The Economist has some excellent commentary on the state of the battle of ideas in America. Here are some highlights:
"The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats' way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today. The poll also revealed a decline in support for the things that drove the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s, such as traditional moral values."
" The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew."
" The damage is not limited to the Bush administration: a Rasmussen poll on July 25th-26th found that Mrs Clinton outscores Mr Giuliani as the candidate voters trust most on national security. "
BUT...
"The Democrats' good fortune is much more the result of a Republican collapse than a Democratic revival. The March Pew poll shows that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Democratic Party has actually declined by six points since January 2001."
"The Democratic-controlled Congress is even more unpopular than the Bush White House, with the lowest approval rating in 35 years."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Hillary's Pseudo-Controversy
The Associated Press decided to do a little research into Senator Clinton's thoughts on the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy. As it turns out, last year, in response to a question about the use of the atomic bomb against Iran, she told Bloomberg television that she "would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."
Recently, she harshly--and apparently hypocritically--criticized Barack Obama for saying nuclear weapons were off the table in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This goes back to the ruthlessness of Hillary Clinton that I talked about in my post on Wednesday. It appears as though she merely made Obama's comments an issue because it gave her an opportunity to caricaturize him as "irresponsible" and "naive." I'll ask the same question I asked on Wednesday: if she is so willing to polarize her own party, how can we trust Hillary to bridge the partisan divide created by President Bush?
Recently, she harshly--and apparently hypocritically--criticized Barack Obama for saying nuclear weapons were off the table in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This goes back to the ruthlessness of Hillary Clinton that I talked about in my post on Wednesday. It appears as though she merely made Obama's comments an issue because it gave her an opportunity to caricaturize him as "irresponsible" and "naive." I'll ask the same question I asked on Wednesday: if she is so willing to polarize her own party, how can we trust Hillary to bridge the partisan divide created by President Bush?
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Nickel and Dimed
"Maids, as an occupational group, are not visible, and when we are seen we are often sorry for it. On the way to the Martha Stewart-ish place, when Holly and Marge were complaining about her haughtiness in a past encounter, I had ventured to ask why so many of the owners seem hostile or contemptuous toward us. "They think we're stupid," was Holly's answer. "They think we have nothing better to do with our time." Marge too looked suddenly sober. "We're nothing to these people," she said. "We're just maids.""
-An excerpt from Barbara Ehrenreich's book, Nickel and Dimed. Every liberal should read this book, especially if he or she claims to be concerned with poverty and the lives of America's working class.
-An excerpt from Barbara Ehrenreich's book, Nickel and Dimed. Every liberal should read this book, especially if he or she claims to be concerned with poverty and the lives of America's working class.
The Clinton / Obama Ticket
As the race progresses, more and more people are predicting a Clinton/Obama democratic ticket. CNN (both on the blogs and on the network), Gingrich, Giuliani, Politico, and more.
This argument makes sense, especially under the circumstances of Hillary winning the endorsement. Obama is a HUGE name and countless people LOVE his policies, ideas, etc (like most Bruin Democrats and other young people, myself excluded). She would be foolish to not bring him with her to the debates, press junkets, and White House.
On the flip side, I do not necessarily know whether they would work well together. They agree on a lot of issues, but there are some things that they just seem to be very different on. Take, for example, the policy on Iraq: are they too different, so that they would end up sabotaging each other?
I do not predict Edwards as a VP candidate again. He had his chance, didn't do much with it, and doesn't really have that much new stuff to bring to the Vice-Presidency than he did before. Yes, he has grown a lot as a leading candidate, but I do not think running him as VP again would do much good.
Richardson is the only possible exception to the Clinton/Obama ticket. He has the leadership that both Clinton and Obama don't have (he is Governor), he is from a border state so he probably gets immigration, etc much more than the other candidates, and he can quite possibly bring the Latino/a vote. This shouldn't be ignored. Plus, though some people have a problem with his God-like "6 day plan", I think that there is not much room for him bringing bad press as a VP, but so much to gain.
This argument makes sense, especially under the circumstances of Hillary winning the endorsement. Obama is a HUGE name and countless people LOVE his policies, ideas, etc (like most Bruin Democrats and other young people, myself excluded). She would be foolish to not bring him with her to the debates, press junkets, and White House.
On the flip side, I do not necessarily know whether they would work well together. They agree on a lot of issues, but there are some things that they just seem to be very different on. Take, for example, the policy on Iraq: are they too different, so that they would end up sabotaging each other?
