It's the Only Thing

On the political front, what do you think of this argument?:

For Obama, winning is everything, by Michael Tomasky: So we've now plunged into the turbid waters of the age-old expediency versus principle debate. Three times now in the space of a week, Barack Obama has departed from what would seem to be liberal principle: his refusal to accept public financing for the general election, his decision to vote for a bill that gives American telecoms retroactive immunity from prosecution for cooperating with the Bush administration's surveillance initiatives and his statement siding with the supreme court's conservative minority that on Wednesday voted to permit the death penalty for child rapists. Denunciations are ringing across the blogosphere.

We'll go through the issues individually. But the larger question here is about how far a candidate for president can go to inoculate himself against likely attacks – attacks that have a proven track record of working – before he's no longer the candidate you believed in a year ago. ...

Liberals don't have to be happy about these decisions, and those who want to attack Obama and hold his feet to the fire and so forth should do so to their heart's content. But it's worth remembering that a presidential campaign is one of the worst contexts in which to expect or demand ideological consistency.

Obama has, in fact, taken a number of strong stands that might hurt him. He did back the supreme court on habeas corpus rights for non-citizen detainees – not a popular position. He's against offshore oil drilling while polls are showing that majorities support it. His is a position that could harm him in the crucial state of Florida, but he's taken it. He'll presumably continue to stand his ground on opposing the federal gas-tax repeal, a position John McCain might choose to revive at some point. And he will have to defend ... his support for increasing the capital gains tax by up to 10%, as he will assuredly be attacked for that. He supports a large cap-and-trade scheme on carbon emissions that will surely be attacked as a tax on business. And so on.

I've always objected to setting up principle as a value that's oppositional to winning. To me, winning is a principle. It's the highest principle there is. If you win the election, you can do at least some of the good things that will improve people's lives in the country and around the world. If you lose it, you can't do any of them.

People will naturally disagree on which compromises are necessary and which ones aren't. What people shouldn't disagree on is that some are. ...

Are we sure these are positions of convenience rather than what he actually believes?

Comments

[Melancholy Korean]

Let's get him elected first, then watch what legislation he pushes forward in the first couple years. Obama's not a liberal? Great news. 'Cause I'm a disenchanted Republican who has donated to his campaign and is eager to vote for him.

I hope he turns out to be a progressive. The country's leaned so far to the right over the past thirty years that now we may be witnessing the beginning of a populist backlash. A progressive like TR, I would welcome. Hell, at the rate the credit crisis is not improving, I'm starting to think an FDR, someone who saves capitalism from itself, may be the least worst alternative.

High taxes are bad, sure. I don't want higher taxes. But if the system doesn't work for everyone, and people are starting to hurt real bad, well, we live in a democracy, and one easy vote-getter is to blame the corporations, the bankers, the hedge fund geniuses, the speculators (not that they don't deserve some blame). I've often wondered how it is in a democracy that such disparities in wealth can exist, at all. Maybe because Americans like fair play and hard work, but the system isn't particularly level or fair now.

Reform or revolution?

[hari]

Like I said, once before, it is simply a question of means and ends. Beltway politics has become immoral - like rest of the world - and maybe BO convenience is part of his (fatal) logics. And compared to the other guy, I may just as well fall for the devil I wish ....

[2slugbaits]

Mark asked: "Are we sure these are positions of convenience rather than what he actually believes?"

Well, we're certain those are things that McCain actually believes, so worst case scenario it's a wash on those specific issues.

[Larry]

Yes, McCain has beliefs he has stuck to (e.g., opposing ethanol subsidies) even though they were unpopular.

Obama the bus-thrower-under has already abandoned enough beliefs (and people) that it's hard to credit him with having any that are both controversial and non-negotiable. Just what is his NAFTA position again?

[howard]

larry, that's nonsense: mccain, over the course of a long career, has been consistent about very few things other than his willingness to wage war.

as for obama, i'm not interested in excuse-making. i was a tepid obama supporter, and the main thing i was tepid about was that it wasn't clear to me what he stood for, what he would go to the mat for.

it's now clear: he stands for being president, and he'll go to the mat to achieve it.

since he'll be a better president than mccain, i'll still vote for him, but i have no expectations beyond that (and, as obama's behavior has made it clear, i shouldn't).

