This Election Is about Who We Want to Be

I hope Barack Obama wins. There is no question in my mind that John McCain will simply continue the policies of President Bush. The fact that Bush is trying to help McCain win is all the evidence any of us should need that McCain will continue business as usual. McCain is for more tax cuts for the rich and for more deregulation; those are the two policies that have created the financial mess we're in.

The polls appear to be tightening but I'm encouraged by the huge turnouts that Barack Obama is getting when he campaigns around the country (every state, every region, every city and town in the U.S. is pro-American and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of herself).

But here's the real point I want to make: the polls don't matter. But voting does. Americans need to make a statement about our future. There's not a doubt in my mind that our country needs two political parties but one of those parties, the GOP, is broken; Republicans are stuck in the middle of the 20th century with a mean philosophy and an economic theory that makes no sense. These days, Republicans can't even win without playing games (see here and here). Until the Republican Party rebuilds itself and turns into a party with real ideas and real respect for average Americans, it is time to send the right wingers home. It is time for the Democrats and a change of course. This election is a referendum on George W. Bush and the failed policies of the Republican Party over the last eight years. There will be no change unless the Democrats have a mandate. If Barack Obama wins by a point or two with little change in Congress, our nation will continue to drift and people like David Broder will continue to make dumb assessments of where we are.

If you're young, vote like your future depends on it. If you're much older, vote for the sake of your children and grandchildren. Take ownership of the future. Vote. Vote for the party that has always cared about average Americans far more than protecting the privileges of the wealthy and well-connected. Vote for real change.

McCain Can Only Offer More of the Same

Many years ago, John McCain served his country honorably. If he is to maintain his reputation, he should think clearly about what he is offering the American people. If all he can offer is more of the same, such as more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that is not what Americans need. If all he can offer is fear and smear, that too is not what Americans need. If all he can offer is a short temper and erratic behavior, that too is not what America needs. If all he can offer are distortions of the truth and misleading statements and all of the above, Americans have not only grown weary of that since that's exactly what we've gotten from Bush for eight long years but McCain's honor will become a whisper of the past.

After all is said and done, McCain should keep his honor intact and not go down a dishonorable road.

There's a sad truth. McCain does not measure up to the problems we are facing. Think of it: if McCain gets elected and runs the White House the way he has run his campaign, our nation will be in for four more years of failure. It's time to move on this November 4th. Our nation has work to do.

McCain's Fearmongering Sure Sounds Like George W. Bush

McCain's desperation is sad to see. First, Sarah Palin is not a reassuring pick. She's John Bircher material. If you don't remember the John Birchers, they were big fans of Joseph McCarthy and had radical right-wing ideas about how the country should be run. Palin may not be an official member of the John Birchers but if it walks like a duck and talks like duck, it must be a right wing quack.

Second, John McCain has an anger problem. You could see it in the first debate. You could see it when he was talking to the folks at the Des Moines Register, a paper about as Main Street as you can get. Like Bush, McCain thinks he knows all the answers and doesn't have to ask questions and doesn't like to be asked questions either. Bush's credibility is already shot, and McCain's credibility is fast sinking.

McCain calls himself a maverick, someone who can reach across the aisle. Remember when George W. Bush claimed he would do that? But Bush turned out to be more of a friend to Wall Street than Main Street. Six weeks before the election, McCain suddenly discovered Main Street after thirty years being a buddy of Wall Street. I've lost count of how many lobbyists are currently working for McCain.

We need change in Washington. The nation took the first step in 2006 by electing Democrats to Congress. But with Bush threatening to veto no-brainer bills like extending unemployment benefits, and Republicans refusing to help override Bush's vetoes, it's difficult getting work done that will help the economy and help average Americans. McCain says he gives Americans straight talk but he can't even acknowledge his role in the current economic crisis. McCain is a deregulator, just like George W. Bush. Deregulation means not minding the store. It means looking the other way as crooks destroy the economy while grabbing millions for themselves. That's not presidential behavior.

It's time to send McCain and his fellow Republicans home. Change can't come soon enough.

McCain: "It's All About Me!"

The erratic Senator John McCain, who is losing in the polls, panicked as he realized just how unprepared to be president his vice presidential choice is. So he lies to David Letterman about rushing to Washington so he can talk about the bailout (er, the campaign) on the networks while claiming he has suspended his campaign. 

Here's the bottom line:

1) McCain voted with Bush about 95% of the time.

2) His Republicans friends voted with Bush 95% of the time.

3) Bush's popularity is around 19-30%. His poll numbers stink.

4) Bush has zero credibility. Bernanke and Paulson have slightly more credibility and claim the country is in financial hot water that requires a bailout.

5) Democrats are skeptical but the stock markets are dropping so they tell Bush to send a bill.

6) Bush sends 2.5 pages of crap.

7) Democrats say no deal unless certain provisions and protections are put in.

8) The White House balks, then suddenly starts compromising and lets the Democrats write the bill.

9) McCain, who hasn't worked on a bill in months and doesn't know much about the economy, suddenly decides he's Queen of the Ball, and says stop everything and rushes to Washington. Sort of. Except the bill is just about done when McCain shows up for a photo op.

10) Meanwhile, other Republicans throw in a bunch of proposals that are bullshit and obviously intended to gum up the works.

11) The Republicans, after eight years of licking Bush's boots suddenly reject him just weeks before an election when their numbers are not so hot. (McCain has been licking Bush's boots for four years; he campaigned for him in 2004, supported the war in 2002, etc., etc.)