I do not predict Edwards as a VP candidate again. He had his chance, didn't do much with it, and doesn't really have that much new stuff to bring to the Vice-Presidency than he did before. Yes, he has grown a lot as a leading candidate, but I do not think running him as VP again would do much good.
Richardson is the only possible exception to the Clinton/Obama ticket. He has the leadership that both Clinton and Obama don't have (he is Governor), he is from a border state so he probably gets immigration, etc much more than the other candidates, and he can quite possibly bring the Latino/a vote. This shouldn't be ignored. Plus, though some people have a problem with his God-like "6 day plan", I think that there is not much room for him bringing bad press as a VP, but so much to gain.
More on China
Foreign Policy Magazine has a web exclusive article about China and the 2008 Olympic games that's worth reading.
A couple of days ago, I opined that the Olympics might bring a few reforms to China. I don't think I'm entirely wrong on that account, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the issue is so gray that there are a lot of negative things to say about the International Olympic Committee picking Beijing as a host. For instance, repressive governments like China and Russia use the games as a way to gain undeserved legitimacy. And that's only part of the problem--read the article, mang, I'm not an expert, or a Marshall Scholar for that matter.
A couple of days ago, I opined that the Olympics might bring a few reforms to China. I don't think I'm entirely wrong on that account, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the issue is so gray that there are a lot of negative things to say about the International Olympic Committee picking Beijing as a host. For instance, repressive governments like China and Russia use the games as a way to gain undeserved legitimacy. And that's only part of the problem--read the article, mang, I'm not an expert, or a Marshall Scholar for that matter.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Hillary's Pseudo-Appeals for a United Party
“I’ve noticed in the last few days that a lot of the other campaigns have been using my name a lot. I’m here because I think we need to change America; it’s not to get into fights with Democrats.” -Senator Hillary Clinton
While her sentiment is certainly appreciated, her willingness to actually live up to her words is demonstrably lacking. A sizable portion of the verbal jabs that have been thrown in the past two Democratic candidate forums are rooted in her attack on Barack Obama in the CNN youTube debate.
After Hillary made Obama look like a man who wants to open the doors of the White House to the world’s peskiest dictators, he did not have much of choice but to go on the offensive. If he let her remarks go unanswered, Clinton’s portrayal of him as inexperienced and naive would have stuck in the press. Obama’s controversial foreign policy speech in which he advocated pursuing al-Qaeda in Pakistan was also arguably inspired by Hillary’s accusations that he lacks the thoughtfulness to be commander-in-chief. Of course, this speech resulted in more criticism from Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd who are aching to draw some attention from the media.
It’s this kind of behavior that leads Americans to believe she is every bit as ruthless as her critics say. If she is this willing to polarize her own party, how can voters trust her to bridge the partisan divide created by President Bush?Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Obama and Hillary Continue to Spar on Foreign Policy at AFL-CIO Debate
"You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because they could have consequences."
-Senator Hillary Clinton criticizing Barack Obama's willingness to attack al-Qaeda in Pakistan on the basis of "actionable intelligence."
"I find it amusing that those who help to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation are now criticizing me for making sure we're on the right battlefield."
-Senator Barack Obama in response to criticism of his foreign policy judgement by Senators Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton.
-Senator Hillary Clinton criticizing Barack Obama's willingness to attack al-Qaeda in Pakistan on the basis of "actionable intelligence."
"I find it amusing that those who help to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation are now criticizing me for making sure we're on the right battlefield."
-Senator Barack Obama in response to criticism of his foreign policy judgement by Senators Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton.
AFL-CIO Post-Debate Analysis
Going into the debate tonight, the pundits wondered to what extent Edwards and Obama would continue their attacks on Hillary’s willingness to take campaign contributions from federal lobbyists. They didn’t have to wait long to get their answer. When Keith Olberman asked Edwards how he would improve America’s infrastructure, he managed to fit the specter of lobbyists into his answer. Later, in response to a question about NAFTA, Edwards said that the trade agreement is a striking example of the influence insiders have on policy in Washington. Naturally, skewering Washington lobbyists played pretty well in front of a union audience.
It looks as though Edwards is finding his niche as the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” candidate. He plays the role well, but the question is whether or not it’s too late. Albeit there is plenty of time left before the Iowa caucus; however, there is no denying that media elites have anointed Hillary and Obama as the queen and king of the 2008 primary. In spite of Edwards’ passion and substance, there is no indication that his new routine is doing any real damage to the frontrunners.