[bakho]

Obama is just another politician. Anyone who believes otherwise is sure to be disappointed.

Either one of the nominees will have to be pushed to do the right thing. How far do you think Obama could be pushed by Progressives to do the right thing? How fat do you think McCain can be pushed? Bush could not be pushed at all so we have had to live with his failures.

Politicians are almost never leaders for change. They wait until the parade forms, then go to the front and act like they are leading.

[anne]

From the time it was clear the nomination had been gained, Barack Obama has shown that only becoming President counts and the belief is obviously that to be President it is necessary to be found ever more conservative. Whether Obama is really so conservative on issues from health care to fiscal policy is not clear and matters little to me because policy positions that are set down as candidate will be very difficult to counter as President. Positions set now will trap the coming Administration.

Beyond conservative positions, I am bothered at a failure to reach to Latino communities beyond conservative Cuban-Americans or Muslim communities that are so easily slighted, as well as a harshness in Latin American and Middle East stance.

No matter the choice, an unwillingness to be properly critical insures the coming Administrative traps will be difficult to get round.

says...

"because policy positions that are set down as candidate will be very difficult to counter as President. Positions set now will trap the coming Administration."

This has not been true for either Clinton or Bush, which covers most of the years I've been paying attention. Clinton ran far more as a progressive on, say, health care than he governed. Bush ran on no nation-building. Why do you think it holds for Obama?

[Bruce Wilder]

Obama is a politician, not a saint. But, he's an extremely able politician -- arguably overall, the best Presidential candidate the Democrats have had in my lifetime.

The Media have their scripts, and one of them says that "candidates move to the center for the general election". So, we see a lot of news reporting that seeks to prove this thesis. That the Media will use this thesis to organize their pathetic reporting does not make it true.

Obama has always been a relatively conservative Democrat. More accurately and precisely, I would say that he has deliberately developed moderate and balanced positions on many issues, which incorporate a respect for legitimate conservative principles. This is part of his ability to appeal to principled conservatives, and a basis for his pledge to try to heal heated, but pointless divisions on some important issues. I think it is going to be difficult at times for Obama to preserve the nuance and the principle in the face of news reporting and commentary by idiots. But, that's because the Media in the U.S. is seriously broken. Media delenda est.

On gun control, Obama has been clear for years that he thought that recent scholarship had won the argument over whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own and possess guns. This was the position, which many people familiar with the Constitutional issue, have expected the Supreme Court to accept, which it did, narrowly, this week. I have seen news reports that make it sound like Obama, somehow, flip-flopped on the D.C. gun ban, based in part on what an unnamed aide said almost a year ago. Such are the perils of our News Media.

On the death penalty for rape of a child, this is not a new position. Well-subscribed liberal, myself, I was not aware that the death penalty for murder only was established liberal doctrine. A failure to keep up with the news, I guess. I understand being opposed to the death penalty, period, on principle; but, this death penalty for murder only is a new one, and not one I agree with, so Obama gets a pass from me.

I am not happy with Obama support of FISA. I think the Democrats have been rolled, and Steny Hoyer, the ripe old bastard, wanted to be rolled. I really only understand the telecom immunity issue; the rest I haven't studied. Obama is against telecom immunity, but, tactically, telecom immunity cannot be stopped, unless opponents are willing and able to stop any bill including telecom immunity. Obama has undermined that tactical possibility, and I am very unhappy about that.

I am not going to be passive about the telecom immunity thing. I protest. And, if telecom immunity passes, I will not contribute to Obama's campaign, although I will contribute to the DNC (which is, practically, the same thing), and a handful of Congressional candidates. Not that my couple hundred odd dollars are going to make any difference, but I have the satisfaction of knowing that my loyalty has its limits.

FISA telecom immunity looms large with me, because I still have some slim hope of preserving and restoring the rule of law in our Republic. That's the Change I Believe In. And, telecom immunity is about preventing the public exposure of lawless conduct, and setting an important precedent, reinforcing the pernicious idea that, if the President says it's legal, it's legal.

