we walked in we saw the demographics of the clientele matched those of the store assistants, like separate socks of an identical pair.

We proceeded toward the racks of dresses, placed in the middle of the expansive space, when we were met by a store clerk.

"May I help you?" She asked, suspiciously eyeing my coworker.

"Yes." I said. "We just want to try on some dresses."

The clerk, never taking her eyes off my coworker, exhaled deeply, her voice trembling with annoyance and a touch of fear.

"Our brides," she said, "make an appointment."

"Um...okay." I said. "Can we make one later on today?"

"No." She said, barely looking at me.

"Well, can we make one next weekend?" I asked.

"No." She said. "The only day we have available for appointments is Wednesday. And the store closes at six."

"Oh." I said, unsure of what to say next. "Well, we both work so, I guess we'll just go somewhere else then."

"Yes, I think you should." And with that the store clerk glanced toward the door, willing us toward it with all the body language she could muster.

It was outside, heading toward the car that my coworker looked at me, a small, white woman, her eyes still stinging with disbelief.

"Was that..." She hesitated. "Was that what I think it was?"

I looked up at her, my blue eyes meeting hers.

"Yes." I answered.

We silently drove back to the cozy, cramped store, not knowing what to say about what had just happened.

The problem with racism is it strikes regardless of whether you're prepared for it or not. Like a cold slap it hits you in the face, unprepared, and leaves you reeling as you try to search for answers. What just happened? Was this really real? Why did it happen to me?

And then it leaves a small wound in your soul, that heals slowly until the scab is ripped off by the next event that takes you just as much by surprise. It leaves you with a small kernel of pain deep inside.

Sexism does the same thing. I remember the frustration, sitting in front of my corpulent boss after getting up the nerve to ask him to be considered for a promotion from secretary to one of two sales jobs that had just opened up, when he told me in no uncertain terms that because I was a young woman all I was going to do was go have babies so why would he give me one of these jobs just to have me leave. My education, my experience with the company meant nothing. I was young, and female, and somehow that meant "unpromotable".

And sometimes events like this, across a person's life, just serve to grow that kernel of pain until it lashes out at the society that nurtured it. It can happen when delivering a sermon, in the heat of cheering crowds. It can happen when writing an op-ed in the New York Times, telling women they just have to vote for a female candidate in order to be "true" feminists.

The one strength we have as progressives is empathy. We aren't progressives because we're rich, or because we love free markets and small government. We're progressives because, at some point in time, all of us have felt or seen others feel that kernel of pain, either because of race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or economic status. We have seen injustice in people being denied health care, and we question a foreign policy that pursues death and destruction over peace and diplomacy.

We have empathy. We put ourselves in someone else's shoes and understand injustice from that person's perspective.

But somehow in this presidential race, good progressives have lost that empathy. We have allowed ourselves to be so co-opted by winning, and strategy, and what's-worse-sexism-or-racism that we have lost our empathy. We have turned our back on the very thing that made us progressives in the first place. We have failed to understand each other, and instead hurl insult and invective at each other as fast as our fingers can fly over our keyboards.

This is no longer about Barack Obama. It is no longer about Hillary Clinton. Forget the "50 state strategy", or coat-tails, or turning red states into blue states. Partisans on both sides have now become the rigid idealogues we have decried on the right for so many years.

We have lost our empathy, and in doing so we have lost our way.

So, this weekend, try for a moment to walk away from the keyboard, shut your eyes and put yourself into that other person's place. Understand where they are coming from. Put aside the anger, and frustration, and outrage.

It is time to reconcile, and take back our strength again.

Obama's Anti-Clinton Spin At Odds with DNC

...Or, how Democrats Eat Their Own.

Talking Points Memo has an article up describing Obama's latest mailer attacking the Clinton Presidency:

In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.

"8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation," reads the mailer, which goes on to list the post-1992 losses suffered by Dems among governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The mailer was forwarded to us by a political operative who told us it was sent to Alaska, though it was probably sent elsewhere, too.

link: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php

So, being the curious blogger I am I was wondering what the DNC's official take on the Clinton years was. Below is their take on Bill Clinton's legacy, taken from their website (my emphasis added):

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America's forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton's policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton's last budget was over $200 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation. In 1996, President Clinton became the first Democratic president reelected since Roosevelt in 1936. In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president's term since 1822.

In the 2000 elections, Democrats netted 4 additional Senate seats, one additional House seat, and one additional gubernatorial seat. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote for President by more than 500,000 votes. In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle, while Democrats swept to victory in races all across the country, including races for Virginia Governor and Lt. Governor, New Jersey Governor, and 39 out of 42 major mayoral races including Los Angeles and Houston.

link: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

So, Obama's message on the Clinton years: we didn't get enough done because the Democrats lost seats due to how divisive the Clintons were. The DNC's message on the Clinton years: we got a lot of things done, including ripping the mantle of "fiscal responsibility" away from the GOP, and we didn't need Republican support to get there. Heck, we even ended up with more elected Democrats at the end of it all.