12) Washington Mutual fails and is taken over.  The Democrats are pissed. They're trying to act responsibly by protecting Main Street even if this means a distasteful bailout of Wall Street and the Republican leadership has been taken over by crooks and con men and Governor Palin and these useless people are trying to play games.

Suggestion: The Republicans caused the current crisis through too much deregulation and too much looking the other way while Wall Street and lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have been ripping off the taxpayers. Send the Republicans home so they can stop obstructing the Democrats. The Democrats aren't perfect but they didn't strut like fools and create the mess in the first place. 

Campaign Reality 2008: McCain Is Clueless

That's McCain walking down his "Hall of Fame" at one of his large residences. He seems to have left a little room for future mementos from the White House which just might be about the only reason he's running: another trophy. That hall smacks of a big ego. It smacks of a man who has little in common with ordinary Americans. And little understanding. At a campaign event, McCain said immigrants were necessary because they were willing to pick lettuce for $50 a hour. Most Americans, he said, wouldn't work for that. McCain has no clue about prevailing wages. The man, needless to say, is clueless.

There are rich people who know what ordinary Americans go through and there are rich people who don't. McCain is one of the rich ones who doesn't get it; not long ago, McCain had to ask a staffer what kind of car he owns which once more says he's a man who's out of touch. He wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years but this year the Iraqis have made it clear that they want a timetable and Bush is going along with it. Like I said, McCain is clueless and barely notices that the world is changing.

These days when McCain makes blunders he has a new excuse: he was a POW. Howard Fineman explains the problem (via Crooks and Liars):

“I think they are going to it way too many times. It’s the original story that defined John McCain, that still when you read it in his book ‘Faith of my Fathers,’ when you read about it in ‘The Nightingale’s Song,’ you can’t help but have admiration and respect for the guy. And I think he wisely for many years stayed away from it as a political tool, he really did. But now it not only defines him, it’s become a crutch in the campaign..."

A year ago, John McCain was sinking in the polls. He was overtaken by people like Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mick Huckabee who themselves eventually tanked while McCain picked up the pieces because he was simply a familiar name. But he was sinking for a reason. In Baghdad, he said it was safe to walk through a market but neglected to mention that he was surround by over a hundred soldiers and helicopters in the sky. He was also wearing a bulletproof vest. It was a very Bush-like photo op: phony to the core. McCain has had a long series of blunders for the last year and despite the fact that such blunders can hardly be called presidential, most of the press keeps covering for him.

Randi Rhodes spent her whole show today listing and discussing the lobbyists and former lobbyists working for John McCain. These lobbyists don't work for average Americans; they work for millionaires and big biz. Some of McCain's people even work for foreign governments. But when the camera's on them, they wave the American flag. That's what crooks do: just wave the flag and hope no one notices. The worst of the bunch is Phil Gramm and his wife who have sneaked in laws and regulations making it easier for corporations to pull off scams. Their biggest scam led to the collapse of Enron. Phil Gramm is McCain's economic adviser.

We all want heros and, in his day, John McCain really was one. But that was a long time ago and McCain is still fighting battles from thirty to forty years ago. We need someone in the White House who knows what century we're in and how to move forward, and not backward.

John Edwards Endorsing Barack Obama

I was a big John Edwards fan before I became a Barack Obama supporter. So for me it's good news that Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama. ABC News has the story:

Former Sen. John Edwards is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy Wednesday evening, in a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama's appeal to working-class voters, several senior Democratic sources tell ABC News.

There is also more information from Daily Kos. David Bonoir, of course, was Edwards top man for his campaign and the real thing when it comes to the new progressivism of the Democratic Party.

The story about West Virginia is interesting but it is a part of larger story. Something to keep in mind is that Franklin Roosevelt did well in Appalachia and he did more for the region than any other president up that time. The truth is that Barack Obama is not doing all that well in Appalachia and Hillary Clinton is. If Barack Obama can find a way to reach the people of Appalachia, that would translate into better performance throughout the country. What close observers of Obama are learning is that he's a thoughtful man and a quick learner. I have no doubt that he's thinking about the issue. There are many issues for the Obama team to think about in the next few weeks. Can Obama broaden his appeal? Can he keep John McCain at bay? And people will have to ask themselves if Hillary Clinton or someone with similar credentials (such as Jim Webb) might help the kid from the state of Lincoln in the fall election by running with Obama as vice president.

No one should underestimate Barack Obama's abilities and hard work. Last fall, the senator with the funny name was the underdog while Senator Clinton was raking in the big money and was virtually the presumptive nominee. But Senator Obama and his team were organized and very successful at raising funds from small donors from all over the country from people with all kinds of background. The vast majority of Obama's donors read like Main Street, America. If Barack Obama wins the nominee and the election, it will be an extraordinary story of ordinary people putting a new face and new ideas in the White House. Obama is no radical. He is a pragmatist. Only a pragmatist could have run such an amazing campaign to overtake the favorite.

There's an outside chance that Hillary Clinton might pull off some last minute magic to take the nomination, but it's increasingly unlikely. Think of it. Hillary had the name, the experience, the smarts, the help of an ex-president, a large political machine and she had been running for president for almost eight years, ever since Bill Clinton left office. I can only say it again: something extraordinary is happening. Maybe, just maybe, our country is ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

John Edwards Marches On As Media Fails America

The arrogance of empire lives on. The Russians had their useless imperial court. The French nobility had their wigs, salons and vicious gossip. America has the Washington press corps and their ridiculous 'conventional wisdom.' Whether it's making jokes about Gore's style of talking despite how often the former vice president has nailed the issues of the day, or talking about John Edwards haircut and whether his war on poverty is 'sincere' or not, or sniggering when Nancy Pelosi goes to Europe for a global warming conference, the Washington press corps continues to collect their high salaries while poorly serving Americans as Bush stumbles into crisis after crisis while having his staff write pretty reports.

