Mark Penn, the chief strategist who did more than anyone to kill Hillary Clinton's campaign, is copping a plea. In today's New York Times, he explains that "it wasn't the message--it was the money" (the lack of it, he means) that did her in.
After the Bay of Pigs, JFK cited the old saying, "Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is an orphan." But Penn's paternity of Clinton failure's is too well-established for denial, so the next best thing is to claim that the foundling died of malnutrition.
Aside from Penn's own culpability in misspending the campaign funds, starting with the decision to ignore Iowa until it was too late, his fingerprints are on everything that went wrong--from the hubris of acting as if the nomination was a done deal to not seeing that the race was about change rather than experience ("ready from Day One").
It was only when Penn was fired in early April for embarrassing the candidate by meeting with Colombia's ambassador to the US about a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact Clinton opposes, that she started winning primaries and closing the gap with Obama.
Early in the campaign, someone had to explain to the genius that primary delegates are awarded proportionally, not "winner take all." This did not daunt Penn, who discovered "soccer moms" (talk about sexism) during Bill Clinton's reelection and makes a specialty of slicing and dicing voters into demographic slivers such as "young knitters", "extreme commuters", "tech fatales" (women who like technology) and "powerful petites" (women who are small and proud of it).
Now he can discover a new population subset--moronic manipulators.
The largest portion of the Clinton campaign's unpaid debt is owed to Penn. They should demand a discount, and Barack Obama should look for a way around the financing rules to send him a check as a thank-you.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
John McCain's Wish
The Republican nominee disclosed his heart's desire today.
"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," John McCain said.
Was he thinking of sending George W. Bush sometime before November?
"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," John McCain said.
Was he thinking of sending George W. Bush sometime before November?
"Yes, We Can"
Hillary Clinton was truly remarkable today, making the most difficult speech of her life and finding her voice as a national leader over and above that of a politician seeking office.
Coupling pride in her own achievement on behalf of all women, she rallied them to the imminent cause of backing Barack Obama in restoring their country to its best self--to "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama...I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."
She encouraged party unity, acknowledging the hard fight and the disappointment of her supporters, while reminding them that "the Democratic Party is a family, and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together."
Clinton's full-throated endorsement had a heartfelt quality that should quiet critics who see her as cold and manipulative, culminating in her raising the Obama banner of "Yes, We Can."
For those of my generation, she brought to mind an old song popularized by Bing Crosby in the 1930s:
Three little words, oh what I'd give for that wonderful phrase,/To hear those three little words, that's all I'd live for the rest of my days./And what I feel in my heart, they tell sincerely./No other words can tell it half so clearly./Three little words, eight little letters which simply mean I love you.
Today Hillary Clinton got the words and the music just right.
Coupling pride in her own achievement on behalf of all women, she rallied them to the imminent cause of backing Barack Obama in restoring their country to its best self--to "take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama...I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."
She encouraged party unity, acknowledging the hard fight and the disappointment of her supporters, while reminding them that "the Democratic Party is a family, and now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together."
Clinton's full-throated endorsement had a heartfelt quality that should quiet critics who see her as cold and manipulative, culminating in her raising the Obama banner of "Yes, We Can."
For those of my generation, she brought to mind an old song popularized by Bing Crosby in the 1930s:
Three little words, oh what I'd give for that wonderful phrase,/To hear those three little words, that's all I'd live for the rest of my days./And what I feel in my heart, they tell sincerely./No other words can tell it half so clearly./Three little words, eight little letters which simply mean I love you.
Today Hillary Clinton got the words and the music just right.
Speaking About Sexism
Gloria Steinem thinks Barack Obama should make the same kind of speech about gender that he did about race and, according to the New York Times, he is considering it.
Not a great idea. That speech was prompted by the Jeremiah Wright uproar and would otherwise not have been made. To suggest that Obama should be as embarrassed about defeating Hillary Clinton as he was by his former pastor's rhetoric is a faulty equivalence.
He was forced to distance himself from Wright because of their past association, but there is a kind of "When did you stop beating your wife?" logic in asking Obama to prove he is not sexist when no fair-minded observer has accused him of such speech or behavior during the long primary contest with Clinton.
Obama can best make peace with Clinton supporters who feel cheated by appealing to them as citizens and Democrats rather than scorned women. Just as he does not "owe" them the choice of Hillary as a running mate, neither does he owe them an apology for being African-American and male.
Anything else would be the worst kind of condescension and sexism.
Not a great idea. That speech was prompted by the Jeremiah Wright uproar and would otherwise not have been made. To suggest that Obama should be as embarrassed about defeating Hillary Clinton as he was by his former pastor's rhetoric is a faulty equivalence.
He was forced to distance himself from Wright because of their past association, but there is a kind of "When did you stop beating your wife?" logic in asking Obama to prove he is not sexist when no fair-minded observer has accused him of such speech or behavior during the long primary contest with Clinton.
Obama can best make peace with Clinton supporters who feel cheated by appealing to them as citizens and Democrats rather than scorned women. Just as he does not "owe" them the choice of Hillary as a running mate, neither does he owe them an apology for being African-American and male.