Presidential elections are making a choice from a menu. Only two names of significance will be on the ballot. I don't regard it as a hard or subtle choice, but I do regard it as a profound one. Frankly, I don't respect anyone, who supports John McCain. I love my country. Voting for John McCain is pissing all over it. 'nuff said.

[ken melvin]

Seems obvious that Cheney saw Bush as means to power (he saw the intellectual, experience, and moral shallowness). I suspect there are those who see McCain in the same light. It'll be interesting to see what powers that be lie behind Obama as he too lacks experience, and, perhaps not that differently, lacks executive experience.

[2slugbaits]

Regarding the telecom immunity, let's keep in mind that the bill only gives the phone companies civil immunity. In other words, you and I cannot sue them. But let's get serious here. What were the chances that you and I would ever be successful in suing them anyway? Somewhere between slim to none. So as a practical matter I don't think we're giving up all that much. The FISA compromise still allows a President Obama to pursue criminal prosecution...not that I expect that to happen either, but it still hangs over the heads of telecom executives who might feel otherwise inclined to buck the Democrats in other ways.

Bruce Wilder is right. Obama is not seeking beautitude; he's an ambitious politician, but one who also has his ambition under control. He's also a cautious politician despite the calls for change. Personally I'm far to the left of Obama, but I can look at polls and understand that Obama has the potential for a big Democratic win up and down the ticket. And that's really the sine quo non for dismantling the damage of the Bush years. Running a far left campaign that loses the White House, loses Congress, loses governorships and loses state legislatures might feel good in October, but not so good on November 5th. As a long suffering Cubs fan I'm quite used to saying "Wait until next year!" I'm not in the mood to say "Wait until 2012!" for a liberal Democratic president.

[Gene O'Grady]

Bruce Wilder,

I believe the proper Latin would be "media delenda sunt." "Est" in this phrase would be a grecism.

[Ryan]

I'd say we don't know whether these are convenient positions, or his beliefs, and that is a problem I have with Obama; he seems to have no form or substance. Some would argue it is Obama proving his pragmatism, but there is a stark difference between being a pragmatist and contradictory.

Unlike, say a Romney, who basically campaigned all along saying circumstances and options need to be weighed heavily before a position is taken, Obama was very energetic about many of his stances in the primaries.

[anne]

The more defenses of Barack Obama, for what cannot be defended, the less respect I have for supposed progressives and loss sense I have of progress being made from here.

I wuv this and I wuv that though, and I have all the crudeness necessary to show all the wuv I have.

Wuv, wuv.

[anne]

Also, though Bill Clinton was not able to get a comprehensive medical care insurance bill passed, progress in offering competition through private insurers controlled insurance costs through the Clinton years. Not to mention the other exceptional economic accomplishments of the Clinton years, like 225,000 jobs created each month for 96 months and a budget surplus, a real budget surplus.

[anne]

George Bush, as Paul Krugman repeatedly showed before 2001 and after was entirely consistent in fiscal policy proposals and policy implementation.

I know though, at least there is no reason to still worry about Hillary Clinton so we are saved, saved, saved.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/opinion/28collins.html?hp&pagewanted=print

June 28, 2008

Unity Is Crowded
By GAIL COLLINS

Unity, N.H.

The crowd here stood for hours under the hot sun, so useful for melding purposes. A few Hillary die-hards skulked around the edges. "You have to give them space," the Obama campaign's chief strategist, David Axelrod, consoled a supporter who had been grievously offended by the ununified behavior of the holdouts....

[Imagine a few Hillary die-hards skulked around the edges. Imagine the rottenness.]

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.html?hp

June 24, 2008

Muslim Voters Detect a Snub From Obama
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?hp

June 19, 2008

Obama's Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access
By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.

The Obama campaign said it quickly called the women to apologize after learning of the incident. "It doesn't reflect the orientation of the campaign," said Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "I do not believe that mistake will be made again." ...

[anne]

I know, I know, the problem is all the skulking. Sorry, David Axelrod.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24muslim.html?hp

June 24, 2008

Muslim Voters Detect a Snub From Obama
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country's first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

Mr. Ellison believed that Mr. Obama's message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama's behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation's oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison's Washington office to explain.