But a number of Democrats march on, doing their best in these strange times. One of them is presidential hopeful John Edwards who notices the poor quality of the Republican presidential field, characters unwilling to admit what a failure Bush has been and unwilling to admit the fiasco that has become Iraq. Here's the AP story in the International Herald Tribune:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards argued on Thursday that President George W. Bush has made the United States less safe and that Republican candidates are trying to become "a bigger, badder George Bush."

Edwards' remarks came one day after he challenged the idea of a global fight against terrorism, calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained the U.S. military and emboldened terrorists.

Bush told reporters Thursday that Edwards' view was naive.

Edwards is naive? Bush is still reluctant to take off his training wheels after six years in office. How long should a president be given to get it right? Everything Bush has said about Iraq and why we're there has fallen apart. And if ever there was a naive politician, it was Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's number two man at the Pentagon and Bush's theorist for the war in Iraq. Wolfowitz had the arrogant and ultimately naive idea that if you apply just the right amount of force, not too much and not too little, you can get the exact result you want in the Middle East. Does anyone see anything like that happening?

Republicans should be held accountable for their foolish, uninformed comments about foreign policy. Puffing your chest out, fearmongering and otherwise not knowing what you're talking about is no way to run a foreign policy. Bush is an incompetent. Al Qaida is stronger today because their biggest recruiter is President Bush; because of Bush's inflammatory rhetoric, his incompetence and his unwillingness to make clear what we're trying to do in Iraq, we're worse off today than we were four years ago. The media shrugs and the war goes on, without purpose, without any real examination of the facts (particularly by the Republican presidential candidates who seem to vow to give us more of the same) and without the kind of leadership America deserves. Edwards may or may not win the Democratic nomination, let alone the presidency, but he clearly is one of the few responsible voices speaking out.

John Edwards Gets Real on Foreign Policy

Psst, the Fox TV show '24,' is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with reality. Please pass this along, particularly to the Republican presidential candidates who seem fond of flapping their arms and beating their chests. Oh, one other thing. Pass along the fact that we had a very effective bipartisan foreign policy for fifty years and the professionals to go with it before George W. Bush showed up; in fact, it worked so well, that it warned President Bush before 9/11 that we were in danger of an attack from al Qaida. Bush did nothing and stayed on vacation in Crawford, Texas. Posturing is worthless if you don't know what you're doing.

It was pathetic listening to the Republican candidates shoot off their sound bites during their debate. They haven't learned a thing in six years. They think everything Bush is doing is great which shows how far the Republican Party has drifted from its tradition of pragmatism.

Here's a fact the Republican Party needs to get its arms around: Bush has lost over 3,000 Americans lives and spent over $500 billion to buy America the albatross we call Iraq. That albatross ain't doing nothing for us. And it certainly has nothing to do with the so-called 'war on terror,' whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11; it was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. It was led by Osama bin Laden. Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden are real, they are tangible, but 'terrorism' is an abstraction you can make anything out of it that you want; you can move the goal posts, you can name this group or that group terrorists depending all too often on politics. You can say dropping a bomb on a city is not terrorism but a much smaller bomb in a grocery store is terrorism. You can say these guys are freedom fighters while these guys are terrorists and they use exactly the same tactics. You can say this Iraqi group is bad and this Iraqi group is good depending on how much money is flowing and who says what. It is an wretched way to do foreign policy.

On The Huffington Post, foreign policy expert Lorelei Kelly talks about terrorism and the honest tack that John Edwards takes on the issue:

John Edwards is getting a track record for blazing the trail on national security. He was the only Democratic contender at the first debate to openly criticize the label "war on terror." His lonely stance was unusual and illustrates how fearful we've become as a nation as well as alienated from the fundamental principles of our own democracy. Military experts --many veterans among them-- have been broadcasting their dissatisfaction about this label since the war began. Terrorism is a tactic, not a long term strategy. And the Bush Administration has been getting a free ride on this moniker since the post 9/11 world began. But then, understanding the integrity and the substance of the military would explode the neo-conservative election strategy that revolves around distorted labels of strength and weakness, patriotism and "America hating." We will endure these talking points until a group of wise Republicans decide to take their party back.

The strongest country in the world shouldn't have to rely on politicians like Bush and Giuliani who like to grandstand and posture without having the smarts to come up with an effective foreign policy. Yes, we need a strong defense. No, we do not need to get into the business of regime changes that feel more like an attempt at over-bearing colonial rule. The only people who have benefited from Bush's reckless foreign policy are his Republican friends in the defense industry. That is not something to celebrate or brag about. It is something to investigate and prosecute.

The Continuing Uselessness of Sam Donaldson

The news is that Barack Obama is drawing large crowds. The news is that Barack Obama has something to say. In fact, the news is that most of the Democratic candidates (though Edwards and Obama in particular as far I'm concerned) have something to say. The news is that there is a leadership vacuum in Washington. The news is that the Republicans have run out of ideas. The news is that there are growing problems that the United States is facing while the Bush Administration pretends they don't exist. The news is that Democrats are beginning to focus on these problems and talking about solutions.

According to Sam Donaldson, however, the news is that a couple of old gentlemen fell asleep during Barack Obama's speech in Missouri in front of a crowd of 3,000 people. Here's the story:

A potentially embarrassing moment was caught on tape during a speech by Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Saturday. Video taken of the event in Kansas City, Mo. appeared to show at least two audience members sleeping.

