Mike Lupica on the weekend in Iowa

One of my favorite columnists, Mike Lupica (in today's 8/15/11 Daily News), sums up the weekend in Iowa:

Whether [Rick] Dubya Perry is holier than Michele Bachmann, the new President of Ames, Iowa, remains to be seen. For now, though, Perry and Bachmann are the headliners of the moment in the Republican Party. Barack Obama must be rooting like crazy for both of them, at the beginning of a campaign where fringe Republicans might do a better job of saving Obama than he can of saving himself.

Here's one of Bachmann's latest thoughts: "The Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy has worked very well", she told CNN's State of the Union. "I would be in consultation with our commanders, but yes, I probably will" reinstate the ban. (also in today's Daily News)

FDR to A. Philip Randolph: "Make me"

I know we all want Obama to stand up against the onslaught of Republican Tea Party madness. It's clear from this afternoon's press conference that this isn't going to easily happen. He seems to be repeating the same mistakes he made at the beginning of his administration. No matter how obviously obstructionist they are, he is going to talk about compromise and agreement. That's what he did two years ago. Remember what they say about someone who keeps doing the same thing and expects different results.

But there is another side to this story: presidents (and other politicians) don't act in the interests of the people without enormous pressure from outside. The probably apocryphal story that FDR's response when Sleeping Car-porters union organizer A. Philip Randolph came to him to ask him to integrate the war industries: "make me" led to the first March on Washington.

In other words what happens the next two years depends on us, not Obama.

How to achieve bi-partisanship: buy some Democrats, put a hit out on some Republicans

Watching the travesty that passed for the Senate Finance Committee meeting last week (9/29) was like watching a bunch of thieves at the public trough. The behavior of the five Democrats who voted against the public option is totally understandable once you realize how well they're getting paid by the healthcare industries. Here's what they've gotten:

Max Baucus got $7,734,102, Blanche Lincoln received $4,190,592, Ken Conrad took in $3,287,891, Bill Nelson was given $2,414,895 and Tom Carper accepted $1,592,380 from health industry interests.

If money is the reason these five Democrats rejected the public option, then it only took a little over 19 million dollars over 20 years to buy the five votes the health insurance industry needed to kill any meaningful reform to their industry.

19 million dollars is nothing compared to the profits the insurance industry will make if a public option is defeated. They got a great deal for that 19 million. The American people? Not so much (from Intershame.com)

This clearly explains the continuation of the ineptitude of the Democrats regarding healthcare reform. From the President on down to the Senate drones like Baucus they have constantly taken every bargaining chip they possessed off the table. First the president dropped any attempt to go for single payer, because he believed he couldn't get it through - never mind trying before giving up.

In March, the president explained at a town meeting why he abandoned single payer:

The problem is, is that we have what's called a legacy, a set of institutions that aren't that easily transformed. Let me just see a show of hands: How many people here have health insurance through your employer? Okay, so the majority of Americans, sort of -- partly for historical accident. I won't go into -- FDR had imposed wage controls during war time in World War II. People were -- companies were trying to figure out how to attract workers. And they said, well, maybe we'll provide health care as a benefit.

And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system. It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch. But that's what everybody is accustomed to. That's what everybody is used to. It works for a lot of Americans. And so I don't think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps. (from: The L.A. Times)

Yesterday the well paid Max Baucus explained why he was taking the public option off the table:

My job is to put together a bill that will become law. In a sentence, that means my job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. I can count. No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option in the bill.

It's easy to see the basic fallacy in this argument. Obama could have befgun with single payer and bargained it away to get something else (public option?). But if you give it away before you start, you can't use it to bargain. The same is obviously true of Baucus' argument. He can try to get 60 votes with a public option in the bill, but he might endanger his healthcare insurance company money if by accident he succeeds. If he can't get 60 votes with the public option in the bill, he can always bargain it away. With his strategy, he's a loser but he satisfies his healthcare insurance patrons.

So the connection between the Democrats who oppose a public option and their patrons is clear. But the other side of the story is how the Republicans enforce such absolute discipline over its party votes. Yesterday ALL Republicans on the committee voted against the public option. I don't think it's ever been possible in any organization (not the church, not the military) to enforce that kind of discipline, except for one: The mob. I don't really think that the Republicans have any of Olympia Snow's family in a garage ready to enforce discipline. But in politics defeat is like death. So all the GOP powers-that-be have to do is to threaten any possible rebels with a healthcare insurance company backed more right-wing opponent in their primary. The opponent doesn't even have to unseat them, but the money spent on the primary, won't be there for the general election.