Anything else would be the worst kind of condescension and sexism.
Friday, June 06, 2008
A Jewish Mother for Obama?
If he decides against Hillary Clinton as a running mate, the Democratic nominee might consider Dianne Feinstein, who played Jewish mother last night by getting them together at her Washington home for a "play nice, children" moment.
“They talked for about an hour,” California's senior Senator told reporters. “Just them. No staff. There were no press, no staff. They had one person from each campaign that was in my study separately and I guess the security people outside. They got along very well.”
As a running mate, Feinstein has a good deal to offer beyond her appeal to Jewish voters--for disappointed women, her staunch support of Clinton during the campaign; for doubters about Obama's youth, more than a decade of executive experience as Mayor of San Francisco; for ideologues, her relative centrism over 16 years in the Senate.
Like John McCain, she has a very rich spouse, whose business ties may raise some questions but not as many as those of the Clintons would.
Taking the game of fantasy politics a step further, if Obama-Feinstein turned out to be a winning ticket, her ascension could open the way for Californians to achieve a demographic twofer by electing Condi Rice to fill her seat.
This weird year, anything is possible.
“They talked for about an hour,” California's senior Senator told reporters. “Just them. No staff. There were no press, no staff. They had one person from each campaign that was in my study separately and I guess the security people outside. They got along very well.”
As a running mate, Feinstein has a good deal to offer beyond her appeal to Jewish voters--for disappointed women, her staunch support of Clinton during the campaign; for doubters about Obama's youth, more than a decade of executive experience as Mayor of San Francisco; for ideologues, her relative centrism over 16 years in the Senate.
Like John McCain, she has a very rich spouse, whose business ties may raise some questions but not as many as those of the Clintons would.
Taking the game of fantasy politics a step further, if Obama-Feinstein turned out to be a winning ticket, her ascension could open the way for Californians to achieve a demographic twofer by electing Condi Rice to fill her seat.
This weird year, anything is possible.
Senate's Slow Learners Speak Out
A duped Bush Administration lied us into Iraq and, with the help of comparable Middle East con men, has been drumming up a war with Iran, the Senate Intelligence Committee disclosed yesterday in two reports, several years after anyone who has been paying attention knew all about it.
One, 170 pages long, accuses the President and Vice President Cheney of "repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath" of 9/11.
According to Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”
Much of it, as we have known for years, was based on information provided by Ahmad Chalabi, touted by Neo-Cons as the “George Washington of Iraq,” a fugitive from Jordan convicted of bank fraud, who fed the Pentagon intelligence on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda for which we paid $33 million over four years, none of which turned out to be true.
The second Senate report details the work of his Iranian counterpart. In December 2001, Douglas Feith sent two Pentagon employees to Rome meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a middleman already dismissed by the CIA as untrustworthy, who outlined his plan for a change of government in Iran on a napkin.
The plan was pursued through at least May 2003, the report says, with requests for a $7 million loan, money for secret intelligence activity and an Iranian media outlet in Southern California in return for promised photos of suspected terrorists inside Iran and locations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that purportedly had been moved there.
Ghorbanifar turned out to be as reliable as Chalabi, but Feith (described by Gen. Tommy Franks as "the dumbest effing guy on the planet") and other Pentagon Neo-Cons kept feeding his "intelligence" to the White House without telling the CIA, which might have refuted it.
It's good to have the Senate Intelligence Committee putting all this Keystone Kops stuff on the record, however belatedly, although only two Republican members signed on to the reports with the others deeming them a waste of time but failing to comment on the stupidity and duplicity that led to waste of lives and billions of dollars.
One, 170 pages long, accuses the President and Vice President Cheney of "repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath" of 9/11.
According to Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”
Much of it, as we have known for years, was based on information provided by Ahmad Chalabi, touted by Neo-Cons as the “George Washington of Iraq,” a fugitive from Jordan convicted of bank fraud, who fed the Pentagon intelligence on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda for which we paid $33 million over four years, none of which turned out to be true.
The second Senate report details the work of his Iranian counterpart. In December 2001, Douglas Feith sent two Pentagon employees to Rome meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a middleman already dismissed by the CIA as untrustworthy, who outlined his plan for a change of government in Iran on a napkin.
The plan was pursued through at least May 2003, the report says, with requests for a $7 million loan, money for secret intelligence activity and an Iranian media outlet in Southern California in return for promised photos of suspected terrorists inside Iran and locations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that purportedly had been moved there.
Ghorbanifar turned out to be as reliable as Chalabi, but Feith (described by Gen. Tommy Franks as "the dumbest effing guy on the planet") and other Pentagon Neo-Cons kept feeding his "intelligence" to the White House without telling the CIA, which might have refuted it.
It's good to have the Senate Intelligence Committee putting all this Keystone Kops stuff on the record, however belatedly, although only two Republican members signed on to the reports with the others deeming them a waste of time but failing to comment on the stupidity and duplicity that led to waste of lives and billions of dollars.
Can Hillary Be a Healer?