While both versions of history have some validity, the overall problem with Obama's recent mailer is this: it is at odds with how the Democratic National Committee wants to view itself during the Clinton years. That's a bad thing.

Being officially agnostic on Hillary versus Obama, I'm not going to claim the Clinton years weren't divisive. They were (now, whether or not that was actually the fault of the Clintons is a matter that could be up for discussion). And if Barack Obama wants to hit Hillary hard on being a divisive figure, I say have at it. Not only is this a valid line of attack but there's more than enough polling data to actually, factually back that one up.

However, when Obama's messaging on the Clinton years starts to directly conflict with the DNC's, it's time to throw in the penalty flag. The Democratic Party, as an entity, has a vested interest in pointing out that Bill Clinton (and by association the DNC) left the country better than they found it, because they can make that same pledge to voters this year in the general election. "It takes a Democrat to clean up after a Bush" should be the rallying cry come November.

But it can't be if Obama takes away that rhetorical goose that could lay all of those golden soundbite eggs.

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to destroy each other in the primaries, fair enough. That's not something I'd prefer but with stakes this high I can see how that one can happen. *But when they start to go after the effectiveness of the Democratic Party and its messaging, it's time to reign in that line of attack.*

We all want to elect more Democrats this year. Let's not lose sight of that goal.

Clinton, Obama Both Flawed On Health Care

In the middle of the mandate pie-fight (which just had a big ole can of gas dumped on it today by Paul Krugman), I think it's important for folks to understand that - mandates aside - there's still issues with both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's health care plans that need to be addressed. I'm going to pick the big, blank area of each plan that leaves it open to attack, because my primary goal is to have a viable universal health care plan introduced by whoever wins the Democratic nomination (and then hopefully the presidency) as quickly as possible.

I suggest first off that folks read up on both of these plans.

Hillary Clinton's plan is here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Barack Obama's plan is here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

First off, a little housekeeping. I've read a number of threads on these health care plans and I've seen folks making the argument that the Clinton plan would force folks into private insurance. That is not the case - both the Clinton plan and the Obama plan have a public option. From page 6 of the Clinton plan (I'm retyping directly from the .pdf, my apologies for any typos):

In addition to the array of public choices offered, the Health Choics menu will also provide Americans with a choice of a public plan option, which could be modeled on the traditional Medicare program, but would cover the same benefits as guaranteed in private plan options in the Health Choices Menu without creating a new bureaucracy. The alternative will compete on a level playing field with traditional private plans.

Now, that being said, the big problem with Hillary's plan is that it is vague on regulation. With another politician this may be less of an issue, but as Hillary has a policy of taking lobbyist money (and has been pretty vocal on that subject), this leaves her plan - which includes mandates - more open to the charge that it's "putting money in the pockets of the insurance lobby". Regardless of the public option, folks will (and already have) drawn the connection between mandates and Hillary's friendly relations with Big Insurance. This is the language Hillary uses in her plan that speaks to how she would regulate insurers:

The plan creates rules that all insurers must follow, ensuring that no American is denied coverage, refused the renewal of an insurance policy, unfairly priced out of the market, or charged excessive insurance premiums. Health plans will compete on cost and quality rather than avoiding patients who need insurance the most.

snip

Require minimum stop loss ratios: Premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to the provision of high quality care, not excessive profits and marketing.

In order for Hillary to answer critics she must put in more specifics on stop loss ratios. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder, and if she is mandating that all people opt into an insurance plan, folks have to know that this isn't one big scheme to fleece their already strained budgets to aid the profits of insurance companies. Being more specific on how she would cap insurance industry profits would go a long way to building consumer confidence in her plan.

Now, let's turn to Obama's plan. Although Obama could also be more specific on industry regulation (his plan mentions capping industry profits in certain markets that aren't competitive and removing caps in other markets that are more competitive, which frankly sounds pretty convoluted - see pages 9-10 of his .pdf), he has a much bigger problem that he hasn't dealt with yet: penalties.

From his interview on Meet The Press, December 30 (my emphasis added):

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of candor, you're running a political ad in Iowa and elsewhere about healthcare. And this is what the ad says. Here's the Obama ad. Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. OBAMA: I've got a plan to cut costs and cover everyone.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Cover everyone." Every analysis of your healthcare plan says there are 15 million Americans who would not be automatically covered because you don't call for a mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But, but, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me just give you a chance to respond. Ron Brownstein, who's objective on this, wrote this for the National Journal, and then we'll come back and talk about it. He says this: "Obama faces his own contortions. He commendably calls for building a broad healthcare consensus that includes the insurance industry. But in the states, the individual mandate has been critical in persuading insurers to accept reform, including the requirement" "they no longer reject applicants with pre-existing health problems. If such a requirement isn't tied to a mandate, insurers correctly note, the uninsured can wait until they are sick to buy coverage, which" would "inflate costs for everyone else. By seeking guaranteed access without an individual mandate, Obama is virtually ensuring war with the insurance companies that he's pledged to engage."

