Grannyhelen's Kitchen

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

2008-03-26T13:39:00.000-04:00

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

2008-03-24T09:23:00.000-04:00

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

2008-03-20T09:33:00.001-04:00

...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

2008-03-17T13:19:00.000-04:00

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

2008-03-16T20:56:00.001-04:00

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

2008-03-15T23:45:00.000-04:00

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

2008-02-06T17:52:00.000-05:00

...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

2008-02-04T18:09:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-28T08:54:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-27T15:50:00.000-05:00

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!

2008-01-25T13:34:00.000-05:00

"Some Say" Edwards Just Wants to Make Life Miserable

2008-01-23T15:17:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-18T08:38:00.000-05:00

...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

2008-01-15T23:32:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-14T18:52:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-11T15:08:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-01T20:01:00.000-05:00

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.

In memory of Nataline...

2007-12-22T23:56:00.000-05:00

Nataline Sarkisyan, an innocent 17-year-old, died at a children's hospital last Thursday. Cigna, her insurance company, had approved of a liver transplant, but once Nataline had complications from a bone marrow transplant the insurer got cold feet and denied the claim, stating it was "experimental" despite receiving a letter from four doctors at Nataline's hospital which stated that not only was this not experimental, but that the liver transplant was needed to save her life.

Cigna reversed its decision last Thursday and granted the transplant, but unfortunately it was too late and Nataline died hours after the procedure was approved.

This has been one of the hardest things for me to deal with. I spoke with a very nice man in the public relations department at Cigna last Thursday afternoon on Nataline's behalf. I was one of hundreds who called and took the streets to demand that her insurance company pay this valid claim.

More eloquent folks than me have spoken out on this subject, and for anyone reading this one, lonely blog bobbing up and down on the waves of the information highway, I want you to hear them directly. Below are some YouTubes and links to articles and diaries explaining the background of this injustice and why it needs to be corrected.

CBS News:

nyceve's diary on Daily Kos regarding an email she received from a transplant surgeon, indicating a potential industry-wide practice of delay, delay, deny: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/22/131010/84/561/425556

Presidential candidate John Edwards "visibly angered" over this injustice: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/21/politics/fromtheroad/entry3641451.shtml

Videos from Nataline's brother and someone who was close to her (the second one taken at a birthday party for one of Nataline's friends):

The YouTube entry to this one simply states: "...This is the only video i have of Nataline in it. Rest In Peace now Beautiful Angel..."

Rest in peace, Nataline. We will remember you.

So What Did Obama Do?

2007-12-20T09:38:00.000-05:00

As long as he's opened that door, The New York Times has decided to step right on through it. And you'll be amazed - in the Illinois senate he reversed himself from his current track record.

He showed up.

The problem is, he didn't want to make a decision once he got there.

From the article: (link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/)

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator..."

Now in fairness, Camp Hope has tried to defend this record, saying it was part of a strategy. The article points to 36 times Obama voted "present" alone or with a group of less than six. Fifty-plus times it looks like he was "acting with other Democrats as a part of a strategy".

At issue, really, is whether he abused the "present" vote. From the article:

“...If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

And that seems to be what he did on the bill highlighted that would allow juveniles to be tried as adults.

I'm bringing all of this up because it seems that Camp Hope HQ is trying to insinuate that John Edwards's entire life experience - from litigating multinational corporations and big insurance companies in the cause of making injured people whole, to speaking out against Bill Clinton's impeachment, and even his personal battles of dealing with the death of his child and having a spouse with terminal cancer - amounts to nothing. Nada. Zilch.

"What have you done?" Arrogantly echoes through the halls of Camp Hope.

Well, when the going got tough what did Obama do? Chose a political duck-and-cover, assisting the bad by not helping the good. And he continues that courageous tradition of caving by voting to fund the war he so valiantly talked about opposing, and selling out working people by being a vocal proponent of the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

In the age of obfuscation and signing statements, that's the last kind of leadership we need in the White House.

Give me a leader who will at least stand up and take responsibility for all of his decisions, even the wrong ones. Give me a leader who can admit when he's wrong and work like heck to right that wrong.

I'll take that any day of the week over someone who wants to hold hands by the campfire, vote "here" when the tough decisions need to be made and who will *actively work* to continue an injustice that he knows is wrong.

These are trying times that call for a tough leader, not a political compromise.

John Edwards is that tough leader. Let's get him into that oval office. Now.

On King, Gandhi, Edwards And Why We Need To Fight

2007-12-17T17:07:00.000-05:00

Nonviolence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of nonviolence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence. Translation from swordsmanship to nonviolence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Nonviolence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission.--Mohandas Gandhi

And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation—the people on the wrong side—have used time much more effectively than the forces of goodwill. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, "Wait on time."--Martin Luther King, Jr.

King and Gandhi understood the importance of addressing injustice at the moment injustice is occurring. Both advocates of nonviolence, moved by the forces of Satyagraha and Agape Love, they were fighters to the end. Their weapon of choice was nonviolence, but not a passive, meek, "work within the system" nonviolence. King and Gandhi wielded nonviolence as a precise instrument of war for systemic change. All wars - violent and nonviolent - end at the negotiating table. What King and Gandhi understood was that nonviolence allowed someone to approach the negotiating table from a position of strength, and that the use of nonviolence would pave the way for a true peace, a lasting cessation of tensions that could be built on over time because the goal of nonviolence was to redeem both the oppressed and the oppressor.

Some folks like to think of Gandhi as a grandfatherly figure in traditional homespun garb. Some folks like to remember King saying "I have a dream" one day out of the year.

For me, I remember these men as fighters, warriors dedicated to the cause of justice.

I'm not going to put John Edwards - or indeed any presidential candidate - on the level of these two men. But my point is that when Edwards is talking about fighting insurance companies to address the massive injustice of millions of Americans going without healthcare, or making decisions between food and medicine, he's approaching that same path that was trailblazed by these two men years before.

Watch this interview - King was also criticized for his "aggressive" tactics, for not "biding his time, taking it step by step as it goes":

King's response? Privileged classes do not give up their privileges voluntarily. They do not give them up without strong resistance. All of the gains received in civil rights were because folks stood up aggressively in the cause of civil rights. There is an initial response of bitterness, but in the end there is redemption and reconciliation because justice has been achieved.

Now listen to what Edwards is saying about fighting to fix our broken system:

Regardless of who actually gets the Democratic nomination, or indeed who ends up being elected President, Edwards has one thing right: these folks are not going to give up their power voluntarily. It will be an epic battle to get our country back on track. With John Edwards in the White House those of us who want systemic change to fix our country will have a powerful ally.

This isn't about just electing one guy or gal to the job, packing up our stuff and watching American Idol re-runs for the next four years. This election is just one of many salvos in the fight for justice.

For me, a part of that fight is supporting John Edwards for President. Obviously, I'd like anyone reading this to consider supporting him as well.

But regardless of who you support, let's just be clear: after the elections we will have a fight on our hands, and let's joyfully join that cause.

John Edwards And A Revolution of Values

2007-12-11T14:08:00.000-05:00

There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?"

snip

We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.--Martin Luther King, Jr. "Where Do We Go From Here?"; August, 1967

link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Where_do_we_go_from_here.html

"With an increase in Americans without health insurance by two million to 47 million, nearly 37 million Americans still living in poverty and continued high levels of inequality, the need for fundamental change in our government is obvious.--John Edwards, Statement on New Census Data On Poverty in America, August, 2007

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/20070828-poverty-data/

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a holistic thinker, and someone who saw the problems plaguing mankind through the prism of the inter-related, triple evils of racism, poverty and war. In speaking out against the Vietnam War, King called for the United States to engage in one, final systemic change which he called a "revolution of values" ( http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html ):

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.

All of our Democratic candidates have great ideas and policies to help us right the ship of the nation after eight disasterous years. But for my money - and more than that, for my time, support and dedication - John Edwards has the holistic vision that can help us achieve that revolution of values that King called our nation to embrace over forty years ago.

Civil rights leaders, from Martin Luther King III, to Jesse Jackson, to Harry Belafonte, have praised Edwards for concentrating on the poor. This isn't because this is just one more issue in governance by laundry list. What these civil rights leaders realize is that when you focus on poverty it forces you to view our society in a fundamentally different way. Indeed, it makes you question the *ediface that produces poverty*.

In making poverty a central issue of his campaign - against advice from pundits and advisors and all of those smart folks who feel that this is just a downer issue - Edwards has shown his commitment to this revolution of values by laying out detailed policies on how we can reach this goal:

Creating a Working Society
Edwards has outlined a Working Society initiative to lift 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and beat poverty over the next 30 years. In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it. The initiative includes major new policies in the areas of work, housing, education, debt and savings, and family responsibility.

If you visit his issues page, Edwards outlines specifics behind this vision, including increasing the minimum wage, creating stepping stone jobs and making it easier for workers to unionize: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

Our country needs a change of direction, but more than that we are still in need of a revolution of values. By addressing the issue of poverty, Edwards is putting us on that road. Harry Belafonte expressed this last week when he endorsed Edwards for President:

"I also happen to believe that had he not so forcefully and precisely put the issue of poverty into this campaign, I don't think we'd be talking aobut it as much as we are," Belafonte said.

Our revolution of values shouldn't start next year, next decade or in the middle of someone's second term. It needs to start today. For me, that's why I'm supporting Edwards and volunteering for him in the following weeks. I'd like to invite folks to take a look at Edwards and if you agree, help him win the nomination and then the Presidency.

Let's be the change we want to see.

The Shining City Upon A Hill Is A Gated Community

2007-12-03T15:43:00.000-05:00

It isn't class warfare to talk about this - this is the truth. --John Edwards, DNC Winter Meeting Speech

But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.”--Ronald Reagan, The Shining City Upon A Hill

John Edwards is delivering the long-overdue Democratic response to Reagan's speech, The Shining City Upon A Hill. Long lauded by conservatives as one of Reagan's seminal speeches, it interlaces an American nostaglia steeped in mysticism with concepts now foreign to the GOP, things like "even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future", and a reverence for the Constitution as "probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man", and "never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we, as a nation, pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible." Talk about the party of flip-flops!

But I digress.

Reagan also presents in this speech the case for trickle-down economics being in the best interest *of working men and women*:

Standardization means production for the masses and the assembly line means more leisure for the worker -- freedom from backbreaking and mind-dulling drudgery that man had known for centuries past. Karl Marx did not abolish child labor or free the women from working in the coal mines in England – the steam engine and modern machinery did that.

snip

One-half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic. We have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. Ninety-five percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients -- and a part of the five percent that don't are trying to lose weight! Ninety-nine percent have gas or electric refrigeration, 92 percent have televisions, and an equal number have telephones. There are 120 million cars on our streets and highways -- and all of them are on the street at once when you are trying to get home at night. But isn't this just proof of our materialism -- the very thing that we are charged with? Well, we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras, and opera companies, non-profit theaters, and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together.

Reaganomics was always framed in terms of the benefit to the *common man*. Reagan himself pitched people on its acceptance as choosing "freedom over security".

Recent history has proven him wrong. In all aspects of the abject failure of "small government", ranging from the failure to rebuild Iraq, the still-muddled response to Katrina, the mortgage crisis, the almost-weekly announcement of another toxic substance in your toddler's apple juice or lead paint on his beloved toy, history has shown us the problem of pursuing Reagan's myth-filled vision to its logical conclusion.