Approximately 3,000 people attended the fundraiser for Obama, who is challenging Hillary Clinton and a handful of others for the Democratic nomination in 2008. ...

(snip)

A video clip of the event that aired on ABC News showed two older gentlemen sitting in the crowd, with eyes closed.

During a roundtable discussion on Sunday morning, commentator Sam Donaldson even pointed out the potentially embarrassing screen capture...

On one level, what an extraordinary non-story! This is the best that Sam Donaldson can offer his viewers? This is journalism? This is the kind of analysis that Sam Donaldson is being paid some 7 figures for? It's embarrassing to American journalism.

On another level, there is a major story here. It's evidence once again of useless overpaid journalists who have been asleep for the last twenty years. Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave. This is what he fought for?

Does Sam Donaldson understand the problems facing the United States? Does he understand the enormity of Bush's failures? Does he understand the growing energy crisis which has been largely ignored for the last thirty years and is now coming home to roost? Does he understand global warming? Does he understand what a fiasco Bush has given us in Iraq? Does he understand the growing economic stress Americans are facing? Does he understand there is a connection between economic stress and the desire to fix healthcare? Does he understand the complete uselessness of the current president? Does he understand the growing vulnerability of America's economy and strength? Does Sam Donaldson understand that the growing imbalance between the wealthy and everybody else is not healthy for our democracy? Does he understand there are people who believe we can tackle some of these problems? Does he understand the need to find capable people? Does he understand how bereft of ideas the current Republican Party is these days? No, Sam Donaldson would rather talk about a couple of older gentlemen who fell asleep during a speech. And people wonder why bloggers are disgusted with so much of the mainstream media.

John Edwards Speaks on Poverty and Critics

A Republican pundit who criticizes John Edwards for being rich is a ridiculous sight to behold given how much the Republican Party is the party of greed. To watch people in the media act as if a Republican talking point still has validity this late in the game after six years of corruption, incompetence and ideological indifference to the fate of millions of American is embarrassing to watch, particularly since so many of these mainstream media types are financially doing quite well and are themselves more interested in staying on top that acting in the public's interest.

There are plenty of exceptions in the media, of course; here and there are people who pay attention. Bob Herbert of The New York Times will surely be writing about the various presidential candidates but here's what he has to say on John Edwards:

The scene was immensely more appealing than the overly scripted televised "debates" that feature sleep-inducing nonanswers from an army of candidates browbeaten by moderators wielding stopwatches.

New Orleans has not been a hot topic at those upscale gatherings. Much of the city is still in ruins, still in "terrible shape," as Mr. Edwards noted. During a lengthy interview that followed his talk with the local residents, he told me that what had been allowed to happen to New Orleans was "an embarrassment for America" and that as president he would put the power of the federal government squarely behind its revival.

He said he would appoint a high-level official to take charge of the rebuilding, and he would have that person "report to me" every day. He said he would create 50,000 "steppingstone jobs," in parks, recreation facilities and a variety of community projects, for New Orleans residents who have been unable to find any other work. And he said, "We're also going to have to rebuild these levees."

(snip)

It's true that promises from politicians come at us like weeds on steroids. But the nation would get a clearer picture of the character, integrity and leadership qualities of individual candidates if the press would focus more intently on matters of substance.

As a rule, we're much more interested in gaffes than in the details of a candidate's position on a complex issue. We're much more interested in sound bites than in sound policy.

That should change. We should give the candidates time to speak. And we should listen.

Much of the media isn't really interested in the future of America; they're interested in circuses and media events and ingratiating themselves with powerful people and are more than happy to help someone like Bush put on meaningless photo op stunts like finding another group of bozos intent on attacking America with delusional schemes that even a movie producer would be embarrassed to use except in a lame comedy. Americans have the right to expect more from a powerful media.

Here's more on Edwards from AP writer Mike Glover:

Presidential candidate John Edwards said Monday it's silly to suggest that his wealth and expensive tastes have hurt his credibility as an advocate for the poor.

(snip)

"Would it have been better if I had done well and didn't care?" Edwards asked.

Edwards noted that some of the most acclaimed anti-poverty advocates came from privileged backgrounds, including Franklin Roosevelt and Bobby Kennedy.

"You could see and feel the empathy they had," said Edwards, speaking from his home in North Carolina during an interview on Iowa Public Radio.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, has made poverty a central issue of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and recently released a book on the subject, "Ending Poverty in America." He also has formed a center for the study of poverty issues at the University of North Carolina.

Edwards could easily have mention John Kennedy whose Peace Corps was very much an anti-poverty program, though in the third world; the Peace Corps also led to a domestic anti-poverty program called Vista. Teddy Roosevelt's reforms led to bringing the robber barons under control and strengthening the middle class and giving more poor Americans a chance. Let me add that Franklin Roosevelt was particularly good at fighting poverty and one of the things that made him a good fighter was that he knew there were wealthy people who were responsible and generous but he also understood the dark side of his economic class and he understood their games and their dishonest rationalizations for their behavior ('it's just business, you know?').

In contrast, we currently have a president who genuinely doesn't care about the poor: witness his response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush's first response is always to help his wealthy friends. He might listen to someone who is poor for the sake of photo ops but when it comes time to do something, nothing happens. That is the nature of most politicians in the Republican Party these days and this is despite the fact that may rank and file Republicans believe poverty issues should be addressed.

Bob Herbert is right; we need a media less interested in recording the ins and out of political games and more interested in finding out what the issues are, what candidates have to say and how America might address these issues. The last thing we need is a free press sticking its head in the sand like Republican ostriches.