Ergo! no change. Buy the necessary Democrats and scare the hell out of any wavering Republicans.

Right-wing again crawls out of the sewer to attack Obama

I've been away from the U.S. for two weeks and the country has gone crazy. I suppose you've been wondering how desperate the Right-wing and the Republican party are. Well check out the Sean Hannity panel discussion about the photo then check out the real story. Clearly Hannity, as usual didn't care about the truth any more than the Drudge Report did. They just went with the photo that made the President look bad, even though it was simply not true. Even scarier, a number of media outlets mentioned that it was a young WHITE woman. This level of racist desperation is seemingly where the American right-wing is at today. There seems to be no sewer into which they won't dive.



Now here's the truth that the Hannity panel had no use for.

Obama Checking Out Lady? Judge for Yourself

Shared via AddThis

(If you are viewing this on FaceBook, check out http://contestedterrain.blogspot.com/ to see the videos)

Limbaugh is right!

For once I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh in his latest shot across Obama's bow says that "...if he [Obama] fails America is saved. Barack Obama's policies and their failure is the ony hope we've got to maintain the America of our founding" That's true. If the nation as it was founded in slavery, a nation in which only propertied white men could vote and participate in its democracy - then it's quite true Obama must fail and the racist, sexist Limbaugh-led Republican Party must succeed.

One other Limbaugh note: He says he is going to sell his New York City apartment (good luck with that) and not come back to New York City again because of new taxes on rich people like him. I can only cheer a Limbaugh-less city.

Radical right nut jobs challenge Obama's right to be president

The radical right nut jobs are becoming more and more desperate. Since they completely misjudged the electorate first during the campaign and then by blindly rejecting Obama's stimulus package, they are now back to challenging his birthplace and therefore his constitutional right to be president. I have believed for a long time that the Republicans have had people working on articles of impeachment - even before Obama was inaugurated. This bogus birthplace nonsense seems to be their current weapon of choice.

The Alabama Republican, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, met with constituents on Saturday,

And a local resident asked him if there is any truth to allegations that arose during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s place of birth, the Cullman Times reported.

He answered

Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president.

Right-wing website Newsmax also reports that longtime Obama opponent Alan Keyes also says Obama has failed constitutional muster to become president, since, he argues, Obama was born in Kenya. You really have to listen to his diatribe at an interview last week in order to get the full impact of the right-wing desperation and loss of touch with reality. These people may seem like extremes but I think they are in the mainstream of the right.

(If you are reading this on Facebook click here to watch Keyes diatribe) .

Notice that in case the birthplace nonsense doesn't work out for them, Keyes falls back on the desperate ploy McCain and Palen used when they became desperate: accusing Obama of being "a radical communist who will destroy America. "

One thing for sure, the more of the electorate who become aware of this, the more out-to-lunch these people will appear. They clearly move from the position of political opponents of the president to people with a more psychiatrically diagnosable disease.

Rick Warren stains Obama inauguration

The choice of homo-phobic Rev. Rick Warren to pronounce the invocation at the inauguration is truly puzzling. President-elect Barack Obama always calls for bringing people - with different points-of-view - together. But it seems that whenever he opens his arms to embrace someone with "different views," he always reaches out to the right, never to the Left. In other words, the Barack version of inclusiveness is from the Liberal center to the extreme right. He will still not win over the right-wing media (all of whom, for example, have already spread scurrilous rumors accusing him of playing footsie with with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.) That still resolute 25-30% of the U.S. population who believes that George W. Bush is "doing a good job" will not be won over by besmirching the Obama inauguration with the likes of Rick Warren. From America blog here are several choice quotes from Warren's Saddleback Church family.com :

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

I wonder how many members of restricted country clubs will play prominant roles at the Obama inauguration.

So much for Barack Obama's vaunted inclusiveness.

Here's Rachel Madow's comments on Rick warren at the inauguration:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If you're watching this on FaceBook click here to see Rachel Maddow video)

Communicating with Obama: what can we lose?

I know that the only way to actually influence the incoming administration is to stand up and demand the "change we need." We need to organize and protest when we see violations of what we've been promised. But there are, in fact, many ways to communicate our ideas for change. This administration-in-waiting seems open to thinking outside the box. With this in mind here's a website you might want to know about: click on Change.gov then go to Agenda select an issue on which you want to influence the course of action (for example, Health care) and tell Obama/Biden what you think they should do, what kind of "change we need."