Now is the time to deliver the Democratic response to Reagan's flawed policies. This past week, John Edwards did exactly that, both at the DNC Winter Meeting and at the Heartland Presidential Forum:

Edwards is answering nostaglia with reality. The Shining City Upon A Hill has become a gated community, excluding most Americans from its promise:

There's a wall outside Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. That wall didn't build itself or appear overnight. For decades politicians without conviction and powerful interests gathered their bricks and their stones and their motar, and they went to work. They went to work to protect their interests, to block the voice of the American people, and to stop our country's progress. They went to work to protect, and defend, and maintain the status quo.

snip

Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles, pay now and pay later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter's face when there's no money to pay for college. Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor's office for their son because they can't afford to pay for healthcare.

And the Republicans, the party of Reagan who once at least at one time connected with working men and women? Where are they now?

In denial. They've been living inside that gated community for so long they've forgotten there's a world that exists outside its walls:

Now isn't the time to only ask ourselves, "who can beat the Republicans". Don't get me wrong, I would like to see a win for the Democrats in 2008 just as much as many other people in our party.

There's a deeper, more fundamental question that we have to confront: who can undo the harm that the Republicans have left us with? Who can reverse the extremist philosophies that have eroded the promise of America for so many of its citizens?

John Edwards is showing a clear, competing vision to extremist neocon doctrines that have ruled the GOP and our country:

We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope to get our voices through. We can settle for baby-steps, or half measures and incremental change, and try and inch our way over that wall or toward a better future.

Or we can knock it down.

Let's knock that wall down, together.

Edwards: 1, Republicans: 0

2007-11-29T13:04:00.000-05:00

What does a candidate who takes strong positions, tells folks he won't back down and whose campaign is fueled by a progressive populist agenda get?

Votes.

He also wins over Republicans after they watch *their own party's* debate:

Someone like Jim Geraghty at National Review may whine, saying "where do they find these people?" ( http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM4Y2ZiY2MyMTZjMTI5OGM3NWE1OTRjNThhMjY0YzE= ) but it's clear that even older Republicans are ready for someone to stand up and finally lead this country.

I'm an Edwards supporter. I've written my fare share of diaries praising him when he's given great speeches or hit home runs at Democratic debates.

But I've never been given the opportunity to do some candidate cheerleading after a debate where the candidate didn't even show up.

This is sweet.

MLK, Global Warming And The Need For Systemic Change

2007-11-19T22:35:00.000-05:00

Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have got to do this. We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools. We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the way God’s universe is made; this is the way it is structured. --Martin Luther King, Jr. "Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution"

Many researchers, led by scientists like NASA's James Hansen, now agree that an increase in global average temperature beyond 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit could constitute a "tipping point" leading to irreversible, extreme climate changes. If global carbon emissions continue to rise, principally from coal-fired power plants and cars, the Earth could easily reach that point by 2050.

In ominous tones, the report agrees: "Human activities could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts. The risks are related to the rate and magnitude of the climate change." -- "A Little Time Left On Global Warming", New Jersey Star Ledger, November 16th, 2007

Martin Luther King, Jr. is known for many things: his leadership of the civil rights movement, his outspokenness against the war in Vietnam and even his support of unions and advocacy of the poor. What he is less known for is the way that he looked at things, how he saw all life as interconnected.

And how he eschewed the "drug of gradualism" and incremental change.

Take for instance his response to a group of local clergy in Birmingham, Alabama, which was later published as the "Letter From A Birmingham Jail". The clergy had argued to King to push for small, incremental change. Why couldn't King just quietly negotiate? King outlined for them the attempts at negotiations:

Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants—such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises Rev. Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstrations. As the weeks and months unfolded we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. Like so many experiences of the past we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us.

Basically, King is telling them: we met, promises were made, and nothing happened. And instead of waiting, and talking, and meeting some more, we need to push for change now. This doesn't mean "don't negotiate". What it means is negotiate from a position of moral strength. As King continues:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

Nonviolent direct action doesn't always mean literally taking to the streets. The King Center's online guide to the Six Steps of Nonviolence lists several different ways to take direct action (link: http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/6steps.html ). They can be as large and visible and strikes or walk outs, or as individual as letter writing campaigns...or as public as proposing legislation to remove a basic human right like access to health care from members of Congress until universal health care for all is achieved.

But I digress.

The politics in Birmingham that King mentions at the time are relevant. The City of Birmingham had just held elections, and the new administration was more tolerant, more forward-looking than the last. Why, oh why, Dr. King, couldn't you just restart the negotiations with this new administration?

Here is King's response (my emphasis added):

The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.

So, negotiating small incremental change with individual people of good will does not result in the course correction needed to address an injustice. As King wisely noted, even though some key players may be on your side, groups are more immoral than individuals.

Fine. So, what do we do? Throw up our hands? Not at all...

You go back to the Six Steps of Nonviolence - I'll outline them for you here:

1. Information Gathering
2. Education
3. Personal Commitment
4. Negotiations
5. Direct Action
6. Reconciliation

And you ask yourself: did I gather all of the information I needed to understand both the dynamics of the problem, the root causes of the problem and is my proposal going to address these root causes, or will it just be a simple band-aid? Have I educated others regarding what the problem is, and what I intend to do to fix it? Have I broadcast my intentions loudly enough so folks know what I want to do and how I plan on doing it? Am I committed enough to my cause? Am I prepared for any slings and arrows coming my way? Have I tried to dialogue with my opponents, and confront them to discuss the problem and the solutions? Have I understood where they are coming from, and is it possible to find common ground? And finally...how effective was my direct action? Did it apply the pressure needed to get the parties back to negotiate?

If you go through these steps, King believed, you will find reconciliation. This is a true peace, where the ultimate outcome is removing the systemic problem that created the injustice.

This is systemic change.

You use systemic change when you have a systemic problem...and ain't no bigger systemic problem today on the planet than global warming. It touches every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, how we get to and from work, how our children are educated, what our foreign policy is, and even what each of our domestic household budgets look like.

You can't solve a systemic problem like this with incremental change. You can't just tweak the status quo a little here, and a little there, and expect to deal with the *root causes* of this issue. It's too massive to be dealt with incrementally.

That's why, in my humble opinion, Senator Clinton is *dead wrong* when she says "incremental change is the way to go" to handle this issue:

Incremental change is the only way to go unless there’s some major event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11: if Al Gore had been president, we would have had an energy and climate change program after 9/11. But ultimately, it’s imperative we get something passed and implement it, so that we can persuade Americans that it won’t be disruptive or lower their standard of living, but will actually create jobs and do good. We'll have to put together a smart coalition to withstand the attacks that will come. I'm aware of the difficulty, but I feel confident.

Link and a nod to thereisnospoon, as I have been unable to find a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks independent of the one he provided from live blogs: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/19/62124/121

King's admonition of the fierce urgency of now could not be any more relevant today then when he spoke these words almost forty years ago when he delivered his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon at the Riverside Church:

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..."

Why We Can Do Better Than Hillary

2007-11-18T15:42:00.000-05:00

I've been cruising the blogs for some time now, and I've always been intrigued at the ardent Hillary Clinton supporters I've found on the web. I'm intrigued because, frankly, they're some of the angriest people out there.

My purely anecdotal experience in talking with some of these folks is their number one, big, huge, over-riding reason for supporting Hillary Clinton is not that she will push for the changes necessary to address things like Iraq, health care and global warming. It is not that she will address the gross economic inequities that have lead to working folks barely able to get by. It isn't that she'll even do anything about our outrageous gas prices or halt the spread of the Iraq war to neighboring states like Iran.

It's that...she'll rub the Rethuglican's noses in it. Yes, I am using the term "Rethuglican" because more often than not this is how these folks refer to our fellow human beings who register themselves with the GOP. While Hillary Clinton herself speaks of the wonders of compromise, and incremental change, and How Lobbyists Are People, Too, her most ardent supporters are pinning their hopes and dreams on the day that they can turn to their conservative coworkers at the water cooler and give them the glare that says "we beat you, stuff it!"

Forget issue oriented politics. Forget the fact that you might actually need the support of some of these folks in order to govern.

Forget the fact that it is our system that is the problem: the lobbyists who corrupt it; the corporate media who acquiesces to it and the politcians who have a vested interest in business as usual.

No, let's all turn our hatred and ire on our brothers and sisters who are struggling to make ends meet, who also have a vested interest in fixing global warming and who also want us to get out of Iraq like it was yesterday. Let's engage in the same politics of division that we've been doing for the past eight years, but this time let's put a Democrat in office. That'll show 'em.

And while we're so busy "showing 'em", the artic ice cap will continue to melt, soldiers and civilians will continue to die in Iraq and possibly Iran, millions of families will not be able to get the health care we need and our corrupted system will still let in lead-enhanced toddler toys and toxic apple juice in the name of unfettered, unregulated free trade.

Democrats: we are better than this. Yes, it is right to be outraged at the state of our nation right now. But let's direct the outrage at the folks who deserve it: the corporate lobbyists who have corrupted our democractic system and the politicians that have let them do it. Don't be horn-swaggled into thinking that one-upping Bob at the office will make your life any better. Bob ain't your problem.

The problem lies with politicians who excuse the corrupt system, who think that small, incremental change and protecting the status quo is the way to make our country better.

We are better than this. We can elect politicians that are better than this. We can elect folks like John Edwards, who understand that you can't accept big money and expect big change.

Let's take our country back. Now.

Diamonds and Pearls and Corporations O My!

2007-11-16T07:38:00.000-05:00

What a difference some pre-planning makes. During the last debate the last five minutes were actually pretty darn interesting, filled with discussions on issues...or at least trying to sort out exactly where the front runner stood on the issues.

And tonight? What was The Final, Great Question of the Evening, the One On Everyone's Minds? Why, it was...

Does Hillary Clinton favor diamonds or pearls?

Oh, my!

I have a nasty internal cynic. It jumps out at me from time to time, regardless of how well I try to squelch its gleeful moroseness. Tonight it was in full force.

Before listening to the debates I heard an interesting rumor floating around the blogosphere that John Edwards was going to participate in the Writer's Guild of America strike tomorrow. Wow, I thought to myself, that's really walking your talk. How great to have a Presidential candidate walk off of a debate and onto a picket line.

And then...the debate started. Edwards shoved to the far corner of the floor. Hillary and Obama front and center. The thunderous applause for Senator Clinton as she walked in the room.

My internal cynic pounced:

"Look!" It cried, mouth agape. "He's supporting the writer's strike, and CNN is owned by Time Warner. The fix is in!"

"No." I reasoned with it, stroking its forehead. "That's just random. Bad luck of the draw. There's nothing untoward happening."

And then the debate went on. And on. And on. No real interaction between the candidates. Edwards using the brief time he was allotted to make stunningly transcendent statements about the need to make this debate about something greater than who got whom, and focus on the folks out there who need our help. To finally get some backbone and fight for what's right.

As the minutes dripped away my internal cynic groused around, kicking the cobwebs in my head as it complained about the lack of time given to Edwards, and Wolf Blitzer's failure to follow up to get clarity on anything from the Democratic frontrunner.

Finally, my internal cynic and I sat and listened with rapt attenion as Barack Obama was able to corner Hillary Clinton on an upstate-New York, Westchester County elitism that holds that someone making over $90,000 is "middle class", when that defines only 6% of the folks living in this country. Hillary started to try to say that this was really about her constituents and then -

We cut to commercial. A commercial about a hedge fund protecting the wealth of a fictional woman who owns multiple luxury properties in multiple countries.