Republicans Signing Up for Barack Obama

It's not unusual for business people of any political affiliation to contribute to one party one year and the other the next and to sometimes donate to both parties if a clear winner isn't evident. One could argue that it's a form of covering your bets. But it's curious that some Republicans are choosing Barack Obama early on. Truthout caught this story by Sarah Baxter of The Sunday Times:

Disillusioned supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.

(snip)

...last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama - that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Kagan is an informal foreign policy adviser to the Republican senator John McCain, who remains the favoured neoconservative choice for the White House because of his backing for the troops in Iraq.

But in an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was "pure John Kennedy", a neocon hero of the cold war.

(snip)

Disagreements on the war have not stopped John Martin, a Navy reservist and founder of the website Republicans for Obama, from supporting the antiwar senator. He joined the military after the Iraq war and is about to be deployed to Afghanistan.

"I disagree with Obama on the war but I don't think it is a test of his patriotism," Martin says. "Obama has a message of hope for the country."

(snip)

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has many Republican defectors of her own, including John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, who helped raise $200,000 for the president's reelection, qualifying him as a "Bush ranger". He said last week that he was impressed by Clinton's expertise. "I know we're associated mainly with the Republicans but we've always gone for the individual," Mack said.

No doubt the motivations of Republicans and conservative independents supporting Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or other Democrats can vary. Some may genuinely want to see a serious change. Some may be responding to Barack Obama's optimism and unity rhetoric. Some may want a Democrat who's Republican-lite. Some may be cynically supporting the candidate mostly likely to lose in the 2008 general election. Others may be just covering their bets. But it's worth watching in one of the oddest eras in American politics.

Republican Debate: The Good News and the Bad News

Let's deal quickly with the good news: the Republicans provided Democrats with considerable footage demonstrating their sheer foolishness.

Here's the bad news: one of these idiots could be the next president of the United States.

Here's a quick summary of the top three:

McCain mangled his words on several occassions and was frequently incoherent; I'm sorry to say it but he's clearly slipping. On the occassions when he was understandable, it was usually meaningless boilerplate that could have answered dozens of questions without actually saying much. For one brief moment, we saw the old McCain when he said he believed in evolution but had no trouble seeing God's handiwork when he was at the Grand Canyon; but that McCain started disappearing in 2004 when he decided to jump aboard the Bush express.

Mitt Romney was the Stepford man. He makes Hillary Clinton's triangulations look human and natural. It was embarrassing to see him rush up to be the first candidate to shake Nancy Reagan's hand after the debate. A slick man. Very slick.

Rudy Giuliani was probably the most dangerous man on the stage. In many ways, he presents himself effectively and can probably get away with campaigning as a sort of conservative moderate. But recent appearances suggests that the unitary executive nonsense that Cheney and Bush have been pursuing the last six years would continue unabated under Giuliani. There's not a doubt in my mind that Guiliani is a bully at heart. That Bernard Kerik was his police chief speaks volumes. If Giuliani continues to do well in the polls, I'll have more to say about the ugly qualities he shares with Bush and Cheney.

I enjoyed watching my wife while we listened to the debate. She has a wonderful way of rolling her eyes when the Republican candidates say stupid or dishonest things. It was appalling that several of the candidates thought Scooter Libby should be pardoned. It was embarrassing how unwilling these guys were to criticize the most failed president in our nation's history. The list goes on. I think the reader has the general idea.

If the reader will pardon an imperfect analogy, these candidates are like fools running for mayor while the current mayor has delegated the job of repairing a dam upstream from the town to his cronies and some corrupt campaign donors. The engineers with integrity say the dam is cracking, largely because of cheap construction materials; it's also been raining for twenty days and these Republican fools are telling the townfolk the best way to solve the town's problem is to fill in more potholes. A lot of good filling those potholes will be when the dam breaks.

The dead giveaway was the attempt to ride on Reagan's coattails. Reagan's presidency was finished nearly twenty years ago. The world has changed a lot since then. Reagan spent his presidency ignoring a number of problems that are beginning to have a significant impact. Reagan ignored the environment, he ignored the need for a real energy policy and he had a lousy eye for honest government officials. The nostalgia for Reagan perfectly reflects the fantasies that seem to drive the right wingers who control the Republican Party these days. We need people in the White House who don't live in a bubble, who have a chance—at least a chance—of connecting to reality.

Transcript of the MSNBC Democratic Debate

The commentary on the Democratic debate by most TV and some print pundits earning seven figures continues to be irrelevant and embarrassing. The solution is to read what the candidates said themselves. If the reader hunts around, there are videos available of the debate. Here's a transcript of what the candidates actually said which is more interesting than all those pundits who gave George W. Bush a free pass for six years.

If young people want a future, it's time to pay attention. If parents and grandparents want a future for their children and grandchildren, it's time to be politically active. Our nation is in bad need of political reform.

Democratic Debate on MSNBC

I listened to the debate and read some commentary on various blogs. I don't know what people were expecting, but, given the format and number of candidates, I thought it was a reasonably good debate. Given their performance Thursday night, I have no doubt whatsoever that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd can handle the presidency.

The same is true of Bill Richardson but he seemed a little underprepared for the debate style; I excuse him because he is, after all, a working governor. Joe Biden is brilliant but one can see how he would need a full team of damage control specialists who would have to explain away his verbal gaffes; Biden won't change, he's used to letting it all hang out, warts and all, this late in his life, but he's still brilliant and gave some of the best answers of the night. Kucinich surprised me by being more articulate and thoughtful than I remember him being in 2004—I just have trouble taking him seriously as a presidential candidate. The next time a senate seat opens up in Ohio, though, it may be time for Kucinich to move up—the country needs more of him, not less, though I'm not sure Ohio voters can quite cross that bridge.