"I will never forget the quote," Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide's words. "He said, 'We have a very tightly wrapped message.' " ...

[No skulking in a very tightly wrapped message.]

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/opinion/28collins.html?hp&pagewanted=print

Unity, N.H.

The crowd here stood for hours under the hot sun, so useful for melding purposes. A few Hillary die-hards skulked around the edges. "You have to give them space," the Obama campaign's chief strategist, David Axelrod, consoled a supporter who had been grievously offended by the ununified behavior of the holdouts....

[Imagine the grievously offended, Dears. Sort of like television quiz shows with applause signs flashing. "Applause, now, or else."]

[anne]

Barack Obama advisers are openly discussing whether to leave tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq through 2013, let alone never discussing Somalia and not discussing Afghanistan or Pakistan any longer. So what are we to hope for?

What are we to hope for in Latin America when Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are already being vilified?

[anne]

Where will there be funding for health care insurance broadening, when taxes have been cut and military recovery and enlargement accounted for and spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is already continued, while pay-as-you-go is Congressional policy?

[jalrin]

I think people are missing Tomasky's point: political ethics has a strong duty component to it that requires a high degree of focus on victory.

Politics is not a hobby or a method for self-fulfillment for its participants. It is a life and death struggle to protect and preserve those in your care from their enemies and meet their needs (To reverse Clausewitz: Politics is war by peaceful means). If you lose, then you accomplish nothing and the people counting on you get hurt or killed.

We can fix a lot of this after the election if we win. If we lose, the GOP will be calling the shots and it will not matter what we think and none of this will matter.

Obama will be fine if he loses. The people whose lives depend on a working NLRB, strong environmental crimes enforcement, a depoliticized Justice Department, and no invasion of Iran will not be. If we decide to ignore their needs for our self image as righteous activsts, then those people's blood will cry out from the ground against our selfishness us like the blood of Abel.

says...

Let's not forget Obama will be a tranformational figure. Just win, baby!

[anne]

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/289.html

1919

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-- William Butler Yeats

[anne]

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/y/yeats/william_butler/y4c/complete.html#part84

1933

In Memory of Eva Gore-Booth and Con Markievicz
By William Butler Yeats

THE light of evening, Lissadell,
Great windows open to the south,
Two girls in silk kimonos, both
Beautiful, one a gazelle.
But a raving autumn shears
Blossom from the summer's wreath;
The older is condemned to death,
Pardoned, drags out lonely years
Conspiring among the ignorant.
I know not what the younger dreams —
Some vague Utopia — and she seems,
When withered old and skeleton-gaunt,
An image of such politics.

Many a time I think to seek
One or the other out and speak
Of that old Georgian mansion, mix
pictures of the mind, recall
That table and the talk of youth,
Two girls in silk kimonos, both
Beautiful, one a gazelle.
Dear shadows, now you know it all,
All the folly of a fight
With a common wrong or right.

The innocent and the beautiful....

[Greg]

Anne, wtf is your problem?

You keep posting news article after news article, and then random poems?? Are you mentally disturbed. Just engage in educated debate about the topic at hand.

As to Obama, I agree with Jalrin. Do what it takes to get elected, whatever that takes. The quality of the president literally affects billions of people's lives.

[Julio]

Discuss the fate of mankind without Yeats?
What next -- the price of gas, but not the Fates?

[anne]

Julio:

"Discuss the fate of mankind without Yeats?
What next -- the price of gas, but not the Fates?"

[Brilliant.]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Tragedy/macbeth/macbeth.1.1.html

1605

The Tragedy of Macbeth
By William Shakespeare

Act I. Scene I.

A desert place.

Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches

First Witch

When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch

When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch

That will be ere the set of sun.

First Witch

Where the place?

Second Witch

Upon the heath.

Third Witch

There to meet with Macbeth.

First Witch

I come, Graymalkin!

Second Witch

Paddock calls.

Third Witch

Anon.

ALL

Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.

Exeunt

[anne]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Tragedy/macbeth/macbeth.5.5.html

1605

The Tragedy of Macbeth
By William Shakespeare

Act V. Scene V.