"But wait just a little while longer." I insisted, as my internal cynic writhed in the painful irony of it all. "The really important part of the last debate was in the last few minutes. There's still time."

And then, in the last few minutes, a young girl in the audience asked...if Hillary Clinton Preferred Diamonds or Pearls.

Don't you hate it when your internal cynic is right?

A Short Rant About Health Care And The Media

2007-11-14T10:48:00.000-05:00

Millions of people have no health care insurance in our country right now. Millions more have "junk insurance", that doesn't cover what they need to have covered when they get sick. Millions more are holding off on retiring because they can't afford the health care coverage on their own.

And then there's working folks like my husband and myself who are seeing our net pay decrease, even after cost of living raises, due to ever increasing health care costs.

That's the problem. Here's John Edwards's solution:

"...When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."

And here's Big Media's Retreat From Our Health Care Debate:

"...While a President Edwards could mount public pressure based on the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, Congress is, to put it mildly, unlikely to relinquish its own coverage. In fact, some experts argue that such a law would violate the 27th Amendment's ban on "varying the compensation" of members of Congress without an intervening election. Schultz said Edwards would ask senior administration officials to voluntarily give up their health coverage if he fails to pass universal coverage..."

Link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/11/13/edwards_impossible_promise.h tml

So, let me get this straight. There's an injustice of epic proportions happening in this country, because millions of our citizens can't get the health care they need.

And we can't fix that because...proposing legislation to Congress to remove their own health care coverage until the rest of us poor schlubs have it is unconstitutional?

Run that past me again?

Didn't we have a little thing in this country called a revolution? Wasn't a part of that whole thing addressing the denial of basic rights and freedoms for everyone, not just protecting them for the very few in charge of the government?

Isn't access to health care a basic right? Shouldn't that be protected by our Constitution?

When our Constitution was unjust in the past, or failed to address an injustice, we changed it. And if you're telling me that the Constitution currently promotes an injustice - by allowing some folks to have access to a basic right that is simultaneously denied to others - isn't it time to change the Constitution?

When our country was comprised of small printing presses, folks like Thomas Paine used them to promote the radical ideas of freedom and liberty, and the idea that you don't have to be a member of the ruling class to have access to basic rights.

Now our country's media is run by megalith corporations who distribute their news and opinion pieces via broadcast, cable, satellite and the internet, in addition to the good, old fashioned printing press. And instead of using this power to argue for basic rights and freedoms, they are now arguing exactly the opposite: that those in charge of our government should have access to a basic right that ordinary citizens do not have guaranteed access to...because they are in the government.

My how times have changed.

John Edwards: Toward A New, Democratic Politics

2007-11-12T08:20:00.000-05:00

The in-tuned blogosphere already knows a lot about John Edwards: the endorsements he's received by state SEIU chapters including the important states of Iowa and New Hampshire; the endorsement by Friends of the Earth and the most recent endorsement by Iowans for Sensible Priorities. Folks are also aware of his calls for an end to the corrupt system in Washington, D.C., a system he defines as being "rigged" against all of us people who work for a living.

At first blush, this may seem like smart politics. Appealing to the base. Riding the wave of middle class anger. But there's something a lot more profound going on here, something that is an anti-Bush, Rove-free approach to democratic politics.

Come follow me and I'll tell you what I mean...

If you're going to try to fix a problem or address an injustice, there's a few ways to go about it. You could, for instance, focus on the immediate problem at hand and do a lessons-learned analysis (for instance, not putting a well-connected but incompetent fellow in charge of FEMA, and just hope that disaster doesn't strike). You could also do some investigations to try and examine the immediate causes of the injustice (for instance, holding hearings on how billions of dollars were just misplaced in Iraq, never to be heard from again). Or, you could try to look at the whole mess holistically, peel away the layers and get to the core issue. You could also look at where we are, where we need to be and set out a roadmap for how to get there.

That's what Edwards is doing, and that's what makes him a truly unique candidate...especially if you want *change*.

Peruse the Edwards website and you'll come across the issues page: http://johnedwards.com/issues/ . On that issues page you'll see the following three main areas, with links to specific policy proposals:

1. Standing up for Regular Families, including links to policy proposals for universal healthcare, poverty, policies to improve the quality of life in rural America, strengthen food safety and other policies and programs that reach out to and improve the quality of life for the individual.

2. Restoring America's Leadership Role In The World. Here you'll find Edwards's foreign policy and proposals that shape how our nation is viewed across the world, including the areas of Iraq, Iran, terrorism, civil liberties and global poverty (for my own analysis of Edwards's foreign policy, including his firm stance against preventive war, please see this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/17523/4824 ).

3. Investing In Our Future And Our Communities, an area which addresses policies and proposals that impact health and well-being of the community at large, including the areas of global warming, education, open media, veterans and civil rights.

All three of these main areas affect each other, and all of the policies inside of these three areas also impact other policies. Everything is inter-related. All of the pieces and parts of the proposals need to work together in harmony in order to create the systemic change we need to reclaim our country.

Finally, none of this can happen, none of this systemic change can take place unless we remove the influence of lobbyist money in politics. Bill Bradley outlines in this in this June, 2007 talk on how the influence of lobbyists can corrupt these policies through an "unstated connection" between the contribution and the result of that contribution:

Sure, John Edwards is a great orator, and there's wonderful speakers across the field of Democratic presidential candidates. But to get systemic change you need more than just speeches: you need well thought-out policies and proposals so you can hit the ground running and start creating that change as soon as you're elected. You need a roadmap, and Edwards provides an impressive one that shows us the steps we can take to fix our problems, take care of our citizens and become a respected member of the community of nations once again.

What is John Edwards's Foreign Policy?

2007-11-07T09:44:00.000-05:00

Here’s what they mean by preventive war—if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don’t exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.

snip

Now, I want to be very clear about something. I believe very strongly that any commander-in-chief must retain the right to respond with appropriate force when there’s real intelligence about an imminent threat to America.

But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America.

From John Edwards's "Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran". Link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

I've seen a number of diaries lately question what John Edwards's foreign policy vis a vis Iran would be. Would he invade Iran? What does "leaving all options on the table" really mean in our post 9/11, post-Bush the Younger world?

The purpose of this diary is to discuss Edwards's foreign policy, both in broadstroke and specifically with regard to Iraq, Iran and terrorism. The purpose of this diary is not to play "gotcha". No other candidates will be "called out". These are literally life and death issues as they deal with war and peace, and my hope is that we treat them with the proper amount of gravity and respect that they deserve.

Removing the Bush Doctrine of "Preventive War"

That being said, let's start with broadstrokes. Edwards is a multilateralist, which basically means he favors a "concert of nations" approach to international conflict resolution. Whether discussing Iran, Iraq or terrorism, or indeed other transnational issues like Global Warming or poverty, Edwards leads with statements like the one he wrote in his essay for Foreign Affairs:

Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them.

Link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

This is in contrast to the Bush administration, which favors a unilateralist approach in any conflict they really want to take on (note that the glaring exception of this is North Korea, which the Bush administration in my opinion has just simply placed on the back burner, in favor of utilizing their time and resources in trying to clean up Iraq, escalate the conflict with Iran and deal with all of the known and unknown knowns and unknowns that arise along the way).

In September, 2002, President Bush put on paper his administration's policy of "preventive war". This doctrine holds that the United States can take action against threats "before they are fully formed", which flies in the face of years of international jurisprudence regarding the right of a State to defend itself from imminent attack. As the Brookings Institute explained:

The concept is not limited to the traditional definition of preemption—striking an enemy as it prepares an attack—but also includes prevention—striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or "rogue" nation states; the two are linked, according to the strategy, by a combination of "radicalism and technology.

As quoted in "Preventive War and International Law After Iraq", link: http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

It is this doctrine of preventive war that Edwards railed against in his Foreign Affairs article when he called the "War on Terror" a "bumpersticker":

But I believe we must stay on the offensive against both terrorism and its causes. The "war on terror" approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. "War on terror" is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the "war on terror" has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

He has also specifically stated that the doctrine of preventive war has no safe haven in an Edwards administration:

First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs—the trash-heap of history. As he has done with so much else, Vice President Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine. In 2002—the same year that George Bush introduced his preventive war doctrine—Gore made a speech at the Commonwealth Club in California. He said, and I quote, “What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”

These are especially chilling words to read five years later—after Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the president’s refusal to condemn torture, and they are particularly relevant to the situation with Iran.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The only instance Edwards would use force in a pre-emptive strike is in the instance of imminent threat, and he would therefore return the United States to the norms of accepted international law with regard to the use of force.

Terrorism

So, how would an Edwards administration deal with an issue like international terrorism? By using a multilateral approach to deal not just with security and counter-terrorism, but also with systemic issues like poverty that help terrorism to take root. He plans to implement this multilateral approach through a newly formed organization, the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO):

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

It's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect. But it would represent the first step in a new direction. As President John F. Kennedy observed when he signed the treaty that first limited the testing of nuclear weapons, we must begin with the common recognition of a common danger. President Kennedy said then, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Today, this new anti-terrorism organization would be such a first step.

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

Think of CITO as a NATO that is specifically tasked to fight global terrorism. Is it needed? Absolutely. Global terrorism is our generation's Cold War - it probably won't go away within our lifetimes and it is a big enough and - with enhanced global communication technology - a new enough threat to warrant an international organization of people who live, breath and eat how to combate it within the rule of international law (instead of leaving it up to the next belligerent superpower to sort out on their ownsome).

For the snapshot of Edwards's full plan to combat terrorism, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism/

Iraq

In-tuned and hep bloggers are probably most familiar with this part of Edwards's foreign policy, so I'll be brief: immediate draw-down of 40,000-50,000 combat troops, a cessastion of combat missions and a standing force to protect the embassy and humanitarian endeavors in country.

For more of Edwards's Iraq policy, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Iran

The main thing that sticks out for me in Edwards's approach to Iran is his insistence on including Russia and China in dealing with Iran as part of his consistent multilateralism:

We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3”—Great Britain, France, and Germany—Russia, China—and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush administration.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The problem with the current sanctions authorized under Kyl-Lieberman and implemented by the Bush administration is that they are practically unilateral in nature. Couple this with the Bush doctrine of preventive war, and you have a number of our European allies uncomfortable in backing them, Russia and China not supporting them at all and Iran defiantly saying they will have no effect on their nuclear program (check out news articles on this here: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL3051339620071106 and here: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=182484&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17 ).

Indeed, John Bolton, the Mighty Moustache, the Guy Who Roots for Diplomacy to fail, gleefully opined in today's New York Post:

I believe it was obvious from the outset that Iran wasn't going to renounce its quest for nuclear weapons voluntarily because it was part of a much larger strategy. The stakes were and are high: whether Iran and its radical Shiite version of Islam become dominant throughout the Muslim world, whether largely Persian Iran achieves effective hegemony in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and whether a nuclear, terror-financing Iran emerges on the global stage as a real power.

snip

Regime change in Iran is the preferred option, and a feasible one given the regime's weakness. Rampant economic discontent caused by 28 years of economic mismanagement, the desires of younger Iranians to be freed from the mullahs' theology and dissatisfaction among Iran's ethnic minorities are all fertile breeding grounds for discontent. If we had supported and encouraged this dissent for the last four years, we might now be on the verge of regime change.

