McBush attacks Obama on National Security

Remember when Kerry in 2004 said, “The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.”?

This seemed like a sensible analysis at the time, but in true Rovian form, it was used by Bush/Cheney to portray the Senator from Massachusetts as effete and out of touch on the most pressing issues facing our national security.

Now fast forward from 2004 to 2008, yesterday to be precise, when Obama, in an ABC interview with Jake Tapper, said the following:

“...And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

McCain's henchman Randy Scheunemann quickly retaliated with:

“Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling.” (emphasis mine)

Here's a Bush speech in 2004 attacking Kerry's statement on the war on terror:

“THE PRESIDENT: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.'

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)”

You got to love how the White House includes the audience reaction in their transcripts.

Notice any similarities in the arguments?

Not only is McCain running for a third Bush term, he's re-running the 2004 campaign all over again.

Odds and Ends

Wow! I didn't realize how long its been since I've last blogged at my own site. I've been busy blogging at TPM for Obama. I'm excited that he's won, that it's over, at least the primary that is...

Things are just heating up for the general, but I'm more relaxed by his prospects against McCain than against Hillary.

Tim Russert died. I was listening (ashamedly) to Sean Hannity when the news broke. I was just driving in my car reflecting on the movie I had watched, when out of the background noise of Sean demagoguing this or that issue he dropped the Russert Bomb. Sunday's won't be the same.

Speaking of the movie: The Happening--it's another M. Night Shyamalan dud. It lacked the sort of stomach crunching moment of What The Fuck that's at the heart of his other interesting flicks: Bruce Willis is a "dead man walking"-- The Village actually takes place in modern times... It's most similar to the movie Signs which is really the story of a dysfunctional family coming to terms with loss backdropped against a hostile alien invasion. Unlike Signs,
The Happening has bad actor chemistry between the leads. The main female character was about as wooden as Pinocchio, and her so-called relationship with Wahlberg was as frigid as a Frigidaire. There was a moment of genuine warmth at the end when she stood outside the front stoop to welcome Walhberg home with the news that she was knocked up. But that one winsome moment didn't erase all the sickly celluloid that preceded it.

Bad casting aside, the plot sucked too. We are lead to believe that plants are attacking people in the same manner that tobacco plants attract wasps to kill off infesting caterpillars, or something. This isn't such a bad concept since the plot develops along the idea that these sentient plants are attacking large groups of people only. Except when they're not. Like when they "release the hounds" or in this case some neurotoxin, against an old lady, who despite being crazy, tends to love her plants. There just isn't any rhyme or reason to the attacks, except a loathing of human beings in general. This plot line is going along as background noise to the broken relationship between Wahlberg and the ice queen, which ends with her getting knocked up, as I said. Alls well that ends well, I guess. I could have waited for DVD for this one, though.

Cute

I always feel queasy when I see politician's "suffering the little children", but this picture actually brought a smile to my lips. I grew up in Maine, and this picture was taken February 9th, 2008 in Bangor, Maine--a city I'm very well acquainted with. Obama is such a natural, it almost doesn't seem like pandering ;-)

Obama talking point is more than hype.

Senator Obama repeatedly claims that he garners the support of both independents and republicans. When he says this he is telling the truth. Exit polls in the majority of contests held thus far show that Obama outperforms Clinton among independents. This becomes crucial coming into the general election environment, particularly when the Republican challenger is John McCain.

I like this quote from an article in an Omaha Nebraska newspaper:

"Several said they were Republicans who had come to see what all the excitement was about. Some Republicans said they supported Obama because they believed he would bring change.

'He's inspiring. He's a leader. And he's positive,' said Sterling Schultz, a Republican farmer from Naper, Neb., who said he planned to fill out the paperwork necessary to caucus Saturday as a Democrat."

Welcome to the big tent fold Mr. Schultz!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

ABC news is reporting that Hillary's financial woes may have been a publicity stunt geared towards keeping pace with Obama's financial prowess.

Now, if that is true, it bothers me in a visceral way. Yesterday at work, I told a co-worker and fellow Obama supporter that I actually felt bad at the apparent dissolution of the Hillary campaign. First the rumors of staff going without pay, Hillary's $5 million dollar loan, and even rifts in her campaign in Iowa where her campaign mismanaged it's budget. I sort of felt bad for the old girl. My friend quickly pointed out that if the tables were reversed, it's hard to believe that Hillary wouldn't have capitalized on her opponents woes. I think he's right. Hillary has a killer instinct. Perceived weakness lands you with her jaws snapping at your jugular. That said, even though intellectually i applauded the development, my inner female felt sympathy. I can see my sympathies were misplaced.