We know that this is not the whole answer. But it is part of the struggle for change. The more progressive voices they hear from the more likely they will act in our interests and not those of the military-industrial complex. Anyway I think it's worth a try. Maybe I'm just a "cockeyed optimist."

(Thanks to PDA-America: Health care not Warfare for directing me to this site)

Obama and Clinton's remarks at the introduction of his "National Security Team"

Here are the comments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the introduction today of his "National Security Team." I will have more to say about all of them collectively and as individuals and its portent for Obama's presidency. But just for now does it bother anyone else that these appointments (Sec'y of State, Representative to the UN and Attorney General, etc.) are collectively labeled by Obama and the media as his "national security team." Many words got short shrift today, but the one that was very rarely mentioned was "Peace."



(If you are seeing this on FaceBook, please click here to see video)

Clinton for Sec'y of State? Politics still makes strange bed-fellows

Questions about Sen. Clinton as Sec'y of State may be academic at this point, if Nico Pitney, National Editor of the Huffington Post, is correct:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

But here are some thoughts anyway about Sen. Clinton for Sec'y of State. Rob Kall on OpEd News says:

Sorry. I don't trust her. She still wants the presidency. She is not someone who will take orders well and that's what is needed in a Secretary of state. I've said it before. The nation was offered and voted for CHANGE, not recycled Clinton people.

Alternatively, The NYT quotes one of Obama's people:

he's self-confident enough to want to send a message to the world about America and all that it can be - and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state would do that.

Some other people say that it would be good for Obama to get her out of the Senate, where, otherwise, she could play the role of gadfly. The NYT puts it this way: Both Obama and Clinton advisers say [their relationship]

is much more complex than one simply inspired by a keep-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer philosophy.

Kall is correct. I too do not trust her. In 2003, she voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. In 2007, she voted to declare the Iranian Kutz Force a terrorist organization. I believe both votes were related to domestic U.S. politics not Middle Eastern reality. She is a neo-liberal interventionist. That's not "the change we need." Obama is the first 21st century leader, the first politician with a 21st century consciousness. Clinton's thinking - much like McCain and Palin - is still embedded in the 20th century. They are still fighting the Cold War.

I don't see how Obama's seeming infatuation with Clintonistas facilitates "the change we need." What is called for are new ideas not a rehash of Clinton ideas.

If Pitney is right and it was offered and she says No that might work out well. Obama will get credit for the offer and he can go on to select New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Or he could offer it to one of my favorites Jimmy Carter, Bono or Al Gore (that's the change we need).

Debate results: Barack over McCain

Here's the latest polling data on the Friday evening presidential debate:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans who watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 26 gave Barack Obama the edge over John McCain as having done the better job in the debate, by a 46% to 34% margin. These results are based on a special USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted on Saturday, Sept. 27, the first day after the debate.

I realize that this doesn't mean much, it's just a snapshot, but it does contradict most of the wing nut analyses of the debate.

McClone tries to steal the spotlight again

Here's the campaign developments as the media are reporting them:

Republican John McCain said Wednesday he is directing his staff to work with Democrat Barack Obama's campaign and the presidential debate commission to delay Friday's debate because of the economic crisis.

In other words, John McCain is taking credit for putting politics aside in order to work with Barack Obama on the Wall Street crisis.

Remember when he and his running mate ran down to New Orleans to be photographed while a hurricane was still expected. If they had waited any longer, the storm would have abated before they got there for their photo op.

Well as usual McCain is grandstanding. Here's what really happened:

The Obama campaign said Obama had called McCain around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. McCain called back six hours later and agreed to the idea of the statement, the Obama campaign said. McCain's statement was issued to the media a few minutes later.

'We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved,' McCain said. 'I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.'

So Obama behaved in a principled and courteous manner. McClone, on the other hand, took the opportunity to upstage his opponent and the press is reporting it the way clone wants it to appear. Nothing unusual here.

Oh, by the way, Clone has not suspended his anti-Obama TV commercials, while he acts in a "bilateral" fashion.

One can ask, what exactly is economically-challenged McClone going to contribute to the discussion. As usual, everything is a political opportunity for Clone.

Obama is going to make a statement very soon. If anything comes of it, I'll be back. Word has it that Obama will say the debate can go on.

McClone and Big Oil: video

Here's a new video about McClone and big oil (you know, the big "Dig here, Dig now!" lie.