Absent regime change, the targeted use of force against Iran's program is the only option left. Risky and unattractive as it is, the choice may well be between the use of force and a nuclear Iran, which is really not a choice at all. Iran is already asserting itself in ways profoundly hostile to our interests and those of our close friends. Imagine adding Iranian nuclear weapons to that equation. That's why surrender is not an option.

link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dithering_diplomats_959824.htm?page=0

The issue with regard to Iran is this: do you really believe the Bush administration is willing and able to use sanctions in order to competently pursue diplomacy that results in peaceful conflict resolution? If not...don't give them the ability to escalate this conflict through practically unilateral sanctions, as it gives guys like Bolton just more air in their lungs to pronounce the Death of Diplomacy.

For more on Edwards's policy regarding Iran, visit this link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

Bottom line: a multilateral approach to conflict resolution, that removes the doctrine of preventive war and returns the United States to operating within the standards of international law is sorely needed right now, and this is the foreign policy Edwards is proposing. As Edwards stated in his recent speech on Iran:

In his first inaugural speech, in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected the failed Republican policy of military intervention in Latin America and Europe. Instead, he told the nation, we should “dedicate this Nation to the policy of the Good Neighbor . . . the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”

That’s the America we should be.

The Debate Hillary Lost

2007-10-31T07:16:00.000-04:00

Was it over Kyl-Lieberman? Iraq? Hsu? Fundraising? Corporate influence?

No.

It was over...driver's licenses.

Specifically, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Here's the short version: Elliot Spitzer, the firebrand Governor of the State of New York, is proposing that illegal immigrants be granted driver's licenses in the context of his state trying to deal with the many, many illegal immigrants living in the shadows and away from the law.

Hillary Clinton stated she supported this legislation...until...Chris Dodd called her on it, saying that a driver's license is a priviledge, not a right. Senator Clinton then did her standard backpedal:

1. It's all George Bush's fault

2. I'm for this in theory but I don't agree with the specifics

Edwards then went in for the knock out punch: we need to have a President who says the same thing regardless of who she - or he - is saying it to.

It's about being in truth-telling mode all the time.

Not wanting to be left off the bandwagon, Obama joined in with his ten seconds of "me, too"...but this moment belonged to the tag team of Edwards and Dodd, who got Clinton on the ropes and didn't let her recover.

It revealed Clinton's main weakness: she dissembles, trying to carefully craft her messages so specifically to different audiences that eventually she just ends up completely contradicting herself until you're really not sure where she stands on anything.

And here's what I have to say about all of that: Edwards/Dodd 08!

A Democratic Landslide...But Are We Ready?

2007-10-23T07:28:00.000-04:00

This feels like Part 2 of an untitled series on rural America and John Edwards. This time coverage of rural Purple State America comes to you via the Rocky Mountain Times.

...In this far-flung, northwestern corner of Iowa, it's "almost kind of scary" to be anything but a Republican, she said.

Lyon County, which touches South Dakota and Minnesota, gave President Bush 78 percent of the vote in 2004. It's part of the big, red, rural block that Bush used to eke out the narrowest of victories in the Hawkeye State that year.

In these parts, "A lot of times you don't brag about being a Democrat," said McCarty, 72, of Larchwood, Iowa. "But it's getting better."

That could explain the elbow-to-elbow crowd that greeted Edwards at the firehouse - and the grin Edwards had when he was talking to reporters afterward.

"I do have to say, I was remembering the last time I was up here," Edwards said, thinking back to the 2004 campaign. "We had five, seven people. . . ."

Times have changed...

Link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5728155,00.html

Things are definitely happening among the Bush believers of rural America. After Katrina, after Iraq, after their homes values have dropped and their dollar just doesn't buy as much as it used to, a lot of them have just stopped believing.

My gauge on this one is my dad. My dad is your prototypical Republican voter. White. Male. Protestant. Small town. The breed of working American who somehow can't bring himself to use the phrase "working class" when describing his economic status.

Before Katina, he almost exclusively watched Fox News (I remember a discussion we had in the time share where we all were staying where I negotiated the MSNBC Compromise). He listens to Rush...and actually enjoys the experience!

But then, after Katrina, something happened to my dad. A fervent believer his whole life (in both Christianity and conservative values) he started to question his beliefs. To illustrate, let me share with you my paraphrased recollection of an instant message we had one night a few weeks back:

Dad: What is KOS?

Me: KOS? What do you mean, KOS?

Dad: They're talking about it in the news. KOS. What is that?

Me (really not getting it): KOS? Do you mean K.O.S.? Or like cuz - because?

Dad: No. They're saying KOS uses bad words and lies about people. What is it?

Me (when the light dawns): Do you mean Kos, as in Daily Kos? The blog?

Dad: Yeah.

Me: Dad, I blog over there. They don't use words that are any worse than any other blog. Here, check out the link right now: www.dailykos.com.

Dad (after a few minutes): Yeah, I don't see anything wrong over there.

Me: Exactly.

Dad: That's not right. When they're reporting stuff they should let you know the whole story.

At which point my head exploded and I launched into a very nice rant about Fox News.

My point in bringing up this story is this is just one of many times recently where my dad has questioned Fox, and Rush, and Bush, and basically the whole God, Guns and Gays agenda of the far right (although my dad's never been much of a gun nut - he just hangs out with them sometimes). If you've ever met someone like my dad, seeing the propaganda shell he's hid himself in cracking right before your eyes is a beautiful thing.

But it's not just my dad.

A lot of rural Americans are questioning what used to be the unquestionable assumption that just like going to church and rooting for the local college football team, they were just going to vote for whatever Republican was on the ballot. More than that, they're starting to question why they've been doing that for so long.

It's almost like they're starting to feel that the GOP has been taking them on a for-granted ride since Reagan first uttered the phrase "Government is the enemy".

Democrats are poised to pitch these folks on a different path. A Competing Big Vision. Edwards is wide and deep down this road already, talking to folks about the things that are important to them: their pocketbooks, their health and their livelihood. Economic populism had its roots in the rural communities of the 19th Century, and every few generations it comes back again in the form of a William Jennings Bryan or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Edwards isn't the only one trying to harness this potential power. Obama has just released an agricultural plan that's pretty darn good reading, and Richardson talks a good huntin' game.

But for my money, Edwards is the one whose strategy includes focusing on these folks and bringing them back to their populist roots. Such a strategy, if successful, could garner Democrats a landslide, the reverberations of which could last for years to come.

But are we ready?

Hillary Clinton and Monsanto's K Street Test Plot

2007-10-18T14:09:00.000-04:00

The ironically named "Rural Americans for Hillary" are holding a shindig to raise some funds for her presidential hopes. Where is this being held?

Iowa? No, sir.

Western New Hampshire? Nope.

South Carolina's low country? Wrong Again.

ABC News reports (and this flyer confirms: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/cl inton_invitation.pdf) that Rural Americans for Hillary are holding this high-toned get together at a lobbyist's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

"... and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs...

...which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.

You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2007/10/yee-haw.html)

You can't take big money and expect big change.

Vote Edwards.

Big Money, Big Lobbyists, Little d's

2007-10-02T07:34:00.000-04:00

What's a "little d"? It's Democrat who doesn't stand up for Democratic values. It's a Democrat who puts power over policy and party over people.

It's a little d.

Wanna know what I'm talking about? Check out this clip from a movie made in 1998, at the end of the Clinton years:

Remember that time when Democrats held the White House and we were "standing at the doorstep of a new millenium"? Wanna know what the heck happened?

It wasn't the brilliancy of George W or a little man known as Turdblossom.

We forgot who we were...and now we've forgotten that we forgot who we were by buying into corporate America's pitch to all of us that the "money primary" is the real one, and somehow all of us normal folks will just fall in like lemmings behind the person with the most cash.

You can't take Big Money and expect Big Change. The world just don't work like that, and all of us know this in the back of our minds. And if we know it, trust me, the former First Lady knows it, too.

Do you need universal healthcare today? Do you need an end to war after war after war in our continuing quest for bigger profits for Big Oil companies encased in the logic of national self-interest?

Is your wallet a little lighter, and your home worth just a little less?

Do you want this to change now...or do you want to hope it changes in, say, six-ish years from now?

Little d's are for little change. Incremental steps. Let's all have a seat at the table, including the folks that pocket the silverware and hog the dessert tray.

We had little d's before our eight years of Bush, and that brought us downsizing, and "welfare reform", and an abandoned attempt at universal healthcare.

We need to remember that.

We need to elect big D's that stand up for those of us who can't afford to hire our own lobbyist. Big D's who walk their talk by not just believing in public campaign financing but by actually participating in it. Big D's who help the working men and women of our country by supporting unions and workers rights. Big D's who will not allow one person in this country to go without health care, and who know that there's something that we stand for that is more patriotic than war.

John Edwards is a Big D. Elect him. Now.

Thoughts on Money, the DuPonts, Delaware...and John Edwards

2007-09-30T10:45:00.000-04:00

I'm sitting here in a hotel room in Delware, the state known for a tax-free holiday, any day of the week, any week of the year for any good you need - or want - to consume. Delaware, the state of Joe "let's divide all these folks up in Iraq to solve our problems" Biden (and after driving through downtown Dover today, I can tell ya - dividing folks up by ethnic group is something that struck me as being something organic in this state).

This is the state of the DuPont family, the folks that made their money off of chemicals and death-in-the-form-of-selling-gunpowder. It's the state of the super rich, who own multiple mansions...and the super poor, like Phillip Reid, an 18-year-old walking down the 1400 block of W Forth Street in Wilmington when he was shot dead by a 17-year-old stranger who passed him on the sidewalk and said, "You got a problem?" (In Section B of "The News Journal" today - yes, I'm referencing newsprint!)

Yesterday, my husband and I took our kids to a local Chick-fil-A (they don't have these in New England so whenever we travel to more southernly climes we try to stuff our faces with these heavenly, fatty, fried chicken sandwiches. And sweet tea). Our children are young, and so moving them physically around can generally be somewhat of a challenge. This time an older woman with her teenage daughter saw us struggling between a stroller and a four-year-old, attempting to get both of them going in the same direction, so she took pity on us and opened the door to help us herd the little ones inside.

She briefly smiled at my husband and said, "Don't put your kids in public school. Been there, done that. It was a disaster."

Yes, it was an odd thing to say in front of her own teenage daughter. Yes, it was even odder in that it was a complete nonsequitor, without any lead-in, without any conversation about schools, or kids, or anything.

Here's the even odder thing: when you look at the statistics of public school rankings nationwide, Delaware as a whole isn't that bad. It's ranked #7 in spending per pupil, and average academic achievement is generally above national percentages (with huge disparities between white students and all other minorities, it should be noted - link here: http://www.all4ed.org/states2/Delaware.p df)

That got me thinking about how we look at money and public institutions. I'm a self-described liberal - progressive, even - and most of us on this side of the political spectrum love the idea of public institutions. Public parks. Public libraries. Public schools. And public - or universal - healthcare. But there are some of us at times (and I don't exclude myself from this assessment) who like the idea of the public institution more than the reality of it. Sure, public parks are great...but sometimes you just want to have the nice, expensive treehouse-slide-swingset-fort playcenter in your own backyard. Yeah, public schools are wonderful institutions...as long as I live in the right neighborhood. If I'm "pioneering", you know my kid's going to that nice private school down the road.