As they hold their private summit in Washington tonight, the question that hangs in the air, whether she is on Obama's ticket or not, is: Can Hillary Clinton rise above a lifetime of experience to help heal the Democratic Party?
As someone who has had to fight all her public life, from the 1992 health care fiasco through her husband's impeachment and a year and a half of brass-knuckles campaigning, who has had to show voters she is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief, who has had to carry the accumulated anger and resentments of her gender, and now their bitter disappointment, is it humanly possible for one woman, however resilient, to turn away from all that and use her strength to bring peace to a fractured party?
This moment is as much a test for Hillary Clinton as her 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Back then, none of the potential Democratic candidates could summon the courage to oppose it for fear of appearing weak. They all failed, but how much more pressure did she feel then as a woman in that position and five years later not to admit it was mistake?
As it turned out, the need to appear tough hurt her candidacy, and in the past few weeks, her posture as "a fighter" in the face of impending defeat and in the past few days her refusal to acknowledge the reality of it have damaged her even further.
But now, in these next days, Hillary Clinton has a chance to turn away from all that. As her backers try to blackmail Obama into putting her on the ticket, her statement today that the choice is his alone is a good start.
It would be heartening to see her rise above the politicking of this moment and show the wisdom and leadership her party needs to start repairing the damage that eight years of nasty Bush-Rove politics has done to the country.
As someone who has had to fight all her public life, from the 1992 health care fiasco through her husband's impeachment and a year and a half of brass-knuckles campaigning, who has had to show voters she is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief, who has had to carry the accumulated anger and resentments of her gender, and now their bitter disappointment, is it humanly possible for one woman, however resilient, to turn away from all that and use her strength to bring peace to a fractured party?
This moment is as much a test for Hillary Clinton as her 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Back then, none of the potential Democratic candidates could summon the courage to oppose it for fear of appearing weak. They all failed, but how much more pressure did she feel then as a woman in that position and five years later not to admit it was mistake?
As it turned out, the need to appear tough hurt her candidacy, and in the past few weeks, her posture as "a fighter" in the face of impending defeat and in the past few days her refusal to acknowledge the reality of it have damaged her even further.
But now, in these next days, Hillary Clinton has a chance to turn away from all that. As her backers try to blackmail Obama into putting her on the ticket, her statement today that the choice is his alone is a good start.
It would be heartening to see her rise above the politicking of this moment and show the wisdom and leadership her party needs to start repairing the damage that eight years of nasty Bush-Rove politics has done to the country.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
A Platoon of Coaches for McCain
Of all the contrasts between the two presidential candidates--political philosophy, age, race--the most glaring, as we saw this week, may be rhetorical.
Barack Obama is a masterful public speaker. John McCain, to put it kindly, is not.
Describing him as "a guy who has never really learned how to read a teleprompter," Gail Collins parses McCain's Tuesday night performance:
“'I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas,'” McCain said. Pause. Smile. McCain has only a couple of versions of smile. And for speeches, he tends to employ a kind of scary, humorless teeth-baring.
“'He doesn’t trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that’s not change we can believe in.' Pause. Smile. It was Pavlovian, really, as if some handler had run McCain through his paces over and over, administering an electric shock each time he ended a sentence without revealing his dental work."
That is certainly why McCain's campaign has challenged Obama to appear with him at town-hall meetings, a venue in which their man can use the kind of ease and charm he was been displaying for years on the Daily Show in interviews with Jon Stewart. But even if Obama accepts, that won't, to use a hallowed Republican phrase, be a cakewalk either.
Half a century ago, when presidents started appearing on TV, Dwight Eisenhower's campaign hired the movie actor-director Robert Montgomery to coach the former General into acting like good old friendly relaxed Ike. It worked.
Since then, Washington has been overrun by media trainers to teach politicians how to maintain eye contact, use the right gestures and fake looking natural. The McCain people could use a platoon of them.
Barack Obama is a masterful public speaker. John McCain, to put it kindly, is not.
Describing him as "a guy who has never really learned how to read a teleprompter," Gail Collins parses McCain's Tuesday night performance:
“'I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought into so many failed ideas,'” McCain said. Pause. Smile. McCain has only a couple of versions of smile. And for speeches, he tends to employ a kind of scary, humorless teeth-baring.
“'He doesn’t trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that’s not change we can believe in.' Pause. Smile. It was Pavlovian, really, as if some handler had run McCain through his paces over and over, administering an electric shock each time he ended a sentence without revealing his dental work."
That is certainly why McCain's campaign has challenged Obama to appear with him at town-hall meetings, a venue in which their man can use the kind of ease and charm he was been displaying for years on the Daily Show in interviews with Jon Stewart. But even if Obama accepts, that won't, to use a hallowed Republican phrase, be a cakewalk either.
Half a century ago, when presidents started appearing on TV, Dwight Eisenhower's campaign hired the movie actor-director Robert Montgomery to coach the former General into acting like good old friendly relaxed Ike. It worked.
