Framed

Associational Gotcha

It seems like much of the Presidential campaign of the last month has not been about the candidates themselves, or even the candidates' positions.  Rather, we have been subjected by the MSM to a month of reporting on what other people have said about the candidates, and what the candidates have said about the people who said stuff about them.

We've heard all about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama, Obama's minister's comments about America, Louis Farrakhan's comments about Obama, Obama's advisor's comments about Clinton, and so on.

Note that Obama seems to be getting most of the guilt-by-association stuff thrown at him.  I bet that's not a coincidence.

But honestly, what does any of this associational gotcha have to do with the qualifications to be President?

Dueling Quotes

Two pairs of quotes, seen in juxtaposition, explain why I'm a liberal.

First, there's this contrast between two voices of Minnesota.

Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on the Iraq war:

What our service men and women have accomplished over there has been nothing short of astounding. Though you never hear about it in the media. God has not abandoned us.

Minnesota Singer-Songwriter Bob Dylan on war in general:

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

Second, on the Presidential front, note this:

President George W. Bush, on America's troubled economy:

In the long run, our economy is going to be fine.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on America's troubled economy:

People don't eat in the long run.  They eat every day.

Any questions?

Lost Causes

[Also posted as a comment to The Clinton Civil War by Kos.]

I have voted for lost-cause candidates; hell, I'm a liberal Democrat.

I voted for Howard Dean in the Ohio primary four years ago when it was already a foregone conclusion that he was NOT going to get the nomination.

I voted for Paul Tsongas in the Massachusetts primary in 1992 when Bill Clinton already had the nomination in his grasp.

I voted for Jesse Jackson in the Massachusetts primary in 1988 when it was abundantly clear that Mike Dukakis was going to win.

I voted for John Anderson in the general election of 1980.

In all of those cases, I cast my ballot as a message vote. I am not, in other words, one to hold a wet finger to the air before voting.

But here's the difference.  In all those cases--with the arguable exception of my vote for Anderson 28 years ago--I knew that my protest vote was not going to weaken the Democratic nominee.  I wanted the party's choice to hear my voice.  I voted for Dean to tell John Kerry to end the Iraq war.  I voted for Tsongas to tell Bill Clinton that I thought it was important to balance the federal budget.  I voted for Jesse Jackson because I wanted Mike Dukakis to be more boldly liberal. I voted for John Anderson because I wanted to tell America that Carter was feckless and Reagan was reckless.

If there were some significant, substantive differences between Clinton's platform and Obama's, I would defend the Clinton voters--and Clinton herself--as the campaign continues.  And certainly, if there was a real chance of Clinton actually, properly, legally, democratically winning, I'd understand her campaign.

But on paper at least, there are few policy differences between Clinton and Obama.  Neither one is a full-blooded liberal.  So I don't see a vote for Clinton as a message-vote.  A dramatically different message is NOT the rationale for her candidacy.  Indeed, the only rationale for her candidacy seems to be that it's Her Turn.

Even that standard would be a suitable one to march under if the campaign was not being conducted in a destructive way.  But it is.  And the beneficiary is going to be John McCain.

I understand all about supporting lost causes.  But I also understand when to declare the cause lost.  It's past that time now.

The W Recession

Sometimes the economy goes into a tailspin of its own accord.  But not this time.  The terrible dawn of the W Recession has three underlying causes, all of which can be traced to the Republican administration and Republican congressional leadership.  To wit:

1.  The budget deficit was created by the Bush administration's tax cuts (most of which went to the wealthy) and its insistence that it could fight not one but two wars without requesting a dime of economic sacrifice by American citizens.  The bill is now coming due.  By mortgaging our fiscal and monetary policies to foreign governments (which provide much of the funding for our deficits), the administration has denied American institutions the control they need to stabilize the economy.  Instead, our fate is to a much greater extent than people realize in the hands of the Saudis, the Japanese and the Chinese.  Further, every dollar the government has to borrow to fund its deficits is a dollar that can't be lent to entrepreneurs, businesses looking to expand, or to states and cities looking to fund their infrastructure and capital projects. 

2. The trade deficit is also at or near record levels, due in good measure to our unremitting thirst for oil.  Again, this was a deliberate policy choice made by the Bush administration, which deemed conservation a "personal virtue" rather than a vital policy, which refused for years to consider raising the CAFE fuel economy standards, and which has yet to make a serious effort at developing renewable energy sources.  The trade deficit sends dollars abroad that are needed here at home and, like the budget deficit, puts substantial control of the American economy in foreign (and not altogether friendly) hands.

3. Lax regulation of the business and financial services sector was almost a foregone conclusion once Bush & Co. assumed office.  They wouldn't think of proactively tightening auditing and oversight rules that might have prevented the Enron and MCI implosions.  They couldn't be bothered by the fact that the 21st century world of derivatives and similarly complex financial instruments was no longer being monitored or regulated by 20th century statutes and regulations.  Their attitude toward abusive mortgage and credit card lenders was a cold caveat emptor.  In such an environment, it was only a matter of time before both individuals and institutions woke up one morning to debts they could not cover.