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, here's the philosophical debate that's going on. First of all, every objective observer says Edwards, Clinton, myself, we basically have the same plan. We do have a philosophical difference. They both believe the problem is the government is not forcing adults to get healthcare. My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford healthcare, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it. Now, they assert that there're going to be all these people left out who are avoiding buying healthcare. My attitude is, we are going to make sure that we reduce costs for families who don't have health care, but also people who do have healthcare and are desperately needing some price relief. And we are going to reduce costs by about $2500 per family.

If it turns out that there are still people left over who are not purchasing healthcare, one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later so that they have an incentive to sign up immediately.

MR. RUSSERT: Which is a quasi-mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But--well, no, it's not a quasi-mandate because what happens then is we are not going around trying to fine people who can't afford healthcare, and that's what's happening in Massachusetts right now. They've already had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured, and you're reading stories about people who didn't have healthcare, still can't afford the premiums on the subsidized healthcare, but now are also paying a fine. That I don't think is providing a relief to the American people. We need to make health care affordable. That's what my plan does. And The Washington Post itself said, for the Clinton campaign to try to find an individual who wanted healthcare and could not get it under the Obama administration would be very difficult because that person probably does not exist. If you want healthcare under my plan, you will be able to get it, it will be affordable, and it will be of the high quality.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22409176/page/5/

I've reviewed Obama's health care plan (and double checked it again this morning) and I have yet to find any details about these "penalties". Any plan for universal coverage has to deal - at some point - with adverse selection (the probability of more high risk people signing up for a plan than low risk people, thereby forcing the plan to pay out more money than it takes in). Hillary is proposing to deal with this on the front end through mandates. Obama is doing this on the back end through penalties (and before folks start on about "making insurance more affordable"...both plans do that. Both plans also have an enforcement mechanism for adverse selection, and Obama seems to have the trigger for the enforcement when the person who hasn't paid into the plan goes to access benefits).

However, as Obama has not been very specific about what these penalties are, how many past premium periods they may cover, whether or not interest is charged, whether or not there is a wage or income garnishment involved, whether or not these folks would be charged higher rates for not opting in sooner, etc. etc. this leaves his plan weakened. It is also unclear whether putting penalties in place on the back end would give people "an incentive to sign up early". The opposite could also be argued: that folks may put off seeking treatment because they don't want to pay these penalties. This would in turn increase, not decrease, the cost of care.

I want universal health care. I want Democrats going in with a strong plan so that - in the eventual compromise stage in Congress - many elements of the plan remain in place. When the plans start to get whittled down I want them made out of oak, not balsa wood or soft pine.

I'd like to see both candidates address the weaknesses in their plans for this reason. Let's not attack each other over universal health care; let's work together to get it done.

Paul Krugman's Latest Pin Prick Of The Obama Bubble

Paul Krugman's piece today is already being derided by some vocal Obama supporters, as it makes the real world argument that any Democratic President will be attacked by the GOP. Although that may sound like a given to those of us here in the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party, to the post-partisan hopedacious crowd this is new to them.

What a hoot.

Krugman, being the realist that he is, feels that the best way to weather these attacks is through a well-formulated platform of detailed policies (and not half-baked compromises right out of the box):

"...I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama's rejection of health insurance mandates -- which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage -- doesn't really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president's initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn't arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed..."

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinio n/28krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&am p;oref=slogin

And although Krugman observes that this primary season has gotten "terribly off track" due to the politics of personalities and celebrity, he does have kind words for the one candidate who has tried to make his campaign about the things that actually affect all of our bottom lines:

"...What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues -- a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign -- and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward..."

Will Americans wake up in enough time to realize that the politics of personality does nothing to help themselves or their families?

I don't know. But I have Hope.

Why Edwards Needs To Stay In

Okay, let me just objection-handle for a couple of moments. From all appearances Edwards is over 15% in South Carolina, meaning he will earn delegates from this thing when everything's said and done.

Now, before the punditry and the Clinton campaign start spinning all of the various reasons why John should drop out, let me address these concerns now.

*Objection One: The Sore Loser*

To reiterate talking points from a "senior Clinton advisor" this week:

The former first lady's allies say the longer Edwards stays in the race, the more problems his candidacy will cause the party down the road.