Since then, Washington has been overrun by media trainers to teach politicians how to maintain eye contact, use the right gestures and fake looking natural. The McCain people could use a platoon of them.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
RFK: Tears for a Tough Guy
Forty years ago tonight, hours before Robert Kennedy was killed, I was campaigning as a Eugene McCarthy delegate to the 1968 Democratic convention. When a man rose to spew out Kennedy hatred, I cut him off and said, "I'm running to stop the war. If McCarthy drops out, I'll vote for Kennedy."
Two days later, from an office window, I was looking down at a line of people more than a mile long inching toward St. Patrick's Cathedral on a brutally hot day to view RFK's body lying there.
Watching became unbearable, and I went down with others to wheel a plastic barrel on a dolly and hand out paper cups of water. The air was heavy with heat and tears. Without words, there was an occasional meeting of eyes in shared sadness. In that year of political murder and chaos, we were mourning the loss of more than one man.
Robert Kennedy had been his brother's fierce protector, enforcer, campaign manager, Attorney General and, after the assassination, keeper of the flame. But like JFK before him, in the last days of his life, he became something more.
In late 1963, stunned by grief, he was enraged with me for publishing excerpts from a book of family essays about his oldest brother Joe, who died in World War II. "He keeps sending me rockets." Pierre Salinger said sadly. "If he needs to fight with someone now," I answered, "it isn't going to be me."
The book was in the Library of Congress for all to see, but I sent RFK the copyright of the article, along with a contribution to the Presidential library, and he was mollified to the point of writing back that he was "touched" by an editorial I had written about JFK's death.
Later we skirmished over excerpts from a guileless book by Red Fay, a JFK buddy, but soon afterward RFK, by then Senator from New York, came to lunch in our magazine's dining room to make peace and went into the kitchen afterward to charm the chef by comparing notes on their Irish ancestors.
In 1967, appalled by the unending war in Vietnam, I was among those urging him to oppose Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries. He declined, on the grounds that it would look like a personal vendetta, and we turned to Senator Eugene McCarthy.
When Kennedy declared his candidacy, many of us reluctantly stuck with McCarthy, a vain, arrogant man who had nonetheless been there when it counted. But during the campaign, RFK found his voice, just as his brother had in 1960. If he had lived, he would have won the presidency.
At his funeral Mass, Ted Kennedy said, "My brother need not be idolized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life [but] be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
"Those of us who loved him, and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us, and what he wished for others, will someday come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
Before the year was out, Ted Sorensen called about a memoir RFK had written about the Cuban Missile Crisis. My company bought all the rights for $1 million, which would go to trust funds for his children. We ran it in McCall's and arranged for publication throughout the world.
Looking back from another century, Robert Kennedy's book could have served as a primer for George W. Bush in confronting his pseudo-nuclear Iraq crisis. With missiles 90 miles from our shores, JFK rejected military advice for an air strike or invasion, lined up support from the United Nations, gave the Russians every chance to back down and, when they did, ordered that there be no gloating about victory. No CIA “slam dunk,” “Mission Accomplished” or “Bring it on!”
Robert Kennedy played a crucial part in those thirteen days, and like his brother before him, was still learning and growing during his all-too-few years. Looking at today's politicians, that alone is cause for tears.
Two days later, from an office window, I was looking down at a line of people more than a mile long inching toward St. Patrick's Cathedral on a brutally hot day to view RFK's body lying there.
Watching became unbearable, and I went down with others to wheel a plastic barrel on a dolly and hand out paper cups of water. The air was heavy with heat and tears. Without words, there was an occasional meeting of eyes in shared sadness. In that year of political murder and chaos, we were mourning the loss of more than one man.
Robert Kennedy had been his brother's fierce protector, enforcer, campaign manager, Attorney General and, after the assassination, keeper of the flame. But like JFK before him, in the last days of his life, he became something more.
In late 1963, stunned by grief, he was enraged with me for publishing excerpts from a book of family essays about his oldest brother Joe, who died in World War II. "He keeps sending me rockets." Pierre Salinger said sadly. "If he needs to fight with someone now," I answered, "it isn't going to be me."
The book was in the Library of Congress for all to see, but I sent RFK the copyright of the article, along with a contribution to the Presidential library, and he was mollified to the point of writing back that he was "touched" by an editorial I had written about JFK's death.
Later we skirmished over excerpts from a guileless book by Red Fay, a JFK buddy, but soon afterward RFK, by then Senator from New York, came to lunch in our magazine's dining room to make peace and went into the kitchen afterward to charm the chef by comparing notes on their Irish ancestors.
In 1967, appalled by the unending war in Vietnam, I was among those urging him to oppose Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries. He declined, on the grounds that it would look like a personal vendetta, and we turned to Senator Eugene McCarthy.
When Kennedy declared his candidacy, many of us reluctantly stuck with McCarthy, a vain, arrogant man who had nonetheless been there when it counted. But during the campaign, RFK found his voice, just as his brother had in 1960. If he had lived, he would have won the presidency.
At his funeral Mass, Ted Kennedy said, "My brother need not be idolized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life [but] be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
"Those of us who loved him, and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us, and what he wished for others, will someday come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: 'Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
Before the year was out, Ted Sorensen called about a memoir RFK had written about the Cuban Missile Crisis. My company bought all the rights for $1 million, which would go to trust funds for his children. We ran it in McCall's and arranged for publication throughout the world.