Public institutions are looked upon in this country too many times as places of last resort. In fairness, more often than not they are. But should they be?

The people who built the original colonial towns in this country built them with greenspace. Either a commons, or a town green, or some area around which the main business of the community could be conducted. People could interact with each other. Sometimes, it was used for a collective place to graze your cattle, or hang people. Sometimes the best and the worst of the community was on display in these areas. But it was a public place that the public used, and it was a vital part of the community...and not just some area that those desperate people utilized because it was their last resort.

All of this leads me to John Edwards and his decision to use public campaign financing. Serious politicians aren't supposed to use public financing now, not if they "really want to win". Only if you're desperate, only if this is a complete area of last resort, is one supposed to use this imperfect public institution as a means to become President and help set an agenda for all of our imperfect public institutions.

And we want to know why our government doesn't work for us. Hmmmmm....

Edwards is a rich guy. Not only that, his campaign has raised some serious dough - more, I might add, than a good number of his Republican counterparts. But all of us on the left, all of us who want to protect and expand our public institutions have been sold the meme of the "money primary", that somehow "most electible" means "person with the most campaign cash". Not best ideas. Not best strategies to move the country forward. Not even best in running against candidates from the other party in the general election.

Just...cash. Money. Mulah. The almighty dollar-ino.

Personally, I think we need to change the way we look at this whole thing, if we believe in Martin Luther King's admonition that your ends are in your means. Maybe, just maybe, Edwards - this independently wealthy guy of $400 haircut fame - took a look at this insane methodology we're using to pick our presidents and thought to himself, "You know, I could either run on money or on people and ideas. Let's just go the public campaign financing route." I don't know if this was the thought process - I've never spoken to the man before in my life. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

It's never too late to change, and it's never too late to do the right thing. I'm glad Edwards took this step, even if it is somewhat late in the game. I'm not saying that all of the other candidates have to "join him", far from it.

But maybe they - and we - should step back and think about how this process has been corrupted. Maybe we should consider how this affects our country if our ends are in our means.

Maybe we should really start being the change we want to see.

John Edwards and Our Interconnected, Post-9/11 World

2007-09-15T07:57:00.000-04:00

It's a dark, cool fall night in New England, where the diningroom/computer room/throughway to the kitchen/kids art area has finally ceased of all the activity it can handle within its modest 9' x 12' walls. Our family struggles with two small children, one of whom likely has mild autism. As parents our minds agitate over every bill, our souls rejoice over every word our children speak. Trapped in a house that we cannot sell in this current real estate market, we gird ourselves against the here-and-now and focus on the future.

We are like every other family on our block, and all of these families are interconnected with famililes from Great Britain, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Russia, and South Africa. What affects our one family directly affects all of these other families indirectly, and what these far-away families experience directly affects us indirectly.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are tied in the inescapable bonds of mutuality.

September is one of the hardest months for me, as it reminds me of younger days when my husband and I were DINKS (double-income no kids). Where was I on 9/11? I was in an up-and-coming, African American suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, working what many would consider a dream job: matching my professional talents with my passion for social justice.

On 9/11, I was on the phone, strong-arming a business executive, using an opening he had left wide-open for me to exploit. I was focused, shutting out the bright blue sky and crisp morning air outside my office so that only he and I existed in this moment in time. In tense negotiations, we were discussing the possibility of his company sponsoring an educational program on nonviolence...

...then the first plane hit.

We couldn't ever pick up that conversation again. It wasn't that we didn't understand its importance, it's just...well, let's say a lot of things went undone after 9/11. Best to put them away, try to hide the sensory memory of the experience.

I eventually left that job and wandered through this world, raising my children, having more conversations with more people about more money and what I would and would not do for them. But always, I carried in the back of my mind the memory of that day, the thick-as-mud irony of my small attempt to spread the message of nonviolence right when the World Trade Center was attacked.

The dark ironies seemed to continue: a cynical use of a national tragedy to play "Democracy dominoes" in the Middle East by attacking Iraq; our national leader declaring "you're either with us or against us" (and giving one the sinking sensation that - in addition to France and Russia - he meant you); a hooded man, arms akimbo, wires dripping off his body as if he was some decorative indoor palm tree in a shopping mall just waiting for the Christmas lights to be turned on.

Martin Luther King viewed the world through the lense of what he termed the "triple evils" of society: racism, poverty and war. It was in the middle of my wandering through my daily life that I encountered this message that gave me hope, that made me think, "Wow. Here's finally a presidential candidate who knew what King was actually talking about":

Being the jaded, research geek that I am, I dug deeper. I found his policies on poverty: http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/ and universal health care: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/ . And I started to notice something: this guy's policies were all interconnected. This wasn't politics-by-laundry-list. This was the beginnings of a coherent strategy to take on King's triple evils proactively, to start the process of true justice by using the tools of our sometimes-corrupt-but-still-accountable Democratic system.

Over time, either the policies grew or my knowledge of them did, but I discovered the same consistency in John Edwards' stance on labor: http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families/ (King, by the way, was an unabashed supporter of unions and organized labor) as well as the environment: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/ .

Recently, he's put out a plan to combat terrorism that is the closest I think one can realistically get to protecting our country by not just going after global terrorists structures but also the root causes of terrorism:

All of this has made me very hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Presidential candidate that can implement not just King's words, but his policies.

Maybe John Edwards, once elected, would fall short on that. Maybe the realpolitik of Washington would crush his progressive policies and my soaring expectations. If so, he's got one seriously jaded, vocal blogger on his hands.

But I think at least he deserves a chance.

Kumbaya and the Politics of Race

2007-09-12T10:07:00.000-04:00

There comes a time when regardless of how much that inner voice tells you restraint is the higher form of virtue, you just have to trudge forward and get your hands in the dirt.

This is one of those times.

My personal breaking point came yesterday when reading that somehow certain folks think that John Edwards was using a racial slur when referring to Barack Obama as a "kumbaya" candidate.

I read these comments in yesterday's Huffington Post, under an article with the title "Edwards Smacks Obama As "Kumbaya" Candidate" (link is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/c omments/2007/09/11/63942). This is actually an excerpting of a larger article in the New Yorker (link here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/ 09/17/070917fa_fact_lizza?printable=true ).

Just for the record, here is the exact quote from the article:

"...Edwards dismisses Obama's argument that more consensus is needed in Washington. The difference between them, Edwards told me, is the difference between "Kumbaya" and "saying, `This is a battle. It's a fight.'..."

Nowhere in this article does the author mention that Edwards' intention was a racial slur. Nowhere does the author even think to ask whether a racial slur was intended.

Nowhere does the thought that this could be a racial slur ever even appear to pop into the author's head.

Why is that? Well...because "kumbaya" is not a racial slur.

First, some background on the song. The song appears to have originated among the Gullah people of the South Carolina coast:

"...According to ethnomusicologist Thomas Miller, the song we know began as a Gullah (an African-American people living on the Sea Islands and adjacent coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, see also here) spiritual. Some recordings of it were made in the 1920s, but no doubt it goes back earlier. Published versions began appearing in the 1930s..." (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2006/08/someones_dissin.ht ml)

The first claim of ownership of the song comes from a Rev. Marvin Frey in the 1930's. The most reknowned use of the song is Joan Baez's recording of it in 1962, where it became associated with the civil rights movement.

As far as the derisive references to the song, in pop culture it is meant to personify someone who is helplessly encased in rose colored glasses, who naively assumes that just by sitting down and talking all of the world's problems can be immediately solved.

For instance, Arianna Huffington uses it in this September 2006 article, "Bill Clinton and Laura Bush: Homogenizing the '06 Election":

"...By making nice with Laura and promoting a kumbaya, "we're all in this together" atmosphere Clinton is blurring the very real distinctions between Democrats and Republicans and homogenizing the '06 race. And homogeneity is death in elections..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-hu ffington/bill-clinton-and-laura-bu_b_298 68.html)

Or this reference by then-President Clinton's spokesperson:

"...Smooth sailing," Mr. Clinton said as he led the leaders single-file off the passenger ferry Tyee and into the lodge. "I don't now if they are going to be holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,' but this is just what the President had in mind," said Lorraine Voles, a White House spokeswoman. "This all about getting to know each other..." (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Mea ning-Words-1474/Idiomatic-use-kumbaya.ht m)

Or this recent use by David Sirota (thanks to blogger mkj for the research on this one):

"...I've written a lot about Obama, including a major piece for The Nation magazine last year. In my time studying his career, it became obvious that this is a person who wants to do the right thing and has genuinely strong convictions. But he also seems to believe that the reason our country has such challenges is because all sides of every issue have not come together in unity (I've gone back and forth wondering whether this is a sincere belief or merely a justification for overly cautious behavior, but I'm not a psychoanalyst, so I have no idea).

The problem with this outlook is that it fundamentally misunderstands why we are at this moment in history. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and millions more underinsured not because low-income health advocates and the insurance industry haven't sat down together and sung Kumbaya..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/i-want-to-believe_b_40901.html)

But I think one of my favorite uses of this word to illustrate this point comes in this over-the-top video game:

Nowhere have I ever heard "Kumbaya" used as a racial slur. Not even the notorious white-power group Stormfront uses this as a racial slur (and trust me - they use all of them).

So why do some Obama supporters suddenly think Edwards is using this as a racial slur when he refers to him at the "kumbaya candidate"? I wish I knew.

Racism is an ugly thing, and the charge of racism is one that as a society we do not take seriously enough. It is not a blunt instrument to be used on people simply because you don't agree with them. Tossing it around lightly and without merit removes power from the word itself, equating it to just so much political correctness.

Let's talk about the issues, let's debate the positions. But please, let's not invent racism where none exists.

Draft Gore to Endorse Edwards: A Write In Happening

2007-09-08T23:22:00.000-04:00

Today's (well, technically tomorrow's) WaPo hints that Al Gore may endorse a Democratic candidate before the end of the primary season:

"...Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be.

Truth is, the courting of the "Goreacle" began many months ago. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Gore huddled in Nashville in December, and Gore has also met with former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Gore and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) conferred as recently as last week..." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458. html)

So, I'm asking everyone's help in a "Draft Al Gore to Endorse John Edwards" write-in happening.

John Edwards is right on the environment. He is right on alternative energy. He is right on terrorism. He is right on Iraq. He is right labor.

Before I launch into a laundry list of items that Edwards correctly supports, here's the real reason why Al Gore should endorse him for President: unlike the other candidates, Edwards has a clear, concise holistic vision of this country. It is the Big Idea that Dan Balz in WaPo recently stated Dems did not have (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/09/07/democrats_make_new_blogger_f ri.html).

It is the idea of America. We are a country founded on an idea, captured on paper in the language of all men being created equal. The idea is expressed in working men and women saving and scrimping so they can afford that extra well-baby visit. It lives and breaths in co-workers being called into active service in Iraq, where they try as best they can to stop an administration's bad foreign policy from becoming an unmitigated disaster on the ground.

It is an optimistic belief in the good of all of us, that somehow we can all pull together to build a future that truly is better than the present we have now. It involves sacrifice, and hard work. But we are ready.

We can be patriotic about something other than war. After two disastrous terms of the Bush administration, we need the right leader to put us on that path.

John Edwards is that leader.

Please write Al Gore and ask him to endorse John for President.