Timing is not the only questionable element of Edwards’ new about-face. The believability of his role as the “mad populist” is also iffy. This blog’s audience does not need to be reminded of how $400 haircuts and appearances on the covers of Esquire and Men’s Vogue have tarnished the candidate’s populist reputation.
Things heated up when Olberman asked Chris Dodd to comment on Obama’s proposal to take the war on terrorism to Northwest Pakistan. After Dodd criticized Obama’s judgment, Hillary commented that a commander-in-chief should not always talk publicly on matters of foreign policy. The crowd responded to Hillary’s remark with boos, and all the criticism woke up Obama who was a little flat for most of the debate. With his back to the wall, the senator from Illinois asked how his detractors had the temerity to question his foreign policy judgment after voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It’s a fair question.
With the exception of her boo-inspiring remarks, Hillary gave another solid and poised performance. Once again, she was in a somewhat hostile environment, but she still managed to stay on top of her game with thoughtful and quick responses. More importantly, though, she showed as much authenticity in this forum as she did at the YearlyKos convention. Nonetheless, in an election year that is all about replacing the deceptive Bush Administration, arguing that a president should not always share policy ideas with the American public is not pleasing to the ears of voters.
It looks as though Edwards is finding his niche as the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” candidate. He plays the role well, but the question is whether or not it’s too late. Albeit there is plenty of time left before the Iowa caucus; however, there is no denying that media elites have anointed Hillary and Obama as the queen and king of the 2008 primary. In spite of Edwards’ passion and substance, there is no indication that his new routine is doing any real damage to the frontrunners.
Timing is not the only questionable element of Edwards’ new about-face. The believability of his role as the “mad populist” is also iffy. This blog’s audience does not need to be reminded of how $400 haircuts and appearances on the covers of Esquire and Men’s Vogue have tarnished the candidate’s populist reputation.
Things heated up when Olberman asked Chris Dodd to comment on Obama’s proposal to take the war on terrorism to Northwest Pakistan. After Dodd criticized Obama’s judgment, Hillary commented that a commander-in-chief should not always talk publicly on matters of foreign policy. The crowd responded to Hillary’s remark with boos, and all the criticism woke up Obama who was a little flat for most of the debate. With his back to the wall, the senator from Illinois asked how his detractors had the temerity to question his foreign policy judgment after voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It’s a fair question.
With the exception of her boo-inspiring remarks, Hillary gave another solid and poised performance. Once again, she was in a somewhat hostile environment, but she still managed to stay on top of her game with thoughtful and quick responses. More importantly, though, she showed as much authenticity in this forum as she did at the YearlyKos convention. Nonetheless, in an election year that is all about replacing the deceptive Bush Administration, arguing that a president should not always share policy ideas with the American public is not pleasing to the ears of voters.
China and the 2008 Olympic Games
While I sympathize with people who argue that China should have never been allowed to host the Olympic games in 2008, I think this position is a little short-sighted because it fails to consider all the attention that will be focused on China in the coming year.
Don't get me wrong, it's reprehensible that the Chinese government is kicking poor people out of their homes to build stadiums, and there is no denying that China has a terrible record on human rights and freedom of the press. However, the Olympic games are putting a spotlight on all of these issues. For the next year, groups like Reporters Without Borders will have plenty of opportunities to raise a fuss on the world stage as every other country watches.
Hopefully, the Olympics will bear the fruit of democratic reform in China.
Don't get me wrong, it's reprehensible that the Chinese government is kicking poor people out of their homes to build stadiums, and there is no denying that China has a terrible record on human rights and freedom of the press. However, the Olympic games are putting a spotlight on all of these issues. For the next year, groups like Reporters Without Borders will have plenty of opportunities to raise a fuss on the world stage as every other country watches.
Hopefully, the Olympics will bear the fruit of democratic reform in China.
Quote of the Day
"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it's nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all."
-Elizabeth Edwards, quoted in CIO Insight.
-Elizabeth Edwards, quoted in CIO Insight.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Hillary, Foreign Policy, and the General Election
The Washington Post notes that Senator Clinton has consciously packaged her foreign policy for consumption in the general election. Rather than getting caught in the classic predictament of running far to the left in the primary and desperately trying to run back to the center in the general election, Hillary is attempting to minimize the difference between her rhetoric in the primary and her rhetoric in the general. This is a pretty sound political strategy, at least according to Republican campaign guru Ken Mehlman's standards, and I don't mean that in a bad way.