Looking back from another century, Robert Kennedy's book could have served as a primer for George W. Bush in confronting his pseudo-nuclear Iraq crisis. With missiles 90 miles from our shores, JFK rejected military advice for an air strike or invasion, lined up support from the United Nations, gave the Russians every chance to back down and, when they did, ordered that there be no gloating about victory. No CIA “slam dunk,” “Mission Accomplished” or “Bring it on!”
Robert Kennedy played a crucial part in those thirteen days, and like his brother before him, was still learning and growing during his all-too-few years. Looking at today's politicians, that alone is cause for tears.
Filling Stomachs or Gas Tanks
While America's attention is riveted on politicians' hunger for power, the rest of the world is grappling with the threat of real starvation this week.
At a three-day summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is calling for "bold and urgent steps to address the root causes of this global food crisis."
"We have a historic opportunity to revitalize agriculture," Ban told 50 heads of state, pointing out that food output had to rise 50 percent by 2030 to meet rising demand that has pushed 100 million people into hunger worldwide.
Poorer countries are faced with a 40 percent increase in prices that has doubled their food bills in the past year. The FAO is calling for $1.7 billion of emergency funding to deal with the production shortage.
One of the issues being debated is how much the use of grain for biofuels is exacerbating the problem. Fuels from sugar cane, corn and other crops are seen as a way to combat climate change and rising oil prices, and the US has been heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol production. Last year, the 27-nation European Union endorsed a plan calling for biofuels to make up 10 percent of the fuel for road vehicles by 2020.
But environmentalists and humanitarian groups claim that increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15 to 30 percent to food price increases.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are reduced to watching people starve and sending checks to Oxfam and other organizations that are trying to save lives.
At a three-day summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is calling for "bold and urgent steps to address the root causes of this global food crisis."
"We have a historic opportunity to revitalize agriculture," Ban told 50 heads of state, pointing out that food output had to rise 50 percent by 2030 to meet rising demand that has pushed 100 million people into hunger worldwide.
Poorer countries are faced with a 40 percent increase in prices that has doubled their food bills in the past year. The FAO is calling for $1.7 billion of emergency funding to deal with the production shortage.
One of the issues being debated is how much the use of grain for biofuels is exacerbating the problem. Fuels from sugar cane, corn and other crops are seen as a way to combat climate change and rising oil prices, and the US has been heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol production. Last year, the 27-nation European Union endorsed a plan calling for biofuels to make up 10 percent of the fuel for road vehicles by 2020.
But environmentalists and humanitarian groups claim that increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15 to 30 percent to food price increases.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are reduced to watching people starve and sending checks to Oxfam and other organizations that are trying to save lives.
The Clintons' Long Goodbye
No one expected they would go quietly, but the Clintons may be maneuvering the former First Lady off the Democratic ticket by continuing to strong-arm Barack Obama rather than graciously conceding his nomination.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton," AP reported yesterday, "will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president."
She did no such thing.
Coupled with her coy statement during the day about being "open" to the vice-presidency if it "would help the party's prospects in November," Sen. Clinton seems to be confirming the worst nightmare of the Obama campaign--that she would be a prima donna on the ticket, going her own way, singing her own arias while you-know-who kept tap-dancing not quite out of sight.
For Democrats who want to end the Bush nightmare, all this is disheartening. It isn't necessary to see Obama as the Second Coming to want him to be able to make his race against McCain without added weight on his back.
As the super-delegates climb on the bandwagon this week, will they be able to persuade both Hillary and Bill Clinton to stop campaigning and maneuvering and just get aboard? Otherwise they may be wrecking Obama's future--and their own.
None of us wants to end up with the scorpion-and-frog punchline, "Because it's in my nature."
"Hillary Rodham Clinton," AP reported yesterday, "will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president."
She did no such thing.
Coupled with her coy statement during the day about being "open" to the vice-presidency if it "would help the party's prospects in November," Sen. Clinton seems to be confirming the worst nightmare of the Obama campaign--that she would be a prima donna on the ticket, going her own way, singing her own arias while you-know-who kept tap-dancing not quite out of sight.
For Democrats who want to end the Bush nightmare, all this is disheartening. It isn't necessary to see Obama as the Second Coming to want him to be able to make his race against McCain without added weight on his back.
As the super-delegates climb on the bandwagon this week, will they be able to persuade both Hillary and Bill Clinton to stop campaigning and maneuvering and just get aboard? Otherwise they may be wrecking Obama's future--and their own.
None of us wants to end up with the scorpion-and-frog punchline, "Because it's in my nature."
Three Speeches on an Historic Night
The sight of Barack Obama actually being named presumptive Democratic candidate for President, no matter how expected. is astonishing to eyes that saw black people forced to ride in the back of buses and send their children to segregated schools and attacked for daring to exercise their right to vote. But then came the speeches.
John McCain elbowed into Barack Obama's moment of triumph with a Back-to-the-Future revival of his 2000 straight-talking self to distance himself from Bush and belittle the man who made history tonight.