One senior adviser to the Clinton campaign said Edwards was "angry" because the primary race isn't turning out the way he had hoped. Now, Edwards just wants to make life miserable for everyone else.

Some think Edwards is playing the role of a spoiler, prolonging the day of reckoning between Clinton and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runners. They fear the longer the Clinton-Obama battle goes on, the harder it will be to heal the inevitable wounds in the Democratic Party. It's time for Edwards to drop out of the race, they say.

link: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8052139

*Why this is a false meme*

1. As seen by what is widely being acknowledged as a retaliatory vote by African Americans *against* the Clinton campaign tactics in South Carolina, it's pretty damn clear who in this race has already "caused more problems for the party down the road"...and that ain't John Edwards. By playing a cynical race game to try to downplay a defeat in South Carolina, the Clintons have thrown the fragile and often abused relationship between the Democratic Party and African Americans under the bus to achieve their own political aspirations. And they have the temerity to suggest that it's John Edwards who is causing the party problems?

Hillary, puh-leeze. Talk to the hand, girlfriend, cuz we ain't listenin'.

2. "Prolonging the day of reckoning between Clinton and Obama". Cute. As if we're spectators at some type of live computer game where Hillary and Barack are both Death Ninjas.

Uh-huh.

John Edwards being in this race is the tether to Hillary's attacks. She can't go too far out on that limb for fear of alienating folks and sending them his way. An all out flame-war between the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign does nothing but give the GOP fodder for the general election. *This* is not in the best interests of the party. Edwards has consistently made his campaign about this issues, and his staying in this race is the best hope we have for the primaries to continue to *be about the issues*. Hate the flame wars? Keep Edwards in this thing.

3. John Edwards is "angry" and a "sore loser". Sigh...well at least we know how the Clintons are going to attack *his* character. No, John Edwards is not "angry". Edwards supporters are not "angry". We just want this election to be *about the issues*. And yes, we're in this to pull the debate to the left.

'Nuf said.

*Objection Two: If Edwards Pulled Out Obama Would Win This Thing*

This is the culmination of arguments I've read in threads, and diaries, and all over the place.

*Why this is a false meme*

1. There is no evidence that *all* or *most* of Edwards's supporters would vote for Obama.

2. If Edwards pulls votes from Hillary this only helps Obama in a brokered convention. Edwards has already made several declarations that he and Obama are closer on the issues to each other than they are to Hillary. He has already very publicly called her the "status quo candidate". Therefore, one could reasonably assume that if Edwards were to support anyone in a brokered convention that person would be Barack Obama. Edwards's support may be the deciding factor in such a scenario, and breaking toward Obama would give him the win.

So, Hillary folks: "Edwards is a loser and is hurting the party" won't fly. Obama folks: "Edwards pulling out would give Obama the win" isn't actually the case.

Y'all chill. Edwards is - and should - stay in this thing to the convention.

Peace.

Steal This YouTube!

"Some Say" Edwards Just Wants to Make Life Miserable

This is an absolute hoot! From today's San Jose Mercury News:

The former first lady's allies say the longer Edwards stays in the race, the more problems his candidacy will cause the party down the road.

One senior adviser to the Clinton campaign said Edwards was "angry" because the primary race isn't turning out the way he had hoped. Now, Edwards just wants to make life miserable for everyone else.

Some think Edwards is playing the role of a spoiler, prolonging the day of reckoning between Clinton and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runners. They fear the longer the Clinton-Obama battle goes on, the harder it will be to heal the inevitable wounds in the Democratic Party. It's time for Edwards to drop out of the race, they say.

link: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8052139

Okay, so let's break this down a little. The Hillary Clinton campaign doesn't want John Edwards to say in the race because it "prolongs the day of reckoning between Clinton and Obama". And the "longer the Clinton-Obama battle goes on, the harder it will be to heal the inevitable wounds in the Democratic Party."

Heh.

Let's cut through the butter here. Hillary Clinton desperately wants this to be a two-way race. We saw it in the last debate. By tossing out the word "Rezko", and getting Obama to go down in the mud she's trying to take away his biggest asset. She's trying to change Obama's persona from the "transcendent figure of hope and change" to one of "just your average Chicago pol". Not squeaky clean. Gets just as dirty as everyone else.

And once she has Obama on that level, now she can talk about the choice between one politician or the other one. Now the talk of "experience" and "being vetted" becomes suddenly more relevant. If the choice is between two politicians acting like politicians...well, wouldn't you want to choose the politician who's better playing that game?

And she would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for that pesky John Edwards:



And, what's worse? Check out this notable quotable:

At Monday night’s debate, Democratic front-runners Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) repeatedly engaged each other in their sharpest, most contentious debate exchanges yet.