Dunsinane. Within the castle.

MACBETH

Wherefore was that cry?

SEYTON

The queen, my lord, is dead.

MACBETH

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[david]

Anne,

Evidenceless claims, backed by a very bs praise of Clinton health efforts. If you want to fight from the left, you have to try. NY Times light kvetching doesn't make you progressive, it makes you impotent. Try harder, we'll need it.

says...

Just what are Obama's positions again? I seem to have misplaced the party memo.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "I wuv this and I wuv that though, and I have all the crudeness necessary to show all the wuv I have."

The crudeness has been duly noted.

[Bruce Wilder]

Gene O'Grady: "I believe the proper Latin would be "media delenda sunt." "Est" in this phrase would be a grecism."

Of course, I am trying to echo the elder Cato. I confess I could not form the gerundive of deleo with enough confidence to risk any change, even to preserve number agreement. Better, I thought, to argue in my head that Media, in reference to the monolith of American journamalism, could be understood as a collective singular. I am curious as to why you would think the error a grecism. (Poor Cato would have been duly horrified to have been associated with a grecism, even at a remove of 2000 years.)

[prostratedragon]

"It's the Only Thing"

There's no exact record that I know of what the coach actually said, but many accounts insist that it was something like "It's the only thing worth striving for."

That puts a different gloss on the notion of sacrificing anything to the cause.

Regarding Sen. Obama's three "sacrifices" of last week:

1) The FISA one bothers me the most. There are too many reasons for this occasion, most pretty obvious anyway, but the biggest is probably that, as some of the law bloggers have argued, there's a kind of separation of powers poison pill embedded in the bill, whereby a President can back door legislative changes by means of a sequence of actions similar to what the Bush administration have done here, starting with pro forma "assurances," however specious, etc. This is more than I would have expected a Constitutional law prof to accept, but then that shingle's been a bit tarnished all 'round of late.

2) How indeed do we know these are not his beliefs? Of course one never knows truly for certain, a fact that I can live with more easily than some believe it or not, but it's nice when the combination of words and actions resolve.

says...

Is the turnabout on FISA a move to the middle? How is that a sacrifice?

[Julio]

says:
"because policy positions that are set down as candidate will be very difficult to counter as President. Positions set now will trap the coming Administration."

This has not been true for either Clinton or Bush, which covers most of the years I've been paying attention. Clinton ran far more as a progressive on, say, health care than he governed. Bush ran on no nation-building. Why do you think it holds for Obama?

says...
Just what are Obama's positions again? I seem to have misplaced the party memo.

says...
Is the turnabout on FISA a move to the middle? How is that a sacrifice?

[Right on every count.]

[anne]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/susanbond/gG5NWv

June 28, 2008

"Because of the campaign that Hillary Clinton waged, my daughters and all of your daughters will forever know that there is no barrier to who they are and what they can be in the United States of America. They can take for granted that women can do anything that the boys can do (cheers begin) -- and do it better, and do it in heels. I still (Obama laughs) -- I still don't know how she does it in heels."

[I'm like all "hooray."]

[anne]

"I still (Obama laughs) -- I still don't know how she does it in heels."

"The quality of the president literally affects billions of people's lives."

OMG!

[hari]

Look how GWB made a turnabout on his socalled *gang of evil* countries including N Korea and its nuclear weapons industry.

Now, The Telegraph (UK) is telling us in print that Cheney tried to STOP Rice on accepting what Chinese offered from N Korean's - as a first step (also see People's Daily). Cheney/Rice apparently had a serious dispute on policy and GWB intervened on behalf of Rice...that's the story on an individuals "believes" and the "convenience" of his policy turnaround.

The same geopolitical arguments are given froth by what Deputy PM of Israel said about attacking Iranians nuclear facilties (using US fighters). Can one disassociate Cheney and Israeli/IDF attack trial runs on Iran....and crude prices?

[anne]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/susanbond/gG5NWv

"I still (Obama laughs) -- I still don't know how she does it in heels."

"Far from being sexist, this may have actually been the one comment that Obama could make to signal to Hillary's women and to the Obama women that Barack Obama values strong women in politics."