Thank you Hillary for reminding me why Obama is the right choice.

Peggy Noonan advises Democrats

Mrs. Noonan, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan writes today in the Wall Street Journal
that Obama is the better choice for democrats. They just don't know it yet. Now, I've disagreed with Mrs. Noonan and her frames of democratic issues before, but she's spot on in her analysis from a Republican point of view.

As time goes on, I hope democrats become convinced of this as well.

And time marches on.

I haven't done much blogging as of late--at least on my own site. I've done considerable elsewhere: sparring, parrying, and dodging on behalf of Obama. The time is late and Tuesday approaches fiercely, stridently.

The polls are all over the place. One thing is apparent: Obama is surging. Unfortunately for California, nearly 40% (stat based on projection by political director of the Sacramento Bee) have already voted early. Which means, Hillary probably has a 10 point advantage on those early votes. Therefore, my sincere hope is that Obama ends the day Tuesday with a 5-10 deficit against Hillary. This will keep him competitive and assure him a sizable apportionment of the available delegates.

Other states are more hopeful. Utah is surging for Obama, Georgia is in Obama's column, Colorado and Idaho look good, Connecticut is trending towards Obama, and he is closing the gap mightily in NJ.

My projection, and fervent hope, is that there is a 52/48 divide in delegates come Wednesday. This would keep Obama competitive when he moves into more friendly territory for the later February states.

Both candidates are waging good campaigns. Hillary is running a positive campaign and isn't being upstaged by Bill, and Obama has sharpened his message and is focusing on electibility.

Time will tell. I'm feeling very good with the trends. We'll see if they translate into votes.

And the winner is...

The American people. Last night's historic democratic primary in South Carolina was like a breath of fresh air after being entrapped in a rendering factory. After all the smears, character attacks, robocalls, and the oxygen sucking hysteria of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama comes out on top. And what a top it is! 55% of the vote! More people voted for Barack Obama last night than voted for all the SC democratic candidates in 2004 combined!

Word is coming in that Ed Kennedy, the liberal lion, is endorsing Obama. The Clinton camp is in full damage control mode. All is well.

Lord knows how this will all pan out, but for now, I'm optimistic. After four years of republican misrule, a light shines in the darkness...

Identity Politics and the Race Card

Clinton said the following today (as reported by the AP):

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," Clinton said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."

If anyone was wondering how the Clinton's will frame their pending loss in SC, the aforementioned is the preview. You see, people in SC aren't voting for Hillary because she's white. They are voting for Obama because he's black. I guess black women who are voting for Obama value their race over their gender. I suppose we'll have to ask Bill what he thinks about that.

Clash of the Titans

If anyone imagined that Obama didn't have the nads to frontally assault Hillary need only to watch about a thousand video clips circulating on the internet. This was a slugfest, folks. One that was a long time coming if you, like me, are an Obama supporter.

To be fair, they both took hits. Edwards certainly capitalized on the fracas, appearing more Presidential as the two duked it out, but it was Obama and Clinton that dominated the stage. Edwards lamented that fact on several occasions during the debate. Sorry John, your best showing has been second place thus far, and you lost by nearly 40 points in Nevada. After SC it's time to call it a day.

I thought Obama made the case for his candidacy in the most forceful terms during the debate, and even during the most heated exchanges he maintained his composure, and civilly drilled away at the Clinton talking points over the last two weeks. SC is Obama's to lose. He really should simply start thinking about Tsunami Tuesday.

Hillary was most articulate and persuasive when talking about health care. She framed it brilliantly as a shared responsibility. It was during the health care moments where I saw Obama's achilles heel. Whereas, in effect, Obama, Edwards, and Hillary's plans are fundamentally the same. Hillary's and Edwards hold greater rhetorical power--the whole "universal" (read: mandate) thing. Obama doesn't believe that adults should be mandated to purchase government health care. Edwards made the most serious counterargument by suggesting that Obama's "choice" rhetoric is similar to Bush's "choice" rhetoric regarding social security reform. Although I think this flawed, it was powerful. Clearly Obama wasn't prepared for this line of reasoning. My take is that Obama is building upon the foundation already in place (health care), whereas Bush attempted to dismantle the foundation (social security). It's not a one for one correspondence as Edwards would have you believe, but it was a visceral argument tying Obama to Bush in an interesting way. Obama will have to challenge this point.