Vice President Gore does not have a public email address, but he does receive snail-mail here:

Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Elizabeth Edwards and U of M Strikers: Why I Love This Woman

2007-09-06T13:09:00.000-04:00

Talk about putting your action behind your words: Elizabeth Edwards spoke to striking union members at the University of Minnesota yesterday.

Local TV station KARE-TV carries the details:

"...Braving the heat and humidity in a grey suit, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, showed up to lend support. She told the sign-waving strikers and their supporters, "If they respect you and believe in your dignity, they're going to provide you with this raise!"

It was a sudden burst of political star power on the first day of AFSCME's second strike in four years at the institution..." (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article. aspx?storyid=264007)

KARE-TV also notes that the news of the strike wasn't even carried in the campus newspaper, the "Minnesota Daily" that day. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that because of Elizabeth's presence supporting the strikers, they're covering it now: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/ 06/72163251?com=add

Also, please see KARE11's video news report posted online here: http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx? aid=53345&bw=

Elizabeth put the case for the workers in clear, blunt language at the end of the report, "This is just to keep up with inflation, for Pete's sakes, they're not askin' for the moon."

I couldn't agree more.

Women, Wiretaps, and Smears: the FBI and Coretta Scott King

2007-08-31T21:07:00.000-04:00

"This is a woman who basically was trying to raise four kids and honor her deceased husband...I don't know how that was a threat to anybody's national security."

--Isaac Ferris, Jr., Coretta Scott King's nephew and spokesman for The King Center in Atlanta (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdZ6WjVZ0RMNg6RHMfRBWm1t7f2Q)

Today's news of the FBI conducting surveillance on Coretta Scott King for years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination sent my mind reeling. To think of anonymous, small armies of government bureaucrats, sitting in cubicles lit by dim, flourscent lights searching through Mrs. King's personal letters, reading logs of field agents meticulously recording the schedule of her comings and goings, and even having the audacity to critique her autobiography is like something out of a Terry Gilliam movie.

It's bizarre.

Unthinkable.

Yet, it happened.

Houston television station KHOU broke this story today: http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l. It shows the extent that certain elements in our society - including our own government - will go to when confronted with an eloquent, plain-spoken argument for social change.

In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm) delivered on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before he was assassinated, Dr. King argued that, "...A time comes when silence is betrayal...". In a relatively few short minutes he became one of the government's biggest domestic threats, more than the Black Panthers, more than Malcolm X. King was able in this speech to meld the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement and the movement toward economic populism together into one seamless garment, saying:

"...we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor..." (my emphasis added)

King's threat was real: he was already at this point working on the Poor People's campaign, a cause that would bring together working people and poor people of all races to use nonviolence to demand economic justice from our government. He was poised to bring together disparate factions of the left and right, rich and poor, young and old by articulating how our nation's dependence on the military-industrial complex and the foreign policies it spawns adversely affects normal, every day Americans from widely divergent walks of life.

The urgency to stop him was real. The tactics employed by our government through the COINTEL program were brutal (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm). His voice being silenced exactly one-year-to-the-day of delivering this landmark speech has always looked suspicious.

But after being silenced, why did the government continue these tactics against Mrs. King? Why did they start a meme that literally hounded her the rest of her life, making her the butt of political cartoons (one where she and her children were depicted as pick ninnies) and encouraging right-wing radio talk show hosts to label her "the Black Widow"? As KHOU reports:

"...One agent even read and reviewed her 1969 book "My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr." and made a point to say Scott King's "selfless, magnanimous, decorous attitude is belied by.. (her) ..actual shrewd, calculating, businesslike activities." (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l).

Why did the FBI employ these same tactics against close advisors like Ralph David Abernathy:

"...In the report the FBI details an uncertain and "shaky" Abernathy who was "concerned about his possible assassination as well as his position as President of the SCLC..." So the agent makes a recommendation: "It is felt that by notifying Abernathy directly upon receipt of information relating to threats against his life, some rapport may be developed with him..." The report also adds that doing this would give the benefit of "the disruptive effect of confusing and worrying him by reminding him of continuous threats against his life." (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070830_ac_scottkingfiles.85e64faa.htm l).

The FBI was worried that someone might stand up in the void left by MLK, might continue the work that he started on a summer day in a quiet church nestled in the chaos and confusion of New York City.

So, in the midst of visits to the White House, where Mrs. King and her children posed for photo ops and were told what a wonderful man their husband and father was, our government was reporting to these very same men with the sympathetic eyes where Mrs. King was going, who she was talking with, and how to sully her repuation just enough to make her a less credible threat.

This story has an upside, as all stories do. The government ceased its surveillence of Mrs. King around November, 1972. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release today calling for an immediate re-writing of the guidelines the FBI uses to spy on people in public places (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/315 30prs20070831.html).

And, a Presidential candidate paid tribute to King's seminal speech, illustrating its urgent, timely call to end our silence and finally be patriotic about something other than war:

If we want to stop the type of injustice Mrs. King experienced, it isn't enough to hold investigations or write better laws and policies (as important as these action are). We need to change who we are as a people.

Silence is a betrayal.

Stand up, speak out. Be the change you want to see.

Carter on Edwards: "A Candidate Whom I Really Admire"

2007-08-29T22:10:00.000-04:00

Two Southerners, two standard bearers of the Progressive Movement stood side by side in the Georgia heat today and talked about the future.

Jimmy Carter, the man who created a blue print for "ex-Presidents" that has been followed by everyone from Bill Clinton to George Bush, Sr., didn't endorse anyone for President. A man of great political wisdom, he rightly said it was too soon in the race to throw his considerable weight behind any one candidate right now.

But here's what he had to say about John Edwards:

"I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty...." (http://www.cartercenter.org/homepage.htm l)

Let's stop for a moment and consider the gravitas of this statement. This is a man who as president guided us through our first serious energy crisis. Indeed, as Thom Hartman cites, Carter's April 18, 1977 speech, "...established the strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the modern solar power industry, led to the insulation of millions of American homes, and established America's first national energy policy." (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503 -22.htm).

In the area of health care, Carter has a wealth of experience to draw upon. The Carter Center, established by President Carter to continue the work he began in the oval office, is the base of the International Task Force for Disease Eradication (http://www.cartercenter.org/health/itfde /index.html). The Center's health programs have prevented the, "...suffering of millions of people around the world from diseases often ignored by others." (http://www.cartercenter.org/health/index .html). Carter's commitment to global health care, and his holistic approach in looking at how poverty and environment affect health, can be seen in the ways that Edwards approaches the issues of health care and economic justice. And both demonstrate that compassion should be the light that guides us, not just in determining our health care policies, but as an overall philosophy of government to ensure that everyone has a good, decent quality of life.

Although Carter's statement isn't an official endorsement, it is a heart-felt sentiment on John Edwards from one of our nation's most valued statesmen, and one that I hope folks will keep in mind during this primary season.

Alternet: Big Media Can't Write off Edwards

2007-08-27T13:56:00.000-04:00

This great, amazing article by Joshua Holland is one to share with our brothers and sisters in the Progressive Movement (you know - the real Progressive Movement, not the one the DLC thinks is just another way of diffusing the unpopular label "liberal").

It also shows that if your heart belongs to Kucinich, your head should tell you to vote for Edwards.

Joshua elegantly, honestly makes the case why all true progressives who want to see systemic change need to be embracing Edwards for the Democratic nomination:

"...Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him..." (http://www.alternet.org/story/60748/)

So, who will win out? Big Media and politics as usual? Or the grassroots, netroots and working people?

You have a say in this contest, and the louder we speak the more we will start being the change we want to see.

The Ownership Society-Part 2-New Fictional Series

2007-08-22T20:22:00.000-04:00

Part 2

“I know I’m supposed to care for these people, Pastor Nick, it’s just…I just don’t.” The calloused hands spread before the pastor in supplication. “I mean, why is it my fault if they have kids they can’t afford? Why is it my fault if they make stupid decisions and life kicks ‘em in the a—uh, rear? Sorry.”

Pastor Nick nodded, attempting to mask a serenity he saw in a painting of the Buddha. He found himself more and more frequently heading to that place of quiet meditation, recalling how the painting surprised him, hung in a far corner of a conference room. Quiet. Calm. Pastor Nick wondered how many meetings it had presided over from its perch next to the coat closet, its expressionless eyes, down-turned but awake and alert, its passive countenance following each individual around the room. Watching. Aware. Nonjudgmental. One hand held up as if to stop someone from speaking while the other encouraged a more thoughtful, engaging interaction.

Right now Pastor Nick was desperately trying to be the Buddha, letting long silences fill the room like so much cotton candy, sweet and ethereal, waiting for the long journey of the soul across from him to finally come to an end.

His companion continued. “I know the Bible says “I’m your brother’s keeper and all”, but wasn’t that God saying that? I mean, I have my own bills to pay. We don’t have a lot of money, either. We just plan and save and why the heck should I take it in the shorts just because of someone else’s stupidity? Look, I’m not saying to cancel this…soup kitchen thing or whatever it is. All I’m saying is to move it up an hour, so I can have a nice event with my family in the church hall. I’ve been a member here my entire life, and this is our 30th wedding anniversary, and I don’t think that this is too much to ask.”

Pastor Nick breathed in deeply, smelling the raw, burnt sugar smell he always associated with these uncomfortable pauses, opening his mouth to taste the heavy, candied air that he swore filled the room in the midst of someone baring their soul to him.

The man broke the silence. “And I don’t care about these people. I’m sorry, but that’s they way it is. I don’t see why I should feel sorry for them – they’re screw ups, plain and simple.” He pointed his finger in the air, missing Pastor Nick’s chest by six inches. Pastor Nick paused a second, channeling the Buddha, feeling the calmness descend from the top of his head down his spine, making his feet heavy on the worn, coffee-stained carpet.

“Bob, are you a sinner?” Pastor Nick let the words lie still on the worn, oak desk separating himself from the large, older man with the wispy, grey hair whose tirade he had just absorbed.

“What?” Bob asked absentmindedly, not ready for a question but a lecture.

“Are you a sinner?” Pastor Nick looked up at the man this time, meeting his eyes with a compassionate stare.

“Well, yeah. I mean, we’re all sinners, right?” Bob’s voice fumbled, attempting to recall a Sunday school lesson he had learned a generation ago.

“What’s a sin?” Pastor Nick asked, his voice modulated with a careful evenness.

“Well…it’s…I mean, you do something bad.” Pastor Nick saw Bob’s cheeks flush slightly, and he leaned back, attempting to alleviate the man’s embarrassment for being put on the spot.

“Lying’s a sin, right?” Pastor Nick offered, using a tried-and-true analogy Lutheran pastors had used since the time of Martin Luther himself. Bob picked up on it right away.

“Oh, yeah, I know, and lying is supposed to be the same thing as killing someone, right? And so somehow that means that I’m just as bad as those people are and that’ll just shut me up? But Pastor Nick, I’m not a bad man, I’m not a killer, and these folks…they just need to deal with the consequences of their actions is all I’m saying.” Bob’s hands started to tremble slightly, his voice a quivering roar as Pastor Nick glanced a touching blow at the exposed nerve of his soul.

“I think everyone feels the consequences of their actions.” Pastor Nick offered and then immediately wished he could take it back.

“Oh, no, not these folks.” Bob’s agitation was palpable. “No, not when they have welfare, and, and, food stamps, and Medicaid. They’re living in hog heaven off of my tax dollars. It isn’t fair!” Bob bellowed as his hand struck the desk, making an unexpected slapping noise.