-- Susan B.

[I'm like all "hooray."]

[hari]

If winning is everything...Bolton says to The Telegraph(UK) that there will be an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities between Nov 4 - Jan 20, 2009 just in time of inauguration of next Pres.

Israeli hawks and US neocons are cooking a bit more different geopolitical brew for their *convenience*...and also willing to win the election.

[Lafayette]

MK: High taxes are bad, sure. I don't want higher taxes

Why not?

If it got you Affordable Universal Health Care and Tertiary Level Free Education for your children? Don't you understand the in-the-pocket savings over the years?

This is sort of comment cited is politically myopic. Worse, it's stupid. Much worse, most Americans would agree with you.

Which is why this country is in a mess.

[Lafayette]

BW: I am curious as to why you would think the error a grecism.

Perhaps he was thinking of Media Greeks and not Media Geeks? ;^)

I think plural is applicable in the usage employed. In the modern day Latin Languages (derived from you-know-where), it is. In French, the word media (already plural for medium in Latin) is always "les medias", thus taking the plural verb.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/baselines-shmaselines/

June 18, 2008

Baselines, Shmaselines
By Paul Krugman

Wise words from the Tax Policy Center: *

"There is an easy way to cut through this palaver. Forget the baseline. Just think about three numbers: How much would either candidate collect in taxes as a share of the Gross Domestic Product? How much is government likely to spend? And, how much would they have to cut that spending to keep the national debt from ballooning.

"TPC estimates that in 2013, Obama would collect revenues of 18.2 percent of GDP. McCain would bring in about 17.8 percent. Spending that year would be about 19.5 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, assuming the Iraq war will be winding down."

The key point, again: because of all those middle-class tax cuts in the Obama plan, he collects only 0.4% of GDP more in taxes than McCain. The tax collection comes from different people: lower and middle-income Americans would be substantially better off under the Obama plan. But where is the money for health care reform?

* http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/17/3749641.html

[Lafayette]

Opening thunder

anne: Whether Obama is really so conservative on issues from health care to fiscal policy is not clear and matters little to me ....

I hope one day to see a presidential campaign that doesn't descend to either character assassination or labeling. But, given that both seem to work in an addle-headed population, that day will not likely come in my lifetime.

The article is correct in underscoring that the point of a presidential campaign is winning it. We shall see how BO slaloms in between the raindrops that are likely to fall.

These recent positions, if that is what they can be called, is just the opening thunder for the storm on the horizon.

NB: I've witnessed head-of-government campaigns in four different European countries. In not one does it reassemble the US in depth of policy obfuscation and media manipulation (meaning attaching erroneous labels and employing slanderous character assassination). And all that crap at enormous expense.

[anne]

Lafayette:

"NB: I've witnessed head-of-government campaigns in four different European countries. In not one does it reassemble the US in depth of policy obfuscation and media manipulation (meaning attaching erroneous labels and employing slanderous character assassination)."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29dowd.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 29, 2008

'It's Over, Lady!'
By MAUREEN DOWD

UNITY, N.H.

They did not, however, commiserate about Bill Clinton, who is in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more — more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt.

It's hard to fathom why Obama should be mau-maued into paying off the debt that Hillary and Bill accrued attacking and undermining him, while mismanaging the campaign and their nearly quarter-billion-dollar war chest so horribly that one Hillaryland insider told The New Republic that it bordered on fraud.

But the former president can't stand being a loser, so he's taking it out on the winner. When it comes to Bill, there's a lot of vanity but very little humility in Unity.

[Employing slanderous character assassination?]

[anne]

"I still (Obama laughs) -- I still don't know how she does it in heels."

Meanwhile:

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/06/not-in-saudi-arabia-targets-of-their.html

June 28, 2008

Not in Saudi Arabia: "The targets of their ire were the women, and some men, who have dared to speak up against the club's policy of forbidding women in the men's grill room, a center of power dining in Phoenix." *

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28countryclub.html

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

[Lafayette]

Sic transit gloria mundi.

anne (Dowd): But the former president can't stand being a loser, so he's taking it out on the winner. When it comes to Bill, there's a lot of vanity but very little humility in Unity.