It is my view that Hillary's health care plan will be more attractive to the democratic base and Obama's health care plan will be more attractive to a general election audience. But you have to get through the democratic base to get to the general election. It will be a long, hard slog.

I'm not a dewy eyed idealist. I know that Obama is a long shot for the nomination. All the Powers That Be are arrayed against him and for Clinton. The fact that he is even CLOSE is the story of the hour. Hillary is a flawed candidate. If she gets the nomination for the democrats, and McCain gets the nomination for the republicans, the republicans get another four year shot at the white house.

In summary, I thought Obama won the debate. He was strong, articulate, principled, and knowledgeable. His comments about transcending race were powerful. He is the best democratic hope to unite the country behind a common agenda--a fundamentally democratic agenda. It remains to be seen how this plays out. Regardless, he is fighting the good fight and doing it with class and conviction.

Recent Polling in Nevada

All recent polls show Clinton to lead Obama, all within single digits, and a few within the margin of error. The good news is that the poll models are inadequate, because turnout is expected to be larger than in the past. This could bode a solid victory for Clinton, or perhaps a win for Obama. Tea leaves will probably be more accurate.

My gut tells me that Clinton will eke out a win. The simple truth is that she has the backing of the Nevada democratic establishment. I suspect, however, that the win will be marred by a strong second place finish by Obama. It won't be dramatic. Since Obama hasn't resorted to
dirty tactics in Nevada, he will likely emerge as the lovable loser. I say this as a matter of pride.

I'm one of those sucker's that believes that good will triumph over evil in the end.

Bob does the right thing.

Robert L Johnson, who I condemned in an earlier post for referring to Obama's drug use at a Clinton campaign rally in SC, has done the right thing and apologized to Obama. He should also apologize for the lame press release amending his remarks suggesting that he was actually referring to Obama's community organizing.

Since he is admitting that he was referring to Obama's drug use, doesn't that mean he's being "irresponsible and incorrect"? Ah, but I digress, and should be content that he saw the error of his ways.

Serving Justice Culinary Style

The Clinton Machine suffered judicial defeat when the lawsuit spawned by their surrogates sputtered and died in Federal Court. The Culinary Worker's Union will have their voices heard, which is good for Nevada and good for America.

Every Vote Should Count

After the 2000 debacle, where obfuscation and intimidation and disenfranchisement in Florida resulted in George W. Bush's elevation to the Presidency by the Supreme Court; you'd think that democrats would be unified in one common purpose: ensuring everyone has the opportunity to have their voice heard.

That may be the case in general, except when allowing easy access to caucus sites benefits your competitor.

In March of this year, the Nevada state democratic party approved of At-Large caucus sites located on the Las Vegas strip to facilitate voter turnout for the powerful Culinary Union member's who will be working on the day of the caucus. In August, the DNC's Rules and Bylaw's committee approved the plan. The process was completely transparent from the outset. Nary a word of protest was heard until the Culinary Union unexpectedly endorsed Barack Obama. Within two days a lawsuit was filed by a powerful Teacher's Union whose senior membership supports Hillary Clinton for President, declaring that the special rules are unconstitutional. This lawsuit, if not ended or resolved, threatens the viability of these sites and the ability of thousands of worker's to participate in the democratic process.

Disenfranchisement is the water that Karl Rove and his cronies swim in, but it is particularly troubling to be a tactic employed by the Clinton Machine, who are ostensibly representing the party still reeling from the Florida fiasco. President Bill Clinton, the de-facto running mate for Hillary Rodham Clinton, has expressed his support for the lawsuit. Apparently for no other reason than the hardships that would be created if the lawsuit succeeds benefit his wife.

It is time for this non-sense to stop. The time to question, debate, and challenge these rules has long since passed. The Nevada democratic party and DNC have spoken, now let the workers of the Culinary Union have their voice.

UPDATE: John Kerry wrote a brilliant piece for TPM about this issue.

Obama receives Endorsement of LV Review-Journal..Sort of.

I'm happy to see that the Obama campaign hasn't made big hay over the endorsement of the Review Journal. Their "endorsement" reads like this:

"Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly. His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing."

They redeem themselves by holding their nose and admitting:

"But Barack Obama is, at least, likeable. He is a good enough orator that there is no need to cringe when he dares to speak off the cuff. He is a good politician, in the non-insulting sense that he knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns."