Actually, all the candidates save one, would be a considerable improvement over the current occupant of the White House and his paranoid vice president. The exception is the former senator from Alaska. The last time I saw Mike Gravel, he seemed less cranky and eccentric than he did tonight; it was one of the worst performances I've seen by a candidate but I have to say it also seems the moderators were giving him short shrift. I'd like to see the minutes for the debate because it seemed Hillary Clinton was given more opportunities to speak than anyone else but that may have been the rebuttal option that was offered.

I thought Hillary Clinton was probably the most prepared and probably gave the best performance of the candidates; I'm not sure she had the best answers. And I'm still puzzled by the funny way she handles her vote on Iraq. Dodd and Edwards simply say the vote was a mistake. Biden came close to taking what may be Hillary Clinton's position which seems to be nothing more than that Bush turned out to do an incompetent job. The Iraq debacle is about far more than just Bush's incompetence; there were willful lies and sheer arrogance in the way that Bush conceived and continues to conceive foreign policy. I want to hear Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden disavow the preemptive strike principle (at least they seem to be against unilateralism).

John Edwards gave the best answers of anyone in terms of details and what he's driving at but I found him to be somewhat subdued; it wouldn't hurt him for his answers to be a little more emphatic with some fresh material thrown in. I forget the exact wording but near the end of the debate, Edwards was asked who he looked to for moral guidance. The question seemed to surprise him, but he thought about it for a few seconds and gave a brilliant answer and pointed out that there really couldn't be just one source for moral guidance. I have to add something further here. A couple of blogs criticized him for taking so long to answer. But I remember when George W. Bush was asked a similar question about whether there was a philosopher he knew that gave him guidance and he quickly and glibly answered: Jesus Christ. It wasn't a bad answer, but there was a smugness and lack of thoughtfulness to the answer that seems so George W. Bush. Give me a president who actually thinks about things instead of simply shooting from the hip and not really understanding what it means to provide real leadership and not just some right wing Hollywood version suitable for photo ops.

The person who may have helped himself the most was Barack Obama. Although I didn't like his answers on Iran and on health care which I believe are issues he still catching up to, he did very well on most issues. I was impressed at how quickly Barack Obama could think on his feet. He's not just a lot of prepared statements and talking points with a literary flair; there's presidential material there and he'll do fine if he wins the nomination (still, think what a better candidate he would be in eight years!).

I've listened to Bill Richardson in interviews and they interviewed him after the debate; he always does well in interviews; so I was surprised that he didn't seem to be on his game during the debate (it's possible he just doesn't handle the clock very well). He even came across as mildly eccentric on some issues. If one of the leading candidates stumbles, Richardson is in a position to move up but he needs to give a more solid performance in his next debate. He sounded like a candidate who walked in without preparing himself.

Christopher Dodd isn't a flashy presidential candidate but he has a very sharp mind and he gave some of the wittiest lines in the debate. He needs to shed his senatorial style a bit and get into the presidential mode and the simplest way to do that is to start off with some of his wittiest lines or end with them. And his staffers should go back through his statements and highlight Dodd's gems and make sure they work their way into speeches here and there. I like how his mind works; he sometimes does a very good job of getting to the heart of a matter.

What can one say about Biden? He's amazing, and like Dodd, he gets to the heart of matters but with far more bluntness. Biden has probably the biggest ego of the whole bunch and you feel like he's doing a highwire act and doing it very well except you suspect he'll get too cocky and do something that occassionally sends him verbally off the wire hanging by one hand with a sheepish grin on his face. As brilliant as he is, I don't think he can win and he needs to be careful that he doesn't diminish the possibility of becoming the next secretary of state. We need him more than his verbal fireworks. Nevertheless, if this nation needs a cocky and arrogant president, it ought to be Joe Biden and certainly not another George W. Bush (that Giuliani leads in some polls makes my skin crawl; he's not presidential material).

I found Kucinich more likeable than usual and more thoughtful. I just don't think he has the pragmatism to be president. But Kucinich is no longer the fringe candidate. That honor now belongs to Mike Gravel.

I didn't find the debate boring. There are differences among the Democratic candidates but they're more united on progressive issues and the need for real change than the media seems willing to acknowledge. The mainstream media still acts like right wing Republicans still have something to offer our country. They've got to be kidding. No one should forget that in 2000 the media helped perpetuate the myth that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush except character. Bush lied to the American people about his real values and real political beliefs (I don't mean the dog and pony show the media drools over but the Bush as his terrible policies and reckless actions define him as). The reality is that we've got a good group of Democrats. Let's hope the voters agree in 2008.

Nation in Crisis: Media Focuses on Edwards' Haircut

It's enough to make you cry. Bush is a failing president. He's bungled two wars, one we absolutely did not need. He threatens at times to start a third. He was handed a blueprint by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and our president, a proven incompetent, decides on more of the same with some new packaging. And people want to talk about a haircut that Edwards got. Too many people in our nation do not have their priorities straight.

McCain talks openly about bombing Iran, then calls it a joke. He hires a guy who has specialized lately in denying global warming. McCain is yet another conservative Republican who is bungling and, although he no longer is doing well in the polls, he's still the darling of the media.

In these times, Americans have to do their own homework. They will not get the facts from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and especially Alberto Gonzales. Here's a link to a quick ranking of various websites by the presidential candidates. Go take a read.