“I’m thinking, ‘I’m John Edwards, and I represent the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party,’ ” Edwards said. “At times like these we need a grown-up.”

link: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/edwards-on-clinton-obama-we-need-a-grown-up-2008-01-22.html

Edwards has just boxed Hillary in on her knock-down-and-take-Obama-out strategy. The more she insists on flinging the mud and encouraging Obama to respond in kind, the more Pappa John can call back from the metaphorical driver's seat, "Do I have to pull this car over?" Edwards has put Hillary in the position of making him look better - more adult - every time she engages in the poo fight, and even running third that's something that the Clintons (given Bill's own history of only winning his first primary in Georgia) are pretty loathe to do.

No wonder Camp Hill feels like John is "making life miserable for everyone else." I'm sure to them he probably is.

Why Obama's Comment Stings My Soul

...Or, Fear And Loathing in the 1980's.

I don't mean this to be a hit diary, or a pile on. But in reading the discussions around the blogs today on Obama's growingly-infamous comment about Reagan's legacy, I feel like some folks just don't get it, they truly do not empathize with those of us on the left who hear the word "Reagan" and see red. I think a lot of this is due to not sharing a common history.

So, briefly, these are some recollections that jump into my brain when I hear "Reagan"...

It was 1980. There was no internet. There was no cable (or at least none in my neck of the woods in small town Nebraska). We got our news from the local paper, the Lincoln paper and four broadcast network stations. I was a bored thirteen-year-old, walking the school hallways with her head stuck in a book and glasses perched on my nose, trying to grow through these years as quickly as possible so I could Get Out. Escape To The Great World Beyond.

In 1980 a lot of stores in our small town still closed on Sunday...and they were still huddled around the town square, encasing the county courthouse. If you wanted something you had to either get it Saturday or drive into Lincoln. We had a local movie theatre that was still open (although the local businesses stopped giving out "movie money" coupons a few years back).

The big news of the day was the Iranian hostage crisis. On the radio in the car, on the TV news at night, in the schools during our discussions of current events, everyone would get updated on "Day Number ____ ", a macabre notation of how many days the hostages had been held. This would be followed up with blurry film footage and photographs of men and women, blindfolded, surrounded by young men with guns. We were treated to reports of what happens when one is being taken hostage. What that feels like. Whether they let you go to the bathroom.

Analysts would discuss the Carter administration's action - or lack thereof. Carter refused to negotiate with terrorists. Eventually we heard news of a downed plane and a failed rescue attempt. People were frustrated and scared. It felt like the one battle in the Cold War that we were losing (regardless of the reality of things - trust me, this *is* what it felt like)...and we all collectively understood the threat that loomed if we let that happen.

It is this environment that elected tough-talking Ronald Reagan. The Man of Action. The choice of "Other" on your ballot. It was hardly the masses yearning for "...a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." After Reagan was elected and the hostages were freed the country breathed a sigh of relief, patting itself on the back for making the right choice. It was only later on that we would learn it was secret negotiations with these terrorists before we even cast our votes - and not all that tough talk - that freed these hostages.

But with the hostages freed we were still under a threat even more dire, that of total nuclear holocaust. Mutually Assured Destruction had been our policy since Kennedy, and - because we couldn't figure out any other way of going about things - it remained our policy since that time. We watched The Day After on the TV, and talked about that woman's hair falling out after being poisoned by radiation. In Nebraska we had a special network news treat: seeing a model of downtown Omaha being blown to bits in a nuclear blast. Unlike the rest of the country, Omaha would be ground zero in a nuclear war as it was the home of the Strategic Air Command.

We drove down gravel roads that suddenly became paved - roads with no names, only the ones that the locals gave them: "missle base roads". Because, well, they were built to lead to a missle base.

And in the middle of all of this the economy boomed, I went to high school and then college and I have to say, even for the eighties I had *really big hair*. And skin tight jeans. (Ah, to have my pre-mommy body back again).

But I digress.

I went to an Ivy League school "back east", where the campus was buzzing about who got the latest job on Wall Street, where the best place to go shopping was and where everyone wore the standard uniform of leather bomber jackets. And in the middle of all of this we learned, and studied, and discussed the Russian threat, the Eastern Block Countries, the history of La Belle Epoch, and, yes, Mutually Assured Deterence. Professors openly questioned the government's assessments of the Soviet threat, the number of missles they had and the numbers we needed to defend ourselves (as opposed to launching a first strike).

I was fortunate enough to go to Russia.

I hung out with engineering students there who openly questioned *their* government's allocation of resources to build these nuclear warheads. Their lack of testing them, and their dictates to just swap components when there were shortage issues. I saw people carrying briefcases and bookbags, to stock up on certain items that hit the store shelves and then disappeared just as quickly. I saw the cheaply made shoes, smoked the cheaply made local cigarettes and walked the streets where small three cylander vehicles - "put put cars" my friend called them - cruised the streets looking for the impossible to find parking spot.