If we had wanted to elect Mother Teresa as PotUS, I think she would have failed miserably. So, I don't understand why we think presidential candidates must walk-on-water. I assume that they put their pants on one leg at time, like must of us. I expect failings and hope for safety-nets.

And, it would be nice, one day, to say a woman PotUS puts on her hosiery in the same fashion. That day will come, I am sure. BO has broken down a glass ceiling, like JFK did before him. Let's hope that a woman will break her glass-ceiling in a shorter arch of time.

Bill is/was a huckster, but despite his foibles he must be accepted as the man he his, with all his warts and the occasional halo (when it's turned on).

I begrudge him only one failure, Health Care. He should have persisted. And, I cannot forgive him for selling out Glass-Steagall to Robert Ruin (or is that Rubin?)

He called in his chits for that bit of shameful cronyism to finance Hillary's campaign. And, obviously, it wasn't enough. Hillary persisted one bridge to far. Whilst many citizens paid the bill for the sub-prime mess that almost seized the nation's credit mechanism.

Sic transit gloria mundi. Especially when you take the devil by the tail. (Wish I knew how to say that in Latin ...)

says...

In 1960 John Kennedy is nominated as the Democratic candidate for president. The nomination is celebrated as a major breakthrough for Catholics who represent 24% of U.S. population.

In 2008 Barak Obama is nominated as the Democratic candidate for president. The nomination is celebrated as a major breakthrough for African Americans who represent 13% of U.S. population.

Women, who represent 51% of U.S. population, are still waiting for their major breakthrough.

Americans won’t have “Change We Can Believe In” until we have a woman in the White House.

[Lafayette]

Private Parts

anon: Americans won’t have “Change We Can Believe In” until we have a woman in the White House.

In 2012, Hillary will still be here. Maybe as VP. If she can navigate the transition better than Gore, she just might have a chance.

But, she needs to prove herself, all over again. Their "thing", called Billary, has to be forgot first. And she must forge a new unique identity. As VP she could be given a major piece of legislation, like Universal Health Care, and this time make sure it passes through a more malleable Congress. (The Dems must remember that they could use a better foothold in the Senate. They need a solid margin there next January, or BO will be hobbled.)

It's not Mission Impossible. It's just Mission Improbable. But if anyone can do it, Hillary can. (If Bill can keep his private parts in his pants and off prime-time... ;^)

[Cynthia]

Lafayette,

Sounds to me like Gene O'Grady is trying to rub out Grecian Formula from Bruce Wilder's words...

[Lafayette]

Cynthia: Sounds to me like Gene O'Grady is trying to rub out Grecian Formula from Bruce Wilder's words...

I didn't quite understand that reference to "Grecian", but then thought perhaps one had to speak Greek to do so -- and I don't.

I was, however, prompted to look up the translation from Latin into English of the word "medium", which is this: everyday life, the common good, the public eye

So, should we think the media is a "common good"? Not really. But, the "public eye" does seem appropriate.

[Cynthia]

Lafayette,

Apparently you're not an American consumer. Anyone who shops at, say, Wal-Mart knows what Grecian Formula is.;^)

[Lafayette]

Cynthia: Apparently you're not an American consumer

You're right. I live in France.

Can I be forgiven? ;^)

[mik]

In 1960 John Kennedy is nominated as the Democratic candidate for president. The nomination is celebrated as a major breakthrough for Catholics who represent 24% of U.S. population.

In 2008 Barak Obama is nominated as the Democratic candidate for president. The nomination is celebrated as a major breakthrough for African Americans who represent 13% of U.S. population.

Women, who represent 51% of U.S. population, are still waiting for their major breakthrough.

No matter how many "firsts" nominees and/or Presidents we have there is alway a group that has never had one of their own as candidate/Prez.

If woman is a nominee/Prez, gays did not have one.
If gays get one, Jews or Japanese would want one.

In mean time, progressives and cultural Marxists (perhaps it is one and the same?), will fill justified in hating USA.

[Cynthia]

Lafayette,

Your forgiveness is as easy as 1-2-3...;^)