John Edwards on Don Imus

Our nation is at a crossroads. We either start moving forward again or we descend into the politics of self-justification, mediocrity and smallness. I can't emphasize enough looking at the first three words of the US Contitution: We, the People... Some of our founding fathers, though certainly not all, understood the full implications of those words from the first moment they appeared. We continue to debate the full meaning of our constitution but some issues have been settled: we are all Americans. Part of our debate on the constitution is the recognition by all sides that we have to be honest about what we're talking about. But even at this late date, more than two hundred years later, there are any number of people who forget that we are, after all, a diverse democracy.

Radio host, Don Imus, crossed the line with his racist comments, though his initial excuse and the excuse of others was that it was just a joke. Something that shouldn't be lost in the discussion is that Imus has been a repeat offender. Long before the latest incident, columnist Clarence Page, at one time, even got Imus to raise his hand and promise an end to racially insensitive language. MSNBC has a post on what John Edwards has to say on the Don Imus controversy:

According to advance excerpts of his speech tonight at Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention, John Edwards takes the issues of Don Imus and racial intolerance head on. "I find it astonishing that there was even a debate over whether Don Imus' comments crossed the line. And I know I don't have to tell anybody here: Don Imus' comments didn't just cross the line. They defined the line that divides this country like the blade of a knife. There can be no debate over how much bigotry is too much bigotry. Any bigotry is too much."

He goes on to say, per the excerpts: "It's a shame we have to wait for the Don Imus' of the world to provoke a national conversation through bigotry - but we should jump at the chance to have this conversation, not just to look at whatever bigotry lies in our own hearts, but to finally engage on a problem that isn't going anywhere unless we do something about it."

We only rarely see leadership like this from President Bush and I can't recall a single case where Vice President Cheney has shown 'sensitivity' on civil rights issues. Leadership is calling a thing what it is: in this case, the language of racism on the public air waves. Imus is not the only one who does it and, frankly, there have been other radio hosts who have been slyer in the use of their language but with an intent more divisive and racist.

I noticed on the MSNBC site the first two comments reacting to Edwards. I know nothing about the commenters but the comments are common examples found on many message boards on the internet. Here's the first: "Tsk Tsk...is Johnny just upset that the I-Man didn't endorse him for president?"

Why would Edwards want the endorsement of someone who feels free to use racist language on the public airwaves? Racism is not a trivial subject and the snarkiness of the post suggests a lack of seriousness and interest on the part of the commenter. It contributes nothing to a real dialogue that needs to take place in our country.

Here's the second comment: "Nobody wants to talk about it because someone may have to explain why a white male is the only race or gender that can currently be considered a bigot, everyone else seems to have the right to say whatever they want." This is a common right wing mythology that has been surfacing more and more frequently in recent years. Generally, no group is free of bigotry and to claim others are bigoted does not excuse one's own bigotry. I might add that making excuses for one's own group has become a common dodge for far too many people across various groups.

I like the way that John Edwards talks about responsibility. When someone like George W. Bush talks about responsibility, it has a way of meaning that it's every man for himself. When Edwards talks about responsibility, it means that we're all in this together and that we have obligations to one another; it does not mean one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for other groups. I hope John Edwards continue the dialogue and that people start thinking more honestly about what they're saying and how they relate to other people no matter who they are.

Bill Richardson: Qualified Democrat

Whether Bill Richardson wins the Democratic nomination or not, he belong in the next administration. This guy has what it takes to make things happen. Here's the latest catch from Raw Story:

Former US envoy Bill Richardson said on Sunday he was optimistic North Korea will begin taking steps to shut down its nuclear program despite failing to meet a promised deadline at the weekend.

Richardson, who served as US ambassador to the United Nations during former president Bill Clinton's administration, said he believed North Korea would allow in UN inspectors and move to shut down a nuclear reactor as part of an international agreement.

"My prediction ... is that early this week, they will invite the inspectors. They will start the process of shutting down the reactor," said Richardson, governor of the US state of New Mexico, in an interview with ABC television.

Richardson, a Democratic presidential hopeful who has conducted negotiations in the past with North Korea, said he had received positive assurances during a visit to North Korea last week as part of a US delegation.

"They committed to me on April 12, my last day in North Korea with a bipartisan delegation, that they would shut down the reactor shortly, that they would also invite international inspectors to monitor that, shut down their reprocessing facility," Richardson said.

Let's hope Bill Richardson continues to have successful negotiations with the North Koreans.

Hillary Clinton Calls for Government Reform

I don't doubt the intentions and ability of Hillary Clinton. And I don't doubt that she would do a fine job if elected president. Her call for government reform is certainly in the right direction as Philip Elliott of the AP reports in the North County Times:

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday assailed a "culture of cronyism" in government as she vowed to streamline the federal bureaucracy and improve accountability.

In a speech in this early primary state, Clinton called for slashing 500,000 government contractors, potentially saving up to $18 billion a year, and promised to cut back on no-bid government contracts.

"It's not exactly the subject matter that gets people marching in the street, but if we don't restore the confidence and the competence of our government, we will see the steady erosion of our government's capacity," the New York senator said.

(snip)

Her proposals echoed "Reinventing Government," or REGO, a program launched during her husband's administration and run by Vice President Al Gore. REGO was credited with saving taxpayers more than $136 billion over eight years by cutting the federal work force, trimming layers of management and cutting subsidies for items like mohair and wool.

Senator Clinton is in the ballpark but the mere mention of Al Gore and his successful leadership of the "Reinventing Government" program makes me wish he were in the running for the presidency in 2008. In 2000, the media thought it was cute to undercut Gore and they gave us George W. Bush. I wouldn't mind seeing what Gore can really do.