And after all of this I thought to myself: *this* is the Evil Empire? It seemed like a surreal joke, knowing the trillions we had spent in "defending" ourselves against these folks.

It was then I understood I had been lied to. By Reagan. And that the trillions of dollars of debt we incurred at the expense of mentally retarded people being forced into the streets and government programs being stripped to the bone wasn't about protecting us. It was about something else, a more sinister remake of society that was being enabled by a combination of fear and consumption, forcing us to become a more "me" oriented society and less of a "thou" oriented society.

This is why, today, I was deeply saddened listening to Senator Obama's remarks on Reagan. It just took me right back there to that moment in time when, for me, the lie began.

Again, this isn't a hit diary. Just an explanation of where I'm coming from.

Peace.

UPDATE: I was originally just trying to keep this as an expression of what Reagan was really like and what that election was like, but maybe that was a little too subtle. Sorry about that.

To answer everyone, here is Obama's quote, with the part that I take umbrage at highlighted:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

If you notice, people actually *weren't* feeling that they wanted clarity, optimism and a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

People were *in fear*. The 1980 election was about *fear*. It was not about *hope*. The GOP has been attempting to spread the message of Reagan the Great Optimist/Hopemonger/etc. in an effort to cannonize him. This spin is far from reality.

I hope this explains my feelings on the subject a little more directly.

This is a crosspost of a blog entry originally posted on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/16/202428/519/291/438030

Edwards Wins Nevada Debate By Staying On Message

Here's what you need to know from the Nevada debate tonight: if you want a great, wonkish policy hound, vote for Hillary. If you want a professor who can literally see (and sometimes take) all sides of every issue, vote for Obama.

But if you want a strong leader who will fight for you, your neighbors and the rest of the working folks that you know and love, vote for John Edwards.

With question after question tonight, John stayed on message. The civil rights movement? It was about ordinary folks - just like you and me - who stood up and fought to correct a gross injustice. The economy? The core problem is that there are large, monied interests who are subverting our economic stability, making it harder and harder for working folks to get ahead. Health care? All of us (and I can testify to this from my own personal life) are paying more and more and getting less and less, and we are all one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin.

While Hillary was framing the debate around "black and brown issues" (yes, her words, not mine) and Obama had moments of brilliance tarnished by a tenacious verbosity, John Edwards was short, sweet and to the relevant point: we need to change this country. We need to fix the system to make it work for working people. And we need to do that now.

Anyone who's reading this - the netroots are having a historic drive to raise $7 million dollars for John Edwards this Friday, January 18th. This is unaffiliated with the campaign. It is a people powered push.

If you can, please help us. Whatever you do is greatly appreciated. Visit this link for more details: http://www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjc2MDc

Together, all of us working folks fighting strong, we can win this thing and take our country back.

Why I'm Sticking With John Edwards

I'm sitting in my tiny dining room/children's play area/throughway between the living room and the kitchen, listening to The Wiggles sing the virtues of olive oil intermingled with the occassional soft murmurs from my four year old as she plays with her collection of stuffed animals, while my son draws in a Charlie Brown coloring book. Outside a heavy, wet coating of snow weighs down tree branches and gives the world the appearance of being covered in so many cotton puffs, hastily glued by an overly-enthusiastic pre-schooler who just didn't know when to stop.

We are a small family of small means, living our small lives in the small rooms of our small, cozy bungalow. Soon I'll have to fix lunch and start nap time, but before I do I just wanted to share some quick thoughts, ramblings really, about who I am and why our family supports John Edwards.

Of primary importance for us is healthcare. Even having decent health care insurance through my husband's work, we are still paying an exorbitant amount of money. Our premiums just rose this year, and there's no reason to not expect they will rise again. Our health care costs are going up faster than any "cost of living" raises we expect to see. Because of this we just can't get ahead.

John Edwards has the best universal health care proposal, for my money. He is also the candidate that I feel wouldn't quit until it got passed. His plan lowers rates through a combination of mandates and subsidies. By allowing government to compete, families like mine could choose to either keep our insurance or opt for the federal government's plan. This helps my kids stay healthier, and helps me if we choose to have another child, and helps our family by stopping the trend of skyrocketing premiums. This is a central issue for us, and one of the main reasons we support Edwards.