Hillary Clinton delivered what was expected to be her concession but turned out to be a victory speech and a valentine to herself that barely mentioned the opponent who had taken the nomination from her.
Then Obama came on to eulogize Clinton's campaign, praise McCain but deplore his record of supporting Bush, and then lay out his own vision of a new America.
The contrasts in style and substance were telling. McCain with a straight face painted himself as the candidate of change while demeaning Obama. "I don't seek the presidency on the presumption I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need," he said. "I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me."
Clinton praised herself with abandon. "Because we stood our ground," she said, "it meant that every single United States citizen had a chance to make his or her voice heard. A record 35 million people voted in this primary...And I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November."
No mention of who will actually be moving in.
Obama, after a long tribute to Clinton, took on McCain: "I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign...It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year."
The Democratic candidate-to-be said he looked forward to debating McCain on policies and positions, "a debate that the American people deserve--on the issues that will determine the future of this country and the future of our children.
"But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first."
Let the debate begin.
John McCain elbowed into Barack Obama's moment of triumph with a Back-to-the-Future revival of his 2000 straight-talking self to distance himself from Bush and belittle the man who made history tonight.
Hillary Clinton delivered what was expected to be her concession but turned out to be a victory speech and a valentine to herself that barely mentioned the opponent who had taken the nomination from her.
Then Obama came on to eulogize Clinton's campaign, praise McCain but deplore his record of supporting Bush, and then lay out his own vision of a new America.
The contrasts in style and substance were telling. McCain with a straight face painted himself as the candidate of change while demeaning Obama. "I don't seek the presidency on the presumption I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need," he said. "I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me."
Clinton praised herself with abandon. "Because we stood our ground," she said, "it meant that every single United States citizen had a chance to make his or her voice heard. A record 35 million people voted in this primary...And I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November."
No mention of who will actually be moving in.
Obama, after a long tribute to Clinton, took on McCain: "I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign...It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year."
The Democratic candidate-to-be said he looked forward to debating McCain on policies and positions, "a debate that the American people deserve--on the issues that will determine the future of this country and the future of our children.
"But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first."
Let the debate begin.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Gunfire Therapy for the Shell-Shocked
Those who believe human intelligence and sensitivity are disappearing from the planet will find confirmation in a Washington Post report about living arrangements at Fort Benning for Iraq veterans suffering for post-traumatic stress disorder:
"Across the street from their assigned housing, about 200 yards away, are some of the Army infantry's main firing ranges, and day and night, several days each week, barrages from rifles and machine guns echo around [the] building. The noise makes the wounded cringe, startle in their formations, and stay awake and on edge, according to several soldiers interviewed at the barracks last month. The gunfire recently sent one soldier to the emergency room with an anxiety attack, they said."
After being told about the situation, Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek, director of the Army's Warrior Care and Transition Office, which oversees 12,000 wounded soldiers, said: "I can see how that would be a problem. It's something we haven't considered."
"Across the street from their assigned housing, about 200 yards away, are some of the Army infantry's main firing ranges, and day and night, several days each week, barrages from rifles and machine guns echo around [the] building. The noise makes the wounded cringe, startle in their formations, and stay awake and on edge, according to several soldiers interviewed at the barracks last month. The gunfire recently sent one soldier to the emergency room with an anxiety attack, they said."
After being told about the situation, Brig. Gen. Gary Cheek, director of the Army's Warrior Care and Transition Office, which oversees 12,000 wounded soldiers, said: "I can see how that would be a problem. It's something we haven't considered."
Previewing the Obama-McCain Debates
When the candidates face off this fall in the political version of reality TV's survivor shows, what are we likely to see?
The scripts are obvious--Change vs. Bush Three--as is the imagery, idealistic young guy vs. gritty old-timer. But many viewers will be making their choices on a subtext: Who makes them feel better--and safer?
On that score, both candidates have serious work to do. As David Brooks points out today, "Obama has to come up with a personal narrative voters can relate to. McCain needs to come up with a one-sentence description for why he represents a clean break and a compelling future."
TV debates, starting with the first, have always been more about music than words. While Kennedy was deploring a non-existent "missile gap" with the Russians and arguing with Nixon over defending Formosa from the Chinese, voters were seeing a confident Presidential-looking JFK and a shifty, uneasy Nixon (who famously rejected makeup and looked unshaven in the first outing).
McCain and Obama handlers are too sophisticated to allow visual gaffes, but the candidates' style and demeanor will be crucial.
Does Obama come across as a plausible game-changing new kind of political leader or a cocky, overeducated young African-American with con-man patter?
Will McCain look like a rock-solid patriotic President open to a new future or a grumpy old man holding on to outdated ideas?
They are both too deft to fall into stereotypes, but the debates will hinge on their performances as much as their platforms. Undecided voters will be sitting back and challenging them to show their true selves. What some psychologists call "emotional intelligence," the ability to connect viscerally with others, will be more crucial than brains or bombast.
Cynics may see that as putting on an act but, in the 21st century, it's always show time.