Four years ago, Howard Dean said something like, "If you're worried about the economy, don't vote Republican.  Republicans can't handle money."  He was fond of pointing out that Bill Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote, and that his policies led to strong and steady economic growth.    It's true: short-term, short-sighted Republican greed and distaste for government oversight has wrecked the American economy.  This was not inevitable.  This is not a part of a normal business cycle.  This was the eminently foreseeable result of Republican policies.

Of course, the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts won't feel any real pain in this recession.  They've got the money to insulate them from the economic realities the rest of us now face.  And they'll still support the Republican party, which has given them so much.

UPDATE: "Nearly three-quarters of all Americans think the economy is in a recession, according to a national poll released Monday."

The other one quarter work for the Bush administration.

It's Friday . . .

. . . and the streets are ours.  A little something from Andrew Bird, thanks to my friend Lily who turned me on to him.

Path

Could Hillary Clinton still win the nomination?  Sure!  Jonathan Chait explains how:

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

The most likely outcome of Clinton's desperation tactics would be the infliction of serious political damage on the Democratic nonimee--Barack Obama.  But of course then Clinton could run again in just four short years on a see?-I-told-you-so platform.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Obama doesn't need paternalistic (OK, maternalistic) toughening-up by the likes of Hillary Clinton in order to face the Republicans in the general election.  What he needs is for his party to coalesce around him as the all-but-inevitable nominee.  Every dollar and every hour spent on this now-pointless internecine battle is suicidally stupid.

Mississippi on the Nile

Mississippi is not the only third-world country holding elections this week.  From Sandmonkey, check out the way they do things in Egypt:

Since we are on the eve of the national municipal elections, I would like to report that the M[uslim] B[rotherhood] will not win a single seat anywhere in this country. You know why? Because none of them finished their nomination papers on time. Lazy you might say? Nope. They are all missing their "Feesh and tashbeeh" ( clearance of criminal activities report), which they would get it from the Police, and the police won't give it to them.They have a list of all MB members and won't give any of them a criminal clearance, not until the elections are over. One of the MB in Mansoura, however, managed to finish his nomination papers because he had a 6 months old criminal clearance. So he went into the police-station to submit them. The Police Officer took one look at his file, grabbed the Clearnce paper, examined it, and then proceeded to tear it apart and told the man "Oooops! Now go try and get a new one!"

Sounds a lot like Mississippi, circa 1963.  The difference is that while Egypt is still Hosni Mubarak's tight little republic, Mississippi has changed:

Mississippi could make it two for Obama -- he has a double-digit lead over Clinton in the latest state opinion polls.

*  *  *

Mississippi also holds open primaries, which means independents and Republicans can vote in the Democratic contest. Exit polls indicate that Obama is winning the votes of independents and Republicans who cross over and cast ballots in Democratic contests.

No Kidding

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

In other news today, we can report that Spain's Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Ka-POW!

Obama today on the idea that the Clintons keep floating of a Clinton-Obama ticket: ka-POW!

With all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I’ve won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place. [Long applause.]...

But there’s a second point. This is an interesting point -- I want you guys to follow me on this. You know Pres. Bill Clinton, back in 1992, when he was being asked about his selection for vice president, he said, “The only criteria, the most important criteria for vice president, is that that person is ready, if I fell out in the first week, that he or she would be ready to be the commander-in-chief.” That was his criteria.

Now, they have been spending the last two, three weeks -- you remember that advertisement with the phone call, telling everybody, getting all the generals to say well we’re not sure he’s ready, “I’m ready on day one, he may not be ready yet.”

But I don’t understand. If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?

See, I was trying to explain to someone the “okey-doke.” Y’all know the okey-doke? It’s when someone’s trying to bamboozle you, when they’re trying to hoodwink you. They are trying to hoodwink you. You can’t say that he’s not ready on day one, unless he’s willing to be your vice president and then he’s ready on day one.

I want everybody to be absolutely clear — I’m not running for vice president, I’m running for president of the United States of America.

I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running to be commander-in-chief. And the reason I’m running to be commander-in-chief is because I believe that the most important thing when you answer that phone call at 3 in the morning is: What kind of judgment you have?

But wait--there's more!

So I don’t want anybody here thinking that somehow, “Maybe I can get both.” Don’t think that way. You have to make a choice in this election. Are you gonna go along with the past, or are you gonna go towards the future? Are you gonna do the same old thing, or are you gonna try something new?

Seems like a pretty good rebuttal to me, one that strongly returns Clinton's serve without turning nasty.   And as Kos notes, it may be working: two new national polls show Obama with a lead over Clinton, contradicting the MSM's storyline-of-the-week about how Clinton is coming back.

UPDATE: This cartoon (h/t to Sandmonkey) makes the point even more powerfully.

Hooked

This is a damn shame.  According to the New York Times,

[New York] Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.

It's a shame because Spitzer did so much to bring the injustices committed by corporations to light.  It's a shame not because I think prostitution should be a crime--I don't--but because Spitzer has been revealed as a hypocrite. 

As attorney general, he also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.

“”This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. ”It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”

Progressives need people who are willing to take on powerful moneyed interests--but we don't need people who prosecute hookers one day and patronize them the next.  Yes, our prostitution laws are stupid.  If Spitzer merely hired a prostitute, I'd say "so what?" and figure it was between him and his wife.  Hypocrisy, though, is less forgivable.