Second on the horizon for me is our foreign policy, which stops our country from addressing the pocketbook issues of working folks by funneling billions of dollars away from domestic programs and into things like bigger and better bombs that one hopes are never used. I feel confident all of our Dems would stop the madness in Iraq, and John has called for our troops to be out in ten months. But beyond that, I want to know what type of foreign policy will stop this nonsense from happening again. John has made ending the Bush doctrine of preventive war a central part of his campaign, and has stated clearly that the neoconservative doctrines that pulled us into this war would have no safe haven in his administration:

George Bush's "preventive war" doctrine was crafted by a radical group of neoconservative Bush administration aides. The doctrine holds that America should shoot first and only ask questions later. It rejects the historic grounding principle of America's national security policy, which is that military force should always be an option of last resort. This radical doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that kept America safe during both World Wars and during the Cold War. The doctrine led directly to the disastrous war in Iraq and is driving the Bush-Cheney approach today to Iran, including Senator Joe Lieberman's resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

As president, Edwards will get rid of the dangerous "preventive war" doctrine and instead rely on proven national security strategies including overwhelming deterrent strength and retaining every option to address imminent attacks.

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran/20071105-new-strategy-for-iran/

For me, it's not enough to talk about how the Iraq war was a mistake, or talk about how we need to get out, or talk about who was right and who was wrong at which moment in history. *For me the important question is: what are you going to do to prevent another Iraq from happening.* And again, for my money, John Edwards has issued the clearest statements and most detailed policies to stop another Iraq from looming on the horizon.

Finally, the overarching issue that is important to me and my family is the economy, and here John Edwards has consistently led. He was the first candidate to correctly evaluate our economy not by who the winners are but by who it leaves behind. He was the first one - even before George Bush - to recognize the tell tale signs of our drift into recession and the first one to put forward an economic stimulus package to address it. And he is the only candidate to look at economic policy holistically, not as a series of tax breaks here and there but how it affects so many aspects of our lives, from energy to health care to education and so many more.

If you want to know more about John and his policies, his issues page really lays out how he will govern as President. The link is here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

As a country we're heading for troubled times, times that will call for strong leadership that doesn't just govern by laundry lists and feel good, but that tackles our problems holistically and tells us the hard truths, even when we don't want to hear about it. None of the other candidates in this race hit this right balance for me. That is how John Edwards earned my vote...

...and regardless of how many folks declare his campaign dead, or write him off, or ignore him, he'll continue to have my vote and my support until we decide our nominee.

New York Post Attacks Edwards, Sarkisyans

Okay, I'm gonna borrow a phrase too often used by the folks across the aisle: this is beyond the pale.

The NY Post, under an article titled, "Edwards' Evil Insurance Plan" defends Cigna, calls Edwards - in so many words - a political ambulance chaser and in the process degrades the Sarkisyans and their fight for justice after the death of their daughter from what appears to be unfair claims practices on the part of their insurance company.

Here's a gem quote right here:

But he's [Edwards] too smart not to know that in this case (at the very least) it's dishonest and ignores important public-policy concerns: Cigna didn't kill Sarkisyan, her disease did.

Based on that false premise of blame the sick patient for dying of their disease (instead of blame the multi-billion dollar health care insurance company for denying life saving treatment that doctors said was both necessary and not experimental), the article then goes on to berate Edwards for using these folks as political pawns in his nefarious scheme to become president and give folks universal health care.

The logic - or lack thereof - is astounding in its pretzel-like twists and turns:

Edwards' grandstanding was irresponsible. Livers are scarce, life-saving resources. Far too few are available; thousands of potential recipients die awaiting a transplant. A transplant for Nataline would have doomed another potential liver recipient to death for want of an organ - or subjected a live donor to risky surgery for little likely gain.

Should one potential recipient be jumped over others because John Edwards has found it politically expedient to champion her cause? Should an organ be used for an unproven indication when it's far more likely to save other possible recipients?

We can't expect parents and even the treating physicians to decide that the prospects of success are so slim or uncertain that their daughter or patient shouldn't receive a scarce, life-saving liver. But public officials, particularly ones who aspire to overhaul the health system, must be able to.

Get it? Those pesky doctors and families of sick and dying people are standing in the way of those "responsible" public officials who need to overhaul the health care system. And if you're sick and dying and need a liver transplant, tough. You can't have one because of the next sick and dying person in need of a liver transplant.

If you want to read this whole excuse for propping up our failed health care system, the link is here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/edwards_evil_insurance_scam_797339.htm?page=0

The health care battle has already started, folks, with people like John Edwards being painted as the irresponsible public servants trying to fix the system, and folks like - oh, I don't know, your next Republican congressmen in the pocket of the insurance lobby - as the good, honest public servants riding in on their white horses to save the day.

I'm an Edwards supporter, in no small part due to his stance on health care. This is a fight, the fight has already begun, and we're seeing right now how compromised media outlets like the New York Post are going to be waging it.

That's why I firmly believe any attempt at giving these folks a few bought seats at the table will fail. They won't just eat up all the food, they'll blame the rest of us hungry folks for not having enough food to feed ourselves.