The scripts are obvious--Change vs. Bush Three--as is the imagery, idealistic young guy vs. gritty old-timer. But many viewers will be making their choices on a subtext: Who makes them feel better--and safer?
On that score, both candidates have serious work to do. As David Brooks points out today, "Obama has to come up with a personal narrative voters can relate to. McCain needs to come up with a one-sentence description for why he represents a clean break and a compelling future."
TV debates, starting with the first, have always been more about music than words. While Kennedy was deploring a non-existent "missile gap" with the Russians and arguing with Nixon over defending Formosa from the Chinese, voters were seeing a confident Presidential-looking JFK and a shifty, uneasy Nixon (who famously rejected makeup and looked unshaven in the first outing).
McCain and Obama handlers are too sophisticated to allow visual gaffes, but the candidates' style and demeanor will be crucial.
Does Obama come across as a plausible game-changing new kind of political leader or a cocky, overeducated young African-American with con-man patter?
Will McCain look like a rock-solid patriotic President open to a new future or a grumpy old man holding on to outdated ideas?
They are both too deft to fall into stereotypes, but the debates will hinge on their performances as much as their platforms. Undecided voters will be sitting back and challenging them to show their true selves. What some psychologists call "emotional intelligence," the ability to connect viscerally with others, will be more crucial than brains or bombast.
Cynics may see that as putting on an act but, in the 21st century, it's always show time.
Comic Relief from Cheney
One thing you have to say about our lame-duck vice president: He's been a barrel of laughs, and he got off a real knee-slapper at the National Press Club yesterday.
Asked about his kissing-cousin link to Barack Obama, Cheney humorously said they weren't planning any family reunions before November and went on to explain that, while researching the family lineage, his wife Lynne made another discovery.
"I had Cheneys on both sides of the family and we don't even live in West Virginia," the vice president joshed.
After an uproar from politicians with no sense of humor, Cheney issued an apology, but one Congressman was not offended, "We may owe the vice president a debt of gratitude," he said, "for yet another great West Virginia slogan: Dick Cheney is not from here."
On the serious side, geneticists are looking into how much political idiocy and aggressiveness can be traced to inbreeding.
Asked about his kissing-cousin link to Barack Obama, Cheney humorously said they weren't planning any family reunions before November and went on to explain that, while researching the family lineage, his wife Lynne made another discovery.
"I had Cheneys on both sides of the family and we don't even live in West Virginia," the vice president joshed.
After an uproar from politicians with no sense of humor, Cheney issued an apology, but one Congressman was not offended, "We may owe the vice president a debt of gratitude," he said, "for yet another great West Virginia slogan: Dick Cheney is not from here."
On the serious side, geneticists are looking into how much political idiocy and aggressiveness can be traced to inbreeding.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Whistle-Blowing MSM Dogs Don't Hear
Behind the media popcorn of Scott McClellan's revelations, relatively unnoticed is a new book by the former American commander in Iraq that should be red meat for historians.
This week's Time has an excerpt from "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" by Gen. Ricardo Sanchez that nails his Pentagon boss Don Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the Bush Administration, for "gross incompetence and dereliction of duty" at the start of the unfolding disaster.
This is no out-of-the-loop flunky's account of what happened, but the testimony of the man in the middle of it all, one of the generals whose advice Bush maintained he would follow but obviously did not.
The Central Command, Gen. Sanchez writes, had originally planned 12 to 18 months of active troop deployments but then "had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over...
"That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.
"There's not a doubt in my mind that they all embraced this decision to some degree. And if it had not been for the moral courage of Gen. John Abizaid to stand up to them all and reverse [Gen. Tommy] Franks's troop drawdown order, there's no telling how much more damage would have been done.
"In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty."
Amid all the whistle-blowing in Washington these days, this particular one by Gen. Sanchez should be heard loud and clear, but so far the media dogs are not responding to its frequency.
This week's Time has an excerpt from "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" by Gen. Ricardo Sanchez that nails his Pentagon boss Don Rumsfeld, along with the rest of the Bush Administration, for "gross incompetence and dereliction of duty" at the start of the unfolding disaster.
This is no out-of-the-loop flunky's account of what happened, but the testimony of the man in the middle of it all, one of the generals whose advice Bush maintained he would follow but obviously did not.
The Central Command, Gen. Sanchez writes, had originally planned 12 to 18 months of active troop deployments but then "had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over...
"That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.
"There's not a doubt in my mind that they all embraced this decision to some degree. And if it had not been for the moral courage of Gen. John Abizaid to stand up to them all and reverse [Gen. Tommy] Franks's troop drawdown order, there's no telling how much more damage would have been done.
"In the meantime, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty."
Amid all the whistle-blowing in Washington these days, this particular one by Gen. Sanchez should be heard loud and clear, but so far the media dogs are not responding to its frequency.
Fighting Words
What would Monday mornings be these days without some fresh William Kristol absurdity on the New York Times OpEd page?
Today the accident-prone pundit chides Barack Obama for a "sin of omission" in a commencement speech urging graduates to enter public service without mentioning the military as an option:
"(A)t an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service--one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country."