With endorsements like that, who needs enemies? The tepid argument really boils down to at least Barack isn't a replay of "It came from Little Rock". Sheesh.

Tonight's Democratic debate in Vegas

Just a few thoughts before I hit the sack. It was, in my view, the best democratic debate thus far. All the candidates did well. The debate was civil and substantive. The candidate's danced around the land mines set out by the moderator's and sought to strike an agreeable tone with each other.

My misty eye'd moment ended abruptly after the debate, as Chris Matthew's began to pontificate, leaving me wondering if he even watched the same debate. He immediately went for the pundit "money shot" claiming Hillary had won the debate, that she seemed more Presidential, etc., etc. This is the same guy who tends to castigate Hillary on points of fashion and appearance, on her voice, etc. I can't get a read on him: he's equal parts misogynist and loon. Does he love her or hate her, or simply want to grudge f*** her. Who knows? I sure don't. I angrily shut off the T.V. after about two minutes of his garbage and decided to go to bed. So much for my pleasant mood.

I thought Obama did particularly well tonight. He expanded on answers and even moved the debate into topics that get short shrift in these debates, like education. I thought he was particularly effective in those moments. He was substantive, talking wonkishly about the policies he wants to put in place. This addressed a criticism that has been levied at him throughout the campaign: that he talks a good game, but is there anything of substance beneath the veneer of articulate rhetoric, and I think tonight he demonstrated that indeed he's as substantive as he is inspirational.

As I said, it was a good debate. It really puts into stark contrast the democratic field from the republicans. If this debate had any winner's tonight, it was the American people and the democratic party. The democratic candidates dance circles around the stuffed shirts masquerading as conservatives in the republican primary. It is going to be a good year for democrats up and down the ticket.

(A)Moral Relativism in the Bush Administration

Lo and Behold! The Bush Administration's Intelligence Czar Mike McConnell is quoted as saying:

"If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful!" McConnell said in the article. "Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."

You know, if it were happening to me I would consider it torture.

This revelation is powerful! Finally someone in the Bush administration who still has a job has concluded that waterboarding is torture! This surely means he will condemn the practice in the most forceful terms, right? Wrong:

"But [Mike McConnell] rejected a suggestion that he personally condemned the practice."

There you have it: If it were happening to me it is torture, but if it's applied to someone else, maybe one of those olive- skinned folks from Iraq-i-stan it wouldn't be torture.

Mr. McConnell in the article enlightens us about the effectiveness of "certain interrogation techniques" (read: waterboarding):

"When asked whether the United States had gotten meaningful information through torture, McConnell denied the United States uses torture, then added that 'tons' of meaningful information had been received using certain interrogation techniques: 'Does it save lives? Tons!'"

God, George Orwell must be rolling around in his grave.

I'm sure glad we have folks like Mr. McConnell with such moral integrity in our government ensuring the security of our country! I can finally sleep soundly tonight.

And God help you if you are wallowing away in one of our secret prisons on foreign soil. Mr. McConnell would have no problem with you snorting a little water for the greater good.

And Hillary's "Change" just keeps coming...

Robert L. Johnson,the president of Black Entertainment Television (BET) stumping today with Hillary Clinton in SC, made the following comment:

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.” (highlights mine)

During the run-up to the NH primary, Hillary fired a staffer who brought up Obama's drug use and then kicked it up a notch and implied he was also a drug dealer. Yet, through her surrogate on the campaign trail, the issue of Mr. Obama's drug use is being injected into the deeply religious state of SC. Will she publically chastise Mr. Johnson for his remarks? I think not.

Mr. Johnson, later in the day, has done what in Politics is a common practice, amended his remarks:

"My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect."

Dissembling in politics is second nature, but this is simply bad form. Does any reasonable person believe that Mr. Johnson was referring to community organizing when he wouldn't even deign to spell out what he meant? Let me repeat his disparaging statement: "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –"

I won't say it but it's right there in his book! You know, community organizing (gasp)!

I guess I'm being "irresponsible and incorrect" when I call Mr. Johnson a liar. My advice Mr. Johnson, is to hire your own team of spin doctor's to speak for you. The crew over in Hillary's camp make you sound like a moron.

I will breathlessly await Hillary's condemnation of Mr. Johnson's remarks.

Change

The word Change has become a mantra this campaign season. A talisman, that once bandied about, magically translates into votes. One has to listen to the campaigns closely to understand their particular understanding of the word. I'm not so interested in what the Republican field has to say regarding change, since they really don't know what it means except that it focus groups okay.