For a few moments, the men just looked at each other, both equally surprised by the outburst of emotion that clung to the corners of the room.

“What’s really going on, Bob?” Pastor Nick leaned forward, intently studying the man’s face.

“Nothin.” Bob muttered.

“Why are you here?” Pastor Nick probed.

“I…I don’t know.” Bob gave up, his body slowing deflating.

“Whatever you’re going through, you know you can tell me about it.” Pastor Nick attempted to make eye contact with Bob, who just looked down, his body encased in his own embarrassment.

“I should go.” Bob stood up, turning toward the door. Pastor Nick stood up with him.

“Nothing about this life is easy.” Pastor Nick said, walking Bob toward the door. “Sometimes I think God makes it that way, and honestly, sometimes that really pisses me off.” Bob swung his head around, looking at Pastor Nick’s mischievous grin. They both chuckled slightly, relieved.

Bob turned around before leaving and shook Pastor Nick’s hand. “You’re a good man, pastor.” Nick put his hand on Bob’s shoulder. “You’re a good man, too.” He said.

It wasn’t until he closed the door behind Bob that Pastor Nick felt the throbbing in his temples. He made his way over to the desk, hands clasped to both sides of his head, fingertips feeling the soft, short blonde hair covering the dense pounding inside his skull. Sliding into his worn, fabric-covered office chair, he pulled his cell phone out of his jacket pocket and absentmindedly scanned his address book. The rhythm of the mechanical blips as he pressed the arrow keys soothed his nerves. He passed by a name, thought about it, and scrolled back. He stared at the entry for longer than he realized. Finally, getting his nerve up, an unfamiliar panic tightening his stomach muscles, he pressed the send key.

“Hi, Jeff? It’s Nicholas. Yeah, Pastor Nick. Yep. Yeah, no, just a regular day.” He tried to keep up the friendly banter, his mouth becoming slightly dry the longer he talked. “So, what’s up with you? ‘Cuz I was wondering, if you’re not busy, maybe…maybe we could see a movie or something?”

…to be continued.

The Ownership Society-Part 1-New Fictional Series

2007-08-17T19:24:00.000-04:00

Part 1

It was supposed to be their dream home.

Lost between ominous red-striped envelopes bearing overdue notices mass-printed on cheap paper, buried under stacks of cynically bright colored pre-approved credit card letters, humming under the buzz of brash female voices yelling at the home’s occupants through a small, grey answering machine, hid the dream of the people living inside the house. The dream manifested itself in different physical forms: a nursery, lovingly painted in the tones of the sun and the sky on a clear, summer day; a rosebush, clipped and freshly watered, the musty smell of fresh cedar mulch mixing with the scent from the pink flowers as they opened to the visitors approaching the front door; family photos hung in carefully playful groupings inside the foyer, each face smiling lovingly on the guest as they climbed the stairs to the fireplace-adorned living room with the vaulted ceiling.

Deborah and Charles bought this home right after getting married. They were newlyweds moving into a newly built subdivision holding each other tightly together as they looked forward to seeing the trees in the backyard grow up with their yet-to-be-born children. They talked of where to put the yet-to-be-bought swing set, and purchased books from Home Depot on how to build a yet-to-be-constructed sandbox. Deborah had her first attempts at interior decorating in this home, painting the walls in the upstairs bathroom an icy-cold blue in the thought that this might refresh her and Charles after a long day under the hot, Georgia sun.

They didn’t have a buyers’ agent when they purchased this house. They simply walked into the newly built model, over plastic-covered carpet and through crisp, white walls into the living room where the builder’s agent fed them chocolate cookies and sweet tea and started showing them floor plans. Before they knew it, they were sitting at their closing signing page after page of legal documents. The lawyer, who was playing beat-the-clock, looked slightly annoyed when Deborah started reading some of the pages for herself. Fatigue won in the end, and by seven o’clock Charles was walking toward their car, his left arm holding onto Deborah’s waist, clutching a freshly-pressed set of house keys in his right hand. He kissed Deborah, squeezing her close to his chest before opening the passenger side door for her.

That was just a few years ago, before Charles got laid off from his entry-level job at a local computer company. This was before Deborah, four months pregnant, seated across the table from the manger of the small non-profit organization she worked at, was told that they just couldn’t afford to keep her around any longer. But they had been in the house a few years, and had paid off enough principal to qualify for a small home equity loan, to help pay for the pregnancy and the rest of the things they would need for the baby. Charles was working three jobs now: stocking vending machines by day; working the cash register at a local gas station at night and during the weekends; and he was trying to start his own home pressure-washing business, inspired by the pressure-washer they had received as a wedding gift.

And Deborah? She was home, full-time, with the baby. With both of their families living out of state, and with the cost of daycare at two-hundred and fifty dollars a week, even trying to look for a job was out of the question as whatever she would take home would just be eaten up by the daycare bills and commuting expenses. She was trying to do what she could to budget. Deborah was the one who found out that they qualified for the WIC program. Deborah planned all the meals, clipped coupons, and used the food processor (another wedding gift) to make her own baby food. She was a careful garage sale shopper, traveling to wealthier neighborhoods early Saturday mornings after dropping Charles off at the gas station, and talking rich, white women down from $1.00 to $0.50 for a pair of BabyGap shorts.

They had stretched, and stretched, and stretched the household budget. Charles barely got eight hours to sleep a night. And still…it wasn’t enough.

It started with the credit card bill. They had expensed a lot of the baby’s items on it – and their honeymoon – and when money was good they had always tried to pay more than the minimum. They had still been able to make the minimum payment, barely, when Deborah received a call from the credit card company stating that they could either close the account or pay thirty percent interest. When Deborah protested, explaining to them that they hadn’t been late in over a year, the aggressive, booming male voice on the other end of the line stated simply that because they had gone down to one salary as a household they expected them to be bankrupt within the year, and they wanted their money first before they defaulted on their other creditors.

Deborah closed the account. The interest rate was frozen at nineteen percent. They were now down to one credit card with three hundred dollars left in available funds.

Then the baby got sick. Deborah tried everything she could – over-the-counter children’s medication, cool baths, watered-down apple juice – but nothing helped. Finally, desperate, she took the baby to the emergency room. After more medication and more visits to the doctor the baby’s health improved. The rest of the home equity money was used paying the medical bills.

Soon, the interest rates on the credit card and the home equity loan were eating up any disposable cash their struggling, young family had for daily necessities. They weren’t the only ones in their neighborhood going through this – driving down the entrance of the subdivision, instead of seeing playing children and folks out mowing their lawns, she started to see foreclosure sign after foreclosure sign. “CASH FOR YOUR HOUSE” signs started appearing at the front of the subdivision. Charles, swearing under his breath, would try to remove the signs as fast as they sprouted up, but they were like a many-headed hydra: remove one sign and two sprung back in its place. Eventually, he gave up.

It was right in the dead heat of August that the utility bill came. After the baby’s illness, Deborah didn’t take any chances with the air conditioning: it was left on, all day, at seventy-nine degrees. Telling herself it would be cheaper to pay for the utility bills than go through another round of doctors bills for the baby, Deborah cocooned into a self-made psychosis of safety. When the bill came, that cocoon shattered, leaving her in a distraught, rumpled panic.

It was three hundred seventy-five dollars. And, with two hundred ten dollars already overdue, and no extra sources of income to draw from, she felt naked and vulnerable to the indifferent world outside. Hearing the baby cry, Deborah tried to make a bottle of formula, only to have her unsteady hands drop it on the vinyl kitchen floor, the pale, milky liquid pouring over the black-and-white faux tile motif.

And then the doorbell rang.

Wiping her eyes, gently lifting up the crying child, Deborah walked to the door and peered out the keyhole. A pudgy, hardened looking face looked back at her through the tiny, distorted glass. But, she knew who this was: Malcolm, her next-door neighbor’s nephew.

Cautiously, Deborah opened the door.

“’Sup?” Malcolm smiled broadly, a wild, insincere effort.

“Hey, Malcolm. How’s your aunt?” Deborah replied, her arms unconsciously wrapping the baby closer to her.

“She’s alright. Hey, I gotta favor to ask you.” Malcolm leaned slightly against the house. “I gotta – you know – take care of some business in Forsythe. I was wonderin’ – my aunt said you all are looking to make a few bucks – and I’d be real appreciative…” Deborah nodded, filling the empty pause with an approval for Malcolm to continue.

“So. Like I said, I got this thing I gotta do and the rental car company don’t rent to folks without a credit card or somethin’ ridiculous, like five hundred dollars in cash or somethin’. And, so I was wonderin’ if possibly you might be able to rent a car for me.” Malcolm pulled a wad of bills out of his pocket, rolled tightly and held together by a dirty, red rubber band. “I mean, I got money but I don’t got rental car company money, you know what I’m sayin’? And I only need the car for three days. So, if you could rent the car for me I could give ya three hundred bucks right now.” Malcolm snapped the rubber band off the bills, absently counting the twenties as Deborah’s mind looked for an excuse to over-ride the nagging doubts in the back of her mind. Three hundred dollars. Air conditioning.

Baby.

Her eyes drifted toward the innocent face of the child she held in her arms, and for a moment it was as if time stood still. She could feel his warm breath on her cheek, smell that wonderful smell of detergent and milk and joy that all babies exude.

“Let me get my keys.” She told Malcolm, her mind made up.

Keys in hand, she closed the door.

To be continued...

The Ownership Society - New Fictional Series

2007-08-13T21:29:00.000-04:00

Introduction

“It’s not the right orange juice, ma’am.” The clanging monotone voice echoed through the backed-up check out line. Its owner, a vaguely bland, somewhat skinny girl in her early twenties cut through Deborah’s vision with the annoyed stare of someone who had been overdue for a break for the last three years.

She flicked off the light hovering over the cash register in disgust.

“But…the sign said…” Deborah’s temples were pounding, and she felt like she could almost hear the blood rushing in her ears and see small, whitish-blue dots flit before her eyeballs like so many fireflies. She glanced at her baby in the car seat, perched ungracefully but securely on top of her shopping cart. Thankfully, he was still asleep, a slight smile hiding behind his closed lips.

“Manager, to register three. Manager, to register three.” The cashier’s indifferent voice grated against Deborah’s nerves. She waited, unable to speak, wanting to scream at this selfish child for making her an object of public ridicule. Eyes lowered, staring at her sleeping infant she heard the line behind her shuffle as people cursed under their breaths, psychically directing all of their day’s aggression and anger at her shoulder blades. Eventually a tall, white man, balding and sporting a slight paunch, arrived.

“This isn’t the WIC orange juice, is it?” A skinny, pale arm thrust the joyfully colored carton toward the man. Unconsciously, he pushed the bridge of his gold, wire-rimmed glasses higher on his nose, and Deborah noticed it shone in the dingy, fluorescent lights of the store. She randomly thought about how some men actually do need foundation.

“Nope.” The man turned toward Deborah, barely making eye contact. He extended his once muscular arm outward, handing the carton to her. “I mean, you can buy this one, but it’ll just be full price.”