Should they also be grateful for the armchair strategists who sent them there to prove a Neo-Con theory that turned out to be devastatingly wrong? Kristol and his cohorts have never been any closer to the fighting than a think tank, from which their guru, Dick Cheney, after multiple Vietnam deferments, led his toy soldiers into helping George Bush lie our way into Iraq.
Somebody at the Times should take away Kristol's wooden sword.
Today the accident-prone pundit chides Barack Obama for a "sin of omission" in a commencement speech urging graduates to enter public service without mentioning the military as an option:
"(A)t an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service--one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country."
Should they also be grateful for the armchair strategists who sent them there to prove a Neo-Con theory that turned out to be devastatingly wrong? Kristol and his cohorts have never been any closer to the fighting than a think tank, from which their guru, Dick Cheney, after multiple Vietnam deferments, led his toy soldiers into helping George Bush lie our way into Iraq.
Somebody at the Times should take away Kristol's wooden sword.
Ted Kennedy's Crisis
As we near the fortieth anniversary of Robert Kennedy's assassination this week, Ted Kennedy will be fighting for his life today in six hours of "extremely risky" surgery for a brain tumor at Duke University Medical Center.
He has always been a survivor, outliving a plane crash, the plunge of a car into deep waters and the violent death of two brothers to fill out a long and honorable life.
Barack Obama said last week that he "would not be sitting here as a presidential candidate had it not been for some of the battles that Ted Kennedy has fought. He is somebody who battled for voting rights and civil rights when I was a child. I stand on his shoulders."
Others will be on their knees today, praying that Ted Kennedy will be granted more years to give us all.
He has always been a survivor, outliving a plane crash, the plunge of a car into deep waters and the violent death of two brothers to fill out a long and honorable life.
Barack Obama said last week that he "would not be sitting here as a presidential candidate had it not been for some of the battles that Ted Kennedy has fought. He is somebody who battled for voting rights and civil rights when I was a child. I stand on his shoulders."
Others will be on their knees today, praying that Ted Kennedy will be granted more years to give us all.
Bill Clinton Hyperbole, Pro and Con
The former President has "helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency." Anyone who doubts that can check with his office.
If Scott McClellan thinks he was pummeled for turning on George W. Bush, he might want to consider the fate of former New York Times reporter Todd Purdum for stirring the wrath of Bill Clinton this weekend with a profile in Vanity Fair.
“A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece," says a statement from aides to the former President, "repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.”
The screed goes on to huff, "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn’t find time to talk to even one of them for comment."
If other journalists ask politely, may they have the names and phone numbers of a few hundred thousand to interview?
What we have here is hyperbole run amok on both sides of the journalistic equation, the Clinton people in their outrage outdoing the VF piece, heavily laced with anonymous sources, about their idol's "post-White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse."
Now, if both sides will calm down and tell us what they really think, we may be able to make some sober judgments about the liveliest White House occupant in American history.
If Scott McClellan thinks he was pummeled for turning on George W. Bush, he might want to consider the fate of former New York Times reporter Todd Purdum for stirring the wrath of Bill Clinton this weekend with a profile in Vanity Fair.
“A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece," says a statement from aides to the former President, "repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.”
The screed goes on to huff, "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn’t find time to talk to even one of them for comment."
If other journalists ask politely, may they have the names and phone numbers of a few hundred thousand to interview?
What we have here is hyperbole run amok on both sides of the journalistic equation, the Clinton people in their outrage outdoing the VF piece, heavily laced with anonymous sources, about their idol's "post-White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse."
Now, if both sides will calm down and tell us what they really think, we may be able to make some sober judgments about the liveliest White House occupant in American history.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Mission Accomplished, Again?
Only the most churlish opponents of the war would want to minimize the low Iraq casualty figures for May or even argue over the Washington Post editorial contention today that "the US-backed government and army may be winning the war."
Any hope of bringing our troops home sooner than later is welcome but, under the circumstances, it would be just as unseemly to claim that this turn of events means John McCain has been right about the war and should be elected to the White House.
If anything, the beginning of the end in Iraq--if that's what it really is--should only deepen our sadness at the loss of more than 4000 American lives, millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, and the US' moral standing in the world.
"If the positive trends continue," the Post editorial observes, "proponents of withdrawing most US troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise."
Call it what they will, but let's start ending the nightmare. If it would get our men and women home safely any sooner, start making plans for President Obama to be inaugurated on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner than reads "Mission Accomplished."
In this case, words don't matter. Lives do.
Any hope of bringing our troops home sooner than later is welcome but, under the circumstances, it would be just as unseemly to claim that this turn of events means John McCain has been right about the war and should be elected to the White House.
If anything, the beginning of the end in Iraq--if that's what it really is--should only deepen our sadness at the loss of more than 4000 American lives, millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, and the US' moral standing in the world.
"If the positive trends continue," the Post editorial observes, "proponents of withdrawing most US troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise."
Call it what they will, but let's start ending the nightmare. If it would get our men and women home safely any sooner, start making plans for President Obama to be inaugurated on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner than reads "Mission Accomplished."
In this case, words don't matter. Lives do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)