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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Race, Gender and Reconciliation

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

Me? I just looked a little dumpy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes." I answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Anti-Clinton Spin At Odds with DNC

...Or, how Democrats Eat Their Own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton, Obama Both Flawed On Health Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

(Videotape)

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

(End videotape)

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

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

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

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: Which is a quasi-mandate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Edwards Needs To Stay In

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

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

*Objection One: The Sore Loser*

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

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

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

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

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

*Why this is a false meme*

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

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

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

Uh-huh.

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

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

'Nuf said.

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

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

*Why this is a false meme*

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

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

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

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

Peace.

"Some Say" Edwards Just Wants to Make Life Miserable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heh.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwards Wins Nevada Debate By Staying On Message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So What Did Obama Do?

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.

MLK, Global Warming And The Need For Systemic Change

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

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!

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?

The Debate Hillary Lost

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!

Hillary Clinton and Monsanto's K Street Test Plot

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

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.

Why "liberal bloggers" are a political threat

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.