(If you're seeing this on Face Book, click here to see video)

The Foreign Policy of Barack Obama: A Discussion

Thursday, September 18
7:30 pm

An Innocent Abroad?
The Foreign Policy of Barack Obama

Brecht Forum
451 West Street (bt Bank & Bethune Sts)
(212) 242-4201
Email: brechtforum at brechtforum.org

Sliding scale: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Refreshments will be available.

Tariq Ali, Norman Finkelstein, Greg Grandin, Christian Parenti, Jeremy Scahill & Marilyn B Young

Barack Obama’s tilt at the 2008 US Presidency has excited many of those on the left, tantalized by his promises to withdraw from Iraq, introduce a more egalitarian tax system and expand health care. Yet Obama’s commitment to a progressive political agenda remains highly selective. In no area is this more apparent than foreign policy where he has called for an increased military presence in Afghanistan, expressed fulsome support for Israel, and declined to end the embargo on Cuba. So how should the left relate to the global perspectives of the Obama campaign? And what would a genuinely progressive American foreign policy look like?

Tariq Ali--New Left Review, author, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power;
Norman Finkelstein--author, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History,;
Greg Grandin--NYU, author, Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism;
Christian Parenti--The Nation, author, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis;
Jeremy Scahill--The Nation, author, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army;
Marilyn B Young, (NYU, author with Lloyd Gardner of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam.

Why are we so insecure about our country?

On this the birthday of our country I have but one question: Why have we become so insecure? Why are we so afraid of possibly negative truths? Why can't we talk about real issues and not just reject them out of hand? Now I know that the media (in its obsession for political gossip) highlights and treats real questions as sound bites. For example, last week when Gen. Wesley Clark raised a perfectly legitimate question about how McSame's experience in Vietnam (heroic as it might have been) prepares him for the presidency it becomes the meat of political gossip. In any sane world it would have been treated as a legitimate question. The pundits could only focus on how the comment would affect the campaign. Not on whether his Vietnam experience prepares him for the presidency or, in fact, combined with his personality makes him the absolute wrong person for the job.

The same is true of Michelle Obama's saying that her husband's winning the primaries was the first time she was proud of her country. As a Black woman, how much was there for her to be proud of. Why can't we treat it as a legitimate heartfelt comment instead of a negative sound bite? Can we learn anything from the questions raised by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or must we treat him only as a loudmouthed racist?

I can't explain our insecurity - but somehow we have to face it.

A Native American activist we used to know would say that when we paved over the land we lost touch with what was real. Or maybe independent journalist Greg Palast has part of the answer:

Bush is so far away from his refugee loser roots that he just doesn’t get what it is to be American. So he steals the one thing that every American is handed off the boat: a chance. When they take away your Social Security and overtime and tell you sleeper cells are sleeping under your staircase, you don't take a chance, you lose your chance, and the land of opportunity becomes a landscape of fear and suspicion, an armed madhouse.

Whatever the reason for our insecurity, we have to deal with it. Under the present circumstances our political candidates can't be honest with us. And as I have said before, without truth and honesty on the part of our leaders democracy is impossible.

Letter to Barack Obama on up-coming bill to revise the Fisa law

I just sent the following letter to Barack Obama. Let's see what response I get.

Hi,
I have been very excited about your campaign: until now. Your decision to endorse the Bush-initiated legislation to expand the government's domestic spying powers and providing legal protection to the telecom companies that worked with the NSA's domestic wiretapping program seems to fly in the face of the kind of new leadership you have promised. It also reverses your promise to stand up against such legislation. This does not bode well for your campaign. It also doesn't keep faith with those of us who have supported you from the begining. Letting Gen. Clark "twist in the wind" when he raised a question you should have raised didn't help your image either.

Remember that Sen. Clinton voted to back Bush on the issue of the invasion of Iraq (and later to label Iran's Kutz force as a terrorist organization) in order to enhance what one of her supporters called "her testicular fortitude." Her advisors felt she need to enhance her image as one who can play with the boys in their current testosterone-laden foreign policy. See how much good that did her. Don't go down the same futile road.

So far you have let John McCain define the narrative of this campaign. If you continue to do that you will pay the same penalty John Kerry paid in '04. The presidency is a position of leadership. You need to take control of the Party in Congress. The Democrats' strategy of appealing to a mythical "independent" vote, at the expense of your real base, has done them no good in 2000 and 2004. If you keep following instead of leading, you will follow the Gore (of 2000) and John Kerry right out the door of the White House.

Your claim that you shifted your position to support the Bush legislation because it is the best you can get. That just isn't leadership. You need to stand up for what we thought you believed in. That's leadership. That's what we expect from you. And that's what we need to continue supporting your campaign, which is still filled with hope. But Hope can turn to disappointment if it's not fulfilled.