I'm all for government reform and George W. Bush's incompetence and cronyism makes the case for the need for reform better than any Democratic candidate. But there's another area of reform that's needed if government reform is to be meaningful. Bush's corruption goes hand in hand with corrupt businesses. The North County Times, for example, helped to break the story on Duke Cunningham and the cozy business relationship he had with businesses looking for favors. There are still honest corporations in America but they're under attack by the crooked types looking for favors and a wink from the government. Big Business also needs serious reform. No other candidate has done a better job in real life terms of taking on businesses unwilling to live up to their responsibilities than John Edwards. That was what his law business was about: holding business accountable.

Democrats need to be pro-business but that makes sense only if they are also pro-workers and in favor of real competition. The three can go hand in hand. Bill Clinton did a terrific job of creating jobs during his eight years. But he stumbled in the long run on globalization. He allowed businesses to define what globalization would mean and it has not gone well for many American workers. And Clinton's policies could not protect workers from the damage a right wing conservative like Bush could do to the wages of average Americans. This time around, we need deeper, long-lasting reforms that ensure workers the best economy for everyone and not just riches for a rapidly developing privileged class that is increasingly dominating our public life to the detriment of our democracy and the deteriment of a broad-based middle class. Hillary Clinton is definitely touching the right bases but I would like to see more before I'm convinced she understands just how much damage Bush and his fellow conservatives have done to our country and how much needs to change.

Wide Open Democratic Race

Competition is good. An honest debate among reasonably capable people is a generally a good sign in a democracy (I said debate, not right wing Republican sophistry where a signing statement is sometimes considered more important than the U.S. Constitution or the opinion of a right wing comedian with a cigar is taken as fact). We have an open race on the Democratic side and it's not just about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Even some of the other candidates benefit as well.

Here's a story that explains the benefit to both Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd:

Sen. Barack Obama scored big in fundraising this week but the two happiest candidates may be New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, two second-tier Democratic presidential hopefuls who now see an opening since Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not run away with the nomination.

As the two candidates with arguably the longest official resumes, Mr. Richardson, in his second term as New Mexico's governor, and Mr. Dodd, in his fifth term as senator from Connecticut, say they can compete for the long haul. This week both spent time in New Hampshire, trying to persuade voters in the first-in-the-nation primary to choose deep experience over deep pockets.

"All I want is for you to keep your powder dry," Mr. Richardson told several hundred voters at a town hall meeting at New England College in Henniker, N.H., on Wednesday. "Wait until you see all the candidates, wait until we have debates. ... Don't get swayed by rock-star status or polls or how much money you raised."

(snip)

That's exactly what Mr. Dodd is banking on.

"People in this state don't want to be told by the national media the outcome of their primaries and caucuses 10 months out. In fact, they've had a history of trying to prove you wrong," Mr. Dodd told reporters this week. "So I'll take the news here on the ground, and I'll take the receptions I'm getting in these states as better evidence of how I'm doing than whether or not I've got a bank account equal to some of the other candidates."

No one should ever forget that our greatest president was a guy who wasn't even in the top three spots in the early running. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was running fourth but he had a knack of talking people into thinking of him as their second choice if their favorite candidate didn't make it.

We should all keep in mind that part of George W. Bush's failed presidency can be traced to his father's campaign contributors who guaranteed Bush $200 million before the first primary vote was cast. And Bush almost lost to McCain and he decisively lost the national popular vote to Gore. Despite what the Bush family may think, money can't buy everything. It certainly can't buy competence or a successful presidency this late in the day.

This election, let the candidates show their quality, not the fat cats and their purchase of public relations illusions where candidates talk a good game but don't really understand what they're doing and aren't pragmatic enough to learn. Show me a candidate who can learn in six weeks, not six years. In 2008, we need to elect a competent president.

The Return of People Power

People really are tired of the corruption in Washington. Not only did the Democrats outraise the Republican Party and its deep pockets (don't forget Republican supporter Sam Fox and the $50,000 he donated to the dishonest Swift Boat group that smeared John Kerry; Bush just appointed him ambassador to Belgium), but they brought back the concept of people power. The Democrats can't compete with Republican billionaires and hucksters like Ralph Reed who manipulate good honest religious folks into donating for phony causes, but as the traditional party of the people, the Democrats can bring out the crowds. People want to do something to fix the corruption in Washington and waiting until November of 2008 isn't enough. So people are digging into their pockets and contributing to Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Hillary Clinton, with her years of Washington experience and major fundraising experience raised the most of any Democrat but just barely. Progressive newcomer, Barack Obama, almost matched Hillary in dollar amounts but the real message of his campaign is that he's reaching people. Here's the story from Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters:

Democratic presidential newcomer Barack Obama said on Wednesday he has raised $25 million this year, almost matching his higher profile opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton and solidifying his bid for the party nomination.

Obama, a fresh face on the national stage who has served just two years in the U.S. Senate, fell only $1 million short of the New York senator...

Obama, 45, reported receiving more than 100,000 donations totaling at least $25 million, $6.9 million generated through Internet donations.

Clinton, 59, who has led the early national polls for the Democratic nomination in 2008, reported tapping 50,000 donors to raise $26 million. She raised $4.2 million via the Internet and added $10 million more from her most recent Senate campaign.

Since Hillary Clinton considers herself the moderate Democratic candidate, one can argue that Barack Obama and John Edwards are the progressive candidates and their combined total of contributions and contributors far surpasses Hillary Clinton. A 100,000 for Barack Obama and 40,000 for Edwards comes to 140,000 contributors, almost three times the number of those contributing to Hillary Clinton. Clearly, we have a wide open race. Of course, campaigns wax and wane, but I suspect people are in the mood for real change, not modest bandaids.