“But you’re out of the other kind.” As she was speaking Deborah noticed her voice climbing a little too high, becoming a little too shrill, but she couldn’t stop its aggression. “This was right next to it, and the sign was right there, and it is almost the same price -”

“Sorry, ma’am. Nothing I can do. Do you want it?” Deborah shook her head and handed the carton back to the man, who in one motion passed it back to the cashier. The cashier sighed louder this time, wanting everyone around her to feel how inconvenient this all was. Angrily, she pressed some buttons, removing the item, her fingers clacking against the smooth plastic and adding to the pounding rhythm in Deborah’s skull.

“Sixty-oh-eight.” Deborah sheepishly slid her card through the reader.

"Debit or credit, ma'am." The cashier demanded, knowing full well Deborah wasn't doing this right.

"It's...um..." Deborah handed the card to the cashier. Confirming that this was an EBT card for food stamps, the cashier all but rolled her eyes.

“Here.” The cashier handed the card back to Deborah. “Slide it through, and then select EBT.” Hands shaking slightly, Deborah quickly swiped the card and tried to immediately hide it in her front jeans pocket.

“Other way.” The cashier intoned, her voice spicy with impatience.

Deborah yanked the card out of her pocket, looked for the magnetic strip and swung it again through the reader. Her fingers mindlessly took over at the keypad, completing the transaction.

“All set. Have a nice day.” The cashier barked to her, an order directing her to leave the store as soon as possible.

Deborah complied. She put the baby – still sleeping, still unaware of his mother’s public humiliation – in the back seat, making sure the carrier clicked into the harness and testing it slightly with her hand before tenderly closing the door. She then got into the front seat, behind the driver’s wheel, put her head in her hands and let the hot, sticky tears silently drip through her fingers.

...to be continued

Big Media's Push Poll...and why history is on Edwards' side

2007-08-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

Have you heard that this could be an historic election, because Hillary Clinton maybe the first woman elected President and Barack Obama may be the first African American man elected president?

Are you aware that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively, lead in national polls?

Are you aware that Barack Obama has raised more money than Hillary Clinton, and that both of them lead the other candidates in the "money primary"?

Have you been following the debates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had over foreign policy?

Which Democratic candidate do you support for President of the United States?

The above is an example of a "push poll", a tactic used by a campaign to elicit a targeted response after a series of biased questions.

Here's another great example of one:

Whether intentionally or not, the media have thus far been conducting one large "push poll" on the American populace, by focusing on the Hillary and Obama dynamic. How much money did Hillary raise? Who won the "foreign policy" squabble - Hillary or Obama? Is Obama less "presidential" than Hillary?

And yet...this dynamic was played out before. Four years ago:

"...In sheer numbers, however, Kerry had fewer endorsements than Howard Dean, who was far ahead in the superdelegate race going into the Iowa caucuses in February 2004, although Kerry lead the endorsement race in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, South Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada. Kerry's main perceived weakness was in his neighboring state of New Hampshire and nearly all national polls. Most other states did not have updated polling numbers to give an accurate placing for the Kerry campaign before Iowa.

Heading into the primaries, Kerry's campaign was largely seen as in trouble; the key factor enabling it to survive was Kerry's mortgaging his own home and lending the money to his campaign. He also brought on the "magical" Michael Whouley who was Al Gore's national field director and would later become the Democratic National Committee's National Field Director for Kerry-Edwards. Whouley is widely credited with helping bring home the Iowa victory the same as he did in New Hampshire for Al Gore in 2000 against Bill Bradley..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_presidential_campaign,_2004#Campaign_history)

For all of us Edwards supporters - does any of this sound familiar? A campaign that the media has written off before the Iowa caucuses? A campaign that hired new staff to craft a new message?

...How about, against all pundit expectations, a campaign that won in Iowa and went on to win the nomination?

Are the current polling numbers correct...or is there a bit of the media push poll effect reflected in them?

We'll find out soon enough.

The Debate They Needed Him to Lose

2007-08-07T21:26:00.000-04:00

The historic irony: Edwards, the Man Who Courted the Labor Vote, Loses it to Clinton. Puts the nail right in the coffin right there, don't it?

And, historic ironies always make great headlines.

So, it's no wonder initial reports from Big Media put Edwards as a "poor performer", and Hil as the winner (more historic irony as the Woman Behind NAFTA Gains the Labor Vote).

Again, it begs the question: what's up with that?

Here's the deal: all of us working people who thought Edwards hit a home run were listening for one thing, and all of the chattering classes were listening for another.

Check out this early analysis on MSNBC (host of the debate):

"...If this debate is remembered for anything, it will be for the moment that Joe Biden turned into Hillary Clinton's surrogate. He went after Obama on foreign policy and targeted Edwards on how sincere his labor stances are.

In fact, Dodd seemed to also take part in the attacks on Obama (less so on Edwards). But clearly, the old guard of Washington are not taking kindly to either Obama and Edwards. The problem for the two chief Clinton challengers, though, is that they are fighting to be the same person, the anti-Hillary. And Clinton, now, has a lot of supporters on stage with her, including Dodd and Biden. It's a fascinating dynamic that I think is developing in this primary. But how long can Edwards and Obama be allies and how comfortable will Dodd and Biden be carrying Clinton's water?..." (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/).

What is important to Big Media in this debate? Strategy. Politics. Hillary vs Obama. Who's supporting who?

Now, for all the rest of us working folks, and the fifteen thousand union members who showed up to this debate, this is what this debate will be remembered for: a retired steelworker with a camcorder, plaintively asking a blank screen, "Why?" Why was my pension cut? Why can't I pay for my wife's health insurance?

His age-scarred voice near to the breaking point, he simply asked, "What will you do about it?"

Edwards' answer was spot-on. Make CEO pensions tied to your own. Provide universal healthcare so you're not punished for the sins of your employer.

This is why folks stood outside, with rain threatening a desolate stadium on a muggy Chicago night. They're not there because they care about the personality politics of the Democratic party.

They care about health care. Their pensions. Their futures.

Any network that can't grasp that one has failed in understanding what their viewers want from their government, and in turn, what they want for themselves.

Why "liberal bloggers" are a political threat

2007-08-04T23:11:00.000-04:00

I've been reading the back-and-forth between Clinton and the audience at the YearlyKos convention, specifically her statement that she will continue to receive campaign funds from federal lobbyists.

Now, the coverage of this exchange is frankly just as interesting as the exchange itself. Here's a sampling:

The New York Times:

"...Mr. Edwards got back on his hobby horse against Washington lobbyists, saying his rivals did not need to wait until the next election to start reforming..." (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/the-democratic-debate-begins/#more-2183)

And The Atlantic Monthly (which was founded, by the way, as a magazine of the abolitionist movement...a little-known factoid):

"...After dozens of forums in the last four months, it seemed as if the presidential candidates had run out of new things to say, and despite the promise of Netroots sparkle, today's YearlyKos roundtable, held in a poorly lit, cavernous convention hall, was kind of dingy...

... Although the headline-making exchange will probably unsettle Clinton's campaign, her refusal to disavow the culture of Washington was not surprising. Her platform aims to restore competence to government, to work within government to produce solutions, and to bring the Democratic Party back to power. John Edwards is running as an anti-institutionalist, taking on the Bigs. Barack Obama has placed on a pox on both houses of Congress and both political parties. Clinton seemed to relish the challenge of disagreeing with the audience, joking with them as they began to boo her. It was hard to here [sic] precisely what she said, but it sounded like "I'm here. This is real. It's what you were waiting for."
(http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_mccormick_place_convention.php)

This is it, folks. The "liberal media", up close and personal. The writing in the above referenced pieces suggest a free-wheeling, let's-take-our-professional-masks-off-for-a-moment-and-say-what-we-really-think style. The writers are making attempts here to connect with the "vibe" they get from these bloggers...only, there is one vast difference: the bloggers at YearlyKos are not in the employ of major multi-national corporations, or Historic Magazines of Renowned American Thought.

"So what?" You may be thinking to yourself. "I mean, they're still working-stiffs, right?"

True. But defending the folks that put bread on your table can sometimes be a reflex so powerful it ingratiates itself into the fabric of your soul. And, in my opinion, that's exactly what's happened here.

And it begs the question: what's up with this?

There are three components to political power, as any good poli-sci professor knows: people, money and guns. Rarely does any one entity, be it State, State-Actor or Social Movement, have all three. Generally they're very good in one and have the other as a strong second.

Let's look at the US, for example. What are we strong in right now? Money and guns. In fact, they're so intertwined in our power structure that sometimes we can't distinguish one from the other. Wal-mart? Money...and people (even if they're being exploited), are a distant second. Al-Qaeda? People and money. Let's face it, an entity who's strong in the "guns" area doesn't build make-shift bombs or fly airplanes into buildings. If Al-Qaeda were strong in guns, a suitcase bomb would have exploded in a major US metropolitan area by now.

What does all of this sidetracking have to do with YearlyKos, and the above-referenced coverage of it by Big Media?

YearlyKos is a physical representation of the power of the liberal blogosphere, which is now approaching something resembling a Social Movement. It is very strong in people. With all of these people talking together ad-infinitum, it may start to attract money (in the form of grants, donations, or even job opportunities). That's two of the three spheres needed to have real political power (and, unless Kos shows up on YouTube with an Uzi calling for an armed takeover of NewsCorp, I'm assuming "guns" are out of the question).

Imagine if Gandhi had been a blogger. Or King. Or John Lennon.

*That's* what is terrifying to the current power structure in this country. And, that's why you're seeing folks from the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly - entities that have lost people, one of their most important ingredients for political power - give snide remarks and back-handed coverage to both YearlyKos and any candidates who excite the populism of bloggers.

We were once their silent readers. Now we are their interrogators. And every dropped subscription reminds them of their daily obsolescence.

I guess, in their situation, I'd be a little snarky, too.

Promote the General Welfare, Already!

2007-08-03T20:24:00.000-04:00

"There isn't any bigger metaphor for a society in trouble than a bridge falling, its concrete lanes pointing brokenly at the sky, its crumpled cars pointing down at the deep waters where people disappeared.

Only this isn't a metaphor..."

(Nick Coleman, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, writing on the collapse of the I-35W Bridge: http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1339911.html)

There's a phrase in the Constitution that our country's been falling flat on fulfilling lately. In the Preamble, after establishing Justice and providing for the common defense, there's a phrase, "promote the general welfare".

What is that? What exactly does it mean to "promote the general welfare"?

A fellow blogger with an extensive site on the US Constitution puts it this way:

"...This, and the next part of the Preamble [and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity], are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that." (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html).

Justice is not an end to itself, neither is insuring tranquility nor providing for a common defense. All of these are means to the end of promoting the general welfare. Although there's considerable disagreement among pedantics out there regarding what "general welfare" is, and what its intention was in the Constituion (with the far right claiming it was meant to limit the ability of Congress to regulate the states and the far left arguing exactly the opposite), I think it's a pretty clearly understood phrase by most folks out there.

Would most people consider bridge maintenence a part of the "general welfare"? I'd say so. How about upgrading levees? Rebuilding cities after a force majure event, like a hurricane? Yep. Protecting us from epidemics? Making sure we have clean water to drink and safe air to breathe? Enforcing the law?

I'd say most folks would consider all of these areas a part of the "general welfare", and therefore something they expect their government to do something about. But, when our government cares more about tax breaks than people, and thinks that its sole purpose is to boost the Dow and somehow everything else will fall into place...this is a government that has forgotten its entire reason for being.

No more Katrinas. No more interstate bridge collapses. No more neglect.

It's time to start promoting the general welfare.