Not too long ago, Gabe told me about the time he heard Mehlman speak about how to translate a win in the primary into a win in the general election. Gabe said Mehlman made a convincing argument that the candidate who is ultimately elected president is usually the candidate whose message changed the least from the primary campaign to the general election campaign. When you think about it, the rule works as an explanation for Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004.
But is this gambit too late for Hillary? Right-wing pundit Sean Hannity has already treated his audience to a tape documenting the evolution of her stance on the Iraq War, and it's not pretty. On the other hand, there is no denying that Senator Clinton is very adept at projecting a presidential heir when she discusses foreign policy on the campaign trail. In other words, she knows how to articulate her foreign policy proposals without falling into the rhetorical traps of sloganeering that are so prevalent in any primary. If she wins the nomination, she will certainly have to answer Republican questions about her inconsistent position on Iraq, but her current strategy of answering questions on foreign policy with the "tone of a commander-in-chief" will take away at least a few of GOP talking points.
Not too long ago, Gabe told me about the time he heard Mehlman speak about how to translate a win in the primary into a win in the general election. Gabe said Mehlman made a convincing argument that the candidate who is ultimately elected president is usually the candidate whose message changed the least from the primary campaign to the general election campaign. When you think about it, the rule works as an explanation for Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004.
But is this gambit too late for Hillary? Right-wing pundit Sean Hannity has already treated his audience to a tape documenting the evolution of her stance on the Iraq War, and it's not pretty. On the other hand, there is no denying that Senator Clinton is very adept at projecting a presidential heir when she discusses foreign policy on the campaign trail. In other words, she knows how to articulate her foreign policy proposals without falling into the rhetorical traps of sloganeering that are so prevalent in any primary. If she wins the nomination, she will certainly have to answer Republican questions about her inconsistent position on Iraq, but her current strategy of answering questions on foreign policy with the "tone of a commander-in-chief" will take away at least a few of GOP talking points.
Some Late Thoughts on the YearlyKos Candidates Forum
For a rollicking good time, watch the YearlyKos candidates forum on youtube. The audience was allowed to boo, hiss, cheer, and applaud, which made for a debate, er, forum, that was actually fun to watch.
Some might say that Hillary Clinton stumbled, but that is not entirely true. Though Barack Obama certainly hit her hard on the matter of taking campaign donations from federal lobbyists, she deserves credit for sticking by her unpopular position in front of a crowd of bloodthirsty netroots activists. She was in hostile territory, and she handled it with grace and a good sense of humor. When one of the moderators accidentally called her President Clinton, she sarcastically joked that it must have been a Freudian slip. Humor aside, Clinton’s delivery was poised and well practiced, as always. The Senator’s highpoint came in a candid response to a question asking what she learned from her mistakes as the head of her husband’s efforts to give America universal healthcare. If she could do it over again, she says she would have spent more time strategizing and building coalitions before attempting to take on the big insurance companies. The icing on the cake was a self-deprecating remark that she would not make the same tactical mistakes she made in the early nineties, which she says were too many in number to count. Honesty and authenticity is so refreshing, especially coming from Senator Clinton.
Meanwhile, Obama continued to raise eyebrows with some long awaited morsels of substance. This time he delved into the issue of U.S.-China relations. “I think that the right way to look at it is that China is a competitor, but it doesn’t have to be an enemy unless we help make it into an enemy,” he argued. From there, he commented that the United States must not only find its way out of debt to the Chinese, but also fill the void that China is currently filling in African nations. If you add the substance to the differences he drew between himself and Senator Clinton on accepting contributions from lobbyists, Obama had a solidly strong showing.
Since there is still some disagreement about whether or not it’s a two-candidate race, I’ll take some time to give John Edwards a few plaudits. While one part of me says his campaign can’t recover from his inability to reconcile $400 haircuts with populism, another part of me sees a man of substance and sincerity. His performance in the forum revealed an authentic passion for keeping the special interests out of important decision making in Washington. Edwards is in tune with those voters in Middle America who have lost faith in our democracy, and like the Bill of yore, he feels their pain. For whatever reason, he still does not seem to be catching enough traction to keep up with Hillary and Obama. Nonetheless, he still hasn’t gone away.