Thanks for your time,
I am still in solidarity with you,
Dan Cohen

Media can't see McSame for who he really is Now

For some time now I have been troubled by the assumption on the part of first Sen. Clinton and now Sen. Obama that John McSame is qualified - on the basis of his service in Vietnam and his five years as a prisoner of the Vietcong - to be president. I simply have not been able to understand the basis for this conclusion, which seems to me to fly in the face of everything McSame does and says. In other words, what is it about being a war hero - and McSame was a war hero - that qualifies someone to be president?

Sunday on a talk show Gen. Wesley Clark finally raised the same question. And Obama rushed to the nearest microphone to back off Clark's remarks. Here's how the AP characterized the candidates' responses after Clark made his comments:

A day after retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, now an Obama supporter, discussed McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam on a Sunday talk show, his remarks set off the pattern that has become familiar from innumerable earlier flaps over surrogate remarks during the presidential election year: The candidates, Obama and McCain, took the high road while the bare-knuckled language was left to their surrogates.

Toward the end of the same article reporter Beth Fouhy quoted McSame's "high road" remarks:

McCain himself said,

If that's the kind of campaign Sen. Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that. But it doesn't reduce the price of gas by one penny. It doesn't achieve our energy independence or make it come any closer. Doesn't make any American stay in their home who's at risk of losing it today. And it certainly doesn't do anything to address the challenges Americans have in keeping their jobs, homes and supporting their families.

If that's the "high road," I'd like to see what it looks like when McSame takes the "low road."

Obama leads McSame in latest presidential-poll

Getty Images / AP
In a two-person presidential race between only Sens. Obama and McCain, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the most recent Los Angeles Times national poll. When independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr are added to the mix, voters chose Obama over McCain by 48% to 33%. I can only surmise why Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney was left out. But I can't say I'm surprised.

According to a CNN analysis of five recent national surveys, Obama's lead drops to 8 points over McSame.

Hillary pisses on history

Last night was one of the most significant moments in U.S. history - a person of color was nominated by a major political party as its presidential candidate. Remember it's been a little over 100 years since, when the Constitution was ratified in 1787 most Black men were slaves and slaves were counted as only 3/5 of a person. From ratification until the adoption of the Black Citizenship Amendment Black males were allowed to vote in only seven states (Black women,of course, couldn't vote because at the time of ratification no women could vote). Despite the 1868 amendment Black male voting didn't become a reality until Black people and some sympathetic whites fought and died for civil rights. That struggle culminated in a number of voting rights laws and the possibility of what happened yesterday, when the Democrats came one significant step closer to officially nominating Barack Obama.

I spent alot of time last night listening to the pundits pontificate on yesterday's events. Most of the discussion was, unfortunately, not about this historic moment but about "What does Hillary want?" In other words, Hillary Clinton pissed on Obama's moment, in fact she pissed on American history. That, of course, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has paid even slight attention to the Clinton's history. In their world everything revolves around them (currently the Senator), no one and nothing else counts unless it works for them. All those predictions that Clinton would withdraw from the nomination race with grace were based on the assumption that she is a classy human being. That's obviously not true and never has been. As always, it's all about Hillary and what she wants.

Instead of the question, "what does Hillary want?" I would ask: "what's wrong with Hillary?" It continues to be fascinating to watch the Senator and the former President blame everyone else for their mistakes. She also seems to be trying to strong arm her way on to the ticket. But, from what I've heard, many of her supporters including some people in her campaign are backing away as fast as they can from her mean-spirited speech last night.

It hasn't escaped my thoughts that her blatant attempt to force Obama to offer her the vice-presidential nomination and that if he doesn't and it undermines his campaign, she expects to benefit from his loss. I think that like most of her strategies the opposite will be the case. She will be blamed for undermining the Party.

The main thing, however, is to look forward to the next historic event: Nov. 4th and the election of the first person of color as President of the U.S.

A Black POTUS, imagine that!

McSame follows Clinton's losing strategy

I have thought for a long time that McSame is following the Hillary Clinton losing strategy. Today's (Sun) New York Times reports Steve Schmidt, a senior McSame advisor, said

Mr. McCain would take tough action, part of a contrast he said they would draw with Mr. Obama for "giving great speeches" but having no record of accomplishment.

Does that sound familiar? Remember this from Clinton:

Tonight I want to talk to you about the choice you have in this election and why that choice matters. It is about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work, to get America back to work, The best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action.