Obama and the Revolt Against the New Hopeism

There's a revolution happening this first day of the New Year. It isn't on your television screens. You can't read about it in the New York Times or the Washington Post...yet.

But it's all the rage on the blogosphere.

From laptops, and desktops, clad in PJ's and sweats, downing aspirin as they're recovering from New Year's Eve, the political blogosphere is quietly asserting itself against the New Hopeism of Barack Obama.

Let's start with Markos Moulitsos of Daily Kos, who is far from a fervent supporter of John Edwards:

"...Not being blinded by candidate worship, it's easier to sniff out the bullsh**. And you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to deny that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of his opponents. And call me crazy, but that's not a trait I generally appreciate in Democrats, no matter how much it might set the punditocracy's hearts a flutter."

link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/1/1 33841/9311/412/428780

Kos is referring to Obama's recent attacks on trial lawyers, unions, and even Al Gore and John Kerry. Add that to the earlier gaffe of having Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer and proponent of the controversial "ex-gay" movement, sharing the stage with you at a campaign concert fundraiser, and you have a candidate who is running to win the Democratic Party's primary who is simultaneously able to alienate some of its key constiuents.

Politico covers the outrage that unions are feeling against the New Hopeism:

"...I'm taken aback that somebody like Obama would think that Oprah Winfrey has a greater right to participate in the political process than the 4 million people I represent," Edward J. McElroy, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has spent $799,619 on New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's behalf, said, referring to the television host's high-profile support for Obama. "It's sour grapes. It sounds just like the charges the Republicans make."

Gerald W. McEntee, the president of the other major union supporting Clinton, wrote on The Huffington Post that "the Obama campaign's criticism of our political action committee and some of the so-called 527 efforts, such as the one organized in support of [John] Edwards, is troubling because they are suggesting that workers are somehow a special interest, just like insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry..."

link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010 8/7652.html

Matt Stoller of Open Left is even more scathing:

"...Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror.

How would you react? You could concoct a 'theory of change' and argue that all of this is just deceptive, and the candidate is worth supporting anyway..."

link: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=3002

Ian Welsh in Huffington Post does a full frontal assault on the technical aspects of the New Hopeism:

"...Then there's Barack "Consensus" Obama. It's hard to even take this seriously. In 2007 the Republicans in Congress killed, through technical filibusters, almost twice as many bills as any Congress ever has. For the last 7 years, George "I won the vote that matters 5-4" Bush has ruled the country by running rough-shod over the opposition party, giving them essentially nothing. There has been no consensus-driven voting or decision-making in the U.S. in 7 years, and there wasn't that much in the '90s, either. Oh, sure, I understand that Obama and many Americans would like to go back to the land of consensus-driven politics, where there's a center and where everyone works for what is best for America by splitting the difference. It's a pretty picture. But there's no middle left..."

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/ the-edwards-imperative-b_b_79015.html

Ezra Klein shrewdly observes that the trend of New Hopeism is actually veering away from anything progressives or liberals would embrace as a victory:

"...But Obama's comfort attacking liberals from the right is unsettling, and if he does win Iowa, it will not be a victory that either supporters or the media ascribe to the more progressive elements of his candidacy. Instead, they will search for the distinctions he's drawn, and, sadly, a number of those distinctions point away from the heart-quickening progressivism of much of this race, and back towards the old politics of centrist caution and status quo bias..."

link: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak lein_archive?month=01&year=2008& base_name=the_obama_close#103413

Finally, the New Hopeism has unfortunately lead Obama to embrace the Harry and Louise talking points that helped to successfully torch universal health care in the 1990's:



So, let's review. The New Hopeism uses right wing talking points against unions and trial lawyers. It calls out Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore and Senator John Kerry for being too divisive (link: http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/lo ngisland/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_gor e_kerry_alienated_hal.html).

And it's willing to alienate the LGBT community by embracing a troubled man pitching a troubled and harmful philosophy of "curing" homosexuality.

On policies it embraces the Harry and Louise arguments against mandates for universal health care and calls social security a "crisis".

This isn't Clintonian triangulation. It's actually worse than that. It's unilaterally disarming before the first shot's been fired.

In the face of the New Hopeism, John Edwards's fighting words are drawing new praise. To quote Ian Welsh:

"...It's time for a new approach, and amongst the three front runners in the Democratic field, that means Edwards. As with FDR, if his approach works, he will be both the most loved and most hated man in America, and some will wring their hands about how divisive that is. But if "unpleasantness" is what is needed to stop going to war illegally, to end the shredding of the Constitution and to stop the destruction of the Middle Class, so be it. An unwillingness to really fight means that those who will, the Republicans, will walk all over those who won't.

The time for the failed politics of compromise is over.

Now it's time for John Edwards."

I couldn't agree more.