Some might say that Hillary Clinton stumbled, but that is not entirely true. Though Barack Obama certainly hit her hard on the matter of taking campaign donations from federal lobbyists, she deserves credit for sticking by her unpopular position in front of a crowd of bloodthirsty netroots activists. She was in hostile territory, and she handled it with grace and a good sense of humor. When one of the moderators accidentally called her President Clinton, she sarcastically joked that it must have been a Freudian slip. Humor aside, Clinton’s delivery was poised and well practiced, as always. The Senator’s highpoint came in a candid response to a question asking what she learned from her mistakes as the head of her husband’s efforts to give America universal healthcare. If she could do it over again, she says she would have spent more time strategizing and building coalitions before attempting to take on the big insurance companies. The icing on the cake was a self-deprecating remark that she would not make the same tactical mistakes she made in the early nineties, which she says were too many in number to count. Honesty and authenticity is so refreshing, especially coming from Senator Clinton.
Meanwhile, Obama continued to raise eyebrows with some long awaited morsels of substance. This time he delved into the issue of U.S.-China relations. “I think that the right way to look at it is that China is a competitor, but it doesn’t have to be an enemy unless we help make it into an enemy,” he argued. From there, he commented that the United States must not only find its way out of debt to the Chinese, but also fill the void that China is currently filling in African nations. If you add the substance to the differences he drew between himself and Senator Clinton on accepting contributions from lobbyists, Obama had a solidly strong showing.
Since there is still some disagreement about whether or not it’s a two-candidate race, I’ll take some time to give John Edwards a few plaudits. While one part of me says his campaign can’t recover from his inability to reconcile $400 haircuts with populism, another part of me sees a man of substance and sincerity. His performance in the forum revealed an authentic passion for keeping the special interests out of important decision making in Washington. Edwards is in tune with those voters in Middle America who have lost faith in our democracy, and like the Bill of yore, he feels their pain. For whatever reason, he still does not seem to be catching enough traction to keep up with Hillary and Obama. Nonetheless, he still hasn’t gone away.
Failed States Index
For the past three years, Foreign Policy Magazine has released a list of the sixty states that are most vulnerable to failure. As Americans know too well, failed states are often the preferred neighborhoods of terrorists. Terrorism aside, globalization fosters an environment in which the problems of these weak states become transnational in nature. It's no coincidence that Sudan and Chad--two countries teetering on the edge of collapse--share a border.
Here's a List of the Top 10:
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Ivory Coast
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
Here's a List of the Top 10:
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Ivory Coast
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
Giuliani's Daughter Supports Obama
The Associated Press reports that Rudy Giuliani's seventeen year old daughter is audacious enough to support Barack Obama instead of her father.
Giuliani's family troubles are his own business, but I'm not sure social conservatives would agree with me. He's currently on his third marriage. His son Andrew does not seem to be on speaking terms with him. And, apparently, his daughter does not think highly enough of her father to support his bid for the presidency.
In spite of Rudy's family drama, he's hailed in most circles as the current Republican frontrunner. We'll see if he can stay in that spot until January.
Giuliani's family troubles are his own business, but I'm not sure social conservatives would agree with me. He's currently on his third marriage. His son Andrew does not seem to be on speaking terms with him. And, apparently, his daughter does not think highly enough of her father to support his bid for the presidency.
In spite of Rudy's family drama, he's hailed in most circles as the current Republican frontrunner. We'll see if he can stay in that spot until January.
A Great Summer Read
Hey Everybody. Since I have finally (pun intended? I'll let you decide) emerged from finals oblivion, I figured I should actually deliver on my promise to keep the BD blog discussion rolling.
If you're reading this, you're probably a bored bleeding heart liberal. Well, instead of wallowing in boredom, you should pick up Frank Rich's book The Greatest Story Ever Sold. I'm only 50 pages into this 225 pager, but I can already tell it's a gem.
Rich not only takes an engaging look inside the incompetency of the Bush Administration, but also outside the Bush Administration. That is, rather than simply reminding us about the ineptitude of our president and his cohorts, he also examines the culture that surrounds them. For instance, he links American society's obsession with reality TV shows to the administration's penchant for developing their own realities. It's an interesting concept, and there's plenty more where that came from. Do yourself a favor: read this book.
If you're reading this, you're probably a bored bleeding heart liberal. Well, instead of wallowing in boredom, you should pick up Frank Rich's book The Greatest Story Ever Sold. I'm only 50 pages into this 225 pager, but I can already tell it's a gem.
Rich not only takes an engaging look inside the incompetency of the Bush Administration, but also outside the Bush Administration. That is, rather than simply reminding us about the ineptitude of our president and his cohorts, he also examines the culture that surrounds them. For instance, he links American society's obsession with reality TV shows to the administration's penchant for developing their own realities. It's an interesting concept, and there's plenty more where that came from. Do yourself a favor: read this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)