When Barack Obama uses the word, it's in the context of building a people-powered movement that, like a tsunami, will sweep away all the entrenched corporate and special interests from its path. The focus isn't on his particular influence, rightly recognizing that no man has that sort of power, and that change is only possible by building broad coalitions. His goal is to bring into this coalition republicans, independents, and, of course, democrats. He always uses "we" when describing the change that he envisions. This is well and good. It is "We the People" after all. If I wanted authoritarianism, I would vote for a republican (or maybe Hillary).

When Hillary discusses change, she focuses on her experience as the key to bring it about. This is wrong headed. There simply isn't a single personality powerful enough to do what needs to be done; regardless of the level of experience of the person involved. She learned that lesson in NH: her message of experience wasn't as appealing as Obama's message of hope. If people were interested in experience as Hillary defines it, they would have been better served voting for Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson.

Let's think about the "change" Hillary will bring about. When confronted with the question in the NH debate, she said that simply having a woman in the White House would be change. That is well and good, of course. If Hillary wins the nomination, which is quite likely I'm afraid, then we will commence re-litigating the 90's. The "we" I'm speaking of are the republican's. Hillary is to republican activists, what shit is to flies. With the less than exciting candidates running on the republican side, nothing is more appealing to the republican base than a Hillary candidacy. It matters not who they vote for as much as who they vote against. Let's recall the greatest hits of the 90's: Remember FBI filegate? Travelgate? Whitewater? etc. etc. If you don't, you're lucky, but pulling a lever for Hillary in the primaries will afford you the opportunity of a crash course in these so-called scandals during the general election if she gets the nomination. There is nothing "change" about a candidacy that will be mired in defending itself against the past. It will be politics as usual.

I happen to agree with much of what Hillary stands for. If it were anyone other than Hillary that had her positions on the issues, that person would get my support. I don't have a personal grudge against her, but I want a meaningful change in Washington, and that starts with removing the people who convey, imbue, and embody the Establishment. John Edwards was right, Hillary is the status quo. She speaks of change without understanding the deeper meaning of it that Obama represents. Obama is exciting, inspirational, intelligent, articulate and most important of all: free from the luggage of the past. Obama represents the best opportunity we Democrats have of bringing about a people-powered movement that sweeps away special-interests and brings about a government Of the People, For the People, By the People. The right kind of experience is what is needed (as Bill Clinton famously said in 1992), and Obama has it. Besides, there isn't anything other than On the Job training for the Presidency. The key ingredient necessary is Judgment, and judgment is what Obama has demonstrated. When the country, still reeling from 9/11, was moving towards the abyss of war with Iraq, Obama spoke eloquently against this folly five months before the war began. Considering the mood of the country at the time, this took political courage.

It is time to vote for people who embody change rather than recite what is politically expedient. Obama embodies the change we need. A fresh start. A new America. One where every person has access to health care, where government is responsive to the needs of those who are struggling. The social darwinism inherent in republican policies must dwindle and die. A vote for Obama is a vote for change of the most meaningful sort.

The Power of Words

The race in New Hampshire was hard fought on both sides, but a few things bothered me about how the campaign was conducted. Hillary Clinton, for the second time in her rather short political career, was facing defeat. My grandmother used to say that you learn much about the character of a person when the chips are down. She is right. Hillary seemed stunned that this upstart from Illinois was gaining traction. How could it be? All he has are words and no record to back them up! Forget for the moment the ineffectiveness of Hillarycare in the 90's. Although, to be fair, she says she has learned her lessons from that experience and won't repeat the same mistakes. How do I know this? She said so. Words and more words.

While campaigning in NH, she got a quick lesson in the power of words. She made the argument that it took the action of LBJ to make the dreams of MLK possible. The way she framed the argument trivialized the achievements of MLK. Recognizing her gaffe, she went on to pay lip service to the greatness of MLK. When words are meaningless, they are easily thrown around.

The argument Clinton is trying to make isn't necessarily invalid. She is trying to say that words are cheap if not followed up by action. I'm not sure her clumsy attempts at making the argument hurt her in NH since she won the state, but certainly her words have reverberated loudly in SC, where African-American Congressman James Clyburn has warned that he may break his pledge of neutrality before the SC primary slated for January 26. If Clyburn endorses Obama before the primary, it would most certainly ensure a victory for the junior Senator from Illinois in the Palmetto State. An endorsement is just so many words too. Apparently, words can and do have power, as Mrs. Clinton has found out the hard way.